Category Archives: Canada

Hydro Chief’s Leaked Comments Trash IPPs – What Will Clark Do Now?

Share

I have called it the Campbell/Clark government because that’s what it is. Premier Clark was in on the beginning of most policies including the disastrous energy plan that sees private power companies (IPPs) destroying our rivers to produce power for BC Hydro which it doesn’t need and must take anyway, bringing Hydro to the brink of bankruptcy. (In the private sector BC Hydro would be bankrupt, except as a Crown monopoly it can always pass its grief over to us the ratepayers.)

You could have blown me over with a feather when I read in the Weekend Sun excerpts of an internal conference call in which Dave Cobb, president of Hydro, condemns the government’s IPP policy. A recording of the call – which occurred August 12, on the heels of the recent panel report on the utility’s financial situation – was leaked to the paper. Cobb pulled no punches, detailing his concerns with the government’s exaggerated “self-sufficiency” and “insurance” requirements:

“‘If it
doesn’t change, it would be hundreds of millions of dollars per year
that we would be spending of our ratepayers’ money with no value in
return,’ said Cobb. ‘The way the self-sufficiency policy is defined now…would require us to buy far more long-term power than we need…I think they’re going to make a major change there, which will
significantly reduce the amount of power we will be buying from
independent power producers and anybody else,’ he said. ‘Government has
to make a change.'”

 
I found myself asking why this headline story, so clear about the IPP financial millstone around Hydro’s neck, was not reported after the panel report and why, last week the once intrepid columnist, Vaughn Palmer, dealt with this panel report, noting Hydro’s financial grief at considerable length without even mentioning IPPs.
 
In the Weekend Sun report, much coverage and a picture of Paul Kariya dealt with the responses of his Clean Energy Association of BC and their appallingly shallow concerns. Whatever these industry apologists may say their concerns are, you can be sure that the interests of British Columbia are not amongst them. The Clean Energy Association is the private industry in drag, and refuses to tell us where they get their funding. NB the name – with the clear influence of George Orwell’s 1984 the association calls itself precisely what it is not.
 
It’s hard to believe that Minister Coleman had any advance warning of this conversation – it was, after all, a leaked conversation and at any rate, deliberately leaking a policy change of this unbelievable proportion is not Coleman’s style.

What’s the government going to do now? It can hardly fire Mr. Cobb and deny the truth of what he said for no one would believe that for a moment. Clearly, Mr. Cobb didn’t make this all up but was concerned that his staff would be caught by surprise and wanted to give them a heads up. If Mr. Coleman doesn’t fire Mr. Cobb, he might just as well have made the statements himself.

That this is the government’s unannounced (yet) policy makes political sense, insofar as one can make sense out of the appalling Campbell/Clark energy policy because the policy will kill them in the next election and they know it. It also explains why (I have this on the best authority) the industry big wigs were lower than a snake’s belly when they got the panel report last week and why it was when I met Mr. Kariya coming out of the CBC last Monday morning, he was so defensive and uneasy.

One thing’s for sure – the cat’s out of the bag, and to mix metaphors, the contents of Pandora’s box can never be put back.

The question for the Premier is obvious and simple: What now, madam?
 
The issue is in the public domain and will be a big time political issue.
 
Here’s where Premier can separate herself from the disgraced Gordon Campbell and put her own brand on her government while stealing a march on the NDP.
 
It will take guts to do what is right and Ms. Clark must bite the bullet and announce the end of IPPs and clearly state that it’s for two reasons: the environment and the Energy Plan itself.

She does this in several ways:

  1. She revives the Ministry of Environment, giving true power back to it – naming someone tougher than Barry Penner, who was indeed the longest serving Environment Minister and, sad to say, the worst. The issuance of permits to desecrate the environment must be returned to the Environment Ministry to be dealt with by a minister who has the courage to care about the environment before considering those who want the permit.
  2. She must announce that henceforth the Precautionary Principle, when dealing with those who need permits to encroach upon the environment, will be paramount. This principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action. No longer must the onus be on the public or environmental organizations or their spokespeople.
  3. She must squarely face the fact that Hydro is in deep trouble and can only be saved by abandoning private power.

