I say two cheers and a hey nonny nonny for the Vancouver Province. How good it was of them to re-print, on the op-ed page yesterday a lecture from one David Marsden of the Calgary Herald editorial board, entitled “Pipeline foes could use a lesson in civility”.

Energy politics, Alberta-style

Now the Calgary Herald is an unqualified supporter of the Oil Patch and the Province of Alberta’s energy policy. They are indifferent to the noxious gases streaming out of the Tar Sands into the lungs of nearby First Nations folk, and who gives a damn about and those pesky fish upon which they feed?

They ignore the “hysterical” claims of cancer deaths linked to the Tar Sands and all of the other diseases the medical profession has uncovered in the area. They realize that piping all that highly noxious bitumen through British Columbia to the Far East brings money and lots of it into to the producers’ hands, thus bundles of taxes to the Alberta government, and that money far outweighs any of these silly social concerns possessed by “liberal” bleeding hearts who are against all development.

I might add for those who are not great fans of the Alberta government’s energy policy, you might look at Andrew Nikiforuk’s Tyee articles on Ann Croft, a lady in Alberta who was apparently personally injured and lost her drinking supply due to “fracking”. You’ll see that the Alberta government, in keeping with its obligation to the people to cut down costs, has so stonewalled this poor woman that she may be forced to accept a totally inadequate settlement from Encana and nothing from the government’s energy regulator nor environment department.

In that article is an amazing recording of a nationally known lawyer, Glenn Solomon, who acts for the Alberta government and told this lady that they will throw every obstacle in her way to prevent her getting what she childishly thinks is justice.

Free parenting advice from Calgary

Now, Mr. Marsden, who apparently doesn’t have enough to worry about in Alberta, has advice for those ignorant, anti-capitalist demonstrators in Burnaby who, he tells us, spat on the police and said naughty things.

I would be the first to agree that peaceful demonstration does not include spitting for any kind of physically aggressive act. But to say that people must maintain the politeness of a Sunday morning at church is at asking a bit too much when you consider what it is they’re demonstrating against.

Is it a burden on their intellect to ask the Marsdens of the world to understand that this is their home, their neighbourhood and that they have had some experience with what happens when a Kinder Morgan pipeline bursts?

Not content with this, Mr. Marsden specifically takes a run at the Fink-Jensen family for allowing their 11 year daughter to be part of the demonstration and to court arrest. Marsden referred this matter to some professor in the far east of the United States who clucked his tongue about children flouting the law. I gather Mr. Marsden had to go far and wide to find such a prof.

Kinder Morgan flouted the law

The fact that it was Kinder Morgan who was flouting the law, and that the case against them is pending in the courts, seems to have escaped Mr. Marsden’s attention. Are Canadian citizens not to be permitted to defend their homes and neighbourhoods from pipelines carrying highly noxious bitumen?

He also ignores the basic points raised here and by so many readers supporting Kate and her folks.

Kate asked to protest the use of her park and her neighborhood in the manner proposed by the company. She fully understood what the consequences were. In fact, her parents carefully advised her about flouting what was apparently the law and what consequences could flow.

What should we be teaching our children anyway?

There are many, including me and countless other British Columbians, who believe that it’s first class citizenship for parents to advise their children what the issues are in the world and what they can do about them.

Sometimes these are beyond the comprehension of children, but in this case, surely not. Here was a park and a neighbourhood proposed to be desecrated by a company wishing to put a dangerous pipeline through it and it is suggested that young Kate didn’t understand those issues! The question of course arises as to who was really breaking the law.

I realize that the Vancouver Province feels a special obligation to right wing zealots like the Fraser Institute, the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation, the BC Fish Farmers’ Association, any and all pipelines, the Tar Sands, the Alberta government’s energy policy and so on, but in discharging what it believes to be its obligation, surely it can spare us the lectures of the Tar Sands fraternity through the editorial board of its sister paper, the Calgary Herald.

