Category Archives: Canada

XL Too Big for Food Safety – Rick Mercer Rant Nails It

October 11, 2012Canada, Farmland and Food Security, Food, PoliticsFood Security, Politics, VideoDamien Gillis

The tainted meat scandal that continues to dominate Canadian news headlines has provoked harsh criticism of XL Foods – the company at the centre of the nation’s largest ever meat recall – regulator the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Federal Conservative Government. Yet, as humourist and political commentator Rick Mercer astutely underscores in a recent video rant (see below), the most important question the crisis raises relates to the whether it is safe for up to 40% of the country’s beef to be processed by a single plant.

The XL scandal is but the latest and most dramatic wake-up call for Canadians as to the direction successive federal and provincial governments have pushed the Canadian food system – legislating smaller, locally run farms and processors out of business in favour of monolithic, centralized corporate food producers.

In the aftermath of this tainted meat debacle, as our politicians point fingers, attempt to derive lessons and develop policy changes to help prevent this situation from repeating itself, the primary focus needs to be on addressing this overblown corporate food system run amok. We are frequently told small operators can’t safely produce and process our agricultural products, yet the system our governments have imposed on us in their place is clearly proving the opposite is true.

Check out Rick Mercer’s prescient rant on the subject below.

Rafe Responds to BC Environment Minister’s Enbridge Op-ed

October 8, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western CanadaBC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Enbridge, Oil and gas, PoliticsRafe Mair

You should read Environment Minister Terry Lake’s op-ed piece in Friday’s Vancouver Sun. If ever you needed proof of the utter incompetence of the Campbell/Clark government this will do it.

He gives the government position re the proposed Enbridge pipeline.

Lake calls for the Joint Review Panel to “successfully complete the environment review process”.

What does that mean, Mr. Lake, when the federal government says that Enbridge will go anyway? Don’t you see that the fix is in!

Have you ever been to such a meeting, minister?

You will find an essential piece missing – namely, can the people of BC give their opinions as to whether or not they want the project in the first place?

Then you call for “World leading marine oil spill reaction, prevention and oil recovery systems for BC’s coastline and ocean to manage and mitigate the risks and cost of heavy oil pipelines and shipments”.

Who writes this crap? The ever-active PR department of Enbridge?

Don’t you understand that spills are inevitable and likely in areas too remote for any machinery to get in? And that there’s very little they can do about it anyway, as demonstrated by Enbridge’s 2010 spill into the Kalamazoo River?

Haven’t you looked at Enbridge’s spill record of more than one per week?

But there is a deeper question minister – don’t you understand that the consequences of spillage of bitumen, whether on land or in the ocean, are many, many times more lethal than the crude oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez?

Don’t you understand that unlike crude oil spills, the bitumen sinks like a rock? With crude oil, the technique of “rafting” corrals the spill and allows much of it to be siphoned off, but that you can’t do that with bitumen?

Don’t you get it? That we’re not talking about risks, but, by Enbridge’s own admission, certainties? Certainties with catastrophic consequences?

I hate to urge people to read the Vancouver Sun, but your article is such appalling drivel that it gives the public a unique opportunity to see the sloppy crap that is your government’s mindless and highly political response to certain destruction of our heritage – all to supply China with bitumen to refine.

At least you have, by this column, made clear what environmentalists have been saying all along – the Clark government is unfit to govern.

Harper’s China Syndrome: PM in a Pickle Over Nexen Buyout, Trade Deal

October 5, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, International, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western CanadaBC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, China, Enbridge, LNG, Oil and gas, Politics, Stephen HarperDamien Gillis

Following an eventful couple of weeks for the Canada-China energy trade file, Stephen Harper finds himself in quite a pickle. The Prime Minster is stuck between his resolute commitment to opening up a carbon corridor to Asian markets and the increasingly politically untenable position of supporting wholesale Chinese state ownership of strategic Canadian resources.

