Category Archives: Canada

Image: Angus Reid Public Opinion

BC NDP Widens Lead in Latest Angus Reid Opinion Poll – In-depth Analysis

Share

New Poll results: NDP up to 42% while Liberals drop to 28%, Conservatives flat at 19%, Greens flat at 10%

It is clear now from four consecutive opinion polls that BC politics has entered a new phase, and that partisan support has shifted into a radically different paradigm.

The main change happened late last year when about 12 per cent of decided voters departed from the BC Liberal Party and joined the newly-revived BC Conservative Party (not necessarily all by membership of course); meanwhile support for the BC NDP was up only slightly and for the BC Green Party was down slightly.

Now the latest opinion poll from Angus Reid Public Opinion shows that that new paradigm has held and even increased in the last three months, most notably with a widening gap between the NDP, now up 2 to 42%, and the Liberals, down 3 to only 28%, which in an election held now would produce a large majority for the NDP; but also important is that support for the Conservatives went sideways, up only 1 to 19%, and for the Green Party was up 2 to only 10%.

That new paradigm of plunging Liberals, rising Conservatives and steady New Democrats first appeared in an Angus Reid poll last November and then was highlighted in two polls by Forum Research, one in December and another last month, and now they have been confirmed by the always-reliable Angus Reid firm, which surveyed 800 of its online panelists Jan. 27 to 29 and claims a variability of 3.5%.

That pattern – which shows up well in a colored graph contained in the report, which you can download here – suggests more than a few voters have lost hope that BC Liberal Party Premier Christy Clark will make major changes from the style and substance of her predecessor Gordon Campbell, who she replaced last March, and they instead have turned to the Conservatives, who jumped from about 5% to about 20% soon after former Member of Parliament John Cummins became their leader.

Clark has lost her edge, pollster notes

“The governing party is now losing a quarter of its 2009 electors in 2009 to the BC Conservatives, and Clark has lost her edge on issues like crime and the economy,” said Mario Canseco, the polling firm’s Vancouver vice-president, noting it’s the first time the Liberals have been below 30 per cent since Campbell announced his resignation in November 2010.

The Liberals’ support recovered to about 43% during the party’s leadership campaign but once Clark took over in March 2011 the support drifted down to 31% last fall and now has gone further down to 28% – apparently because Clark wasn’t moving fast enough to repair problems left by her predecessor, notably to extricate BC from Campbell’s (tainted) Harmonized Sales Tax deal with Ottawa but also dealing with many other troubled areas.

A stats table shows that the Clark Liberals are now holding on to only 60% of their 2009 voters, with 27% having gone to the Conservatives and another 10% to the NDP, while the NDP is holding 88% of its voters and only 5% have gone to the Conservatives and only 2% to the Liberals. [Maybe those two NewDems were attracted to the Liberals by that sterling stallion MLA Kash Heed once he was “exonerated” from the illegalities in the Vancouver-Fraserview campaign??]

Keith Baldrey of most-watched GlobalBC-TV described that as “a very deep dark hole” for the Liberals but he and other pundits tend to agree that there is still lots of time for such things to change again before the May 14, 2013 provincial election, such as maybe some floor-crossings by disgruntled Liberal backbenchers or moves by other MLAs (the Legislature resumes sitting on Feb. 14) and/or calls to replace Clark with someone stronger or better-liked, though right now really no one else stands out who would be better.

Vancouver Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer also was damning, noting Clark “has failed to deliver a fresh start” and failed on certain other promises she made during her leadership bid, such as connecting more with young voters.

“The Liberals are misreading the mood of the public,” added SFU’s Doug McArthur on CKNW’s Simi Sara Show, noting they need to and probably will make some changes and work harder to develop a more positive forward-looking vision.

Meanwhile, a closer look at some of the poll’s breakouts shows that NDP leader Adrian Dix was wise to downplay the significance of this poll even though it shows him for the first time as best choice for Premier (26% to 22% but with a massive 40% undecided), his approval rating climbed to the top too (45% to Clark’s 40%) and his “momentum score” (net change in approval) was up a healthy 6 points while Clark’s crashed 24 points.

