Citizens line the Sea to Sky Highway to protest Woodfibre LNG (My Sea to Sky)
Dr. David Suzuki, in a recent column well worth reading, talks about a change in attitude across the country – changes with First Nations, increasing environmentalism, a new government in Alberta. Big changes are happening everywhere.
I wonder how many British Columbians have thought about the disgraceful attitude of industry and government towards our environment and the contempt they show for those who disagree with them?
Dr. Suzuki covers a number of these areas and I’ll just deal with one or two of my own.
Another revealing moment came with the Heitsuk First Nation in Bella Bella when the federal government finally had to shut down the gillnet fisherey, as Damien Gillis documented in these pages, proving that the Heiltsuk knew more about the health of the fishery than did DFO.
Premier welcomes crook to BC LNG industry
Sukanto Tanoto (right), owner of proposed Woodfibre LNG
Let’s move ahead and talk about LNG and I want to bring up a point, which I have spoken of before, but is absolutely critical when the British Columbians make their judgment about the LNG companies and Premier Christy Clark and her group. We only need to look at the proposed plant at Woodfibre LNG to make my point. Yes I have written about this but I think the point must be hammered again and again.
Moreover, Premier Clark and Sukanto Tanoto know what those standards are. We have brought them to their attention as forcibly as possible. We didn’t make them up – they are accepted by the US government. We have printed, here, the industry standards set by SIGTTO, Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators Ltd.
We have shown them charts with the appropriate lines drawn showing the clear limitations. This paper has carried them. Clearly, Howe Sound is utterly inappropriate for LNG freighters.
Why hasn’t premier Christy Clark squarely and honestly faced up to these issues?
This in no way lessens our need to raise all of the environmental concerns which have been brought forward not by a government caring our interests but by environmental groups. Not only are these groups bearing the brunt of the work, they are being pilloried and insulted by people like Prime Minister Harper and Finance Minister Joe Oliver not to mention our own premier and her pet poodle, Rich Coleman.
Now we come to the part where the government is supposed to provide environmental assessment and protection but the overwhelming evidence is that this process is so badly flawed as to be beyond a joke.
So what do we do now?
MPs, MLAs useless
Why, of course, in a democracy we go to our MP or MLA MLA.
We might just as well ask the neighbourhood cat for all the help we are going to get. In my own constituency where the Woodfibre LNG plant is proposed, the MP, John Weston, and MLA Jordan Sturdy are as useless as tits on a bull and indeed worse – because they are so much part of the problem, they only aggravate matters when asked to get involved.
These are some of the factors that enter into the utter disgust people have for those in charge of corporations and governments, the main one of which is that nobody tells the truth. In fact, at the risk of sounding like a cynic, when I hear a captain of Industry or his PR creep on the one hand or a politician on the other, I don’t believe a word they’re saying, not a single word. Ever.
What does this mean for federal election?
It’s interesting to contemplate what effect this public disgust will have on the voters. As I write this, the three major parties are almost to level according to the polls with the Greens far back.
But we have seen that polls are not terribly accurate these days. One only has to look at the United Kingdom and Alberta.
My bet is that Dr. Suzuki is right and that there will be a great many surprises. I believe that applies to my constituency of West Vancouver-Howe Sound-Sea-To-Sky Country.
But there’s one more thing, quickly.
If Dr. Suzuki senses it correctly, and he is an excellent position to do so, no matter what happens in the election, the public is no longer prepared to put up with the same crap from Ottawa, Victoria, and the Corporate Head Office. How that plays out will be fascinating to watch and be a part of.
Alberta Premier Elect Rachel Notley celebrates a shocking victory (Alberta NDP facebook page)
Somehow, the day after it happened, the election of the NDP in Alberta doesn’t seem quite as astonishing as it would have say, a year ago. Back then, one would have been in danger of certification as mad to predict that the Tories, after some 43 years, would be turfed out of what had become a political fiefdom. They reigned supreme with no contenders in sight, the Wildrose Party having apparently disintegrated. The Liberals had never been much of a force, although, from time to time, they would pop up hopefully as Liberals are wont to – and the NDP, well, they were just the NDP, a hopeless island of the left in a sea of the right.
A good part of the NDP victory is, of course, simple exhaustion with a very old government. It’s also due to some bad luck for the Tories – the same sort of bad luck that has hit every government relying upon fossil fuels for their day-to-day livelihood.
Ready for Rachel
Another enormous factor was Rachel Notley, bred in politics and ideally suited for the moment.
Leaders had become pretty stuffy in Alberta as they tend to become in democratic dictatorships, or any dictatorships for that matter. She caught of the mood of the times and had what so many politicians don’t have: patience. Mind you, much of that patience was imposed by the circumstances.
One cannot overlook the impact of the late Jack Layton on the NDP generally in Canada. The members of the NDP had been drifting towards the centre for sometime but their leaders had not caught up. Layton did and so did Notley.
What now?
There will be much more perspicacious observers than me looking at this election and I will leave the sorting out of the pepper from the fly shit to them. The question is what will the NDP do now that they have plucked the plum from the pie?
The honest answer to that question is, “I’m damned if I know.” However, one does not get away with that sort of answer in this business!
First off, Ms. Notley has homework to do. She has an economy that is bad, getting worse and a citizenry who are not used to that sort of situation.
Philosophically the NDP are not Tar Sands people. They must become that, however, if there is to be recovery and the question is how will that happen?
A Hobson’s choice
She really has three choices – she can subsidize the industry, she can actively help sell the product, or she can wait and see and hope that international oil prices save the day. This is a terrible triple Hobson’s choice and she’s not to be envied.