In addition to Harper’s mounting challenges over the proposed $15 Billion buyout of Canadian oil and gas firm Nexen by Chinese state-owned CNOOC, several prominent Canadian voices – including Federal Green Party Leader Elizabeth May and Council of Canadians founder and world-renowned trade expert Maude Barlow – have piped up about a controversial trade deal quietly signed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper last month, which they say would give unprecedented rights to Chinese corporations over Canadian resources.

As the tide of opposition to the Nexen deal continues to rise, Harper was forced to acknowledge this week, “This particular transaction raises a range of difficult policy questions, difficult and forward-looking issues.”

That’s putting it mildly.

The Nexen deal is problematic for the Conservatives for three main reasons:

Public opinion is squarely against it, with some 70% of Canadians opposing it and four in ten viewing China as a threat, according to National Post columnist John Ivison (who nevertheless urges Harper to approve the deal as it’s in Canada’s best long-term interests)
The Official Opposition has finally come out against the deal this week and appears poised to make political hay with its position.
Most importantly, by far, powerful American political forces are lining up against the deal – charging that allowing these resources to flow to China constitutes a national security threat (our own CSIS concurs).

On that last point, Congressman Ed Markey, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee of Natural Resources, wrote to US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner in July, imploring his office to block the deal (someone needs to inform the congressman that this deal doesn’t technically fall under Geithner’s jurisdiction, but it’s nevertheless a noteworthy and influential objection). Wrote Markey, “Giving valuable American resources away to wealthy multinational corporations is wasteful but giving valuable American resources away to a foreign government is far worse.”

Apparently even the Americans – whose resources these are not – recognize the danger in handing them over to the Chinese!

Meanwhile, with the NDP continuing to nip at the Conservatives’ heels, Harper might do well to ignore the advice of John Ivison and consider the short and long-term implications of accepting such an unpopular deal. Heck, even some of Harper’s own MPs oppose it!

NDP Energy and Natural Resources Critic Peter Julian laid out his party’s opposition to the deal at a press conference Thursday, as reported by the Globe and Mail:

New Democrats “cannot support the rubber-stamping of the CNOOC takeover of Nexen,” Mr. Julian said. “We cannot see the net benefit when we look at a variety of concerns and criteria that have been raised by the Canadian public.” Those concerns, he said, included the environmental and human-rights record of CNOOC, the potential for job losses and the risk of decision-making gravitating away from Nexen’s Calgary head office, plus risks to national security.

It is this “net benefit” test, under the Investment Canada Act, that is at the core of the decision Harper faces – which is expected by October 12, but can and may well be delayed by another month. The NDP has expressed doubt that the Harper Government will conduct this “net benefit” test in a transparent enough manner to reassure Canadians.

According to the party’s industry critic Helene LeBlanc, “By studying this transaction behind closed doors and not specifying what criteria they used to determine what represents a net benefit for the country, the Conservatives have given us no choice. When in doubt, it’s best to back off.”

Conservative Industry Minister Christian Paradis called the NDP’s position “reckless and irresponsible” in a news release.

Meanwhile, Harper’s quiet trade deal with China has drawn heated rebuke the past several weeks, as the two issues inevitably dovetail into each other.

A statement from the Council of Canadians last week noted:

A bilateral investment treaty between Canada and China, which was signed earlier this month and made public by the Harper government yesterday, will put unacceptable constraints on Canadian energy and environmental policy…The organization is once again calling on MPs to reject the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA), and to stop signing what are essentially corporate rights pacts inside standalone treaties and Canada’s broader free trade agreements.

The organization’s National Chairperson, Maude Barlow, drew together FIPA and the Nexen deal, stating, “Canadians need to know that as Harper considers selling off Canadian energy firms to foreign investors in China and elsewhere, he’s also signing investment pacts that let these firms sue the federal government when delays or environmental protection measures interfere with profits.”

