Category Archives: Canada

Electoral Reform: An Unfinished Conversation

Share

The recent federal election has once again reignited debate about the need to reform our voting system and a “National Day of Action for Electoral Reform” has been called for May 14.
 
The current first part the post (FPTP) system creates majority governments despite the fact the majority of voters do not vote for the winning party, and it denies seats to political parties that gain significant popular support at the ballot box.
 
In this past federal election, the Conservatives won 54% of the seats in Parliament with the support of less than 40% of voters (only 26% of the registered voters). The 60% majority of Canadians who did not want a Conservative government are left with only the hope that Prime Minister Harper will honour their vote by incorporating some of the Opposition’s ideas into his agenda.
 
In the 1996 BC election, the NDP won government despite the fact the BC Liberals got the majority of votes, causing the BC Liberals to become advocates for electoral reform.
 
In 2001, the NDP were reduced to 2 seats in the Legislature, despite still obtaining 22% of the vote.  With a proportional voting system, the 2001 election would have resulted in the NDP winning 17 seats and the Green Party 9 seats.
 
Enter the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform – a result, really, of both parties having experienced the distorted outcomes of the FPTP system in back-to-back elections. The Assembly recommended that BC adopt a Single Transferable Vote (STV) system which would allow voters to rank multiple candidates on election day (a preferential ballot), require successful candidates to get over 50% to win a seat, and ensure everyone’s vote counted.
 
The 2005 and 2009 BC Referendums on STV were unsuccessful – however, in 2005 British Columbians clearly signalled they wanted a change in their voting system.
 
Recently, both the BC NDP and the BC Liberals used a preferential ballot during their leadership contests. The Liberals even used a weighting system to balance the rural/urban vote and required their members to select a minimum of two candidates in order for their ballot to be accepted.
 
If you believe all British Columbians should be allowed to mark preferential ballots, that we need to finish the conversation the Citizens’ Assembly started, please get engaged in this week’s day of action for electoral reform.

Bob Simpson is the Independent MLA for Cariboo-North – http://www.bobsimpsonmla.ca/

Share

Rafe on Christy’s Narrow Win, Looking Forward to General Election

Share

What, if anything, do we read into Premier Christy Clark’s narrow win in the by-election?
 
In one sense it can be said that the only important thing is that she won, but that isn’t so. Of significance is the low turnout. The only example I can give is ancient history, namely 1981 in Kamloops, arising out of me resigning my seat to go into radio. The general consensus was that Claude Richmond of the Socreds wouldn’t be able to beat Howard Dack. As I was in radio doing political matters I didn’t campaign for Richmond.
 
Claude Richmond won a handsome victory with a good turnout (incidentally, the last time prior to yesterday that the ruling party won a provincial by-election). No one could deny that this was a vote supporting the government. Premier Clark’s election by such a small margin does indicate a message to the government. How strong or important that message will be assessed by the usual suspects, of course.
 
The next piece in the jigsaw puzzle will come from the HST referendum which will largely be a referendum on the government.
 
There’s another event, actually non-event which gets into the mix, namely the celebration of Campbell’s “great” decade of leadership. The excuse for not doing so when Ms. Clark became leader was that it would detract from her moment of victory. For a party whose policy depends upon a steady stream of lies, this comes as no surprise. One would have thought Ms. Clark would be delighted to have the premier on stage with her in her great moment.
 
The truth is obvious: Clark wanted as little association as possible with badly damaged goods. The very last thing she wanted was general circulation of pictures with Campbell giving her smiling hugs and kisses.
 
You will remember that on that night we were told Mr. Campbell’s night would be at the forthcoming Liberal Convention and that the reason he wasn’t there was that he was out of the country.
 
Well, it turns out that gathering directorships is time consuming because – Lo! And behold! – he will still be gathering at Convention time. Again, one doesn’t have to be a mensa member to realize that Gordon Campbell is about as welcome at Liberal shindigs as a cow at a Christening.
 
Premier Clark will be much occupied with calling a snap election to “get a mandate” from the people. This is an odd concept for the parliamentary system where we don’t elect leaders but Members of the Legislature from whose party comes a leader. This is more than just lip service to the system but goes to its very core.
 
If, perish the thought, back in 2003 Gordon Campbell had suffered a heart attack instead of going to jail for drunk driving, the caucus would have selected a new leader and the government would have carried on. In fact, if anyone should have called an election for a new leader it would have been after Campbell had done his time in durance vile.