There is no money to subsidize in any direct way, so she will have to do it by way of taxation and other concessions. But, that’s the very reason the Tories were thrown out on their prats. While she has a four-year mandate, there is no point getting off on such a bad footing that she can never recover.
Secondly, to whom would Ms. Notley try to increase sales? That is the problem in a nutshell anyway – there are no customers right now for expensive Canadian heavy oil and unconventional gas.
The reality is that she’s left with no other choice but to sit back and hope for increased prices…At least in the short term.
There’s also no earthly reason why Alberta couldn’t use this opportunity to begin developing a clean tech industry that will yield jobs and revenues down the road. As our contributor and innovation expert Will Dubitsky has demonstrated repeatedly in these pages, that’s precisely what the US, China, Germany and other industrial nations are doing today – with great success. Now is as good a time as any to think the once unthinkable in Alberta.
A buyers’ market
As for the Tar Sands, the fact is that higher prices are really the only option any fossil fuel government really has in the world today. There are no mysterious kingdoms over the seas that have a burning desire (pun intended) for oil, have none, and just can’t wait to buy all they can. Everybody is in the same boat – producers have product but not enough customers.
This is not to say that Ms. Notley will not flap her wings and try to appear to be doing all sorts of things, but only to point out that she really hasn’t got too many options.
I have a surprise suggestion for Ms. Notley….
Changing the game
Having no bread, she needs a circus and this goes back to her election platform. To divert attention – and she will only be partly successful at that no matter what she does – she should bring in electoral changes in Alberta, some variation of Proportional Representation.
The results yesterday make the point that “first past the post” is about as unfair a way to run on the election as has yet been invented. She should take these results and run with them, perhaps having a constituent assembly as happened in British Columbia. She can tie this into the current economic situation by saying “if we had the input of other parties over the past years, etc., etc.”
It’s not as if this notion will fall on barren ground. Albertans have long chafed at their system – the Tories have not always been wildly popular in Alberta but seen as the only game in town. To offer voters the opportunity to vote effectively for whomever they please and still have a stable government at the end of the day is a very appealing thought.
Thin gruel?
Perhaps. But it is hard to imagine what else Ms. Notley can do at this stage. The Alberta economy is not one you can quickly or easily diversify (though she should start trying that now too, for good measure). The basis of the economy is in deep doo doo, and you’ve just been elected to do something.
Under those circumstances, one reads one’s Roman history and arranges a Circus Maxima, or at least as Maxima as you can make it.
A cleanup crew works on Third Beach following the recent English Bay oil spill
I say three cheers for Premier Christy Clark and Mayor Gregor Robertson of Vancouver.
The verbal assault by the Premier on the federal government was more than justified by recent events and just happens to be a move that is always popular amongst many British Columbians, frankly including me, whenever Ottawa behaves like Ottawa – which is most of the time.
The recent oil spill in English Bay is, as has been said by so many, a wake up call. In fact, however, there are many people like Dr. Eoin Finn, who didn’t need that wake-up call and have said for a long time that sooner or later an accident like this was going to happen. As sure as the penny will turn up heads sometime, there will be next one and it could be infinitely worse.
Federal cuts mean increased risk to coast
Before we get to the future let’s just take a look at the present. The prime minister of the country immediately defends his cuts in funding and acts as if this spill really is of very little consequence. His gauleiter in BC, James Moore, a lump of arrogance in a three-piece suit, actually opined that the response to this spill was just peachy.
The Member of Parliament most concerned about the future of oil spills is the one for my constituency, John Weston since his constituency includes Howe Sound and Squamish. It is through Howe Sound that the powers that be, including the two senior governments and the entire fossil fuel “establishment”, want to run LNG tankers to English Bay for refuelling!
LNG tankers are risky business
Let me pause here to say that opposition to these tankers is not based on some dreams concocted by airy fairy environmentalists, munching nuts and chewing raisins. Thanks to the work of Dr. Finn and Cmdr. Roger Sweeny (RCN Ret.), we know that even the most conservative expert evidence, that of Dr Michael Hightower of New Mexico, and several other experts, is such that Howe Sound is utterly unsuitable for LNG tanker traffic. In fact, the boast of the tanker industry of a safe record with LNG, while fundamentally true, overlooks the fact that this is because tankers don’t go into dangerous places like Howe Sound.
MP Weston wrong to defend tankers, LNG
Getting back to Mr. Weston, this issue should demonstrate, as if a demonstration were necessary, that the political system in this country simply doesn’t work. Here we have the Member of Parliament for an area which is largely up in arms at the thought of an LNG plant in Squamish, not only supporting that plant at every turn – berating at the West Vancouver Council for being opposed – but now struck dumb by an oil spill which demonstrates the huge dangers posed by this LNG plant he so loyally and stubbornly supports.
Surely to God this question must be raised by all reasonable people, no matter how they feel about LNG plants or tankers:
[quote]Why hasn’t John Weston been asking questions in the House about the cleanup capability in BC long before now?
Why isn’t he raising hell about this oil spill?[/quote]
Everyone knows that clean-up capability been under-funded by his government yet not a peep out of the man sent to Ottawa to represent our concerns.
Now that we have this huge wake up call, Mr. Weston is totally unconcerned for one very plain reason – he must be loyal to the government and its policies, however damaging they may be to his constituency. How else can he get that coveted cabinet post?
Surprisingly, Clark deserves some credit
I am certainly no fan of the premier or her government but am compelled to say that she has shown, in the clutch, the kind of leadership British Columbians expect when, as usual, Ottawa indifference is raising havoc in this faraway nuisance it couldn’t care less about.
Anyone who wishes to criticize the premier for her immediate and strong reaction should ask themselves this: If the premier doesn’t stand up for the people of British Columbia who will?