This is hardly the full picture because of the Ministry of Transportation running roughshod with highways over wildlife preserves and agricultural lands, and the proposed pipelines and tanker traffic.

The premier’s eminent grise, Patrick Kinsella, will be appalled but Ms. Clark, who has active political antennae, knows that Families and Children will not be the big election issue but that BC Hydro and the environment will be.

Ms. Clark, in order to extract the government from the devastating policy of Campbell must understand and face the hell, fire, brimstone from her corporate backers and lose election funds if she does what I suggest.

The decision will mark clearly whether the premier is just another pretty face or a leader the people of BC and generations to come will mention her name in gratitude… or if she remains a Campbell clone and one can fairly call her administration the CampbellClark government.

Share

Attorney-General Barry Penner Resigns from Cabinet to “Spend Time With Family”

Share

Read this story from CBC.ca on the sudden and unexpected announcement by BC Attorney-General Barry Penner that he is stepping down from his cabinet post and will not seek re-election in his Chilliwack riding.

“His resignation from cabinet is already effective, but a new attorney
general has not yet been appointed by Premier Christy Clark. Penner will continue sitting as an MLA until the next election is
called, but said he expects the nomination process to find a new
candidate for the party in the next election to begin soon.” (Aug 18, 2011)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/08/18/bc-penner-resigns.html

Share

David Suzuki in Georgia Straight: Science Needs to be Independent

Share

Read this op-ed by David Suzuki in the Georgia Straight on the muzzling of DFO’s Dr. Kristi Miller and the need for science to be able to do its job for the public, without political interference.

“This is just one sign that science is playing second fiddle to political
concerns in Canada and the U.S. Recently, we’ve seen more “muzzling” of
scientists, funding cuts, and an increasing disregard for science in
policy-making and public conversation. The U.S. has seen calls to
abolish the Environmental Protection Agency and the rise of climate
change deniers in national politics.” (Aug 16, 2011)

http://www.straight.com/article-425056/vancouver/david-suzuki-science-must-be-free-political-interference

Share

Times-Colonist: Politicized Science a Growing Problem in Canada

Share

Read this piece in the Times-Colonist about the muzzling of scientists in Canada from sharing their findings with the media and public who fund their work.

“Politicians of all stripes need to remember that it’s our government,
not theirs, and that only those with something to hide suppress and
control information. Politicians have the right – the responsibility – to decide what to do with the message, but not to muzzle the messenger. ” (August 13, 2011).

Share

Hydro Report: Death Knell for BC’s Public Power?

Share

This will be a short blog because the point is simple…and devastating.
 
Mark down August 12, 2011 as the day BC Hydro all but concluded its suicide mission, with the Campbell/Clark government and the Review Panel playing the role of Dr. Jack Kervorkian.
 
When you sort through the announcement by Rich Coleman and the verbose report itself, you learn that BC Hydro will cut its future costs by 50%, which in practical terms means this: Hydro will be unable to upgrade its facilities and build generators on flood control dams which means they will buy more and more power from more and more private power producers – which is surplus to their needs – buggering up more and more rivers and streams, thus fulfilling the Campbell/Clark government’s ambition to privatize power in BC.
 
BC Hydro, in taking all this unneeded power from Independent Power Producers (IPPs), must either export it or use it instead of its own vastly cheaper power. This means that BC Hydro will use power at at least double what it can make it for or export it at half to a quarter what they were forced to pay for it. Last year Hydro wasted $600 million buying IPP power it didn’t need – that money was our money, folks.

This comment on the report by former BC Hydro board chair and SFU political scientist Marjorie Griffin-Cohen. She said that the review – which also called for the utility to cut its proposed 50% rate hikes by half – distracts from the utility’s real problem: that  the real burden of cost is the government’s policy on private power. “Basically, what they have required to happen in BC is for new power generation to be in the private sector, BC Hydro to buy that and their hope was that this could spur exports of electricity to the United States,” she said.

“It was a very serious miscalculation of what was going on. So what we have now is a lot of private power that is extremely costly.”