As one who would like to see the back of these bastards sooner than later, an early election will be just fine. Two more years is just more time for voters to forget about BC Rail, Basi-Virk and wholesale corruption, a fabricated budget and the HST disgrace – so let’s vote before our traditional amnesia sets in.

Premier Clark wants us to see her on her own record and I say let’s do
just that and remember the BC Rail scandal and remember that she was in
the midst of it and said not a word about it when an “independent”
journalist.
 
I say to Premier Clark: I believe that the sooner the public can pass judgment on you and your record, the better.

Share

Cohen Inquiry: Fishy Commission Blackout

Share

From the North Shore News – May 11, 2011

by Elizabeth James

“The Cohen Commission is a public inquiry, not a
matter of security. Yet the more the commission delves into why the
Fraser sockeye are in trouble, the more the federal government tries to
suppress the proceedings.”

Alexandra Morton, Biologist, April 30

Two
days before Canadians elected the federal Conservative Party to the
majority it coveted, biologist Alexandra Morton sounded an alarm about
the perils of giving the Conservatives outright control of the House of
Commons.

The timing was unfortunate because voters were in no
mood to elect a fourth minority government in less than seven years, so
the alarm stood little chance of affecting the eventual seat count.

That does not lessen the significance of the warning.

As British Columbians should have learned, when any party governs with a large majority it pays to monitor its activities.

So
given that Morton’s concerns go to the issue of the public’s right to
know, eyeing the progress of the prime minister’s Commission of Inquiry
into the decline of sockeye salmon in the Fraser River would be a good
place to start.

Led by the Hon. Bruce Cohen, a justice of the
Supreme Court of British Columbia, the inquiry has been underway for
more than a year.

As a long-time researcher and advocate for the
preservation of wild salmon stocks, Morton was granted standing as a
person with a “substantial and direct interest in the subject matter of
the inquiry.”

No matter her standing, Morton is prohibited from
releasing any information about the proceedings — even though she
believes withholding the information poses a risk to wild salmon.

The
terms of reference set out in the order-in-council that established
the inquiry, require the commissioner to, “. . . follow established
security procedures, including the requirements of the Policy on
Government Security, with respect to persons engaged under Section 11
of the Inquiries Act and the handling of information at all stages of
the inquiry.”

Those legal constraints caused Morton to write in
her email of April 30: “To access the commission’s database of
documents provided by participants, including the salmon farming
disease records, I was required to sign an undertaking that I would not
disclose those documents until they became part of the public record
as an exhibit. I believed that was reasonable in respect to the
database.”

But Morton balked when commission counsel expanded the
blackout to include its ruling on her application to be released from
her undertaking “on a limited basis” to allow her to relay information
she believed was “urgent and required by law to the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA) in respect to a very significant risk to wild
salmon.”

I can only echo Morton’s concerns by asking: What do salmon disease records have to do with government security?

I
am likely to be drenched in legalese answers to that question but will
go even further: How can the terms of reference for an inquiry into
the decline of fish in the Fraser River be allowed to trump the
legislated requirements of Health Canada, the CFIA and the B.C.
Ministry of Health?

Because, taken
together, the regulations of those agencies require that they be
notified immediately of any disease outbreaks or imminent threat to
safety of the food we eat and the water we drink.

The findings of the Cohen Commission are not due to be concluded and made public until spring or summer of 2012.

Following
the logic of the commission’s terms of reference, if a similar inquiry
were to be held on, say, the decline of tuna stocks, or on farming
methods for cattle or chickens, would we be expected to wait a year or
more to discover we were being exposed to hazardous levels of mercury,
or to mad cow disease or avian influenza?

My bottom line is
this: If retailers are allowed to sell farmed salmon then, as a
consumer, I have a fundamental right to know what I am putting in my
mouth.

The precedent for that right is seen everywhere on food
safety labels that provide lists of ingredients and warnings that read,
“This product may contain. . . .”

Yet Morton can only say, “No comment”?

I
don’t care if some government official — elected, informed, or
otherwise — has decided high levels of sea lice pose me no harm, or
that the diseases for which farmed Atlantic salmon have been or are
being treated with unnamed substances cannot be transmitted to human
beings.

Nor do I accept the commission’s equivalent of “No comment; it’s before the courts.”

Fish play a significant role in my regular diet.

So
apart from my desire to support efforts to preserve a miraculous part
of British Columbia’s wild heritage, I have a right to know what I’m
eating — now, not later.