Having to put up with the Vancouver Province itself is cross enough to bear by a public deprived of anything resembling an independent media.

Listen to the above-mentioned audio recording of a Calgary lawyer discussing the government and fracking industry’s legal methods – courtesy of Will Koop.

The National Energy Board (NEB) is supposedly an independent legal body constituted by the government of Canada to consider evidence on proposed energy projects and then to objectively decide if such projects as oil or gas pipelines are in the “public interest”. But, true to its literal name, the NEB almost never decides against an energy project.

This nearly perfect record of approval can be explained by the industrialized world’s continued dependency on fossil fuels, by the royalty benefits accruing to Canada, and by the political inclination of the present federal government whose economic policies clearly support the oil and gas industry. The threat of global climate change, the risk of devastating oil spills and the growing precariousness of ecologies are now altering the meaning of “public interest.”

[quote]The “public interest” the NEB is supposed to represent must entail more than profitability for the oil and gas industries.[/quote]

Hardly apolitical

The NEB is supposed to be making apolitical assessments in the “public interest”. But it is hardly apolitical. The appointees to the NEB have political partialities. The parameters of evidence allowed to be presented in the NEB hearings come with political implications. So, too, do the time allocations allowed for evidence.

The Board conducts hearings with only a precarious semblance of objectivity. But this lasts only as long as the NEB is rendering decisions that seem to have social license. When a proposed project is controversial, when the NEB is subject to critical examination, and when the public’s understanding of its “interest” is changing, then the NEB’s inherent bias becomes conspicuously obvious.

Enbridge gets OK despite overwhelming opposition

One recent example is Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline, a project intended to bring Alberta bitumen through spectacular and rare wilderness to coastal BC at Kitimat. While the NEB approved the Enbridge project subject to the proponent meeting 209 conditions, the decision contradicted the nearly unanimous evidence of all presenters at the Board’s hearings — 1,159 of 1,179 submissions were opposed, including almost every expert witness.

The NEB’s approval of this pipeline also received the scathing censure of over 300 scholars and scientists from around the world whose open letter to the Board pronounced the assessment process so “flawed” as to be essentially “useless” in reaching any meaningful finding. In their thoughtful judgment, the NEB failed “to provide an explanation of how it had reached its conclusions, especially the central one, that the project’s benefits justify its risks and costs.”

NEB makes mess of Kinder Morgan hearings

The most recent example of the NEB’s controversial assessment process is the current hearings for Kinder-Morgan’s Trans Mountain Pipeline, another project intended to bring more of Alberta bitumen to BC’s coast, this time via a southerly route that would pass through the Fraser Valley and Burnaby to a refinery in Burrard Inlet. In this case, the NEB has been empowered to overrule city and municipal bylaws, to radically restrict the duration of the hearings, to include only select presenters directly impacted, and to so limit the parameters of the evidence received as to exclude any careful examination of peripheral risks and damages.

In considering the “public interest” of this bitumen pipeline, the NEB has decided that it will not receive evidence about global climate change, it will not require Kinder-Morgan to answer hundreds of pertinent questions, and it has compounded its already conspicuous bias by eliminating the critically important tradition of oral cross-examination of witnesses — without this critically important step, any submitted evidence would be of questionable validity.

Respected energy executive quits hearings

Marc Eliesen, with 40 years of executive experience in Canada’s energy sector, has quit his role as an intervenor because of what he calls a “lack of respect for hearing participants,” as well as a disregard for “the standards and practices of natural justice that previous boards have respected.” Elieson’s conclusion is that, “In effect, this so-called public hearing process has become a farce, and this Board a truly industry captured regulator.”

The NEB maintains its credibility, and therefore the credibility of the energy projects it approves, by being thorough, objective and apolitical. The “public interest” it is supposed to represent must entail more than profitability for the oil and gas industries and the supportive policies they are receiving from the present Canadian government. Like this government, the NEB has chosen to be indifferent to the pressing need for a transition out of the fossil fuel age.

