Category Archives: Canada

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver has labelled opponents of Enbridge's proposed Norther Gateway Pipeline

Enbridge Pipeline: Radicals and Conservatives

Share

Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, a $5.5 billion project that is intended to move the crude from Alberta’s tar sands to BC’s West Coast for shipment by supertankers to Asia and other parts of the world, is providing illuminating insights into the gulf of differences separating proponents and opponents. Perhaps this is most clearly expressed by Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, whose recently released letter (January, 2012) accused “environmental and other radical groups” of attempting to “hijack our regulatory system” to achieve “their radical ideological agenda.”

His accusation may be true. But his terminology is reversed. The so-called “radicals” are really “conservatives” while those in government and industry favouring the pipeline are the “radicals”.

Those attempting to halt the pipeline and slow development of the tar sands are trying to restrain the ideological mania for resource extraction that is ripping across the provinces and country these days. Their objective is not only to protect the natural environment that is the fundamental source of our wealth, but to conserve our non-renewable oil and gas — not to mention the minerals, trees, water, fish and other resources that identify Canada’s natural riches — for a more cautious and careful future use. They are keen to remind Canada’s government that the country has no national energy policy and, therefore, no way of anticipating the effect of present extraction on future energy security, economic opportunity and social impacts. To the opponents of the Northern Gateway pipeline, today’s wholesale extraction and export of raw resources poses innumerable environmental threats but also robs tomorrow of possibilities. This is hardly the position of “radicals”.

With a perspective that is longer than the next election cycle, the 4,300 people who are registered as speakers during the proceedings of the “regulatory system” — most of them will be opposing it — are using the only avenue available to them to indicate their concern for a project that will inevitably cause an oil spill in pristine rivers and valleys, not to mention an ocean coast that is noted world-wide for its marine bounty and wild beauty. If this concern is a “radical ideological agenda”, then their critics must surely be possessed of a reckless irresponsibility that is truly menacing.

Unfolding events suggest that this may be the case. The same established thinking that wants to build the Northern Gateway pipeline has recently engineered the near-collapse of the world’s entire financial system. It is also busily dismantling the fundamental ecological structures that allow for a diversity of life on Earth. The traumatic effect of massive greenhouse gas emissions on climate and weather should give any thoughtful person nightmares. And the eventual consequences of ocean acidification has implications for the planet that are obscene and dire — a similarly acidic ocean once caused 95 percent of marine and terrestrial species to disappear from existence. Anyone who is aware of these prospects and is not taking immediate and drastic remedial measures must be deemed “radical”, if not irresponsible and ideologically dangerous.

Some informed economists question the wisdom of unrestrained resource extraction. Without long-term planning and the accompanying processing infrastructure that benefits a country’s entire economy and society, the end result of an export policy of raw resources will be, as one economist aptly phrased it, an impoverished country “with a lot of holes in the ground” — not exactly a promising prospect.

Such a prospect is worrying an increasing number of people these days. They perceive a hyper-active system of excessive production and consumption that is functioning beyond sustainability and headed for a crash. Some of these worried people are economists, politicians and philosophers. Others are bankers and industrialists. Even those who don’t have the sophistication to articulate their apprehension can sense trouble. And they are becoming increasingly cynical. The Occupy Movement wants financial reform and a re-evaluation of our entire economic system. And the environmental community, in all its many forms, wants the destruction of nature to stop while viable remnants of it still exist. They are “conservative” in the sense that they want to “preserve” the ecosystems that sustain us, hardly the “radicals” of Joe Oliver’s designation.

The real “radicals”, it might be argued, are those with an ideological compulsion to pillage the planet — to drill and mine, to frack and pump, to build and extract, to cut and burn, to take and level with an obsessive abandon that history will deem pathological. An ideology that holds nothing sacred but money and profit is doomed to fail. “The catch with a growth economy,” as the film The Great Squeeze points out, “is that there is no stopping point.” It continues to grow until it self-destructs.