Clark still tops Dix on the economy

That prudence by Dix was appropriate because a breakout in the report shows Clark still leads Dix as the leader best-suited to deal with the two most important policy areas, the economy and federal/provincial relations, which another table shows are by far the most important issues in the minds of voters: Economy is at 27% and Health Care at 21% and all the rest such as leadership, poverty, tax relief and crime are well below 10% and fed-prov is not even mentioned – but note that Health Care qualifies as a federal-provincial issue IF you assume that federal-provincial negotiations are critical to the future funding of health care, which is a fair supposition given that that was virtually the only agenda item considered when the Canadian Premiers convened last month in Victoria following Ottawa’s unilateral move to fundamentally change the health care funding formula in years ahead.

On the economy Clark tops Dix by 24% to 23% and on federal-provincial relations she leads by 27% to 21% (perhaps reflecting how she hosted Prime Minister Stephen Harper at her son’s hockey game recently) while on Health Care Dix leads by 33% to 20% which probably reflects that the NDP gets a lot of support from health and social service workers who were hammered by the Campbell Liberals.

In other words, the crux of BC’s partisan politics remains the same as always: how best to manage the economy so that the people can afford top-notch health care. That is the issue on which Campbell dominated the NDP for a decade, and it is still the case for Clark.  Though Dix is helped by having been seen to have been an excellent official critic of Health for his caucus, he still obviously has some work to do on the business and investment climate, job creation, Crown corporations, taxes, finances and related issues – perhaps especially how job creation could be linked to environmental protection and delivery of more new social services for an aging population [with a new style of care facilities needed to reduce costs and caseloads in hospitals].

[And by the way, though it wasn’t mentioned in the survey, Dix has also been doing a better job of running his caucus, which is subtly evident in the way several critics and MLAs have recently sounded more confident when they stepped forward to comment on issues in their policy areas, which suggests they’ve been given more freedom than under former leader Carole James.]

Stats suggest Liberal attack ads backfired

Probably one of the more important or at least interesting findings in the poll is that the attack ads the Liberal Party ran against Dix, labelling him as risky Dix and pointing people to a “risky Dix” website, failed to turn around his momentum and actually may have even helped raise his profile and further help him by triggering a few sympathy votes, perhaps especially among women, an amazing 47% of whom now support the NDP compared to only 24% for the female-led Liberals. Among men it is 37% NDP, 32% Liberals and no aberrations for the others.

In other words, women voters are flocking to the NDP now even after the party ousted its female leader!

On the age breakout there are only a few standout statistics, such as young voters showing Liberal support low at 23% and Green support high at 19%, and plus-55 voters (i.e. “seniors”) showing NDP 40% (a bit below what it should be), Liberals 31% (their best age segment) and Conservatives 22% (probably the core of that party).

The Household Income breakout is interesting and entertaining too because the NDP is dominant in all three categories, low, middle and high! On incomes below $50,000 it’s NDP 47 to Liberals 24, from that to $100,000 it is NDP 39 and Liberals 32, and on $100,000-plus it is NDP 43 to Liberals 30 and the other parties not notable.

In other words, even people in the top income bracket now prefer the NDP!

Clark’s decline due mainly to lack of changes

Why has the Liberal support suffered such a fall-off?  The problem really goes back to the Campbell Liberals’ grossly-tainted election win in May 2009 after which Campbell became a virtual despot trying ever-more-extreme schemes to hide and suppress the reality that he had badly botched the management of many many important areas all around the public sector and furthermore that in order to win the 2009 election and thereby keep hiding the scandals he had to lie about the government’s finances, cheat to win some seats in the election and then impose the harmonized sales tax to try cover up how he had cooked the financial books.

The full gist of that is only now beginning to be grasped by the electorate, and few in the mainstream media have yet articulated that let alone have critics in other parties dared say it even when they enjoy the protection of Parliamentary privilege, but anyway the polls show that that view of Campbell’s terrible record is now a key entrenched fact of public opinion, aided greatly by the petition and referendum victory against the HST.

Some of the other Angus Reid break-out tables provide interesting and useful insights into why Clark’s ratings dropped, such as who and where Clark has been losing, but they don’t offer much hope of a turnaround anytime soon with her disapproval at 49% and approval at 40% with a not-sure of only 11%.

Regarding how views of Clark had changed in the last three months, 36% said they had worsened while only 12% said they had improved, only 42 per cent stayed the same and only 10 per cent were not sure – which has to be one of the worst quarterly drops for a Premier in BC polling history.