The ebbing tide of history

Fossil fuels are on the ebbing tide of history. The energy equation is shifting away from carbon. CO2 emissions are now a critical factor in the calculation of social benefit, while pollution from leaking pipelines and dashed supertankers has become anathema to a world already alarmed about losing valuable ecologies to a multiplicity of other environmental abuses. The entire calculation of economics is being reconsidered by a planet increasingly damaged by an industrialized system now incurring costs that are challenging the benefits. Meanwhile, the public’s tolerance for risk is shrinking dramatically in a world already suffering from an excess of ecological threats.

These threats are now becoming ubiquitous. Extreme weather is a constant reminder, while the worrisome parade of other related and unrelated threats are getting too numerous to list. The public is getting nervous, its tolerance for ecological risk is collapsing, and its optimism for the future is darkening. Meanwhile, pro-fossil fuel energy policies in Canada, linked with conspicuously anti-environmental measures, are increasing a national mood of brooding cynicism.

The impatience, frustration and anger that is building in Canadians has to express itself somewhere. The NEB has made itself an obvious target. So, too, have the ambitions of Enbridge, Kinder-Morgan and everything associated with Alberta’s tar sands. All are becoming increasingly incompatible with the emerging vision for a sustainable future.

This story is republished with permission from Desmog.ca.

By Derek Leahy

Alberta Premier Jim Prentice begins an Energy East lobby tour today in Quebec City to try to woo the premiers of Quebec and Ontario into supporting TransCanada’s 1.1 million barrel-per-day oil pipeline proposal.

“It is a sign the project is in danger,” Patrick Bonin, a Greenpeace Canada climate and energy campaigner based in Montreal, told DeSmog Canada. “Over 70 per cent of Quebecers don’t want Energy East to be built.”

Ontario and Quebec announced last month that Energy East would have to meet seven conditions to gain the provinces’ approval of the 4,600-kilometer pipeline from Alberta to New Brunswick. Included in these conditions is a demand for a full environmental assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the pipeline.

An analysis conducted earlier this year by the Pembina Institute, an energy think tank, found the greenhouse gas emissions from extracting the oilsands bitumen to fill the Energy East pipeline would erase all reductions in greenhouse gas emissions achieved by Ontario’s phase out of coal-fired power plants. The analysis did not include emissions from combustion, which would make Energy East’s carbon footprint even higher.

“If Ontario and Quebec are concerned about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change then the Energy East tar sands pipeline project is dead already,” Adam Scott, climate and energy program manager with Environmental Defence, told DeSmog Canada.

Prentice meets with Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard Tuesday and Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne in Toronto on Wednesday.

Ontario and Quebec’s conditions tougher than BC’s

This is not the first time an Alberta premier has travelled to another province on behalf of a pipeline project. British Columbia Premier Christy Clark famously inflamed relations with Alberta with her five conditions for the Northern Gateway pipeline, which resulted in some icy meetings with then Alberta premier Alison Redford.

Clark’s demand to receive a greater share of the fiscal benefits from Northern Gateway was a contentious issue between the two western provinces, but she did not go as far as Wynne and Couillard in insisting the pipeline’s greenhouse gas emissions be properly assessed.

The National Energy Board’s reviews of pipeline projects aren’t taking climate change into account, which has left a leadership vacuum that the provinces are stepping in to fill. New pipelines facilitate expansion of oilsands production, leading to higher greenhouse gas emissions.

Belugas and more bad news for Energy East

Prentice’s visit comes during a turbulent public relations spell for Energy East.

Documents leaked to Greenpeace last month revealed TransCanada had hired global PR firm Edelman to work on an aggressive strategy of undermining Energy East opponents through tactics that included creating phony grassroots groups to give the impression of genuine support of the pipeline. The revelations caused TransCanada and Edelman to publicly part ways.

Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, former Maple Spring student activist and author, announced on Radio-Canada just days after the leak that he was donating his $25,000 Governor General’s Literary Award to an anti-pipeline coalition and encouraged the public to do match it. Donations have reached $400,000 now.

Yesterday the Committee on the Status of Wildlife in Canada announced the belugas whales of the St. Lawrence Estuary — where TransCanada has plans for an Energy East marine oil tanker terminal — are at greater risk of extinction than a decade ago, forcing TransCanada to halt work on the terminal.

“It’s good news and bad news,” Bonin says. “TransCanada’s marine terminal at Cacouna probably won’t be built now, but it is sad to find out the beluga population is not recovering.”

Premier Christy Clark has taken it upon herself to criticize the parents of two 11-year-olds who protested the Kinder Morgan action in Burnaby and were only not arrested because the police chose to refrain from doing so. The premier is concerned that the these children have been encouraged, by their parents, to “break the law”.

This requires, I submit, a bit of examination.

I trust that premier Clark has no objection to parents instilling in their children the principles by which they govern themselves. I suspect that her son Hamish is being brought up to be a free-enterpriser, as defined by his mother and father. (Oddly enough, after the last legislative session, I assume that NDP opposition leader John Horgan agrees with premier Clark, given his obsequious support of her and her government on the LNG issue).

The King CAN do wrong

The basic issue, as I read the Premier’s remarks, is that these two children were taught to flout the law. This is the argument that those in charge of things have always made. It’s really part of the maxim that “the King can do no wrong”.

The problem is, the king can do a hell of a lot wrong. When he takes away the rights of citizens by passing an oppressive law, for which kings and their ministers are justifiably famous, he’s done wrong. Does that mean that he must nevertheless be obeyed at all cost because his laws by definition are “legal”?

Civil disobedience has been part of the democratic process since the Magna Carta and before. One of the principles is that if you stand against a law, you must pay the penalty. This the kids were prepared to do.

In the present case, the two young girls evidently decided, quite on their own, that Kinder Morgan was interfering with their park and with their neighbourhood and wanted to protest. Presumably if they’d decided they wanted to carry signs supporting Kinder Morgan, the premier would’ve had no objection.

The real issue, then, is that these girls broke the law and whether or not it was a good law or a bad law, is irrelevant. The law is the law, period.

What if enforcing the law is an abuse of process? Let me make the case that it is.

Abuse of Process

The matter is essentially a civil one, not a criminal one. The protesters interfered with Kinder Morgan’s right to conduct survey work for its proposed project and, as a result Kinder Morgan, sued the protesters. Instead of the case proceeding to civil court, with a judgment duly rendered on the merits, Kinder Morgan turned it into a criminal matter by obtaining an injunction from the Supreme Court preventing the protesters from protesting on public property. Now, all of a sudden, the protesters were faced with jail if they don’t do what they’re told.

What is it, you might ask, that the protesters were deprived of by the matter being turned from civil to criminal?

The answer is everything. In a civil court, the protesters had a number of defences open to them not the least of which was the breach of Burnaby bylaws protecting their property, parks, roads and neighbourhoods. Remember that the National Energy Board and the Supreme Court of British Columbia are not the last word on these matters – many of them beg to go to the Court of Appeal and higher.

Does Kinder Morgan have the right, even under government permits, to destroy municipal property? Does it have the right to interfere with citizens using their streets and their parks? Does it have the right to permanently sully the neighbourhood with any pipeline, let alone one that Burnaby residents know from experience is dangerous? What about the rights of people to enjoy their environment?

The citizens of Burnaby were prevented from raising these and other questions by the matter suddenly, at Kinder Morgan’s request, becoming criminal where the only issue is the protesters conduct.

Injunction disfunction

No process causes quite as much discomfort amongst the judges than this one. A number have publicly expressed their concern, including the late and highly respected Josiah Wood of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, who was scathing in his condemnation of this practice.