This explains why the Northern Gateway pipeline project has become so important. It is now iconic, a symbol to its opponents of a system out of control, of an ideology on a destructive rampage, blindly undeterred by fatal risks to a primal wilderness and a treasured coast of virgin rainforest. The system is not even deterred by a living planet besieged with life-destroying gases. If such an economy is not stopped here, where will it be stopped?

The language in Joe Oliver’s letter is ideological and challenging. But he has his terms reversed. The “radicals are the “conservatives” and the “conservatives” are the “radicals”.

Share

Local Governments to Fight Kinder Morgan Over Oil Pipeline, Tanker Expansion Plans

Share

Read this story form the Globe and Mail on BC’s coastal mayors and councilors preparing to fight Kinder Morgan’s plans to triple their bitumen pipeline from the Alberta Tar Sands to Vancouver. (April 14, 2012)

Local governments on B.C.’s west coast are girding for a fight with energy giant Kinder Morgan over its $5-billion pipeline expansion plans to move more Alberta oil to the Vancouver Harbour for transport overseas.

A phalanx of mayors is vowing to fight the project, including coastal communities far from the pipeline but exposed to increased oil tanker traffic.

“This is not a comfortable position for Kinder Morgan, they’ll be relying on the federal government to override local government,” said Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan. “This may be the hill the Conservatives die on. The response from the public in British Columbia is, not only is this a potential danger to us, but there’s nothing in it for us.”

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson challenged B.C. Premier Christy Clark to take a stand on the plans, saying city residents – including her own Vancouver-Point Grey constituents – won’t support risking an oil spill.

“I will fiercely oppose the expansion of oil tankers in Vancouver’s harbour and the pipeline that feeds them,” he said in an interview. “The Premier should weigh in and I hope it is on the side of our local economies. It’s hard to imagine an oil spill on Kits Beach and Stanley Park – the impact it would have for generations.”

Ms. Clark did not return calls Friday. The Premier has balked at taking a position on a better-known pipeline proposal, the contentious Northern Gateway project.

That project is a key part of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s goal to take Canadian resources to Asian markets, but the B.C. government has yet to come out for or against it despite its “Canada starts here” marketing strategy.

The Gateway project is currently the subject of a national review, but the southern pipeline project is further ahead because Kinder Morgan already has a right of way for its relatively small pipeline – called Trans Mountain – from Edmonton to the Vancouver suburb of Burnaby.

On Thursday, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP, a Houston energy and pipeline company, announced it has enough customers lined up to begin the official regulatory review process of its plan, which would put another pipeline on the route, nearly tripling the current capacity and bringing an oil tanker a day into Burrard Inlet.

On Friday, at a meeting of Metro Vancouver mayors, talks began on forming a united front, Mr. Corrigan said. “This is something that is going to gain momentum as the mayors put their resources together to respond.”

Mr. Corrigan predicted it will also put the BC Liberal government in a tough position as it struggles to keep federal Conservatives on side. “They are going to be expected by the Conservative government to welcome access for Alberta oil. Their relationship with the federal government is going to be severely tested,” he said.

Read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politics/bc-mayors-steel-themselves-for-fight-against-kinder-morgan-pipeline/article2402403/

Share

Budget 2012: At Least the War on the Environment is Going Well

Share

Until this year, the purpose of the annual Canadian federal budget was to project government revenues, lay out spending priorities and forecast economic conditions for the upcoming year. Reading Budget 2012, announced last week by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, it soon becomes clear that this government has no intention of being encumbered by pedestrian fiscal objectives. The Harper government has instead opted to present what is first and foremost a policy document – one that brazenly asserts the government’s ideological agenda for the coming three years.

If the overriding economic policy goal of this government was not apparent previously, with the release of Budget 2012, there can no longer be any doubt. The Harper gang has dispensed with even the pretense of meeting its basic environmental fiduciary responsibilities in favour of the almost totally unimpeded exploitation of Canadian resources. As Green Party leader Elizabeth May told me this week, the government is effectively telling the Canadian people that they plan “to eviscerate existing laws. This isn’t really a fiscal statement. They’ve used the budget as an instrument of massive overhaul of environmental law and policy and the overriding directive is oil and gas at all costs – the environment be damned.”