It sure as hell won’t be the likes of the Honourable James Moore or government backbencher John Weston.
84 year-old retried librarian Barbara Grant getting arrested at Burnaby Mountain (facebook)
A scientist, or any knowledgeable person, will tell you climate change is a serious threat for Canada and the world. But the RCMP has a different take. A secret report by the national police force, obtained by Greenpeace, both minimizes the threat of global warming and conjures a spectre of threats posed by people who rightly call for sanity in dealing with problems caused by burning fossil fuels.
Anti-terrorism bill threatens free speech
The RCMP report has come to light as federal politicians debate the “anti-terrorism” Bill C-51. Although the act wouldn’t apply to “lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression,” its language echoes the tone of the RCMP report. It would give massive new powers to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to prevent any person or group from “undermining the security of Canada,” including “interference with critical infrastructure” and the “economic or financial stability of Canada.” And it would seriously infringe on freedom of speech and expression. The new CSIS powers would lack necessary public oversight.
The RCMP report specifically names Greenpeace, Tides Canada and the Sierra Club as part of “a growing, highly organized and well-financed anti-Canada petroleum movement that consists of peaceful activists, militants and violent extremists who are opposed to society’s reliance on fossil fuels.” The report downplays climate change, calling it a “perceived environmental threat” and saying members of the “international anti-Canadian petroleum movement … claim that climate change is now the most serious global environmental threat and that climate change is a direct consequence of elevated anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions which, reportedly, are directly linked to the continued use of fossil fuels.” It also makes numerous references to anti-petroleum and indigenous “extremists”.
First Nations targeted
Language in the RCMP report and Bill C-51 leaves open the possibility that the act and increased police and CSIS powers could be used against First Nations and environmentalists engaging in non-violent protests against pipelines or other environmentally destructive projects.
As University of Ottawa law professor Craig Forcese points out, with its reference to “foreign-influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada,” the anti-terrorism law could be used in the case of a “foreign environmental foundation funding a Canadian environmental group’s secret efforts to plan a protest (done without proper permits) in opposition to the Keystone Pipeline Project.” Considering that government ministers have already characterized anti-pipeline protesters as “foreign-funded radicals”, that’s not a stretch. The RCMP could consider my strong support for greenhouse gas emissions reductions and renewable energy as “anti-petroleum”.
Who’s an “extremist”?
Combatting terrorism is important, but Canada is not at war, and we already have many laws — and enhanced police powers — to deal with terrorist threats. More importantly, the RCMP report fuels the legitimate fear that the new law could be used to curtail important civil liberties, affecting everyone from religious minorities to organized labour and First Nations to environmentalists.
If, for any reason, someone causes another person harm or damages infrastructure or property, that person should —and would, under current laws — face legal consequences. But the vast majority of people calling for rational discussion about fossil fuels and climate change — even those who engage in civil disobedience — aren’t “violent anti-petroleum extremists.” They’re people from all walks of life and ages who care about our country, our world, our families and friends and our future.
Core Canadian values in jeopardy
Canada is much more than a dirty energy “superpower”. Many people from different cultures and backgrounds and with varying political perspectives have built a nation that is the envy of the world. We have a spectacular natural environment, enlightened laws on issues ranging from equal rights to freedom of speech, robust social programs and a diverse, educated population. We mustn’t sacrifice all we have gained out of fear, or give up our hard-won civil liberties for a vague and overreaching law that, as Forcese and University of Toronto law professor Kent Roach point out, “undermines more promising avenues of addressing terrorism.”
Pollution and climate change caused by excessive burning of fossil fuels are real threats, not the people who warn that we must take these threats seriously. And while we must also respond to terrorism with the strong tools already in place, we have to remember that our rights and freedoms, not fear, are what keep us strong.
Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper didn’t show much climate spirit in Lima
The heroic efforts of Who-ville to negotiate enough binding greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions to prevent Earth’s average global temperature from rising above a critical 2°C were held in Lima, Peru, this December. Whether the Climate Christmas event, called the 20th Conference of the Parties, would actually receive a real present was uncertain.
Saint Nick and his reindeer are no longer predictable. Global warming is melting the Arctic ice so the North Pole’s workshops, cozy cottage, reindeer barns and good-and-bad lists have been thrown into disarray. The elves and the entire Christmas gift operation may have sunk into the mush of last summer’s melt.
And even if a real present arrived, it might be stolen by a Grinch. As everyone knows, they do not like Christmas presents, especially the kind that reduce GHGs. And this is precisely what happened. No real present arrived. Each country’s binding reductions were stolen and replaced by vague promises of “intended nationally determined commitments”.
Public marches, leaders refuse to lead
Ban Ki-moon, the enthusiastic and ever-hopeful Secretary General of Who-ville, prepared for the Climate Christmas event by organizing a special September Climate Leaders’ Summit meeting in New York, hoping to excite enough enthusiasm for Lima that the real present would arrive even before the COP 21 meeting in Paris in 2015. Over 300,000 people marched in New York to support greenhouse gas reductions, and the leaders of about 125 countries attended the city’s UN negotiations. Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, did not attend. Instead, he just went to its banquet.
Emissions controls for oil and gas sector “crazy”
Indeed, Canada’s Prime Minister is proving to be somewhat of a Climate Grinch. His government, having abandoned its legally binding Kyoto GHG obligations, will not even be able to meet its 2005 emission reduction commitments for 2020. Mr. Harper has been promising since 2006 to place emission regulations on Alberta’s oil and gas industry — the country’s fastest growing source of GHG — but has yet to do so. And now, since the price of oil has dropped below $60 per barrel, he says emission controls would be economic insanity — he hasn’t explained why he didn’t implement the controls during the previous 8 years.