Council of Canadians’ Trade Campaigner Stewart Trew suggested these deals do little to promote investment, as is their stated mandate. “They are very useful, on the other hand, for extorting governments when things don’t go their way. That could be delays or cancellations to energy and mining projects, environmental policies that eat into profits, even financial rules designed to create stability or avoid crises can be challenged.”

Green Party of Canada Leader Elizabeth May shared many of these concerns with the House of Commons this week, calling for an emergency debate on FIPA, suggesting it bears “grave and sweeping implications for Canada’s sovereignty, security, and democracy.”

In a statement on her website this week, May said, “I pointed out in my notice to the Speaker that this is perhaps the most significant trade agreement since NAFTA, and the fact that it can be negotiated and ratified behind closed doors is very corrosive to our democracy.”

“I also realize that an emergency debate is far from sufficient under the circumstances, but it might be the only opportunity Parliamentarians have to review and discuss FIPA before we are bound to it for the next 15 years, especially if neither the NDP nor the Liberals focus on it during their Opposition Days.”

Whether FIPA receives its due attention politically – let alone gets cancelled – remains to seen, but the more it becomes connected to the clearly unpopular Nexen deal in the coming weeks, the more scrutiny it will face.

The exploding national debate around theses issues puts Harper in a tough spot. On the one hand, the Prime Minister has been very clear about his policy vision for the country – and expanding energy trade to Asia has been the centre plank in this platform, underscored by a visit to China earlier this year, during which energy issues were the main topic of discussion. He has made public and private commitments to Asian trading partners and to the Canadian oil patch.

Moreover, with US leaders promising to become far more self-sufficient in oil and gas resources over the next decade by massively boosting domestic production, there is increasing pressure on Canada to develop new export markets for its fossil fuels.

And yet, as prospects for the proposed Enbridge pipeline continue to wane and opposition mounts to Nexen and this new trade deal, the Prime Minster is gambling his political future on an increasingly unpopular strategy – whether he believes it’s in the country’s best interests or not. Add to that the concerns raised by CSIS last month about threats to Canada’s national security from such deals and you have a recipe for real political problems if the PM continues down this path.

As University of Ottawa Law Professor Penny Collenette put it in the Globe and Mail’s story yesterday, with the NDP jumping on the issue, “Now it is burst wide open onto the political scene,” and becoming “a kitchen table national debate.”

That’s the last thing Stephen Harper’s energy plan needs right now.

Why Justin Trudeau May be Better for BC than his Father Ever Was

October 4, 2012Canada, Politics, Western CanadaPoliticsRafe Mair

I’ve been in and watching politics for a few years now and have seen a lot of politicians come and go.

As a child I remember my parents always chiding Mackenzie King for his weirdness, yet always voting for him.

Back then I was a precocious little bastard and loved politics and remember how my parents and the rest of the Vancouver “establishment” demonized the CCF, forerunners to the NDP. The foreman in my Dad’s paper box plant was, so Dad confided in me, a CCFer, and I saw Charlie Knowles as a rather benign, kindly person who somehow presented a serious threat to our way of life.

The first charismatic leader I can remember was John Diefenbaker, who won an upset minority government in 1957, then achieved a huge majority in the Spring of 1958. To demonstrate my perversity, I voted Liberal in 1957 when the big swing to the Tories was happening and when it seemed that no one was voting Tory, I still voted Liberal.

I distrusted the Tories because they had always been perceived (correctly in my view) as haters of French Canadians, as we then called them, and cozy friends of the manufacturers of Ontario.

This brings me to 1968 and closing in on what I really want to say today.

In 1968 I was caught up in Trudeaumania which was sweeping the country.

I thought that Trudeau had a better grasp of what the country was all about, not only in Quebec, but here in the “west beyond the west”, in the words of historian/author Jean Barman. I was sure wrong on the latter count, because whether it was his failed marriage to a BC woman or just bloodymindedness, Trudeau showed his contempt for our province, best exemplified when he refused to speak to a crowd in Salmon Arm and literally gave the crowd the finger.