Dix climbed despite attack ads

By comparison Dix’s score fell by 16%, which probably reflected some effects of the Liberal attack ads; Green Party leader Jane Sterk worsened by 15% (probably reflecting her decision to not run candidates in two pending byelections); and Conservative leader Cummins declined only 7% while having a huge “not sure” score of 34%.

Looking at Dix’s scores, he had the top approval at 45%, a substantial disapproval at 36%, he worsened among 16% but improved with 22% and stayed the same with 49% and had a “not sure” of only 13%, which would seem to be a fairly healthy maturation for a new leader of a left-leaning party and much better than for the other three leaders but still not enough yet to ensure a win for him in the next election.

In the regional breakdown there are only a few stats that stand out, such as the NDP’s dominance on Vancouver island at 51%, their solid lead in the North and their competitiveness in the Interior – and no weakness anywhere. (That Island finding should be of some interest to the Forum researchers who claimed that Dix had a problem of low recognition there.)

Read the full Angus Reid report here.

John Twigg is an independent journalist based in West Vancouver and a former long-time member of the Victoria Press Gallery. He can be reached at john@johntwigg.com.

Share

Enbridge, Harper and Consequences for Speaking Out

Share

Did Prime Minister Harper threaten Tides Canada with “consequences” if they didn’t stop funding supporting campaigns – specifically that of ForestEthics – against the Enbridge Pipeline project?
 
ForestEthics says so, which is enough to have all Canadians, no matter what their stance on this issue or others, demand the Prime Minister make it clear that all Canadians, subject to the Criminal Code of Canada, have a constitutional right to say what they please on all issues, big and small – without consequences.
 
I have had experience with this. Back in 1992, when the Mulroney government was shoving the Charlottetown Accord at us, I was one of a very few people in the media that was opposed and said so with a passion.
 
One day my “mole” in the Conservative caucus – and at the same time a national media person – told me that Mulroney was going to retaliate against me by having me face a tax audit. I went on the air the following morning and reported this on the hope that this would discourage such a threat. Whether it worked or not I cannot say – I can say that no such audit was ordered.
 
The information I was given may not have been accurate but the sources were such that I felt very vulnerable.
 
(Before going on let me say that in those days I was making a lot of money from different places and had one of Canada’s best tax accountants, Russ Wilson, handling my affairs, as he still does. As with anyone making that kind of money there are always “grey” areas so that a tax audit could simply stop you cold in whatever you were doing until their audit was over. Ask any small business person what that kind of interruption can do…These days, an old man, I make very little money, have no pensions other than OAP and CPP, and we travel on our kids’ inheritance, so I’m not much of a legitimate target.)
 
I raise this issue because there is no end of ways a government can hassle you with “consequences” but this is a very effective one.
 
The “consequences” Tides Canada would pay, as I understand, would be taking away their charitable tax status, and by extension, their ability to support other environmental organizations and their own affiliate groups like ForestEthics. In the environmental field there are a number of very competent active and effective groups who have such an exemption, without which they simply couldn’t function.
 
The government doesn’t have to take away the exemption – all they have to do is threaten to do so, “or else”.
 
Let me be clear: I do not say that this will become Mr Harper’s way of shutting us all up. I have no evidence to support such an allegation other than the Tides/ForestEthics matter.
 
What I do say is that this sort of tactic has been used before – in the Richard Nixon days it was common.
 
What I also say is that the pipelines/tankers issue is shaping up to be a huge fight with the Harper Government, the oil and tanker businesses and most of the business community lined up against ordinary citizens and distinctly unwealthy environmental groups and spokespeople.
 
We who stand resolutely against the ruination of our environment also have the mainstream media against us. It’s a daunting task yet what I read and hear every day is support from ordinary, decent British Columbians who are undaunted by this huge array of corporate and government power.
 
The collision between Mr. Harper and the people of British Columbia is being made more certain by every assurance the PM gives to companies and governments that the gunk from the Tar Sands will be available to them. Every utterance from him and his Resources Minister Joe Oliver makes it clear that environmental hearings are nothing more than a nuisance and should be cast aside so we “can get on with it”.
 
I have left the biggest issue to the last: First Nations. The federal government has many financial arrangements with First Nations. Will there be “consequences” for the 131 Chiefs who oppose the pipeline/tanker plan from the heart; from the depths of their long heritage?
 