Stephen Harper: Climate Grinch
Indeed, the Prime Minister says as little as possible about climate change. Jeffrey Simpson, writing in Who-ville’sGlobe and Mail (Nov. 15/14), gives a very credible argument for Mr. Harper to be designated a Climate Grinch:
• First, writes Simpson, the Prime Minister is “distinctly uncomfortable when forced to discuss [climate change].” This is one of the most obvious clinical characteristics of the Grinch Syndrome. Abject silence hides the repressed resentment, frustration and defiance seething within. Even the most oblique reference to climate change — merely a mention of carbon dioxide emissions, global warming, extreme weather or sea level rise — gives credibility to a scientific certainty that the Grinch believes to be a contrived fiction of the imagination.
• Second, the core of his Conservative Party is still filled with climate change deniers, so Mr. Harper maintains and entrenches his political support by cultivating and projecting his Climate Grinch personality. A man and a party heavily invested in the economics of an oil and gas industry will perceive any overt communication about climate change as a threat to be avoided at every opportunity.
• Third, “Mr. Harper doesn’t like being pressured.” And the world community — Ban Ki-moon in particular — is certainly pressuring Canada because of its appalling climate record. Like pushing a long and recalcitrant rope, a Climate Grinch just bunches into indignant and obstinate knots when pressured.
• Fourth, Mr. Harper doesn’t believe in climate deals; they haven’t worked in the past and they won’t work in the future, so participating in them is just a waste of time. He has his own messianic plans for Who-ville. A Climate Grinch believes in the unquestionable wisdom of the free-market economy, not in some vague and pagan illusion of humanity living in a state of sustainable harmony with nature.
• And fifth, the only good climate deal is one in which every nation in the world joins under equally ambitious conditions, a stipulation so extreme and disconnected from political realities as to be conspicuously obstructionist.
Visions of pipelines
A Climate Grinch is happiest when party loyalties are not violated, when political support is not threatened, when economic plans are not disturbed, when heated pipelines are humming a yuletide carol of flowing bitumen, and when fossil-fuelled lights are blazing atop every plastic Christmas tree in the whole world.
So the PM has sent his Minister of the Environment, Leona Aglukkaq, to the Lima Climate Christmas event with instructions to set no new targets and make no commitments. She is to make only a token request to reduce the emissions of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), those potent GHG chemicals that were supposed to replace the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that were wrecking the planet’s ozone layer. Since the HFC’s represent a mere 1 percent of Canada’s emissions, the symbolic gesture will neither disturb Canada’s oil and gas corporations, the generous funding they give to the Conservative Party, nor the visions of pipelines dancing in their heads.
Meanwhile, as the rising GHG emissions force global temperatures ever higher, as extreme weather becomes more common, and as the deadline for yet another hopeful climate agreement looms, Ban Ki-moon continues to press for Canada “to become ambitious and visionary for the global future of people and the planet.”
Grinches, however, are not dissuaded from their opinions or diverted from their objectives by the sentimental drivel of grandiose global hopes. They say what they mean and they mean what they say, all with a heart “that is two sizes too small.”
BC NDP and Official Opposition Leader John Horgan (BCNDP.ca/youtube)
I’ve been very critical, especially recently in the tyee.ca, of John Horgan, leader of the NDP, and the Official Opposition itself. This is, I assure you, nothing personal but is entirely a matter of the quality of the opposition presented and the effect it has on forming public opinion.
Socred praise for Barrett NDP
A few days ago, I had the pleasure of talking to an old friend of mine of some 40 years, Grace McCarthy. As a couple of old pols will do, we started to reminisce. We got onto the topic of Oppositions and I was surprised – I shouldn’t have been – to hear both Grace and me extol the virtues of the NDP under Dave Barrett when we were in the House.
We talked about how the NDP kept us on our toes which, combined with a hostile press, did much to ensure that we moved carefully both in legislation and in policy.
I found both Grace and me not only congratulatory towards Dave Barrett, but there was a sense of warmth because both of us know what the opposition was supposed to do and enough time had passed for the personal sharpness to have disappeared. We agreed, of course, that we didn’t like it a damned bit when they did their job but that it was very much in the public interest.
The duty to oppose
The classic definition comes from Lord Randolph Churchill who said “it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose.” This doesn’t mean that it opposes the trivial but on all major issues it opposes the main parts.
A good example is Site C, which is as controversial an issue as British Columbia has seen in decades and, in fact, it goes back to my time in government in the 70s. In those days, our government rejected Site C largely based upon the cost, the lack of information as to alternatives and the consistent history of BC Hydro over-estimating its energy needs. “The more things change …”
With the present announcement of approval, Mr. Horgan should be dealing, may I say harshly, with a number of aspects of the development.
The residents of the area have a right to have their views expressed in the legislature and in the public. It doesn’t matter if Mr. Horgan thinks that it’s just “too bad” that they will lose their farms and homes – he and his colleagues must take up their case.
Plenty of faults to find with Site C
There is the question of the loss of 30,000 acres of farmland. Mr. Horgan may think that’s a worthwhile sacrifice but there are a hell of a lot of British Columbians who feel this land is sacred and that, indeed, it was the NDP which first made the inviolability of agricultural land the law.
There’s the question of alternative forms of energy. Mr. Horgan should have BC Hydro on the griddle asking about sources of supplementary power such as wind, tide and in particular geothermal. BC, we’re told, has virtually unlimited geothermal resources, yet there is a paucity of information on whether or not that could be harnessed instead of Hydro, or at least, supplementary to hydroelectric power.