Read original article

Share

Bottling that Magic Salt Spring Formula for Future Elections

Share

I had the pleasure to speak alongside salmon biologist Alexandra Morton to a packed house at the Fulford Hall on Salt Spring Island this past weekend. There, I was introduced to one of my childhood musical mainstays, Raffi, who was in the crowd – before the show was kicked off with a performance by BC music legends Bill Henderson (of the band Chilliwack) and veteran folk singer Valdi. Knowing some of the list of other musical greats who make the island their home (think Randy Bachman), I suggested they consider trademarking it as “Music Capital of Canada” – which wouldn’t be a stretch at all.

They could also just as legitimately lay claim to “Democratic Capital of Canada”. After all, it was these folks who led the country by a mile in voter turnout in the recent federal election – sending the first ever Green MP to Ottawa in the process.

Upon his sizeable loss to Elizabeth May (almost 11% in the final tally), veteran Saanich-Gulf Islands Conservative MP and former cabinet minister Gary Lunn lamented that he only lost because May had 2,000 volunteers working for her. How unfair of her! Clearly, she didn’t get the memo that she was supposed to wage her electoral battle with money alone and thereby lose to her well-funded Conservative opponent. Next thing you know, right after killing per-vote party subsidies, Stephen Harper will pass legislation declaring volunteerism illegal.

Enjoying my breakfast the following morning at the Harbour House Hotel – which derives much of its produce from an organic farm that’s part of the operation – I leafed through a copy of last week’s local paper, the Driftwood. On the cover was a picture that told the whole story. It was a shot from inside a pub on the island, where many of May’s supporters had gathered to watch the election results – taken at the moment her victory was declared. The crowd is staring up at a television monitor out of the shot – every one of them beaming with pure joy. 

This was the moment the pundits said was impossible – the moment they had worked so hard for – and there it was, unfolding before their very eyes.

It was refreshing to enter this strange land, somehow immune to the doldrums much of the rest of the country is mired in following the election of a Conservative majority government by just 24% of eligible voters. Not that these folks aren’t deeply concerned about the direction our country appears to be headed – it’s just that they know they got something right here. They are the silver lining in this whole situation. What interests me is how they did it and how we can learn from what they achieved – because contained in that success is the code for changing at least part of what’s wrong with our politics these days.

Granted, we can’t get to the root of the problem without electoral reform, and the prospect of that – short of a significant nationwide movement over the next four years – is slim indeed. But the other major democratic deficit we face is voter engagement and turnout. While that has a lot to do with voters’ disenchantment with the system itself, there’s more to it than that – proved by this particular result, as by the Orange Wave of the NDP.

So what is it that really worked here in the Saanich-Gulf Islands riding? Sure, it’s the 75% voter turnout – compared with the second place riding of Victoria with just 68% and a national average of 61%. But that didn’t just magically happen. It has to do with the army of volunteers the May campaign mobilized – 2,000 of them altogether. A full 700 came from Salt Spring, which represents a relatively small population share of the riding. A number of these folks who were at our show described to me how they would routinely take the ferry over to Vancouver Island and go door-knocking in the more populous neighbourhoods of Saanich – one community inspiring another in the riding to get on board. And it worked.

I also think you have to acknowledge the intelligence and sincere charisma and energy of May – a compelling leader who also worked her butt off for this richly deserved success. This last point speaks to the need for strong progressive candidates the public can believe in and rally around, which is far too seldom the case. And yet, these people are out there – we just need to get more of them running for office. 

What’s also interesting to me is that Saanich-Gulf Islands is hardly Vancouver-East; it’s a well-to-do riding that elected right wing Lunn (under Reform, Alliance, and Conservative banners) in five consecutive federal contests. But they somehow seem able to balance economic and environmental concerns here in a way few communities can. They run successful, sustainable local businesses and they get that it doesn’t have to be a choice between jobs and the environment – that both can complement each other if done in a thoughtful way. I learned it’s the only place in the province with a regional government system – the Islands Trust – with a mandate to “preserve and protect the area and its environment for the benefit of residents and the province.”  So they have some other lessons to teach us as well.

There may well be many unique characteristics to this place, but what happened here doesn’t have to be an anomaly – provided we can replicate that formula around the province and across the country. And we will need to do that in BC – potentially very soon – to supplant this Campbell/Clark government that is undoubtedly a far greater direct threat to the environment and public interest in our province than Harper and co.