We are en route to a very serious collision and the purpose of this article is twofold: warn the public about how governments in the past have fought issues and demand from Prime Minister Harper that he state clearly and unequivocally that dissent on this or any other issue will not come “with consequences” from him and/or the federal government.
 
If we cannot have that assurance, look for serious consequences for people who put their environment, their treasures, the very soul of this province ahead of ruining it by people outside our province, who don’t give a fiddler’s fart for our feelings about our land and rivers and flora.
 
We are listening, listening very hard Mr Harper, for your clear unequivocal statement that we can oppose your plans without “consequences”.

Share

Vancouver Sun on City’s Firing of Planning Director Brent Toderian

Share

Read this story from Jeff Lee of The Vancouver Sun on the firing of the City of Vancouver’s director of planning, Brent Toderian. (Jan 31, 2012)

This morning Frances Bula, the former Vancouver Sun reporter who now freelances for The Globe and Mail, used anonymous sources to break the story of Toderian’s firing.

Council has since ratified Toderian’s termination, and everyone from Mayor Gregor Robertson and Ballem on down are being nice in how they describe what can only be described as a major change, both for Toderian and for the city. (See Ballem’s internal memo and the public statement below.)

Toderian told me in a telephone conversation that he was surprised by his firing and that it was done “without cause”. That precludes a wrongful dismissal suit, but it also preserves his much-valued integrity because his termination comes down to a difference of opinion, rather than a messy split. It has cost the city plenty: at least one year’s salary at more than $200,000.

As can be expected, people have weighed in on all sides about what caused his departure and what it means in the long term.

Toderian is brash, hard-nosed and ambitious. That style created among some developers, architects and community groups. But that Type-A personality was also in direct conflict with at least one other similar personality, that of Ballem, who has consolidated decision-making under her reign.

Read more: http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/01/31/brent-toderian-fired-as-vancouvers-director-of-planning/

Share

“Adversaries” and “Allies” of Tar Sands Named in Harper Government Strategy Documents

Share

Read this report from CBC.ca on federal government documents recently obtained by Greenpeace that show the Harper Government listing off “allies” and “adversaries” to the Tar Sands. (Jan. 31, 2012)

The federal government considers the media, the biodiesel industry and environmental and aboriginal groups “adversaries” in its attempt to advocate for Alberta’s oilsands, according to documents obtained under access to information legislation.

Energy companies, the National Energy Board, Environment Canada, business and industry associations, meanwhile, are listed as “allies” in a public relations plan called the “Pan-European Oil Sands Advocacy Strategy.” It is dated March 2011.

The documents were obtained by Greenpeace Canada and Climate Action Network and released to the media on Thursday. The groups say Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government is working hand-in-hand with the oil industry to silence critics.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/26/pol-oilsands-campaign.html?cmp=rss

 

Share
When will BC NDP Leader Adrian Dix take a firm stand on Enbridge and Kinder Morgan?

Time for Dix to Take a Stand on Pipelines and Tankers

Share

This is an open letter to NDP leader Adrian Dix and his Energy Critic, John Horgan.
 
It’s time, gentlemen, to pee or get off the pot.
 
The issues of the proposed Enbridge pipelines and tanker traffic on our coast demand your immediate statement of policy.
 
In order that there be no misunderstandings, here are the facts, gentlemen – not assertions or opinions but plain simple to understand facts:

  1. A spill from both pipelines and tankers is a dead certainty.
  2. There is no way these spills can be cleaned up.
  3. The record of Enbridge is appalling.
  4. First Nations, be they on the coast or along the proposed pipeline right of way are opposed – 131 of them.
  5. Neither the federal government nor Enbridge have considered the real possibility of terrorism or vandalism.

The pipelines, one to take the bitumen to Kitimat and the other to take gas condensate back, traverse arguably the last untouched rain forest on earth. It’s certainly as rugged and remote from civilization as anywhere else.
 
Unlike other pipelines Enbridge has built, the route for the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline crosses the rugged, mountainous terrain of the Northern Rockies and the Coast Mountains of British Columbia. Enbridge has no experience in this sort of terrain – most likely because no other government has been so stupid and uncaring as to give them or anyone else a right-of-way. The pipeline would cross some 1,000 streams and rivers, including sensitive salmon spawning habitat in the upper Fraser, Skeena, and Kitimat watersheds. Five important salmon rivers that would be impacted are the Stuart River, Morice River, Copper River, Kitimat River and Salmon River.