As one who has seen these things develop in the past, I would simply guess, just based on a gut the feeling, that the final price for Site C is likely to be closer to 12 billion than eight. Of course I could be wrong, but I bet my gut feeling is shared by many British Columbians who’ve watched these matters over the years.
Can Mr. Horgan assure us, as Leader of the Opposition, that he’s thoroughly tested this cost and is satisfied with it?
Instead of opposing in the way of our longstanding parliamentary practice, Mr. Horgan has chosen to ally himself with the Liberals, making this a “non-partisan issue”. (Now, in fairness, Mr. Horgan has retained some reservations in the area of revenue and need, but has not been vocally opposed to it.)
Where does NDP stand on the environment?
This brings into question this government’s entire environmental policy and whether or not Mr. Horgan is generally satisfied with it. If not, where is he opposed?
You simply cannot, logically, oppose the Ebridge pipeline because it brings toxic substances through our land and down the coast while at the same time supporting Kinder Morgan doing precisely the same thing.
To be opposed to governmental policy, as a proper Official Opposition, doesn’t mean being against every jot and tittle. Moreover, in the fullness of time, you may support some or all of it. What it means really is the old American expression, “I’m from Missouri” and using skepticism to bring from the government a full justification of its policy, point by point.
There is another very serious aspect of the Official Opposition which Mr. Horgan seems to have overlooked. The Official Opposition should present to the public a “government in waiting” with its own policies in place as well as spokespeople for these policies.
Can anybody look at the Opposition as it exists today and say “I see a future government there”? I sure as hell can’t. I don’t even see a future Premier!
John Horgan and the NDP have less than 2 1/2 years to present themselves to the public has something to be supported.
Unless they get started on this project now, it will never get done in time.
Tory MP John Weston (from his annual Christmas video message/Youtube)
There is surely nothing quite as ridiculous as a Tory pretending that he cares. Money and rich friends they understand but when it comes to the values that ordinary people revere they’re at sea. In fact they’re bewildered by those who think that the poor ought to be considered by society or that such things as lakes and mountains and animals and parks and neighbourhoods have any serious meaning to people.
This doesn’t mean that they don’t understand that they must make believe and always speak in loving terms about the things that I’ve mentioned.
There’s another sure thing to be added to Benjamin Franklin’s “death and taxes”. It’s that by reading the bullshit in a Tory MP’s annual newspaper to his constituents you can determine, with only the minimum of thinking, what the Tories are really planning and what their electoral word games are going to be all about.
LNG in Howe Sound
I hate to be seen as picking on my MP, John Weston, but because I know him, I’m bewildered that he would prostitute his brains and compromise his honesty to the extent he has over the last three years.
Now, John is a very earnest sort of a chap and I’m sure honestly feels that he is front and centre in Canadian public life and of considerable importance to the governance of the nation. I fact, he is inconsequential and in three years has contributed nothing and couldn’t if he wanted to. Nor can any of his backbench colleagues. I would respect that and leave him alone if it weren’t for the fact that he pretends importance where there is none, as do his colleagues. It must be an awful thing to have to fake self-importance in order to keep up one’s self respect.
Let’s get down to cases. I live on the Sea-to-Sky in wonderful Lions Bay. I have not always lived here, of course, but I’ve always felt much attached to Howe Sound, having spent so many of my boyhood hours happily fishing and swimming and cruising in this area. It’s sacred.
If you read Mr. Weston’s annual rag, you might think that he had won a stunning victory. The bold headline sings praise for Council’s commitment to “Good Process”, even though it politely told him to get stuffed. In the body of the article, Mr. Weston plays down the disappointment the entire constituency knew he had and made believe that he was thrilled that he managed to get a hearing for his client.
Not satisfied with leaving after one paragraph, Mr. Weston prattles on for seven more dealing with the wonders of development. One paragraph probably tells the story
[quote]As MP, I am increasingly required to consider the impact of industrial projects on our economy and our environment. Throughout the summer, conversations [at] backyard barbecues and coffee gatherings [are] often related to responsible resource development. “The Environment IS the Economy” [emphasis his] is the message I am increasingly taking to cabinet and other leaders.[/quote]
That is, of course, rubbish. Mr. Weston is not taking any messages to cabinet nor to any leaders, nor does any other Tory backbencher. Who in hell is he kidding? They’re overpaid ciphers who do what they are told and speak when they’re spoken to.
IS the environment the economy?
But let me deal with this slogan “The Environment IS the Economy ” – to which Weston recently dedicated a column on his website directed at yours truly. That’s a very helpful slogan indeed and reminds me of “Conscription if necessary but not necessarily Conscription”, “The Land is Strong” and “Please adjust your clothing before leaving the Lavatory”.
When the Tory government took away protection for fish under an omnibus bill, Mr. Weston, in my presence, enthusiastically supported this move on the grounds that now there was “process”. In other words where it was once forbidden to bugger up fish habitat, now you could do it if you went through the proper “process”.
Mr. Weston goes on to say, “If a project respects the factors just mentioned, I am likely to support it. Otherwise, I will not support it.”
Again we see the ridiculousness of a Tory backbencher trying to act important. The plain fact is that Prime Minister Harper doesn’t give a fiddler’s fart what John Weston thinks about a project. The truth of the matter is that backbencher Weston was instructed to try to get the West Vancouver Council to reverse itself – after all, Harper and his poodle, Christy Clark uncritically support LNG. He failed and now must save face.
“Process”
I have spoken of this before but I think it’s worth revisiting. The “process” involved in environmental matters is a fraud. Now that’s admittedly a nasty word to use, I agree, but let’s examine the position taken by Mark Eliesen who was, until he resigned, an intervenor in the Kinder Morgan hearings before the National Energy Board.