Alexandra has been quoted in a number of papers recently as feeling pretty down after this recent election (who can blame her) – so a trip to Salt Spring was just what the doctor ordered. Even on a short visit, a little of that positive energy rubbed off on both of us.

Now we just need it to rub off on the whole country.

Share

Point Grey By-election: How quickly Christy Clark has forgotten her radio host roots

Share

From the Globe & Mail – May 8, 2011

by Gary Mason

Not that long ago, Christy Clark the radio host would have had a field day with Christy Clark the politician.

Before
Ms. Clark became B.C. Premier in February, she often delighted in
putting politicians on the hot seat during her afternoon time slot. Her
inquisitions were often so hard-hitting, listeners felt sorry for the
poor elected official on the other side of the microphone.

Were she still sitting in her host’s chair today, it’s difficult to
imagine Ms. Clark accepting now-Premier Clark’s excuse that’s she’s “too
busy running the province” to participate in an all-candidates debate
in the by-election in which she is running.

Ms. Clark has done a
number of commendable things in the short time she has been Premier. Her
populist instincts, no doubt honed during her time in radio, are
exceptional. And she has surrounded herself with a team of advisers that
has demonstrated an undeniable adeptness in pushing the right buttons.

But
the Premier’s decision not to enter at least one all-candidates debate
does not reflect well on her. In fact, it’s a position that demonstrates
a fair amount of contempt for the Point Grey voter.

No space in
her schedule for a two-hour debate? Really? But she does have time to
throw on an apron and pretend to be a waitress for a couple of hours?
This, we’re told, so the Premier could “spend a bit of time walking in
someone else’s shoes.”

Please.

It was a cynical and crass
publicity stunt designed to draw attention to the government’s decision
to raise the minimum wage – a move for which Ms. Clark deserves full
credit. It should have happened a long time ago under the Liberals. She
didn’t need to sully a good public policy decision with a blindingly
transparent, carefully orchestrated photo-op purely intended to accrue
positive publicity.

The Premier has no more appreciation now of
the life of a person living on minimum wage than she did before she and
her political strategists decided it might be good for her numbers if
she served coffee for a couple of hours in a diner. Ms. Clark makes
nearly $200,000 a year, plus benefits most people can only dream of.
Spend a year on minimum wage, Premier, and your fact-finding mission
might not look quite as patronizing.

But back to the debate.

By
now, Christy Clark the radio host would have asked Premier Clark what
she is afraid of? Why she is refusing to put her candidacy up to the
scrutiny of an all-candidates debate? Especially given that the Premier
campaigned during the Liberal leadership race on a promise to be more
open and transparent. What does she have to lose?

The answer is more than the other guys.

That
is why Ms. Clark is not debating; because she has more to lose than
anyone else in the debate, especially NDP candidate David Eby. She would
inevitably be asked questions that would be uncomfortable. (About her
connections to the BC Rail scandal, perhaps.) Plus, a debate would only
serve to give Mr. Eby publicity that he is having trouble generating on
his own. So why give him that platform?

The answer is because it’s
the right thing to do. When you run in an election, you are expected to
field questions from your opponents. It is a crucial test of your
candidacy. It is practically a fundamental tenet of our democratic
system. You don’t say you don’t have time because you’re the Premier. If
you can’t find two hours in your schedule to attend an all-candidates
meeting, how do you expect to represent the riding once you’re elected?

I think those are all questions Ms. Clark would have asked during her radio days.

To
this point, the Premier has received little grief from her former
colleagues in the media for the stand she’s taken. So she’s probably not
concerned about the issue hurting her chances of winning.

She has
mostly been spending her time being out front of a number of popular
and populist announcements that we’re likely to see plenty more of in
the coming months. Her recent decision to cancel parking fees in parks,
while not a huge deal, was smart. As was her edict to cancel
controversial rate hikes being planned by BC Hydro.

There is almost certainly an election coming this fall, so it should be all good news, all the time until then.

At
this point, it’s uncertain in whose shoes the Premier intends to walk
next – as she’s promised. Maybe she’ll slip out of her power suit and
high heels to become a homeless person for an hour.

And then afterward she can meet her friends at the Four Seasons for dinner and tell them all about it.

Read original article

Share

Saanich-Gulf Islands tops turnout with 75 per cent

Share

From the Vancouver Sun – May 5, 2011

by Chad Skelton

VANCOUVER – The B.C. riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands, which made
history Monday by electing Canada’s first Green MP, is notable for
another reason: It’s the only riding in B.C. where more than
three-quarters of eligible voters cast a ballot.