In the late 70s and early 80s I saw him through the constitutional lens and saw a man who didn’t want a Canadian consensus at all but was “my way or the highway”.

What I did see, I must grudgingly admit, was a man who saw clearly that if he could win in Quebec and Ontario, the rest of Canada could like it or lump it.

In my 30+ years in politics and broadcasting I learned that all federal governments, at best, were indifferent to the needs and ambitions of my province, which they simply lumped into one region which they called “the West”. And, yes, if I must make a confession one more time, I consider myself a British Columbian before a Canadian and that if I had been in the Legislature in 1871 I would have voted no on joining Canada, with which we had no physical connection and never to this day a full political one.

OK, folks, that gets me to today and a budding charismatic politician, Justin Trudeau. I support him but not out of some yearning for a clone of his old man – God knows we don’t need that! I support him because he has a background in BC, having lived here and taught here as well as spending vacation time here. His mother, Margaret, is a native British Columbian. Whether or not the death of his brother here is in the equation, I can’t say.

Here, however, is my basic point.

British Columbia is under merciless and massive corporate/political attack which, if not stopped, will change this province much for the worse. To now think that a prime minister Justin Trudeau will change that may be wishful thinking but we’re really like the man falling from a great height, flapping his arms in a move he knows won’t help him but it sure as hell isn’t going to make matters worse.

Justin Trudeau has condemned the Enbridge pipeline in clear terms, putting a clear issue into the mix. He couldn’t have done this as a throwaway line – at least I don’t think he could have – which means the two opposition parties come together on this issue. Admittedly Tom Mulcair has not been quite as forthcoming as I would like but Trudeau understands that in the new Canadian political game BC will be important. Prime Minister Harper has made the game into a clear division – into “me or them” – and while both opposition party leaders will want to stake out their own positions, it won’t be by supporting any major Harper policy.

It is, I confess, a thin reed indeed, but with all the delays that we can create, it just might be that Trudeau represents a chance to save our lovely province in its struggle to save ourselves from the destruction of what we hold so dear – our heritage, and, dare I say it, our very soul?

Elizabeth May Raises Alarm in House Over Controversial Canada-China Trade Deal

October 4, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, International, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, PoliticsBC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, China, Oil and gas, Politics, Stephen HarperCommon Sense Canadian

Check out this press release from Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May, raising concerns over a new trade deal with China quietly signed by Stephen Harper last month. May rose in the House this week to state her objections to the deal and call for an emergency debate in the House. (Oct. 1, 2012)

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, MP Saanich-Gulf Islands, will rise today in the House of Commons following the conclusion of Routine Proceedings to request an Emergency Debate on the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA). This follows the delivery of a notice of her intention to Speaker Andrew Scheer on Friday.

In her notice, May stated that the “grave and sweeping implications for Canada’s sovereignty, security, and democracy” posed by FIPA – signed by Stephen Harper on September 9, but kept from the public and Parliament until quietly tabled on Wednesday last week – warrants much greater transparency and debate.

According to the Policy on Tabling Treaties in Parliament, FIPA must be tabled in the House for 21 sitting days before it can be ratified. Then, the Privy Council can, without any public or Parliamentary consultation or review, sign it into law.

“I pointed out in my notice to the Speaker that this isperhaps the most significant trade agreement since NAFTA,” May stated, “and the fact that it can be negotiated and ratified behind closed doors is very corrosive to our democracy.

BC Liberal Floats Offshore Drilling Amid Enbridge Controversy, Dismissed by Premier

October 4, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western CanadaBC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Enbridge, Oil and gas, PoliticsCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from CBC.caon BC Liberal MLA John Rustad’s recent attempt to inject the controversy around the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline with a new twist – resurrecting the argument for opening BC’s coast to offshore oil and gas development. The notion, first posted on the MLA’s facebook page, has drawn widespread criticism and dismissal from Rustad’s leader, Premier Christy Clark. (Oct. 2, 2012)

Despite the debate already raging between B.C. and Alberta over the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, one backbench Liberal MLA wants to start a dialogue about offshore drilling in B.C.