Mr Eliesen is former Chair of BC Hydro, CEO of the Manitoba Energy Commission, CEO of Ontario Hydro, CEO of Manitoba Hydro and a director of Suncor.
In his lengthy resignation letter, Mr. Eliesen concluded:
[quote]In effect, this so-called public hearing process has become a farce, and this Board a truly industry captured regulator…The National Energy Board is not fulfilling its obligation to review the Trans Mountain Expansion Project objectively. Accordingly it is not only British Columbians, but all Canadians that cannot look to the Board’s conclusions as relevant as to whether or not this project deserves a social license. Continued involvement in the process endorses this sham and is not in the public interest.[/quote]
John Weston no doubt believes his own bullshit, but that’s what it is. Without hesitation, I would take the word of Mark Eliesen over Weston’s and most certainly over that of Prime Minister Harper or any of his cabinet toadies.
“The Environment IS the Economy” (or is it the other way around?) simply means, in Tory Talk, “Always speak in hushed, respectful terms about the environment – but, for God’s sake, don’t ever let environmental considerations get in the way of our friends making money.”
Gerry Hummel’s cartoon on John Weston’s support of private river power projects (IPPs)
Neptune coal terminal (Image: Dan Pierce/Wilderness Committee)
By Andrew Gage and Anna Johnston – republished with permission from the West Coast Environmental Law Association.
On October 23, 2014, the federal government introduced Bill C-43, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures (also called the “Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2”). Buried in Division 16 of the 475 page omnibus bill are proposed changes to the Canada Marine Act that, if adopted, would pose a serious threat to legal protection from environmental threats and public oversight of activities that occur in ports.
The proposed amendments raise a number of concerns for British Columbians, especially as they relate to controversial shipping industries like coal and LNG – indeed one of the most troubling amendments could be viewed as a direct challenge to a lawsuit filed by Voters Taking Action on Climate Change against the environmental assessment of the controversial Fraser Surrey Coal Docks. For detailed information, see our legal backgrounder Bill C-43: A threat to environmental safety and democracy, but two of the most concerning changes are:
Allowing the federal Cabinet to exempt port lands from key requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 and Species At Risk Act that regulate “federal lands” by turning those lands over to port authorities.
Giving Cabinet extensive powers to write new laws for ports, and to delegate law-making powers for ports to any person, without many checks and balances.
Exempting “federal lands” from federal environmental laws
Some federal environmental statutes create special environmental requirements for activities taking place on “federal lands.” Examples include:
Canadian Environmental Assessment 2012– the requirement to consider the environmental impacts of projects – even where they would not otherwise require an environmental assessment;
Species At Risk Act– The requirement to protect land-based endangered and threatened species and their habitat on federal lands.
Bill C-43 gives the federal government the ability to get around these legal protections by converting federal lands into port lands. Specifically, Cabinet would gain the ability to sell its lands in a port to the port authority. Once it does so, even though the port authority is supposed to act as an agent of the federal government, those lands will no longer be considered “federal lands.”
And, presto, as if by magic those nasty environmental protections disappear.
A controversial coal port proposed for Surrey, BC gives a tangible example of what this might mean. As we write in the backgrounder:
[quote]…Fraser Surrey Docks LP’s proposed Direct Transfer Coal Facility in Surrey, BC was required to undergo a federal environmental assessment by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority because the project occurs on federal lands under Port Authority supervision. The Port Authority’s approval of the facility has been challenged in court by a group of citizen and non-profit applicants represented by Ecojustice and Beverly Hobby (with funding from West Coast) for failing to follow the requirements of CEAA 2012. If the Bill C-43 changes to the Canada Marine Act come into effect and the federal government were to sell the property on which it is located to the Port Authority, it would be possible for controversial projects like this one to bypass reviews under CEAA 2012 altogether.[/quote]
Trust us, we’re law-makers
The second thing that Bill C-43 does is to turn over exceptionally wide law-making powers to Cabinet, including giving it the ability to turn broad powers over to port authorities, provinces or even industry. While Cabinet often has the power to make regulations under a statute, these powers are exceptionally broad, and include powers to:
hand over regulatory, administrative or even judicial (court) control of industrial activities in ports to any person, including a province, port authority or even industry itself;
powers to incorporate industry or other documents in the regulations without necessarily making those documents publicly available;
create rules for the retention or destruction of documents.
The Bill provides few explicit constraints over how these powers could be used, and the government hasn’t given any real indication as to its plans, but:
Powers that can be delegated include responsibility for making laws and policies regarding specified industrial activities in ports, administering activities under those instruments, and hearing disputes that occur regarding port activities. For example, Cabinet could in principle allow an industry association to write the rules regarding the assessment and permitting processes for LNG facilities and coal storage, and the shipping of both. It could then incorporate those rules into federal law without public notice or opportunity to comment.
The Bill even purports to allow Cabinet to take oversight of the new rules away from the courts by creating a tribunal to hear any disputes regarding those activities in ports, including challenges by the public. It could appoint industry representatives as the tribunal’s members and authorize port authorities to write the rules governing port activities and for hearing disputes (including who would have standing to bring a challenge).
Canadians understand the value of checks and balances and transparency in laws. These amendments do away with both.
Secret amendments
What are these amendments doing in a budget bill? This is the latest of a series of amendments to environmental laws that have been hidden in voluminous budget bills and debated by the House Finance Committee (instead of environmental committee). This is not the way democracy is supposed to work, and now is the time to say no.
David Suzuki and Neil Young, who will team up in Vancouver for the “Blue Dot” tour (Photo: davidsuzuki.org)
The idea of a right to a healthy environment is getting traction at Canada’s highest political levels. Federal Opposition MP Linda Duncan recently introduced “An Act to Establish a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights” in Parliament. If it’s passed, our federal government will have a legal duty to protect Canadians’ right to live in a healthy environment.