Surely you must be shocked to know that this pipeline is to be constructed by Enbridge which, since 1998, has had 811 “accidents”. The bottom line is, gentlemen, that this project would, beyond any doubt, have spills in terrain inaccessible except by helicopter, which spills would have a disastrous and permanent impact on our beautiful province.

There is nothing Enbridge can do after a spill – they can’t get there. Certainly no heavy equipment could be taken there and, even if it could, the damage will be permanent.

A useful step would be to look at the situation in the Kalamazoo River where Enbridge had a leak in July 2010 which has not been cleaned yet and never will be – the damage is forever. (You will note that Kalamazoo, Michigan is not deep inside rugged mountains.)
 
Let’s look at tankers on the coast.
 
Again, a spill is a mathematical certainty, certified as such by Environment Canada, scarcely full of radicals. Double hulling will help diminish the number of spills but they still are a certainty. In the past two years 4 double hulls have sunk.
 
Just as a luxury cruise ship can run aground in broad daylight under sunny skies and kill 29 people, a tanker will spill. And the consequences will be horrible.
 
Then there is the Kinder Morgan line into Vancouver. I’m not in a position to compare the old Trans -Mountain line with the proposed Enbridge line nor compare the consequences of a leak. What I can say is that there will be leaks – as there were earlier this week near Abbotsford and in Burnaby before that – and the spill will be permanent. With a tanker accident in Burrard Inlet and the Strait of Juan De Fuca, surely you can visualize the calamity that would mean to the Gulf Islands and southern coast of Vancouver Island and to the North Arm of Burrard Inlet and Vancouver Harbour itself.
 
Again, gentlemen, we are not talking risks but certainties.
 
Mr. Dix, Mr. Horgan, what more do you need for you to speak out in firm commitment from you and the NDP condemning the proposed Enbridge pipeline, the tanker traffic out of Kitimat, the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline and tanker traffic through and out of Vancouver?
 
I wish to speak plainly. There are many who think that the Common Sense Canadian supports the NDP.
 
We do not – we stand for a political commitment against the catastrophes I have described. That commitment cannot fairly be inferred from snippets of criticism, but only by you, Mr. Dix, declaring your firm opposition to these certain pipeline/tanker disasters.
 
If you don’t take a firm stand, what is to differentiate your position from that of Premier Clark?
 
 

Share

Rafe Tells Harper and Oliver He’s Ready for the Bulldozers

Share

Joe Oliver, Harper’s Resources minister, is a dangerous man. Indeed so is Harper. They have flung down the gauntlet, essentially saying that violence is the inevitable consequence of BC not taking the Enbridge Pipeline, the consequent tanker traffic, increased capacity and tankers for the Kinder Morgan line – with only a grumble or two from bitching NDP types.
 
What should really get our juices jumping is the statement that environmental hearings should proceed speedily and obstacles removed from these projects. it obviously being unthinkable that they could stop them.
 
That is ill-disguised code for, “Listen you assholes, we don’t give a damn about the public process – just get it over with so we can get on with the construction. It doesn’t matter that this monstrous Tar Sands gunk is to be transported through your pristine forests, mountain and streams – get on with it.”
 
“Pay no attention, peasants, to the fact that Enbridge has had over 800 spills since 1998 and that experience shows that the mess can never be cleaned up.”
 
“Disregard your stupid bloody salmon – if Newfoundland can get by without cod, you can get by without salmon and, come to think of it, if you have adult seals, there must be pups somewhere to bludgeon and we’ll find a subsidy for you.”
 
“There’s lots of money there for First Nations so stop bringing them into the discussion – as soon as we find out what their price is we’ll pay it and get on with it…why we in the federal government have been dealing with these savages, er First Nations, since 1867 and they trust us.”
 
“And who gives a damn that the people in BC are against these projects – we run things here!”
 
I oppose violence with every remaining sinew in my body but I’m saying to Harper and Oliver that violence is what their policies will bring. I haven’t had a fight since about Grade VII and I lost that one but I can tell you that I’m prepared to stand in the way of that first shovel and take the consequences. And I say to you both that you’re making a mistake if you think you can do these things without very serious consequences.
 