Nechako Lakes Liberal MLA John Rustad recently posted a message on Facebook about the merits of oil exploration.

“With the debate raging around pipelines I’m sure there isn’t much appetite for offshore oil and gas,” he wrote. “However, if B.C. is ever going to become debt free, one day this is going to have to happen.”

Rustad wants to put the idea of oil exploration off B.C.’s coast on the table — despite the political consequences.

“If it can be done environmentally sound, if it’s something that can meet our standards, if there’s a significant benefit, then we should have that conversation and it should be considered,” he told CBC News.

No Support from Premier Clark

But the proposition has no support from the premier.

B.C. Premier Christy Clark spoke with Alberta Premier Alison Redford Monday about the five conditions B.C. says need to be met before the province will support Enbridge’s bid to build the pipeline, which would run from the Alberta oilsands across B.C. to the port of Kitimat.

Clark is demanding compensation for the environmental risks involved in the pipeline project.

“I think that we’ve got our hands full with just this Enbridge pipeline,” Clark said, adding it’s not an idea she’s entertaining at the moment.

Still, the B.C. New Democrats have jumped on Rustad’s comments.

“Mr. Rustad is being irresponsible by re-opening a deeply divisive debate about bringing further risks to our coastline that would affect the environment, the economy, First Nations, and all British Columbians,” NDP environment critic Rob Fleming said in a release.

“While the premier has failed to truly stand up for British Columbia on the Enbridge pipeline, I hope she will at least clarify her government’s position on offshore drilling.”

The New Democrats are calling for a continuation of B.C.’s long-term commitment to a moratorium on offshore drilling.

Read original story: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/10/02/bc-rustad-offshore-drilling.html

Clark Turns to Blacktop Politics to Reverse Political Fortunes – Raising New Tunnel and Highway

October 4, 2012Canada, Politics, Urban & Transport, Western CanadaPolitics, Transportation and Urban PlanningCommon Sense Canadian

Read this column from the Province’s Mike Smyth on BC Premier Christy Clark’s latest attempt to turn around her sagging political fortunes – this time with talk of a replacement for the George Massey Tunnel and widening the Canada 1 Highway to Alberta. (Sept. 30, 2012)

By promising to replace the congested Massey Tunnel and build a four-lane highway all the way to Alberta – with an asterisk next to the “promise,” that is – Christy Clark is going old-school on us.

Black-top politics! It’s a proud B.C. tradition, going back to the grand old days of Social Credit, and continuing with the Liberals and NDP, too.

Now Clark is proving she can buy votes with asphalt with the best of ’em.

Who wouldn’t want to escape the Massey Tunnel traffic-jam torture chamber once and for all? And a four-lane Trans-Canada Highway to the Alberta border would be sweet for drivers in the Interior.

Clark threw in a new 16th Avenue interchange for Surrey, and a whole bunch of new school and hospital projects too, in a spending-spree speech to B.C. municipal leaders.

Now, before you get too excited about all this, be aware there are a few catches.

For one thing, you’ll have to vote Liberal in the next election to get all the goodies, because none of this stuff will get built by May. In fact, you’ll probably have to vote Liberal in two or three elections, because these aren’t exactly short-term projects.

Clark said replacing the Massey Tunnel, for example, would take 10 years – yes, an entire decade – to achieve. (Never mind that they put men on the moon faster than that.)

Widening 280 kilometres of the Trans-Canada Highway from two lanes to four also would take a decade, she said. Speedy Gonzales, she ain’t.

Then there’s all the fine print and wriggle room attached to the “promises” as well.

On the Massey Tunnel, Clark only committed to “begin planning” the replacement of the tunnel. Would it be replaced by another tunnel or a bridge? How much would it cost? Would it be tolled?

Clark couldn’t answer any of those questions but, by God, she’s going to start planning to answer them at some point (after the election, that is.)