Should you happen to belong to the unlucky (and clearly misguided) lot with the audacity to be concerned about the proposed Enbridge and Kinder Morgan pipelines, this is not a budget for you. In fact, perhaps the best we can say about Budget 2012 is, as Rafe Mair put it, at least “we now have it in writing what the bastards are up to!”

Just how bad is it? Well, don’t take my word for it. Last week on CBC, the respected columnist Chantale Hebert of the Toronto Star, hardly an eco-zealot, said this was the most anti-environment budget she had seen in her 20 years covering Parliament Hill. Even the very moderate, if not conservative, editorial board of the Globe and Mail singled out the environmental provisions in the Budget saying “The Conservatives are continuing their dishonourable attack meant to intimidate environmental groups, in a budget item that stands out for adding a needless new cost.”

Steven Guilbeault of the NGO Équiterre said that the budget “seems to have been written for, and even by, big oil interests…the Harper government is gutting the environmental protections that Canadians have depended on for decades to safeguard our families and nature from pollution, toxic contamination and other environmental problems.” And true to form, reaction from oil and gas companies, mining and pipeline companies has been predictably jubilant.

So just what does the Harper government plan to do? First, in what appears to be a return to the glory days of McCarthyism, the Harper gang plans to launch an $8 million campaign at Revenue Canada to investigate and crack down on environmental groups that the government deems are engaged in activities that are too political, including the extent to which these groups are funded by foreign sources.

There is no new funding for climate change programs. In fact the words climate change are mentioned only twice in passing in the entire 498 page budget plan.
 
The Conservatives will eliminate the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, which was a panel of business and environmental leaders who made policy recommendations on a variety of sustainability issues. A widely respected, non-partisan agency, the Roundtable was founded by the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney in 1988. Its reports of late, however, had annoyed the government as they were mildly critical of their plans to achieve its stated objective of reducing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. The result? The Harper government has  killed them.
 
Environment Canada’s budget is being cut again, this time by 6%, along with grants for scientific research in universities.The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (or CEAA) is in line for a 40 per cent cut. Touting a ‘one project, one review’ principle, CEAA will be overhauled with federal responsibilities being downloaded on provinces; newly imposed timelines, and a limiting of the scope of reviews. Joint panel environmental reviews are to be limited to 24 months, National Energy Board hearings to 18 months and standard environmental assessments to one year. All this will be imposed retroactively, thereby impacting reviews, such as Northern Gateway, that are currently underway. The changes could jeopardize the capacity of people to participate in reviews and it further undermines the ultimate goal of reviews in ensuring environmental protection is a priority in all projects.
 
The budget does not renew funding for the popular EcoENERGY energy efficiency program. Minimal tax support will be given to ‘clean energy’ and energy efficiency, but only to the tune of $2 million – a tiny drop in the bucket in a multi-billion dollar budget.
 
Finally, some changes are planned for subsidies to the oil and gas industry on Canada’s East coast but tar sands subsidies remain untouched. Currently, $1.38 billion a year is allocated to energy development through subsidies.
 
Although not specifically mentioned in the Budget plan, the government is also widely suspected to be planning to gut key conservation provisions of Canada’s Fisheries Act, the nation’s most significant and oldest piece of environmental legislation. The Aboriginal People’s Television Network has also learned that that the Harper Conservatives are changing Canada’s mining regulations so that prospecting companies could soon have free-reign on reserve lands.

So what to make of all this? If the stakes weren’t so high, we may otherwise see this Budget as an unfortunate aberration, a government that clearly has an axe to grind or some kind of vendetta against environmental groups. Yet it’s important to appreciate the significance of what the Harper gang is trying to accomplish: namely, to clear the way for resource development projects that will not easily be undone. The environmental legacy of this government will be felt for a long time to come if they are permitted to implement their agenda unimpeded.

A prestigious conference was held last week, at which some of the world’s leading scientists and academics called for the official designation of a new earth epoch: the Anthropocene. Addressing the ‘Planet under Pressure’ gathering in London, England, scientists said that one species has left an indelible mark through climate change, dwindling fish stocks, continued deforestation, rapid species decline, and human population growth. Anthony Giddens, the British political scientist known for his holistic view of societies, described the Anthopocene as a “runaway world” in which we have unleashed processes more powerful than our attempts to control them.