There is no middle way, Prime Minister – this Tar Sands gunk has to go by train or truck through Alberta to Houston because it isn’t coming though BC or through her waters.
 
Do you understand what this issue means to us, Prime Minister?
 
Look what happened in Alberta with the National Energy Plan! There were no environmental hazards involved, just money. The country was shaken to its roots by this policy and the Tories could only get into government and stay there by promising to tube the program.
 
That policy was politically inconsequential compared to the pipelines and tankers.
 
Think on this Mr. Harper: the roar from BC has not come about from the lack of money accompanying the pipelines – because it’s not about the money – yet you tell us a bunch of barnyard droppings about the billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. Even if that crap was true we’ll not be bought off.
 
You talk as if First Nations will no doubt succumb to a billion dollar bribe and act as if this is just a money game and that you simply haven’t reached high enough for them.
 
What if you’re wrong, Mr. Harper – even you must consider the possibility of error. What then? Do you expect the First Nations to do nothing?
 
I believe you are dead wrong about our First Nations and you’re a damned fool if you simply go into your Ottawa shell and pull the covers over your head.
 
Prime Minister, you seem to be oblivious of the damage you’re doing.
 
The province of BC knows that these hearings are phoney but in a curious way they help us because they give people a place to vent their feelings and come together for the fight.
 
We know that you couldn’t care less that Enbridge has had 811 “accidents” since 1998. But take a moment, Mr. Harper, to check out the July 2010 Enbridge spill in Michigan’s Kalamazoo River; compare that geography with ours and you’ll see that there is no way Enbridge could do anything about a spill in British Columbia, even if they could get anything to it. It’s a problem of nature that not even you and Mr. Oliver can do anything about. Bitumen, because of its viscous nature, is like black ooze – you can’t get rid of it.
 
We know from experience that spills from tanker accidents last for decades.
 
MOSTLY WE KNOW WE KNOW THAT ON LAND AND AT SEA, ACCIDENTS ARE NOT RISKS BUT CERTAINTIES.
 
You must know these things too, Prime Minister, so why are you doing this to us?

Share

Harper Govt Recieves Funding From Same US Foundations That Fund Enbridge Opposition

Share

Watch this video from CTV News reporting that several federal government programs receive charitable funds from some of the same US Foundations who support of Canadian anti-Enbridge campaigns. (Jan. 24, 2012)

OTTAWA — Rich American foundations are not only footing the bill for opposition to Canada’s oilsands.

Tax returns show the Canadian government has also been the beneficiary of millions of dollars in largesse from some of the wealthiest private organizations in the United States.

And some of that money came from the same U.S. groups that helped fund Canadian environmentalists.

The grants to the federal government come to light as Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and the pro-oilsands website EthicalOil.org take Canadian environmental groups to task for accepting money from big American foundations to finance their campaigns against the oilsands.

Share

Whistleblower’s Affidavit Says Harper Govt. Threatened Tides Foudation and ForestEthics Over Enbridge Opposition

Share

Read this story from The Winnipeg Free Press on the case of a recently fired whistleblower’s contention that the Harper Government threatened Vancouver-based charitable organization the Tides Foundation with shutting down all its charitable operations if it didn’t cut off funding to ForestEthics – for its work opposing the Enbridge pipeline. (Jan 24, 2012)

A former employee of an environmental group critical of a proposed oilsands pipeline says the Prime Minister’s Office threatened a funding agency if it didn’t pull its support for the group.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper denies the allegations.

In a sworn affidavit released Tuesday to The Canadian Press, Andrew Frank says he was told by his supervisor at ForestEthics that a PMO official had referred to their organization as an “enemy of the state.” The affidavit describes how staff were told their jobs were at risk after the official told Tides Canada, which supports the work of ForestEthics, that the government would “take down” all of the agency’s projects unless it cut ForestEthics loose.

Tides gets most of its money from private foundations and funds a wide array of social and environmental charities in Canada — from Big Brothers and Big Sisters to the World Wildlife Fund. It also partners with major corporations and governments, including federal government agencies.

Frank was fired from his job as communications adviser at ForestEthics on Monday over his plans to go public.