I’d be the last to suggest that parents should encourage children to break laws that we all know are just and necessary for the survival of a democratic and, for that matter, a safe society.

On the other hand, it seems to me to be an act of commendable citizenship to teach children that there are sacred democratic principles that must be set above laws made for the convenience of the “establishment”.

Surely it’s appropriate that children be taught how we have struggled against these kind of laws going back to the Magna Carta. Surely they should learn about the expulsion of the Tolpuddle Martyrs for fighting for labourer’s rights, the ongoing struggle for free speech, and the struggle against tyranny by the Fathers of the American Revolution.

My library is full of biographies of people like Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and John Wilkes. I have a substantial mini-library on the American Revolution and those who inspired and fought it. Does this make my house unsafe for my younger grandchildren? Would Ms. Clark have me dealt with severely for telling my grandkids that the people who disobeyed the oppressive laws of the day were heroes? That because of them and other brave men and women we have the rights we now possess?

What would John Wilkes say?

One biography I would urge upon the premier is that of John Wilkes. He was a rebel in 18th century London who amongst other things, went to jail for criticizing a speech by George III. He supported free speech when it was not fashionable to do so. In Parliament, he supported the Americans’ right to independence.

Wilkes was exiled, returned and thrown in jail again. Voters in the city of London rioted in his support as he was expelled from Parliament for sedition. He wound up the Lord Mayor of London, in spite of his lifelong war against the “establishment” of the day.

What position would Ms Clark have taken had she lived in those times? Would she have supported George III, his supine Prime Ministers and the laws they passed to suit themselves and the “establishment” they represented?

Or would she have said to Hamish, “this man Wilkes is a hero and is trying to establish and encourage the liberties of people including the right of free speech?”

The point is that premier Clark is being facile. She ignores the fact that the parents of these two girls are obviously trying to teach them the principles of free speech and freedom from oppression by bad laws made for people who hide behind them.

This was an obvious political maneuver to appear to be on the side of “Law and Order” in order to assure her supporters that she is unyielding in her fight for special rights and privileges, all nice and legal like, for the “establishment” no matter what.

I’m inspired, if that’s the right word, from two quite irreconcilable sources.

First, the Vancouver Sun editorial of last Thursday, and secondly a wonderful movie called Revolution, by Canadian Rob Stewart, which I urge you to see.

The Sun editorial, amongst other things, mocks those who are protesting at Burnaby Mountain and all who generally oppose pipelines, oil companies and the like and it points out of the need for air travel to Kamloops and other such things.

[quote]It is time for those protesting against Kinder Morgan work crews on Burnaby Mountain to stand down. They have made their point and are now breaking the law…It should be remembered that pipelines are of national importance, with international trade implications, which is why, ultimately, the federal cabinet bears responsibility for sanctioning such enterprises.[/quote]

In the movie, Revolution, Patrick Moore is once again – as if it were necessary – exposed as a blithering idiot as he alleges that if protesters are listened to, then 50 million motorists, or some such number, won’t be able to start their cars and go to work tomorrow. Better, I suppose, that they all start their cars than we try to minimize the impact on the atmosphere of people going to work!

Sprinkled in this is the issue of whether or not school boards ought to accept large sums of money from oil companies.

Let’d deal with the last issue first.

It’s a question of morality. Would the police department accept a large annual sum from the Mafia in order to train officers, on the basis that the Mafia wants to give something back to the community?

Now, when I thought of that example, I said to myself, “Rafe, you are being terribly irresponsible. There’s no equivalence between Chevron, say, and the Mafia. Let it go.”

OK, I will let it go, but leave you with the question as to what the people of Nigeria think of how Shell has behaved in their country and ask whether, looking at the behaviour of oil companies everywhere in the world where law enforcement is lax, the example is so far out as it appears.

The Vancouver Sun and others are completely missing the point. There may be radicals who simply would shut down everything and a crawl back into a cave but the vast majority are simply asking, “What are our priorities?”