Overall, 61.1
per cent of eligible voters in B.C. cast a ballot, up slightly from 60.1
per cent in 2008. That mirrored a national uptick in voter turnout to
61.4 per cent from 58.8 per cent in 2008.

Voter turnout rates vary
significantly from riding to riding. Saanich-Gulf Islands had the
highest turnout at 75.2 per cent, followed by Victoria at 68.4 and North
Vancouver at 67.6. Richmond had the worst voter turnout at 50.7 per
cent, followed by Surrey North at 51.9 and Fleetwood-Port Kells at 53.4.
In addition to topping the voterturnout rankings, Saanich-Gulf Islands
also saw one of the biggest jumps in turnout this year, a 4.8-point
increase from 70.4 per cent in 2008 -no doubt partly due to the Green
party’s chances in the riding. The biggest increase in turnout, though,
was in Prince George-Peace River, which saw turnout jump a full five
points to 53.9 on Monday from 48.9 in 2008. Abbotsford, another safe
Conservative seat, saw the biggest drop in voter turnout, falling to
53.9 per cent from 59.5 per cent in 2008. For a detailed graphic showing
voter turnout in each B.C. riding, plus plenty of other interactive
charts and maps, go to vancouversun.com/papertrail.

Read original article

Share

How the Federal Election Reshapes BC’s Political Landscape

Share

It’s been a few days now since our momentous federal election and I’m trying to make some sense of it from the environmentalist standpoint.
 
The good news is, of course, the election of Elizabeth May – even though as one lone voice in parliament she can do little in any formal sense.
 
She can be effective at getting her message out both in question period and “debate” if the media want her to get coverage. They will certainly cover her activities so long as she keeps matters interesting. It’s the old “dog bites man/man bites dog” rule of journalism. As long as Ms. May can give the media interesting stories, her work will be reported.
 
I hope that the Green Party can increase its size and influence but it would take a braver man than I to ever see them for Official Opposition, much less government. We at the Common Sense Canadian will, it goes without saying, offer time and space to Ms. May and any other political parties or candidates who pledge to preserve our environment.
 
It’s an interesting situation re BC’s political scenario. BC doesn’t usually mirror federal political experiences. In fact it’s often the reverse. I was involved in a provincial election where there was a national election as well. I was astonished to see lawn signs supporting me as a Socred provincially and the NDP nationally. Manitoba and Saskatchewan are famous for this sort of vote splitting.
 
Interestingly, there was huge joy both at Tory and NDP post-mortems. Each saw their results as voter support of their party – and it was. What will become of the Liberals is for another day.
 
I suspect that there was great joy in both the BC Liberal and NDP camps. The Liberals will declare that what happens nationally to the Liberals doesn’t affect them, though I must churlishly remind Premier Clark that this wasn’t her view in the campaign. The premier will no doubt see this as a great victory for capitalism – Fraser Institute variety – and be tempted to have an early election to take benefit of the BC voter’s lurch to the right.
 
Except that’s not what happened. The Tories popular vote was up about 2% and the NDP up about 6%. Indeed, on those results the NDP is the one that should be antsy for an election, especially if either/both the Tories and BC First parties gain some traction.
 
The results are, sad to say, good news for those who want more fish farms, more private power, more pipelines and more oil tanker traffic. At least on the surface, for we’ll never really know how British Columbians feel about these issues until they are issues in a provincial election.
 
Unless Premier Clark is that rare politician that wants citizens to be fully informed before going to the polls, she will call a snap election in hopes that British Columbians will not be fully informed on these issues.
 
We mustn’t lose sight of the fact that the environmental catastrophes I mention are not offset by great financial gains – quite the opposite.
 
Fish Farm profits go mainly to Norwegian shareholders, while the private power producers send their ill-gotten gains to large out-of-province and out-of-country shareholders. The big loss is, of course, BC Hydro, which – according the Erik Andersen, an economist specializing in government finances – would, if in the private sector and unable to raise rates with impunity, be bankrupt or in bankruptcy protection.
 
In short, the environmental losses – much including our wild salmon – far from bringing revenue into the province cost us big time.
 
We at the Common Sense Canadian are concerned about a Tory majority and the possibility of it meaning Premier Clark will win a new majority. If British Columbia gives her that majority, they will be accepting the environmental outrages I mentioned above.
 