Read more: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/arts-and-life/life/greenpage/affidavit-accuses-prime-ministers-office-of-threatening-environmental-charity-137994418.html

Share

Should BC Have a Referendum on Enbridge?

Share

If there’s one thing above all politicians hate it’s democracy. For God’s sake, we can’t have the rabble have a say in decisions! Let them do this once and we’ll never get to run the province again! They believe that we live in a parliamentary, representative “democracy” which means that we hire people, called representatives, to do our thinking for us and take decisions in our name.
 
Any thinking citizen knows that the public, for many reasons, cannot grapple with all the issues and email a vote on each one. The theory of our government, runs the mantra, is that at election time we can throw those we disagree with out on their duffs. That, at any rate, is the theory.
 
In practice that doesn’t happen, which means that a government does what it wishes – subject only to elections every four years at which time new issues cloud the old.
 
There is a way that the public can be consulted: a referendum. This is a tool used in many different ways, under different systems – sometimes as a method to get rid of a politician, sometimes to eradicate legislation, sometimes only to go to governments as popular advice.
 
I believe there are issues of such importance that the voter must be called upon to render its opinion and I say that the Enbridge pipelines and tanker traffic are just such issues.
 
On the national scene, in 1992 we had a referendum on changing our constitution when the government could have sought approval of the provinces. This vote was held because the issues went to the root of our social contract.
 
The referendum resulted in heavy debate in the country, especially in BC. Canada turned down the proposed agreement with BC by far the biggest “no” vote.
 
In BC recently we had a referendum on the HST. It was easy to handle on the technical side and the public made its decision.
 
Whether or not that vote was an example of a debate that went to the root of our system of governance is debatable but I give you an issue that clearly does. I refer to the proposed twin pipelines to Kitimat, the subsequent tanker traffic and the expansion of the Kinder Morgan line and its increase in tanker traffic on the south coast. This package of policies to bring bitumen to our coast and ship it by tanker does indeed present a permanent change in policy on an issue that certainly goes to the root of our way of life.
 
That these Enbridge pipelines will leak is now beyond debate and it’s crystal clear that even if the company does get to a spill in wilderness BC, there is nothing it can do – the damage will be permanent. It’s the same, we surely must agree, with a tanker spill in our coastal waters. Enbridge has an appalling record, over 800 spills since 1998. Moreover, apart from temporary jobs in construction and a handful of permanent jobs, BC gets nothing for being the overland conduit for the highly toxic bitumen from the Tar Sands.
 
Prime Minister Harper and his Resources Minister Joe Oliver are talking about this all being a done deal.
 
Does the destruction of our environment not seem to you to be a matter we the public should have a say in?
 
In making this case I understand that it would not disturb First Nations land and other claims.
 
Let’s be clear on this – Prime Minister Harper hasn’t any time for democracy.
 
Because these issues are so important, Premier Clark should hold a referendum but she hasn’t the courage – she’s afraid to threaten Harper on the HST and of more concern, she wants Harper to withhold all support for John Cummins at the local level. That should be easy since Harper and Cummins loathe one another.
 
So to Premier Photo-Op: Madam, BC has jurisdiction over its coastline so let’s have that referendum.
 
Oops! I nearly forgot – is the debate I proposed between you and me on our environmental policy a go?
 
Surely you, with an entire government behind you, can’t be afraid of taking on an old man who would only bring to the debate all he has left – a fire in his belly!
 
Back to business – will you have a referendum and let the people decide what must be the law concerning pipelines and tanker traffic in this province of ours?
 
If not, why not?
 

Share

Breaking: Obama to Reject Keystone XL Pipeline Today (But Will Allow TCP to Re-apply with Different Route)

Share

Read this story form the Washington Post, which reports that Obama is expected to reject the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline today. (Jan. 18, 2012)

The Obama administration will announce this afternoon it is rejecting a Canadian firm’s application for a permit to build and operate a massive oil pipeline across the U.S.-Canada border, according to sources who have been briefed on the matter.

However the administration will allow TransCanada to reapply after it develops an alternate route through the sensitive habitat of Nebraska’s Sandhills. Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns will make the announcement, which comes in response to a congressionally-mandated deadline of Feb. 21 for action on the proposed Keystone pipeline.

Read original post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/2012/01/18/gIQAwoVE8P_story.html

Share