Why aren’t our governments doing at least as much to support non-fossil fuel enterprises as they are fossil fuels?

Why are fossil fuels being subsidized everywhere one turns?

Why are we on the one hand saying that we must wean ourselves off fossil fuels, while the governments we elect go out of their way to open more coal mines, more oil wells, and more LNG plants?

No one suggests that airlines stop flying and cars all stop running tomorrow afternoon. I don’t know anybody who considers that we should torpedo all ships, particularly cruise ships that Patrick Moore uses to make highly paid lectures.

No, what environmentalists say is that we have to make a start at reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and begin seriously encouraging alternatives.

Let’s look locally for an example.

LNG is a losing proposition as the government’s own figures substantiate. A 3.5% tax on the net profits, which may never ever show up on company books no matter how much money they make, is a subsidy and a huge one. The absence of any real rules on fracking is an immense subsidy to LNG producers.

If you look carefully at the negotiations the Clark/Coleman government is conducting, it would almost appear as if we are going to pay LNG plants to come into our province.

Now contrast that to what the provincial government is doing to reduce the use of a fossil fuels. Quite frankly, I can’t think of a thing.

This extends with even greater force to the federal government. It’s falling all over itself to find new sources of fossil fuels and new ways to transport it dangerously through the country and in tankers down our fragile coast.

At the same time, I know of no serious program to subsidize the use of solar power. In fact, Harper cut the small bit of federal funding we did have for innovation last year. One doesn’t get visits from solar power salesman or offers in their email to convert to solar power instead of the fossil fuels being used either directly or through electricity. This is because, in my view, the government has not done nothing to encourage through subsidy or otherwise the use of solar power.

We read a lot of learned articles about geothermal power of which we have immense sources. I’ve spent time in New Zealand where much of their power comes from thermal power and I’ve seen their power plants. What are our governments doing in this area? Is the BC government ensuring that the Crown corporation, BC Hydro, is embarking upon a serious program for geothermal energy to replace fossil fuels and new hydroelectric projects?

One suspects that will never happen as long there are hugely expensive, tax-paid sweetheart deals between BC Hydro – for which read the Clark/Coleman government – and private power corporations, those little “mom and pop” operations like General Electric.

97% of the world’s climatologists say that we have a fatal problem with global warming. It’s predicted that we have no more than until the end of this century to reverse this tidal wave and many say it’s considerably before that.

What the hell are we doing about this?

Almost the entire world, aside from Patrick Moore and the idiot who writes editorials for the Vancouver Sun, accept the global warming warnings and that by far the main cause is the use of fossil fuels. This is an emergency worse than war! What are our governments doing to meet this threat?

The valiant men and women at Burnaby Mountain, and elsewhere, are saying that individually and even collectively they don’t have the power to do anything except to point out forcefully to the governments which are the repositories of our wealth that they must immediately get off their asses and change from making matters worse to taking every possible step to make them better.

It’s always more comfortable to sit back and say that there’s no problem. People like Patrick Moore and editorial writers for right wing news papers know this and make their living off that knowledge.

Those going to jail to protest this attitude have nothing to gain except the moral satisfaction of being right and being willing to make huge personal sacrifices to do something about a terrible and destructive situation.

I think of Harry Belafonte, who famously said, “Don’t turn your back on the masses, mon”. This is precisely what government and industry are doing and, as always, the masses are going to rise – indeed they are all already rising – and will have their way.

I pray that it’s soon enough.

Derek Corrigan is my kind of mayor. So is Gregor Robertson.

Both of these mayors are prepared to look beyond the immediate concerns of their city and take a broader view. I have no doubt that Robertson, who won very handily I might add, did so because he was fighting Kinder Morgan. Without any question, that position greatly enhanced the existing popularity of Corrigan.