Griffin-Cohen said private power projects produce 16 per cent of domestic power, but account for 49 per cent of energy costs. (emphasis added)
 
The much esteemed SFU professor and energy economist Marvin Shaffer had this to say:

“The real story in the review panel report, although gingerly and cautiously stated, is that it is government itself which bears major responsibility for driving up BC Hydro costs and rates. It was the government that directed BC Hydro to acquire all new sources of energy from Independent Power Producers (IPPs) except in the refurbishment of existing projects or developments like Site C on existing BC Hydro-controlled river systems. (emphasis added)

It was the government that legislated self-sufficiency requirements that have forced BC Hydro to buy more power than it needs to ensure reliable supply. It was the government that imposed debt/equity provisions that exaggerate the cost of BC Hydro financed investments. And it was this government that raised water rentals in a way that directly affected BC Hydro and its customers, but that would not impact private power producers, including Alcan and Teck.
 
Anyone who’s run a household budget knows that leads to the poorhouse and bankruptcy.
 
What this means is that the Campbell/Clark government, as advised by the right wing Fraser Institute, see their dream come true – the end of public power in our province with the ruination of our rivers in ever increasing numbers.
 
We at The Common Sense Canadian have been saying this for close to two years and as individuals nearly four. I have faced audiences all around the province and have seen disbelief in the faces of the audience saying to me, “No government would do anything so stupid!” Well they have and are about to make it worse.
 
BC Hydro is the egg that’s become the omelette. The dice were cast and they turned up snake-eyes. The Campbell/Clark government privatized BC Ferries and BC Rail and now it’s moments away from privatizing power by bankrupting our crown jewel – the much coveted BC Hydro and Power Authority..
 
The story Damien and I and many others including our adviser, economist Erik Andersen, have been telling since 2008, has been difficult to believe.
 
Well, folks, BELIEVE IT!!!

Postscript – to Vaughn Palmer and Mike Smyth – repeat after me: “The problem with BC Hydro is the massive sweetheart deals made with private power companies where under Hydro must buy ever increasing amounts of power at a huge loss.” Now, having spat it out, PRINT IT!

Share

Gov’t spending $100,000 plus on PR site renovations

Share

Article by Sean Holman at Public Eye Online. “According to records obtained by Public Eye via a freedom of
information request, Pennsylvania-based After6 Services LLC. received
$55,441 to setup the software powering the new ‘Digital Hub BC
Newsroom.’

“Another $43,085 will go to Liberal-connected Backbone Technology Ltd.
That includes the $16,685 the company has already received to design
the hub and another $2,000 per month to host the site.

“Backbone Technology is the same firm that has worked for the BC
Liberals since 2001, setting up a private intranet for its executive, as
well as the party’s Website.”

Share

The BC Liberals and the “Family” Issue

Share

What do families have to do with the
environment?

Quite a bit, actually.

The Campbell/Clark government is
looking for an issue to run on and the Family is the answer the backroom boys
and girls have decided is the best one.

This decision is sure as hell not
based upon the government’s great successes in this ministry. In fact
they have been a near disaster if not a full one. Mind you, in fairness, this
isn’t the area that’s good to any government and the NDP had its
share of problems but the point is simple – why would the C/C government
run on a failure?

Easy – everything else has been
worse.

Let’s start with law and order,
a favourite for all rightwing governments. The major problem here is BC Rail.
This is where the Government put the fix in and settled the Basi-Virk bribe
case just as Gordon Campbell and former Finance Minister Gary Collins were to
give evidence.

The first version by crown counsel
Bill Berardino was that he had made the deal all on its own, then it was with
the Deputy Attorney-General – then it had the Deputy Finance Minister
involved and before you knew it, it was obvious that the whole cabinet had to
be in the know. Crown Counsel looked bad thus so did the entire A/G ministry.

What then about fiscal probity?
Surely the Liberals could claim that here’s where the Campbell/Clark
government shone as it made the NDP era look so bad.

Unfortunately for them, it did the
opposite as all the yardsticks by which you gauge these matters, the NDP look
like paragons of fiscal prudence by comparison. The only evidence that the
Liberals did well was the bullshit they peddled.

Let’s look at two areas, the
2009 fudge-it budget.

You will recall that in 2009 the
Liberals presented a nice rosy “election budget” which went a long
way towards painting themselves as fiscal geniuses especially compared to that
wastrel NDP. The trouble was that the budget was a falsehood by over $1 BILLION
dollars.