On the Trans-Canada, Clark said the government is prepared to spend $650 million on the project over the next 10 years. But she wants the federal government to cough up matching funds, and there’s no guarantee that will happen.

At the end of the day, you’re left with some very grand and catchy promises – and a very long and dubious road to achieving them.

And don’t forget that it was just over two weeks ago that Finance Minister Mike de Jong was telling a tale of woe about the province’s budget, and promising to cut spending to contain the deficit.

Now here’s Christy saying she’ll spend hundreds of millions of dollars on new highways, tunnels, schools and hospitals.

Does the public ever notice these contradictions?

Rafe on Clark’s Embarassing Antics in Alberta and Renewed Calls for Wolf Culls

October 2, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Species At Risk, Western CanadaBC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Christy Clark, Enbridge, Oil and gas, Politics, species at riskRafe Mair

Today is a twofer – two for the price of one.

First, I’m beginning to feel sorry for Premier Christy Clark. She is a very nice person, personable and able to speak. What she is not capable of doing is speaking sensibly or making decisions that make sense.

It seems obvious to me that she is getting wretched advice and nowhere is this more evident than on the pipeline issue.

Let me illustrate.

The Premier, some months ago, laid down some rules that would govern her government’s environmental response to pipelines and added that to a demand for money from Premier Alison Redford of Alberta. The conditions were silly motherhood stuff and didn’t contain the one most British Columbians want – public hearings that would let people say whether or not they want these pipelines in the first place. This is, I daresay, a foreign concept to the Liberal government but the public know they are not able to express their opinions on the wisdom of the projects in the first place.

In fact, Premier Clark has avoided that issue like the plague.

She missed the very important Western Premier’s Conference on the lame excuse she needed to be in the House because the pipelines and tanker issues were on the agenda and she would have to make known her position.

Then she missed all the deadlines to get BC status as an intervenor as have Alberta, municipalities and First Nations. Consequently, a short time ago she was rebuffed for trying to intervene.

Reviews like the Enbridge Joint Panel Review – and the Cohen Commission as an example – realize that some entities have a greater issue to deal with than Joe Citizen and grant them the status to call witnesses, cross-examine government and industry witnesses and that sort of thing. This could not possibly be a mistake, but a deliberate decision. I don’t have much use for environmental hearings but at least British Columbians could hear what the evidence is. This was an egregious error obviously designed to let Ms. Clark act like the three monkeys.

Now she has horned her way into Premier Redford’s office to press BC’s case. Here is the part that tells you the abysmal ignorance from which Ms. Clark operates.

She is quoted thusly: “There is no amount of money that can make up for an unacceptable risk when it comes to our oceans, our coast and our land.”

Noble sentiments to be sure, but since Premier Redford supports the pipelines and tanker traffic and is content to have the federal government cram them past BC opposition – and bearing in mind that Premier Redford has made it clear that Alberta won’t give BC a nickel – the only purpose for Ms. Clark to crash Ms. Redford’s office is to make it appear to folks at home that she’s doing something.

She is making a fool of all of us, painting us as supplicants to Premier Redford’s throne and the gold that is there.

This must be borne in mind: the oil revenues from the tar sands belong to Alberta under the constitution. If she were to take some of that money and give it to BC, not only would she be a damned fool – Alberta voters would eat her alive.

Premier Clark’s bleating about “risks to BC” is bullshit as she and the rest of us know. Even Enbridge admits that the chances of a spill are overwhelming. Clark is playing us for fools. it is egregious, disingenuous nonsense rivaled only by Bill Clinton’s assertion that, “I did not have sex with that woman.”

Still Afraid of the Big, Bad Wolf

On another note, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Back in 1979, the Ministry of Environment was poisoning wolves in northern BC because, allegedly, they were killing cattle. There wasn’t a particle of evidence that this was happening, certainly not on a large scale. Within days of becoming minister I put a stop to the program, hired a man – an elderly fishing buddy of mine whom I trusted implicitly – to go through the area getting evidence, if there was any, of packs of wolves destroying cattle. Sandy was one if these guys who could find out things without anyone realizing he was asking questions.