Blue Dot Tour gains momentum
I’m travelling across Canada with the David Suzuki Foundation’s Blue Dot Tour to encourage people to work for recognition of such a right — locally, regionally and nationally. At the local level, the idea of recognizing citizens’ right to live in a healthy environment is already taking hold. Richmond and Vancouver, B.C., The Pas, Manitoba, and the Montreal borough of Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie all recently passed municipal declarations recognizing this basic right.
Our ultimate goal is to have the right to a healthy environment recognized in the Constitution’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and a federal environmental bill of rights is a logical precursor. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms itself was preceded by a federal statute, the Bill of Rights, enacted under Prime Minister John Diefenbaker’s Progressive Conservative government in 1960.
Not about left or right…about right or wrong
This isn’t a partisan issue. It appeals to people across the political spectrum and has broad support among Canadians. An earlier attempt to pass a Canadian environmental bill of rights (also led by Linda Duncan) gained the support of MPs from various parties before its passage through Parliament was interrupted by the 2011 federal election.
In France, conservative leader Jacques Chirac championed the idea of environmental rights during his presidency. After more than 70,000 French citizens attended public hearings, the Charter for the Environment was enacted in 2005 with support from all political parties.
Canada has made big constitutional changes before
I’ve seen so many positive changes in our legal systems and social safety net in my 78 years — including adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. My family was incarcerated in the B.C. Interior during the Second World War, just for being of Japanese descent, even though we were born and raised in Canada. Like other people of colour, my parents didn’t have the right to vote until 1948.
First Nations people on reserves couldn’t vote until 1960. And women weren’t even considered “persons” under Canadian law until 1918, when they were given voting rights. Homosexuality was a crime punishable by prison until 1969! I’m convinced that legal recognition for environmental rights will be the next big change.
Progress is possible when enough people recognize its necessity and come together to make it happen. Protecting our country and planet, our health and the future of our children and grandchildren is absolutely necessary. We can’t live and be well without clean air and water, nutritious food and the numerous services that diverse and vibrant natural environments provide.
More than 1,000 drinking water advisories
Even in Canada, where our spectacular nature and abundant water are sources of pride, we can no longer take these necessities for granted. More than 1,000 drinking-water advisories are in effect in Canada at any time, many of them in First Nations communities. More than half of us live in areas where air quality reaches dangerous levels of toxicity.
It’s not about hindering industry; it’s about ensuring that companies operating in Canada, as well as our governments, maintain the highest standards and that human health and well-being are always the priority. Evidence shows strong environmental protection can benefit the economy by spurring innovation and competitiveness and reducing health-care costs. This is about giving all Canadians greater say in the democratic process and looking out for the long-term prosperity of Canada.
Time for Canada to join other nations
More than half the world’s nations already recognize environmental rights. It’s time for Canada to live up to its values and join this growing global movement.
There’s no date yet for a vote on Bill C-634, but its introduction has started a conversation among politicians in Ottawa. Let’s hope people from across the political spectrum will recognize the importance of ensuring that all Canadians have the right to a healthy environment.
Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.
Justin Trudeau argues for Keystone XL at a think tank in Washington, DC (Photo: Chip Somodevllla/Getty)
The Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) has a history of big talk on the environment, but, once in power, failing to deliver. Each climate change action plan has demonstrated this trend, accompanied by boastful press releases on how much money the LPC would be investing in sustainable development. Now, Justin Trudeau is showing every sign of repeating this pattern.
Liberal Party never serious about climate change
Stéphane Dion, as the former minister of the environment, introduced no comprehensive packages of legislation, fiscal measures, programs and policies to make much of a difference in addressing climate change.
As a former Government of Canada employee, I can attest, from a unique insider’s perspective, that various Dion/Liberal climate change action plans were all designed to fail, or lacking in substance to achieve stated GHG targets. Eddie Goldenberg, Chétien’s highest ranked government employee and key adviser, admitted as much in February 2007 when he revealed that the LPC had no idea how it would meet Kyoto objectives when it ratified the Kyoto Protocol.
The result was that carbon emissions spiked as much under Chrétien and Paul Martin’s governments as they have during the Harper regime. Michael Ignatieff got it right when he said to Dion, during one of the Liberal leadership debates, that Dion failed to get the job done.
Justin Trudeau represents a continuation of this LPC legacy, as I will demonstrate. What follows is an insider’s detailed view of LPC failures on climate change – leading up to Trudeau’s positions to-date and the choices Canadians face going into the 2015 election.
Subsidizing fossil fuels and paying the polluter
Prior to the Liberal defeat, Stéphane Dion, as environment minister, introduced yet another climate change action plan, this one with a $1B Climate Fund designed for the government to purchase emission reductions from Canada’s largest emitters, in particular the fossil fuel sectors. In other words, the more one emits, the more government support one could get under the Dion plan, a pay the polluter formula — rather than the polluter pays.
And no rewards were offered for the small and medium size private firms that had already contributed, or would like to contribute, significantly to emission reductions.
Price on carbon, maybe – but it would have to be cheap
Further along the lines of subsidizing the fossil fuel sector, Chrétien made a sweetheart deal with the oil industry to the effect that in the event of a price on carbon, it would be cheap/symbolic. My guess is that Trudeau’s “endorsement” of a price on carbon is the sequel to the Chrétien model.
Ambitious targets, ambitious cheating
In keeping with the LPC greenwash tradition, during the 1999 to 2000 period, a key element of the LPC plan to meet their ambitious GHG objectives was an attempt to get UN/international approval for crediting Canada for its forests – including reforestation efforts – which absorb CO2. The Liberals referred to their forest component of the climate change action plan of the time as “carbon sinks.”