And how they explained it took the
breath away. Why, how were they to know that there was a world wide recession?

Apparently they hadn’t heard of
the financial meltdown the previous year including a stock market crash.

To fudge a budget then win an
election based upon their ignorance of what the rest crown counsel is one thing – to pretend that
you, a self declared fiscal genius, didn’t know what everyone else in the
world knew takes the breath away.

The HST scarcely needs further
comment except that the Campbell/Clark government lied through its teeth as
became obvious when we learned that then Finance Minister Colin Hansen had, two
months previous, been given a report by his ministry telling the minister what
a bad deal it was.

What about “health” as an
issue?

Every opposition loves this issue
because they would have been much better but governments know better and avoid
the issue like the plague.

Well, then, what about the
environment? Surely Pat Kinsella and the boys have lots to work with here?

Everywhere in this broad field has
been a self created disaster for the C/C government starting with fish farms.
Ignoring all the scientific evidence, the government took its advice from a
discredited DFO “scientist” and fish farms prospered decimating
wild salmon runs in the bargain. While the debate from our side of the issue
talked about penned fish escaping and the horrendous damage done to migrating
wild salmon now an even bigger threat has appeared – disease from
contaminated eggs from Norway which all but wiped out the fish farm industry in
Chile. The Campbell/Clark government have made a bad idea into a catastrophe.
Not a good election issue.

Then there is the energy plan which
gives the creation of power to private companies that not only bugger up the
rivers used, but have the sole power to make electricity which BC Hydro must
buy at a time they don’t need and loses huge sums of money, $600,000,000
last year alone. In the bargain, this policy has all but bankrupted BC Hydro and
bids fair to do that in the near future.

This doesn’t look much like a
good election for the C/C government does it?

Then we have the matter of the
installation of Smart Meters by BC Hydro which will spend a billion dollars on
it – in essence using taxpayer’s money without their MLAs having the
right to ask questions. In addition to the cost, and indeed more importantly,
there is a substantial health risk which, again, will not be debated in the
Legislature. The Campbell/Clark government shows as much concern about the
health of citizens on this issue as it did for the folks in Tsawwassen with
overhead power lines.

Then there are the Sea-to-Sky and
Gateway projects where the Ministry of Transportation has been aggravated by
the government’s haughty attitude which was so well articulated by then
Transport Minister Kevin Falcon (who is the second most powerful in the
government) when he said: the Chinese “don’t have the labour or
environmental restrictions we do. It’s not like they have to do community
consultations. They just say ‘we’re building a bridge’ and they move everyone
out of there and get going within two weeks. Could you imagine if we could
build like that?”

With
the Sea-to-Sky upgrading, Falcon rode roughshod over the protests of citizens
of Eagleridge who wanted to preserve significant and sensitive wild preserves.
With the Gateway Project, the C/C government has not only endangered wildlife
preserves and Burns Bog, it’s taken whatever farmland they want without a
care.

You ask, then, why is the
“family” according to Premier Clark the big election
issue?

Because no matter how lousy this
issue is for the government, the others are all worse.

Share

Shades of Green – Don’t worry, Be Happy

Share

“Don’t worry, be happy” is the refuge of the deceived and the oblivious, the
attitude that people assume when they fail to recognize the reality of their
situation.

“Trust us,” says our federal government. “We are planning the future of all Canadians so we care about the environment.” Meanwhile, it subverts international agreements on greenhouse gas emissions, assiduously avoids discussion of any environmental issues, silences scientists in its employ, eliminates hundreds of them in a budget cutting program, and inflicts a 43 percent funding cut to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, one of the rare federal bodies that stands between responsible development and ecological havoc.

“Trust us,” says our BC government. “We will protect the environment and subject all projects to rigorous environmental examination. Since we are the custodians of the land, water and air, we will ensure that no damage occurs to the ecologies that sustain us all.” Meanwhile, BC’s Auditor General, John Doyle, issues a scathing report about the abject failure of the BC Environmental Assessment Office to monitor and enforce the few regulations it is assertive enough to require.