I don’t believe that British Columbians will buy those environmental catastrophes in a fair fight and we see it as our job to make sure it is fair.
 
We at the Common Sense Canadian pledge that we will have those issues on the table when the next election comes.
 
Thereafter, it’s BC’s choice.
 

Share

Financial Post: Conservative Majority Win Energizes Sector

Share

From the Financial Post – May 3, 2011

by Claudia Cattaneo

Stephen Harper’s big election sweep bodes well for Canada’s energy sector — but that doesn’t mean it will get a free pass.

While the Conservatives are now in a position to make decisions, they
are facing a strong NDP opposition with a big Quebec voice, as well as
continuing input from the large constituency of players with a say in
the energy agenda, from provincial governments to the environmental
movement.

“The worst thing the energy sector can do right now is to assume: ‘We
submit a laundry list and we get it.’ It’s not real,” said a senior
energy industry lobbyist.

“There will still be a lot of opposition influence, so things like
oil sands, climate change, are still issues. People shouldn’t think they
go away.”

Still, some immediate threats to industry expansion are off the table.

Plans to develop new markets for Canada’s oil in Asia are not likely
to be hindered by a ban on oil tanker traffic off northern B.C. coast
any time soon. During the campaign, Mr. Harper said he did not favour
formalizing the ban, which is supported by many British Columbians
worried about possible oil spills and was embraced by opposition
parties.

However, uncertainty over the Asian push remains in areas outside
federal control, such as B.C. First Nations and environmental
organizations opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline proposed by
Enbridge Inc.

Access to Asian market is key to industry growth.

“The current markets for oil and gas produced in B.C. and Alberta are
almost entirely continental, and those markets are in trouble,” Roger
Gibbins, president and CEO of the Canada West Foundation, said in a
statement Tuesday, calling for a full public discussion over whether
local communities should be able to block West Coast access of major
resource projects.

A cap-and-trade system proposed by the NDP and the Liberals is
probably on the back burner now, although other climate change
initiatives will continue to be a priority, with the lead coming from
outside Ottawa — the United States, interest groups, provincial
governments and even industry itself.

Rick George, president and CEO of Suncor Energy Inc., Canada’s
largest oil sands developer, suggested as much Tuesday when said he
expects progress on greenhouse gases to be made on many fronts,
including industry initiatives to reduce impact on air, land and ground.

“We are not the only oil company that feels like that and that are
making big investments in R&D and making a difference,” he said in a
conference call in response to an analyst question about his
expectations on greenhouse gas legislation now that the Conservatives
have a majority.

Ottawa’s support of the oil sands will also continue, but Ontario’s
contribution to the Tory majority will likely bring a more balanced view
of oil and gas development at the cabinet table.

Some Tory moves could even upset the oil patch. The Tories are now in
a position to move forward with the elimination of the Accelerated
Capital Cost Allowance for oil sands investment by 2015, which was
proposed in the budget and is worth $490-million. The Tories also
promised increased monitoring of environmental impacts.

Also, don’t rule out greater scrutiny of foreign takeovers, as more
energy companies court partners to accelerate development of projects,
whether in the oil sands in Alberta or in shale gas in British Columbia.

Now that he can, Mr. Harper may even be persuaded to take on the
development of a Canadian energy strategy, an initiative supported by
many groups, from think tanks to environmental organizations.

The problem is whether Mr. Harper wants to go down a road where
finding common ground and real solutions may be bigger than his newfound
majority.

Read original article

Share
Fish Lake - which Premier Christy Clark would see destroyed for a mine

Batten Down the Hatches! Time to Focus on Saving BC

Share

BC is a special place – so much so, its specialness requires no justification to those of us fortunate enough to have been born here, nor to those who’ve had the good sense to flee other parts of Canada and the world to make this their home. But BC’s uniqueness extends beyond its breathtaking geographical features, its iconic fish and wildlife, and its rich cultural diversity. We’re not Quebec – but we’re every bit as distinct  on this side of the Rockies from the rest of the country. I’m a proud Canadian – but I’m also a dyed-in-the-wool fourth generation British Columbian and I care very deeply about this particular province, as I know do many of my fellow British Columbians.

And so, in the aftermath of a federal election which granted Stephen Harper his fabled majority, it is crucial that we British Columbians now turn our attention to British Columbia. Our last defence of the environment and public interest here lies with our next provincial election.