It is against this dismal backdrop that our federal politicians have unleashed the anti-environmental provisions of Budget 2012 upon the Canadian people. I’ve recently been seeing a bumper sticker that captures quite nicely the priorities of our current federal government: “At least the war on the environment is going well.”

Share

Christy Clark Must Go

Share

Of course Christy Clark must resign. It’s not going to get better as time passes.
 
I would be the last to say that the entire problem is of her doing – she was handed a poisoned chalice by Gordon Campbell who is the ultimate Teflon man; he pays nothing for going to jail and when he left in a cloud, far from paying a price, he gets showered with honours.
 
BC Hydro is the unlanced boil, an issue that has lots of legs. But now, according to Alex Tsakumis, the intrepid blogger with a box cart full of contacts, has the Premier in the mess too.
 
The question is timing and how – it must be soon, for when the Conservatives win Chilliwack all in the caucus will have sharp knives ready for the moment she turns her back.
 
Why do I see backstabbing here?
 
Because that’s what it is.
 
From the moment she was selected leader of the Liberals, I predicted that Ms. Clark would fail, for two reasons: I didn’t think she had the necessary tools of leadership, but, of more importance, she had a caucus and cabinet that had a death wish for her. Leaders can survive enemies within but not if it’s everybody. She had no colleagues she could rely upon to help to avoid trouble or to get out of it when it happened.
 
I frankly don’t think she was up to the job but she was given no real opportunity to prove me wrong.
 
What now?
 
A Conservative friend (yes there are such things) suggested that the Liberals bring in proportional representation which would mean the right, being the Liberals in their present incarnation and the Conservatives would have a chance to form a coalition.
 
I don’t know if it was tongue in cheek but there are many reasons this is a bad idea that wouldn’t float – Liberal and Conservative members wouldn’t stand for it. Neither would the public who would see it just as it would be – an insult to the people since they would have no say in the matter.
 
I believe that in general, the caucus as a whole should select the party leader.
 
Not democratic?
 
How democratic are the electronic games that are played under the current system? The caucus knows whom they can and will support and whom they cannot.
 
The best example I can think of was the political assassination of Margaret Thatcher in 1990. In the British Tory system there‘s a leadership review process and in 1990 it was invoked. In a little over a week the process was concluded with John Major getting the support of more MPs than anyone else. He won the next election.
 
Now it must always be remembered that no matter how the process works it’s not “new pitcher, new strikes”. The incoming leader will have to deal with the mess that’s left over as will any successor to Christy Clark.
 
The backroom boys always think that a leadership convention, complete with electronic voting, will provide a leader who will have momentum to carry on and win. They use Bill Vander Zalm as an example. In fact, it’s an example of my point – while Vander Zalm was loved by the people (not for long, as it transpired) he went into the nominating convention with only one member of caucus supporting him, Jack Davis, who had been convicted of fraudulently converting 1st Class tickets into Economy and pocketing the difference. He was forced out of Cabinet by Premier Bill Bennett never to darken the cabinet room again. He saw that with Vander Zalm he might get back in – and he did. The important point is that all of the other ministers who had served with Vander Zalm opposed his nomination and he had not been long in his new job before the knives were unsheathed.
 
On cannot overly blame his colleagues, for Vander Zalm was stubborn, unrelenting in opinions and a one man band.
 
I believe that the Liberals will lose in 2013 regardless of who is leader. But the object is not winning but holding the party together. The longer Ms. Clark stays, the greater the risk of an implosion as the Socreds did in 1991.
 
Premier Clark must wait until the by-elections are over – otherwise she would be seen as abandoning her candidates.
 
After these elections I believe Ms. Clark must stand down and the leader should be selected by either the cabinet (as the Socreds did in 1991) or by the entire caucus as is the Conservative policy in the UK.
 
I suspect that the backroom boys will disagree and want a full blown leadership convention. If they do it they run the risk of having the same result that put Ms. Clark in the premier’s office.
 