“Trust us,” say the corporations, “we will look after you with jobs and prosperity. We will protect your environment and your future.” Indeed. The salmon farming industry respects BC’s pristine West Coast so much that they use our waters as a dump for the sewage from their open net-pens, and they honour the natural ecology so much that they scare away marine mammals and expose wild salmon to the plague of farm-source sea lice and diseases. Enbridge is so protective of BC’s wilderness that it is willing to build a 1,172 km oil pipeline that will inevitably release oil into our pure rivers and lure the offshore tankers that will inevitably spill oil into our coastal treasure.

“Don’t worry, be happy” is the implicit message from our governments and corporations, working together to bring us a prosperous future. “We are in control, we know what we are doing,” they contend. “Together we will lead you to a Promised Land of endless prospects and great profits. The tomorrows will always be better than the todays if you will follow our course of progress, believe in the rewards of perpetual growth and suppress the urge to be doubtful and critical. Remember that environmental concerns are impediments to the glorious destiny that awaits us all.”

Maybe modern Germans have an insight we should pause to reflect upon. In an time of unparalleled national prosperity, they are in a funk. Notes Stephan Grunewald, a Cologne-based psychologist, “The Germans have at the moment a mood, a feeling that things can go to pieces, a feeling of being in a situation in which one is completely incapable of action” (Globe & Mail, June 25/11). This feeling of helplessness and powerlessness, this angst in a time of plenty, is a curious paradox rooted deeply in an undifferentiated anxiety. “People no longer believe in this culture of accumulation, they no longer believe in growth…. Nuclear power, speculation, Greece, these all strengthen their feeling that things cannot go on like this. There is a kind of vacuum of meaning” (Ibid.).

Nuclear power is not a British Columbian or a Canadian issue – although the Canadian government has recently divested itself of the Atomic Energy Canada Limited. Neither is the financial situation in Greece. But European and American monetary issues do trouble Canadians because the entire world is financially interconnected. And we have our own disquieting issues – nationally, provincially and locally – that we are not confronting honestly, openly and sensibly. A summer of record heat and rain, of storms and flooding don’t seem to have budged the delusion that all is normal with our planet’s weather – in just one province, Manitoba, fires have caused $700 million in damages and floods have inflicted $2.5 billion in crop losses. “Don’t worry, be happy” is an obliviousness that must eventually awaken to reality, just as local communities must awaken to the reality of stuffed landfills, polluting mines, old-growth logging, threatened wild salmon and badly supervised fish farms.

The German epiphany, an awakening we need here before we lead our communities, province and country into China’s ecological mess, is that the freeway of perpetual growth leads to a chasm without a bridge. Everything is getting bigger, faster, more complicated – and worse. “Don’t worry, be happy” is the illusion of well
being propagated by our governments and businesses, the engineered psychology of avoidance which doesn’t want anyone to notice that key elements of Earth’s ecology are rapidly degrading, unraveling or collapsing. The signs have already entered our consciousness if only we were attentive enough to heed them. A few glib lines in a Maclean’s article about colonizing space with bacteria to ensure the continued existence of life in the universe is a clue. “The world is doomed. Even if we avoid annihilation by climate change or nuclear holocaust, the inevitable expansion of the sun will surely do us in” (Maclean’s, July 25/11).

The sun’s threat is not likely to materialize for about 500 million years. But a nuclear holocaust could be as immediate as tomorrow. And a world doomed by climate change is within a few decades of near inevitability. Would massive species extinction or acetic and dead oceans garner any more attention? Shouldn’t the mere hint of any such threats elicit a panic alert and a reflexive cold sweat of fear in anyone conscious enough to register the meaning? Wouldn’t the normal and sane response be spontaneous riots in the streets and frantic marches to the seats of government to counter such a course of madness?

Unless, of course, “Don’t worry, be happy” has created its charm of indifference and cast the spell of numbness that treats impending environmental catastrophes as casually as any two-for-one sale or discontinued fashion line. The result is a tragic reversal that has inflated the trivial and trivialized the momentous.

Share

“Is Scientific Inquiry Incompatible with Government Information Control?”