He reported back to me that he could find no evidence of a major problem .

He told me of the case of a wolf pack driving a herd of cattle onto a frozen lake which caved in from the weight and the wolves devoured them. Interesting that wolves could kill cattle in the water and feast upon them without drowning themselves.

The interesting part is that three different ranchers in three different areas told the same story!

Despite all their bleating, ranchers couldn’t offer any evidence whatsoever.

The ranchers were claiming their losses were due to wolves to cover up their own bad husbandry.

It’s interesting to ask what the hell were all those cattle doing out on the range in temperatures that would freeze a lake?

A Socred back bencher, Cyril Shelford, and his seemingly unlimited number of brothers organized a huge rally and dared me to show my face.

I did – not through bravery but because Premier Bill Bennett would likely have fired me if I didn’t appear.

It was a very ugly meeting and I admit I was scared. When I was finally permitted to speak I said, “this is the first time in history where a man has been run into town on a rail.”

The humour of the remark escaped the 500 incensed ranchers.

The moratorium I imposed remains. Now the ranchers have popped up with claims that seem, after 33 years, to have suddenly re-appeared. Once again, the ranchers, by their own admission, are utterly unable to supply one scintilla of evidence.

The Minister of Environment should politely give the ranchers the international words for “go away”.

Truth and Competency Still Escape Clark Govt on Enbridge File

September 28, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western CanadaBC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Enbridge, Oil and gas, PoliticsRafe Mair

The joke used to be, “How can you tell when a lawyer isn’t telling the truth? The answer is when you see his lips move”. Now substitute politician and you’ve got it right.

Premier Clark will just happen to be in Edmonton next week and hopes that the Alberta Premier would like to have a bit of a chat with her about pipelines.

At the same time Terry Lake, Minister of Environment, tells us that the only consideration he has re: the Enbridge project will be the environment – from which one must infer he means the idiotic standards laid down some months ago by his boss.

The question is, Madam Premier, what more do you need to know?

Leaving aside the tanker traffic for a moment, last week Enbridge was angered at the suggestion that over the next 50 years there was a 93% chance of a spill and told us that it was “only” 70%!

Are we not all relieved at this news? “Only” 70%!

What isn’t ever mentioned is what damage these spills will cause.

I use the example of the revolver with 100 chambers and just one bullet. In making the decision as to whether or not you put the gun to your head you would calculate the odds at 99-1. But that’s only half the story, for if the revolver only had marshmallow in the chamber, you wouldn’t give a damn about the odds.

But, Madam Clark – these pipelines don’t carry marshmallow but a deadly poison!

But it’s even more than that, Premier – when these spills occur, how will the company get to the spill with heavy equipment? You commented on Enbridge’s handling of the Kalamazoo spill and called it a “disgrace”. And it was, but, Ms. Clark, this spill occurred in a populous state and was easily accessible.

Mr. Lake talks about the environment being the only consideration. Again, what is there that leaves any doubt about the horrendous consequences resulting from an oil spill?

Why doesn’t the minister tell us about all the investigations his ministry has done?

Surely he’s done a great deal, bearing in mind that looking after water is his responsibility. Has he assessed even superficially the 1,000 rivers and streams that will be impacted by an Enbridge pipeline?

My guess is that he has been told to cool it because Ms. Clark entered a deal with the feds that its Joint Review Panel should be considered as binding in BC as well.

Let’s end with a bit of a truth telling exercise. The truth of this horrendous environmental disaster is that the Liberal government did agree to accept the Joint Review Panel’s findings and thus surrendered its environmental jurisdiction to Ottawa.

To make matters worse, BC did not become part of the the Joint Review Panel by becoming a government intervenor as did First Nations – which would have given our province (the province most impacted) “standing” so that they could call witnesses, cross examine witnesses and make a formal argument. The province has no more rights than a private citizen.