The one thing the electronic election does not do is see first hand the candidates going through a process. The traditional convention was exciting to watch and because of that the winner did have momentum.
 
In all events, no amount of promising huge exports here, big developments there will do. The public sees through that kind of death bed flim flam.
 
Christy Clark must go – and soon.

———————————-
 
Have you thought about whether or not there’s a soul? What about near death experiences? Should the Book of Revelation scare the pants off us? Find out what other religions and experts say with my new book The Home Stretch available online, www.kindle.com or www.amazon.com  for your computer, kindle, kobo or iPad – for the miserly sum of $9.99
 

Share

Respecting the Power of the Sea – Testimony From Enbridge Hearings in Bella Bella

Share

Highlights from this week’s National Energy Board hearings in Bella Bella on the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and supertankers on BC’s coast. Powerful testimony from three members of the Heiltsuk First Nation, sharing their experiences with the sea. “I’ll never forget it,” said Josh Vickers recounting to the NEB panel a memorable herring fishing trip as a boy. “We were coming back in 40 to 50 foot seas…Our boats were like corks going way up and way down. We couldn’t even see each other – that’s how violent and rough the sea was.”

 

Share

Bella Bella Opposes Enbridge Story on CBC’s The National Last Night – feat. Footage by Damien Gillis

Share

Check out this story from CBC’s The National on the recent controversy over the scheduled National Energy Board Enbridge hearings in Bella Bella – featuring footage shot by Damien Gillis. (April 2, 1021)

Watch video: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/The_National/1233408557/ID=2218694750

Share

Cancelled Enbridge Hearings to Resume in Bella Bella, Youth Embark on Hunger Strike

Share

The Heiltsuk First Nation learned late Monday that scheduled National Energy Board hearings on the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline will resume Tuesday in Bella Bella, following their cancellation Monday in the wake of a peaceful demonstration to which the Joint Review Panel overreacted. Heiltsuk Chief Marilyn Slett is, however, concerned that the panel will not be adding extra hearing days to make up for Monday’s lost testimony time. Meanwhile, students from the community embarked on a hunger strike to protest proposed oil supertankers which threaten their traditional marine food resources.

Share

CBC on NEB Cancelling Day 1 of Bella Bella Enbridge Hearings – incl. Audio Clip

Share

Read this report from CBC on the National Energy Board’s decision to cancel the first day of the Joint Panel Review hearings on Enbridge in Bella Bella after the panel was greeted by a demonstration at the local airport – featuring images and commentary by Damien Gillis. (April 2, 2012)

A public hearing for the Northern Gateway Project has been unexpectedly cancelled after panel members were met by protesters at the Bella Bella airport in B.C. on Sunday afternoon.

 

The review panel was scheduled to hold four days of hearing in the remote community to gather local concerns about the controversial proposal to build a crude oil pipeline from Alberta to the West Coast.

A large crowd greeted the panel members when they arrived in Bella Bella, but later on Sunday afternoon, Monday’s hearing was cancelled. Some high school students in the community reportedly began a 48-hour hunger strike after the panel arrived.

Heiltsuk First Nation Chief Marilynn Slett told a community meeting that the review panel had sent a notice that it would not be proceeding with the sessions because of security concerns.

“It was their perception that it wasn’t a very secure or safe environment,” Slett told CBC News on Monday morning.

But Slett says the protest and the community are peaceful…

…Documentary filmmaker and environmental activist Damien Gillis said the protesters were not threatening anyone.

“The RCMP was in attendance, I’ve spoken to the detachment commander. They are baffled at this reaction. They didn’t observe anything unlawful or remotely threatening.”

North Coast NDP MLA Gary Coons arrived on the plane with the panel members and said all he witnessed was a peaceful gathering.

“It is insulting to the Heiltsuk community and those that were there that they would feel that way. The members of the joint review panel have been welcomed in respectful ways to every First Nations community that they have gone to and this would be no different.” said Coons.

Both Coons and Slett are hopeful a meeting with panel members on Monday morning will help resolve panel’s concerns and get the public hearings back on track.