Share

This title is quoted from a publication by Jeffry Hutchings, Carl Walters and Richard Haedrich, back in May of 1987. Their paper dealt with government control of science information in regard to the cod fish crisis in the Atlantic Ocean, and the Kemano Completion issue in B.C.  Now, almost 25 years later, their title question is still appropriate when we consider the control of public communication by Dr. Kristina Miller, a DFO scientist at the Pacific Biological Station in Nanaimo. The control is in regard to her public discussion of her (and co-author’s) highly technical paper on genomic signature and mortality of migrating Sockeye salmon (Science, pages 214-217, Vol. 331, 14 January, 2011). The muzzling of this scientist originates primarily in the office of the Prime Minister of Canada, far more than in the DFO bureaucracy.

I have read the paper and it is unclear to me why there should be any reluctance on the part of government, at any level, to having such research discussed with the public. It is even less clear to me why Dr. Miller is constrained from discussing such work until after she appears before the Cohen Inquiry in late August. Her work is already open to the scientific community through publication in the prestigious journal, Science. To the extent that Dr. Miller and co-author’s work on wild salmon in the Fraser River may provide help in sustaining them, it should be open to the public now. Science should not be used for playing political games.

When one considers the behavior and record of governments, over the years and at the  very “top end”, there is cause to wonder what the real commitment is, deep down, in regard to sustaining wild salmon. The bitter history of issues such as Alcan/Kemano, salmon farming, and Fraser River gravel mining underlie such concern. In each case there appears to be an unspoken policy of business and industry first, and wild salmon and their environments second. Salmon-friendly measures such as the “wild salmon” policy and “no-net-loss” principle are positive, however, they seem to have less weight than they should when big business is involved.

Such doubt and concern has “big roots” as far back as the mid 1980s in the Kemano completion issue. A major element of debate involved the allocation of adequate flows in the Nechako River for the Chinook salmon population that reproduced there. Full review of this unfortunate part of history is not possible in a limited space. A listing of the chronology of events is given in my paper in the publication (GeoJournal, October 1996, Volume 40, nos. 1 & 2, page147 – 164).

A deeper and harsher indication of the misuse of scientists and their work is given in the Brief to the B.C. Utilities Commission Review Panel by Dr. J.H. Mundie (The Kemano Completion Project: An Example of Science in Government, 50 pages, February 1994).              

  • Dr. Mundie tells of the Schouwenburg report, the joint year-long work of about ten scientists, being buried. This report contained the best advice the scientists could offer regarding required flows for salmon in the Nechako River.
  • He reviews how DFO scientists and managers were told that the minister accepted Alcan’s prescribed flows as adequate.
  • He reviews how a group of DFO people and Alcan consultants, over a four day weekend period, came up with a program to make Alcan’s dictated flow regime work.
  • He testifies to his being pushed, unsuccessfully, to change his expert witness document regarding flows required for salmon.
  • He quotes the minister’s statement in regard to scientists who were concerned about the Alcan/Nechako River process, they should either agree with him, or “take their game and play elsewhere.”    

Except for the need for brevity, the experiences of other scientists could be added to this section. This history is not presented to re-acquaint people with the whole controversial history of the Alcan/Nechako episode. It is touched on to indicate that little has changed during about the last 25 years in the way governments manage science and scientists.

Organizations like DFO contain many very talented and dedicated people. The public does not gain the full benefit that they might offer in the present politicized and bureaucratized system. Both the public and the public servants deserve better.

As for the Fraser River salmon, they face a difficult and uncertain future even if only the freshwater environment is considered. It is a future marked by change and complexity. The complexity involves interaction of climate, flow regimes, thermal and forest cover changes. Added to these are, expanding human populations, water abstraction, pollution, and competing demands for catch.

There is urgent need for a structure that can focus on these major challenges now and into the years ahead. Such complex and expanding challenges cannot be dealt with without scientific knowledge. Whatever the Cohen Inquiry might do, it is not a substitute for science now, and into the future.  

Beyond the provision of knowledge, we need a structure that allows the public to know what the scientific findings and advice are. We need a structure that permits thoughtful public response and feed-back to such information.

If political people must over-ride science for reasons of “greater societal good”, which they have every right of do, let them do so openly. Then let them also explain it openly, rather than trying to shape and manipulate science, through the bureaucracy, to serve political or business ends.

G.F. Hartman, Ph.D.,

August 2011


Share