Now Premier Clark tries to recapture a piece of the pie by trying to make Alberta’s premier Alison Redford into the bad guy in the picture.

Lest this may have missed our premier’s notice, Ms. Redford also depends upon citizen approval in order to get elected and one must assume that her citizens would cry out like stuck pigs if she gave away money that she didn’t have to.

BC then is in a dunghill of their own making and it could only happen by a huge cock-up by a government that has become an expert in that field.

Rafe challenges Christy to a debate

September 21, 2012Canada, Politics, Western CanadaPolitics, rafe mairRafe Mair

I have, for Premier Clark, an offer she can’t possibly turn down.

She refuses to call the Legislature into session because it will only make pundits and politicians (presumably she means those in the opposition) happy. In her view it’s better for the great unwashed if she goes on the road, from time to time, finding out what voters want – I wonder if “your resignation” is an answer she’ll pay any attention to.

It must be observed that the only functions of the Legislature are to pass, at its behest, Government bills and to hold their feet to the fire. It is an unpleasant place for the government because there are people there who can and do ask very embarrassing questions. Moreover, even the tame media are likely to print the questions and answers so that the public can be in the know. As to the uselessness of the system, I refer you to my article in the September 3 edition of The Tyee, entitled “Martyn Brown’s Tepid Remedy”.

I call the Premier’s utterings – and there is no other word for it – bullshit. She has a much greater obligation than just politicking at government packed meetings and it is to face the public as represented by the media.

Strange isn’t it? When Ms. Clark ducked the Western Premiers‘ Conference (a very important conference I can tell you from personal experience) she said that her obligation was to be in the “House”, not at a conference of western colleagues who had the Enbridge pipeline on the agenda, upon which matter Premier Clark would be forced to comment. Now that we’re in a candid mood, she didn’t have the guts to do it and scampered home to the legislature as a way out.

Now that she has an obligation to place her legislation and policy before an unpleasant opposition and press, she has a greater obligation to miss it and, one guesses, at taxpayers’ expense, make political speeches before safe audiences.

I have this proposition, Madame Premier.

I am not a politician any more than you are a talk show host. We’ve each moved on. And I can assure you that as I approach my 81st birthday, I have no intentions of returning, even though if I were elected I would be entitled to the pension I gave up when I left government in 1981. (By way of explanation, one needed to be elected three times. Moreover, if elected again, I would have to repay what was returned to me, but believe me, I would do that in a flash.)

I am not a pundit, by which I assume you mean part of the working media.

Madam Premier, surely even the Liberal Party now must admit that the Environment is the #1 issue in BC. I propose that you and I debate the Environment around the Province so that you can tell everyone what your policy is on Fish farms, highways through agricultural land, private power schemes on our rivers, pipelines (Enbridge and Kinder Morgan come to mind) and tankers on our coast carrying bitumen from the Oil Sands to China and waypoints.

Now, to be fair to you, I’ll debate any other issues that you wish, although I will be at a great disadvantage and undoubtedly be quickly overcome because you are, of course, the premier and will be much better informed.

I don’t care who chairs these meetings – having been to many private river hearings I know what biased chairpersons are like and though, again, a biased chair will be to your advantage, I’ll take my chances and will do my best to hold my end up.

I will be pleased to pay my way – hotel, vittles, spirits and transport.

If you use these meetings as fundraisers I only ask that The Common Sense Canadian be permitted to pass the hat to cover my expenses.

Madam Premier – I really don’t like to call people in high paces cowards, gutless and words like that which spring to my mind and, I must tell you, to an ever growing BC public when your name is mentioned.

What an opportunity to silence your critics! What a great way to show that you really are an environmentalist who puts the will of the people ahead of large corporations!

Surely you have nothing to lose whereas The Common Sense Canadian puts its entire raison d’être, its very existence on the line.

Name the dates and the locations and I’ll be there.

Let’s do it!