Read full article and listen to audio clip: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/04/02/bc-bella-bella-gateway-hearing.html

Share

Rafe on Why Harper Budget’s Gutting of Environmental Laws is a Good Thing

Share

I think the Harper budget is a plus for the environment.
 
It comes in a way from a roundabout look at things.
 
The government will take habitat protection out of the Fisheries Act and will put developments on a “fast track”.
 
Why is this good news?
 
Because we now have it in writing what the bastards are up to!
 
It really all comes down to the Environmental Assessment hearings that are used to give the government the right to do what they intended to do all along. What they’re supposed to do, of course, is make us all feel as if we’ve had input which, of course, we haven’t and never will have.
 
It goes to the root of the matter. I daresay that 90%+ of those attending those meetings want to have a say as to whether the project is a wise one that the public can support on its merits; instead, it’s only to hear what we have to say on various environmental aspects. The reality is, no matter what this committee says, the government will do as it pleases.

Now, as we digest that, we realize that the project is going ahead and always was going ahead and that the meetings are shams – expensive shams.
 
This all goes back to the Kemano II of the mid 80s where the long and the short of it was that Alcan wanted to take even more water out of the Nechako River through which critical sockeye runs pass  on their way to the Stuart system to spawn.
 
The issues were beyond debate. DFO scientists, two years before the deal was struck, did a careful study by several of their best scientists who said NO WAY! It was a long, thorough effort that never saw the light of day until one of the scientists, by then retired, leaked a copy to me in about 1993, long after the deal had been made. In short both governments, including the Feds that ordered it, kept the report secret.
 
Not only did the federal government sit on the report, they passed an order-in-council removing the need of an Environmental Assessment. I rake over these old coals because this was the start of the politicization of the Environment and Fisheries departments which continues to this day. (A good example is the obligation to both monitor fish farms and shill for them at the same time).
 
Until now, the Harper government has let us believe that the current the hearings are a vehicle to get public opinion on projects. With this latest enunciation of policy, the environmental assessment process is taking too long, say the governments, thus must be shortened! It takes the breath away for it simply states we don’t give a good goddamn what the commissions report – we’re going ahead anyway!
 
We always thought as much but here it is a matter of government policy – first the approval, then environmental assessment, which is only for show.
 
Here is where it’s good news. We have an admission that fish habitat no longer matters and approval in principle means government support the entire way.
 
We now know this and can govern ourselves accordingly.
 
We know that the Enbridge pipelines and tanker traffic down our coast and through the Port of Vancouver are done deals and the only delays are those which would come anyway as Enbridge gets ready.
 
What then do we do?
 
We gird up our loins and get ready to fight.
 
We do this now because it’s time – and our cause is just.
 
I’ll say in a moment what we should do but first let’s review the problems:
 
The proposed Enbridge pipeline would traverse 1,100 km of BC through the Rockies, Coast Range and Great Bear Rainforest, some of the most rugged and untouched wilderness in the world with unbelievable wild life.
 
It would cross over 1,000 rivers and streams, several vital for large salmon runs.
 
The company, Enbridge, has a shocking record for spills and leaks, 811 since 1998. They have demonstrated that the bitumen from the Tar Sands is all but impossible to clean up as their spill in the populated state of Michigan into the Kalamazoo River clearly demonstrates.
 
The company and government talk about thousands of jobs and billions of dollars – it’s all bullshit. All but low paying jobs would go to crews from out of province – specialized labour forces. The money goes to Alberta and the Feds.
 
But ask yourself this: even if there was billions of dollars and millions of jobs – would you trade our heritage for this?
 
It gets down to this: the territory the pipelines go through, where spills will occur, means that even attempts to clean up a spill would be useless.
 
There is no point having a pipeline unless there is tanker traffic, estimated to be 200-300 tankers per year. Here is an article from long time fisherman John Brajcich, whose family have been commercial fishermen on BC’s north and central coast – where oil super tankers would pass – for some eighty years. Mr. Brajcich writes:

As a fisherman who has worked his whole life on the coast of BC, I have many concerns about oil tankers leaving Kitamaat (proper spelling double “a” and it means ‘people of the snow’).