In a country as large as ours, with a federalist system in which provinces hold a significant share of constitutional, budgetary, and governing responsibilities, the relative impact of a government on the lives of its people increases the closer to home it gets. The lion’s share of our daily services is provided by municipalities and regional districts; while most of our health care, education, and major resource decisions are made by the Province. I don’t point this out to downplay the importance of federal politics in shaping our society, but to remind BC voters that an even more momentous decision awaits us in the coming months or years (depending on Ms. Clark’s fancy), when we return to the polls to decide the future of BC.

It’s difficult for any concerned environmentalist here not to cringe when contemplating what Stephen Harper will now attempt to do to this province of ours – with regards to oil pipelines and tankers, natural gas fracking, fish farms, federal support for private power, etc. – but that’s nothing compared with the prospect of a renewed mandate for a BC Liberal government, which is even further right wing than Harper & co.

If you don’t believe that, look to Taseko Mines’ proposal to destroy Fish Lake in the Chilcotin region for a gold and copper mine. The application sailed right through BC’s paltry environmental assessment process, only to be halted in Ottawa by the Harper government.

Not even they could overlook the mountain of evidence from DFO and myriad scientific, conservationist, and indigenous interveners that suggested the ecological trade-offs were simply too great. The company had told the BC Liberal government it just had to destroy the lake, or the mine wouldn’t be economically viable – which the Liberals accepted without question. The company maintained this position until the very day after the feds rejected its plan, at which point – lo and behold! – it suddenly realized it could build the mine, make a healthy profit, and keep the lake! I believe that’s what Charlie Sheen calls WINNING!

But who was there, just one day before this extraordinary admission from Taseko Mines, to suggest that as premier she would impose on the prime minister to reverse his environment ministry’s decision and allow the company’s original lake-destroying plan? Christy Clark, who it now appears – and I never thought I’d find myself saying this – may be even further right than Gordon Campbell (making her a full two shuffles to the right of Harper)!!

Not only does this incident illustrate how stark, raving anti-environment, anti-public, and anti-First Nations the Clark administration is (it was the Tsilhqot’in people who led the fight to save their lake and territory from the mine), but it pokes a hole in the Liberals’ perceived economic competence – which the NDP needs to be able to undermine if they are to form government this time around. The BC Liberals allowed themselves to be fooled by a mining company, claiming it needed to destroy the lake, when it didn’t. The only difference was an extra $300 million in pure-profit dividends to shareholders, for cutting corners at the environment’s expense.

It’s the same story with private power in BC – another prime example of the financial folly of this government, made all the more comical by their sudden head scratching as to how on earth rates for Hydro consumers can be going through the roof after 10 years of prudent economic stewardship by their government. How could it be? We must strike a task force to get to the bottom of this! Of course, it has nothing to do with the $50 Billion of unnecessary, environmentally damaging private river power contracts we’ve signed at 2-3 times the market rate! (Note to Task Force: let’s be sure to leave that stone unturned).

So to those fiscally conservative folks in BC who went with Stephen Harper, I suggest we need to hedge our bets and install a progressive provincial government. With the combination of the 75-80% of citizens opposed to oil tanker traffic on our coast, backing up the the strong, unified First Nations opposition to Enbridge, plus the international attention building on the issue and a government on side in Victoria, I like our chances for protecting our coast from a catastrophic oil spill. But that provincial representation is essential in this equation. With both the feds and province walking in lockstep – or trying to outdo each other on who cares least for the environment – for the next four years, we’ll be in trouble.

So let’s not be suckers for the old myth of BC Liberal economic superiority. Let’s look critically at their staggering deficits and debt increases. Let’s acknowledge the NDP delivered better job growth throughout their decade in power (believe it – it’s a fact). Let’s admit that the Liberals have a ridiculous BC Place Stadium roof, a billion-dollar convention centre boondoggle, and wildly over-budget highway spending to the NDP’s fast ferries. Let’s agree that, regardless, jobs and economic growth can’t come at the expense of our environment and the public interest. Let’s survey the the political landscape, take stock of Harper’s victory and what that bodes for BC – and be smart about our future.

We may have several months or several years – or anything in between – but a provincial election is coming in BC and there’s a hell of a lot more riding on it for us British Columbians and our treasured environment than the federal one we (or half of us anyway) just voted in.

It’s time to batten down the hatches and save BC!