In other words, the LPC wanted to get carbon credits for doing absolutely nothing, by creating a fairly tale to give the impression that they were making progress GHG targets. Fortunately, the UN rejected the carbon sink proposal.
Yet another facet of the LPC subsidizing of the fossil fuel sector was a heavy investment in the carbon capture and storage technology (CCS) experiment in Weyburn, Saskatchewan.
The problem with CCS is that this technology 1) is so prohibitively expensive that no one would adopt CCS in the absence of major government subsidies 2) is very energy intensive consuming up to one third of total energy produced from a given generator facility and 3) offers no assurance that the carbon sequestered in former and empty wells would in fact stay there.
It is worth noting here that, prior to the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) elimination of all sustainable development innovation funds, the CPC continued the LPC tradition with more than one CPC sustainable development fund supporting CCS.
One of the CCS initiatives supported by the Conservatives, is the current Boundary Dam CCS project pertaining to one of the five coal-fired generation stations in Estevan SK, a project which received a $240M CCS subsidy from the Harper administration. For the generating station equipped with the CCS technologies, one third of the 165 MW of energy produced, or 55 MW, is dedicated to powering the CCS system, while only capturing 20% of the generator’s GHGs, falling well short of the objective to capture 90% of GHGs.
Recently, TransAlta abandoned its CCS project in Pioneer, AB after having received $800M in federal funding.
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
The LPC record on the auto sector also reflects its tradition of putting the emphasis on appearances rather than getting the job done.
On this, there is the matter of the auto sector corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) – a given manufacturer’s CAFE performance for a given year is weighted by the individual sales and fuel consumption of each model, aggregated over the total vehicle sales of the manufacturer in the year in question.
During the Pierre-Elliot Trudeau reign, CAFE was approved but wasn’t presented as a law before Parliament. In its place, the elder Trudeau’s Cabinet adopted a voluntary CAFE without a government verification system in place.
Justin continues Liberal Party’s record
Justin Trudeau has chosen to continue in the LPC tradition of appearing to be committed on action on climate change, with doses of window-dressing, while ceding to powerful interests.
To this end, Justin has: 1) defined Canada as a resource export economy; 2) claimed that cap and trade and opposition to Keystone are not based on science; 3) also used the line that opposition is not based on science with regard to the proposed largest volume pipeline, the 1.1M barrel/day TransCanada Energy East pipeline, with it’s Cacouna, Quebec port planned on the St-Lawrence River, precarious for tankers ; 4) blindly supported free trade agreements with China and Europe that would allow foreign enterprises, including state-owned ones, to sue Canada in the event our environmental laws or aboriginal rights impede the maximization of profits from their investments in Canada; and 5) praised former Alberta Premier Redford for boasting of Canada’s environmental record as a sales pitch to convince the US to approve Keystone.
Trudeau firmly in denial camp
Trudeau’s cavalier dismissal of opposition to tar sands exports as not being based on science puts him squarely in the same camp as Harper – the denial camp.
Furthermore, the facts on the ground are affirming that Trudeau’s characterization of Canada as a resource export economy is dated. The fossil fuel party is over. Specifically, it has become evident that non-conventional fossil fuel resources, such as the tar sands, cannot be supported by market prices. Already, Big Oil has pulled out of many non-conventional resource projects around the globe and it is now clear that long-term energy and energy-related investments favour clean energy and clean transportation, and more generally a green economy.
Of particular significance to Canada, the above-mentioned green economy initiatives of China will ultimately lead to greater energy independence, thus once again showing that Trudeau’s FIPA resource export opportunity paradigm is totally out of sync with emerging new realities. Moreover, the gap between Trudeau’s tunnel vision and China’s new paradigm will surely widen as China accelerates its migration to a green economy under their 5 year plan for the 2016-20 period.
Trudeau wrong to pan cap and trade
With respect to Trudeau’s comments against cap and trade, the empirical evidence from the longest standing existing international cap and trade scheme, the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), proves otherwise. That is, the ETS has proven to be critical component of the EU success in meeting Kyoto Protocol objectives. More importantly, the ETS has put nearly all EU nations on track for meeting their respective 2020 targets
Yet Justin referred to Australia’s abolition of a cap and trade system as proof that the cap and trade concept is not supported by science. This, despite the fact that Australia’s Prime Minister Abbott has views similar to those of Harper on environmental matters.
Corporate tax stance misguided
Lastly, though indirectly related to the green economy, another important Trudeau policy position that would have an adverse impact on Canada’s ability to go green is maintaining Canada’s corporate tax rate at 15%, the lowest in the G7. While $630B lies dormant in corporate liquidity, the low corporate tax will limit a Trudeau government’s ability to assure adequate investments of financial resources in Canada’s own migration to a green economy.
Suffice it to say that empirical evidence on the Liberals’ past, together with Justin Trudeau’s policy statements to date, clearly reveal that, for the LPC, environmental issues are primarily about political manipulation, rather than facing environmental challenges.
One cannot be serious about the environment and support the LPC.
As for subsidies for fossil fuels, at a cost of $110/tonne, they are one of the most significant barriers to our migration to a green economy. On this matter, the International Monetary Fund has estimated that in 2011 US dollars, Canadian subsidies associated with fossil fuels – including indirect costs pertaining to climate change and health – amount to $26.4B/year.
In contrast to the Trudeau Liberals, the NDP would raise the ridiculously low federal corporate tax rate of 15%.
To conclude, the only barriers stopping Canada from catching up with our competitors in the global migration to a green economy are Harper and Trudeau.
We should all keep that in mind heading into the election of 2015.