All of the discussions, I have heard, have been about concerns regarding pipeline ruptures and what can happen on the land route. My concern is what will happen if there is a loaded oil tanker heading to sea and it hits a reef or shore or breaks up causing another Exxon Valdez event/catastrophe.

Our family has a long history in the area. My father started fishing there in the 30’s and in 1949, at the age of 13, I went out on his seine boat. In 1957 I became a Captain of a  seiner and I fished the area for over 50 years, usually from 5 -20 weeks per year. At present my son operates our family’s seiner and continues to fish this area. Our combined family’s presence in this area is over 80 years.

I have been hired by Fisheries and Oceans Canada to participate in stock assessments for salmon and herring. In 1968 we were hired by Shell Oil Company to assist in the positioning of Sedco’s drill rig in Hecate Straits.

We have spent so much time in Fisheries and Oceans Canada designated area 6 that lifelong friends – the late Alan Hall of Kitamaat and Johnny Clifton of Hartley Bay – were made. I have seen the waterfall at Butedale frozen solid, bone dry and running so hard you could not tie up your boat.
With our family’s 80 plus years of fishing in the Whale Channel area we have firsthand knowledge of tides, weather, types of fish and bird life. The area from Kitamaat to Hecate Straits is designated Area 6, by Fisheries and Oceans Canada and is the most consistent salmon producing region in British Columbia with runs in the odd and even years.
 
In Area 6 there is:

  1. Within the Central coast area 128 salmon bearing streams
  2. Kitasu Bay to McInnes Island is a major herring spawning  ground
  3. All 5 species of salmon, herring, crab, mussels, clams, abalone, prawns, eulachons, pilchards, hake, geoduck, mackerel, halibut cod, pollock, otters, eagles and many birds, plus whales and porpoises
  4. Tides that fluctuate over 20 feet causing currents of up to 5 knots
  5. Being a region of heavy snow and glaciers there are very strong freshets from May to the end of July
  6. The outflow winds from Douglas Channel can be extreme during summer and winter
  7. Weather in Hecate Straits –  because of strong complex currents, waves have been recorded up to 30 metres. The highest wind gusts recorded for November, December, January, February and March is 180 -190-plus km per hour.

If a ship enters Laredo Channel from Hecate Straits at McInnes Island the tanker would have Lenard Shoal and Moody Bank at the bottom of Aristazabl Island. On the east side of Aristazabl Island there are 2 very  dangerous rocks known as Wilson and Moorhouse. Campania Sound is also a very treacherous body of water from Dupont Island to Hecate Straits.

There are many rocks and to name a few, Bortwick, Cort, Ness, Evans, Cliff and Janion also Yares Shoal. This area is a minefield of reefs. These rocks are spread out between Rennison Island, Banks Island and Campania Island. This route would be extremely dangerous to tanker traffic. Using the Otter Pass route, Nepean rock becomes a very prominent problem for ships’ travel.

Should a major oil spill occur I feel an oil boom would not be able to contain it because of the velocity of the current in this area and the oil could travel 20-50 miles in one 6 hour tide. This area is not the Mediterranean or a lagoon.
 
If a spill occurred in Laredo Channel the herring spawning area at Kitasu Bay to Price Island could be totally destroyed, possibly forever. The eel grass which the herring need to spawn on could be wiped out. Some years over 10,000 tons of herring spawn in this area.
 
A spill at freshet time would be the  most devastating. Due to the differences of its viscosity, salt water is heavier and would be lower and the fresh water being lighter, becomes a shallow layer at the surface. The juvenile salmon live in this fresh water layer as they  migrate to sea. The juvenile salmon jump like raindrops and if they were migrating in a spill area the oil could wipe out an entire run. Some streams could become barren of salmon.
 
I have tried to point out, so people know, the dangers of the entire marine area and what could happen if there is ever a spill. I have spent my entire life around Princess Royal Island and the vicinity.  I personally am totally opposed to the Kitamaat  terminal for oil tankers.

A spill on the coast is inevitable and the consequences horrific.

What must we do?