Share

The Tyee: Harper Let Loose – Political Panel Round-up

Share

From TheTyee.ca – May 3, 2011

by Tyee Staff & Contributors

HURRAY! TO THE LIFEBOATS!
Colleen Kimmett

“It’s like winning bingo on the Titanic,”
said my fellow election viewer Mitch Anderson, referring to Elizabeth
May’s win and Jack Layton’s minority in the wake of a Harper majority
this evening.

Watching the election results roll in with a
handful of others in Anderson’s apartment in East Vancouver felt indeed
like a historic event, even Titanic in the realm of Canadian politics.
The Bloc Quebecois is virtually dissolved, its leader resigned, and the
Liberal party is, as Peter Mansbridge put it, “near destruction.”

What it signifies for the future of Canada
is less certain. While some in the room tried to look on the bright side
— this election is a historic first for both the New Democratic and
Green parties — other were worried that, like the fated ship, their
Canada is sinking into a deep, dark place. Especially the artists, women
and homosexuals.

Jack Layton has a big job ahead of him, but
I think he could unite progressives in this country to defeat the
Conservatives in the next election. Working with his new Quebecois
cabinet will be a challenge, but perhaps the bigger challenge will be
breaking through to those who don’t identify with either French or
English speaking Canada. A victorious Conservative MP Jason Kenney told
the CBC’s Terry Milewski that internal party polling showed the new
Canadian vote, especially in the Greater Toronto Area, was a hugely
important to the Conservatives’ win.

I am an optimist. When there is a growing
chorus for change there will be equal push for things to remain
constant. I predict the next four years will be a polarizing, but
interesting period in Canadian politics.

Colleen Kimmett writes about food and environment for The Tyee and others.

HARPER CAN REALLY DO THE SPLITS
Charles Campbell

The biggest loser this election night is
not Michael Ignatieff or his Liberal party. It is the Canadian
electorate. As British Columbians should know rather well, the biggest
determinant in the outcome of many Canadian elections is which side of
the political spectrum splits its vote. In all but one of the last six
elections, the Conservative or Reform/Conservative vote has fallen
within two points of 38 per cent. The only true majority tonight is the
60 per cent of Canadians who didn’t get a government they supported at
the ballot box.

What happened to make this so? Of course it
began with that loveless marriage eight years ago of the two parties to
the right. Quebec yet again revealed its uncanny ability to vote with
one collective mind. Prime Minister Stephen Harper showed remarkable
skill in framing issues his way. The Liberals received the final payback
for decades of arrogance and, as Jack Layton so resonantly put it
during the English debate, sense of entitlement. Finally, the difference
in tone of the NDP and Liberal campaign ads revealed that Canadians are
more easily swayed by comedy than scare tactics.

And while the prognosticators and heir
apparent Bob Rae try and sort out the Liberals’ future, the rest of us
can now go home for four whole years, thankful we don’t have to face an
election we don’t want. Right?

Charles Campbell is a Tyee contributing editor.

WE MAY RUE THE BLOC COLLAPSE
Rafe Mair

There are a great many enormous questions
to be asked and answered. It would be foolish to think that Quebec
separatism has ended and indeed I would argue that the extent of the BQ
loss was bad news. While they were in Ottawa in some numbers, separatism
could be handled by dealing with the BQ across the floor. Now it is
leaderless even though their twin, the PQ, seems poised to win Quebec
provincially. It is as I said in a speech some years ago: “If there were
not a Bloc Quebecois we would have to invent one.”

 Separatism will be
different in Quebec. Although Stephen Harper has representation,
sovereignists will be looking at Jack Layton to express their ambitions
and he won’t do so. Prime Minister Harper will use the public purse as
best he can as is traditional, but I foresee a great deal of ferment
ahead.

Separatism has always been a political
force in Quebec and, like poison ivy, its venom waxes and wanes with the
moment. The target of the next incarnation of separatism will be what
Jacques inelegantly called the “ethnics.” This has been going on but the
pressure will increase once the Bloc and PQ sort out, in a blood bath,
who will lead what and where. They can count and know that separation
needs these “ethnics.”

British Columbia will be an interesting study. I
think many British Columbians, much like Albertans, have shrunk from
voting NDP because they were seen as a party of labour leaders,
professors and what my father would call “parlor pinks.” Layton, now at
least officially leading the “government in waiting,” has the
opportunity to gain for the NDP the traditional slightly leftish voter
who once voted Liberal or Red Tory.

Former Socred minister Rafe Mair’s column runs every other Monday in The Tyee.

Read full article

Share