Social change demands civil disobedience

Now that protesters are being arrested, we see a number of people expressing their undying support for “law and order” and thinking that jailing protesters is a great idea.

I have a few questions to ask them.

Have they ever read any history?

Why was there a Magna Carta? Why was there a Peasants’ Revolt? Why was there a Glorious Revolution and a Bill of Rights?

Have you read about John Wilkes and the fight for free speech? Why did the Tolpuddle Martyrs exist?

How did the American revolution, unquestionably the major revolution in the Western world, come about? Have you ever read the arguments of Tom Paine? Or Benjamin Franklin? Or Thomas Jefferson?

Do you think that African American people got their freedom through the goodness of the “establishment” which managed to have slavery sanctioned by the US Constitution and make it centrepiece of the laws of the Confederacy?

Even the briefest span of history shows that every basic right people have came by standing up to unjust laws of “establishments” – they always exists and always pass laws which suit them. After passing these laws, they constantly spout the sacred need to obey the law.

Unions and Robber Barons

Does this mean that I have become a socialist, or God forbid a communist?

Hell no! All systems like that do is provide a new form of establishment with a new system of keeping themselves on top of society and new laws that are “sacred”.

Most people now accept labour unions, yet the briefest scan of history, taking one back just to the end of the 1800s, shows that labour unions were held by the establishment and its courts to be groups restraining trade and breaking workers contracts with employers. Labour leaders went to jail for standing up to employers and the governments that serve them.

Don’t go too far field – just to look at the history of Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, John Rockefeller and the rest of the “robber barons”, all with the government and courts behind them as they broke strikes, killing and wounding 100s in the process. All pillars of the community these murderers were.

Fundamental stuff

The people of Burnaby want to have their rights protected. Those rights are simple and ancient ones – the right to protect their streets, their parks, and their neighborhoods. Pretty fundamental stuff.

Along comes a huge foreign company, earning 100s of millions a year in our country yet paying almost no Canadian taxes, that wants to pipe 900,000 barrels a day of highly toxic bitumen through the green areas, streets and neighbourhoods of Burnaby.

That oil is not going for consumption by the people of Burnaby or indeed British Columbians, but overseas. The good people of Burnaby look at this and ask: “I thought we were supposed to be weaning our way off of fossil fuels. How come we are enabling others to pollute the atmosphere and subsidizing a large foreign corporation to take our oil and helping them do it by placing our community in jeopardy?”

They are saying, and for me, with considerable force, that the lawbreakers in this scenario are Kinder Morgan, and the governments of Canada and British Columbia.

A civil matter turned criminal

Moreover, they can say with considerable force that the establishment of Canada has permitted the situation to develop where a civil dispute between citizens and the company becomes a criminal matter once the citizens try to defend what is theirs – that they will be jailed for protecting where they live!

I don’t expect the Vancouver Province or the Vancouver Sun to change. They are wired into the establishments and so far up the backside of the Harper Conservatives and the Clark/Coleman Liberals that there is no escape.

The poor old Sun simply cannot understand Gregor Robertson’s win in Vancouver, and I almost suspect they’re going to demand a recount!

They don’t understand Vancouverites

To me, as an ancient British Columbian, the Vancouver answer is simple. Mr. Robertson was blessed with an opponent, hailing from central Canada, who fell in with the ever-diminishing influence of the so-called Non Partisan Association because he had no comprehension of how we feel about pipelines and other corporate polluters in this part of the country.

There is a new world out there and the “old” had better get used to it, and soon. The “establishment” has lost its moral ability to govern and their self-serving laws will be challenged until they’re tossed into the trash can.

Perhaps the best example I can give is in the small town of Squamish, where the establishment Mayor, full of support for an LNG plant, was tossed out on his ass by a newcomer who opposes it.

As ordinary people become more and more confident, this will happen more and more often.

So give ’em hell, Mayor Corrigan and Mayor Robertson! The fact that you have the press and establishment against you is all the proof you need that the majority of the people are for you.