Let’s not pussyfoot – there must be and will be civil disobedience. This will be a long way from civilization thus will require careful planning.

First, we need a “ways and means” committee to galvanize the huge number of angry citizens and to start, I would recommend that First Nations and all environmental groups come together.

It’s impossible to get groups to amalgamate because each has different specialists. The fact is, however, that all environmental groups and, at last count, 131 First Nations   are all against this pipeline/tanker traffic.

It would be wrong of me to second guess what recommendations would be made by such a group, although I have a suggestion – create a ‘Club” called the I’LL BE THERE CLUB, meaning that the member will be part of the protest.

Secondly – and here I would ask First Nations to lead – we must formulate a plan to protest when construction begins and as it goes along. I call upon First Nations leadership because they are already well organized and deeply committed.

It will take time – and leadership.

The time to start is right now.

My new book, The Home Stretch which outlines what various religions have to say about Souls, Near Death Experiences and how they think they’ll get us the best deal. The book is online and can be downloaded on your computer, Kindle, Kobo or iPad from www.kobo.com or www.kindle.com at the ridiculously low price of $9.99

Share

Budget: Harper Govt. Goes After Charities who Question its Resource Development Plans

Share

Read this story form the Hill Times on the Harper Government’s intention laid out in its recent budget bill to go after charities who are critical of its oil and resource development plans. (March 29, 2012)

Opposition MPs say a surprise allegation in the federal budget that Canadian charities are violating federal rules limiting their political advocacy is retribution for widespread opposition from environmental groups to the massive Northern Gateway oil sands pipeline across British Columbia.

PARLIAMENT HILL—Opposition MPs say a surprise allegation in the federal budget that Canadian charities are violating federal rules limiting their political advocacy is retribution for widespread opposition from environmental groups to the massive Northern Gateway oil sands pipeline across British Columbia.

The obscure provision in the budget Thursday to beef up the Canada Revenue Agency’s “enforcement tools” to monitor political activities of charities demonstrates the partisan nature of the Conservative government, opposition MPs said.

NDP MP Megan Leslie (Halifax, N.S.) told The Hill Times the measure is one of several provisions that show the budget, aside from its main thrust of public service spending cuts, is all “pipeline, pipeline, pipeline.”

“The over-arching theme here is this is a budget for the great pipeline to China,” Ms. Leslie said. “This is about pipelines, pipelines, pipelines, and at any cost.”

“Whether it is going after charities, who might have a different opinion, cutting the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy and cutting Environment Canada and not relying on science and evidence, or whether it’s going after the Environmental Assessment Act and weakening it, that’s what this budget says to me, it’s all about pipelines,” Ms. Leslie said.

The reference to political activities of charities was a needle in the haystack of the budget’s total $5.2-billion in broad spending cuts the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) is proposing for the next three years, with a projection that the spending reductions, combined with other economic forecasts, will result in a surplus by 2015, the next federal election year.

But the measure was so unexpected at the traditional pre-budget lockup for journalists that Reuters news correspondent David Ljunggren asked Finance Minister Jim Flaherty (Whitby Oshawa, Ont.) about it at a news conference before Mr. Flaherty tabled the budget in the Commons, asking Mr. Flaherty why the budget was putting the “tax police” on charities.

“We’re not making any changes in the rules relating to charities, we are providing some resources, some additional resources for enforcement of the rules by the Canada Revenue Agency,” Mr. Flaherty said.

“Quite frankly, we’ve had a lot of complaints and concerns expressed by Canadians that when they give money to charities they expect the money to be used for the charities purposes, not for political or other purposes,” he said.

“This not black and white, because the Canada Revenue Agency permits a small percentage of dollars to be used for advocacy and other purposes, but there is clearly a need, in our view, for more vigilance, that charities obey the rules as they are now,” Mr. Flaherty said.

The main budget document noted charities are allowed to engage in political activities, centered primarily on advocacy, as long as the activities are related to their charitable goals and represent a limited portion of their resources—no more than 10 per cent for larger charities.

Read more: http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2012/03/29/feds-attack-charitable-sector-in-budget-for-being-too-political-say-opposition/30234

Share