Category Archives: Politics

Rafe: Tories will win in 2015 on Iraq position; what does that mean for Canada, environment?

October 9, 2014Canada, PoliticsfeaturedRafe Mair

Rafe- Tories will win in 2015 on Iraq position; what does that mean for Canada, environment — Stephen Harper addressing UN Security Council (Sean Kilpatrick/CP)

The environmental policy of Ottawa will now depend upon what the Tories desire for the next five years.

Why do I say that?

Because their position on Iraq is the correct one and will win them the 2015 election. Canadians simply cannot abandon 100,000 Christians who will be killed if they don’t convert to Islam. They cannot ignore the creation of a new state made up of wild-eyed religious nuts prepared to decapitate those who don’t agree with them.

Proposed intervention gets the usual knee-jerk reaction from the NDP, laced with an overdose of anti-Americanism. The Liberals, under an immature Trudeau, who like the Bourbons has learned nothing and forgotten nothing, vacillates more with the desire to get votes than to do the right thing.

To blame the United States exclusively for the present situation is nonsense. To assess blame, one has to go back to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the disgraceful Sykes-Picot secret agreement between Britain and France in 1916 where Turkish possessions were carved up. Iraq’s problems did not start yesterday.

What does this is mean for our precious environment?

It’s like Steven Leacock once said – the man that fell in love with the dimple made the mistake of marrying the entire girl. We are stuck with the entire Tory policy.

The Tory environment position is, predictably, simple-minded as propagated in my constituency by Tory MP John Weston who carps on about “process”. As long as there is a “scientific inquiry”, whatever the hell that might mean, with a limited ability of the public to speak, this is “process” – all that’s required.

“Process” has become the buzzword. When Harper eliminated protection for fish habitat a couple of years ago, Weston was enthusiastic because this meant there would be “process” before the fish were destroyed.

The “process” of ignoring public

Our publisher, Damien Gillis, and I have had many opportunities to watch “process” at work. It means one or two public hearings where the public can ask questions of the company about the environmental impact of a proposal without the ability to express opinions. It follows that the opinions they do possess mean absolutely nothing and are not taken into account ever.

Look at the National Energy Board – which is to say the government – stonewalling oral questions to Kinder Morgan by the public, to see what Tory “process” is all about. Imagine forbidding cross-examination in a courtroom! If that’s “process”, the Soviet “show trials” of the 1930s were paragons of litigious virtue.

[signoff3]

An obvious question: If we’re not to have real input into these environmental exercises, what are we, the caring public, to do for the next five years when faced with proposed environmental development we wish to question and have meaningful input into?

Google “safe fracking”

The Tory government’s medieval approach is not just confined to the blatherings of Weston, who no doubt reflects their policy accurately, but with nonsense like the recent pronouncement of the Minister of Finance, no less, Joe Oliver, who advised us to Google “safe fracking”, and we would see that there is indeed “safe fracking”! This is the extent of “scientific” examination, apparently, practiced by this government.

Where I live, people on Howe Sound are horrified at the thought of an LNG plant in Squamish and a gravel pit – would you believe that? – at McNab Creek, an important salmon river. It appears that approval for these two horrendous undertakings are “slam dunks”, although the people are up in arms. What do we do when these approvals come?

Console ourselves with the thought that some industry “scientists” have looked at the matter? Do we feel warm and fuzzy all over that the companies held public meetings to dispense their propaganda and take questions, not on whether or not the undertaking should go ahead, but to give them friendly suggestions?

The government is banking on us to be law-abiding citizens revolted at the thought of civil disobedience.

Tories living in the past

As usual, the Tories are living deep in the past. They have not been paying attention. People who normally wouldn’t cross the road to protest anything are taking to the streets in great numbers. There’s no longer the respect for either government or the legal “process” of which Tories seem so proud.

Once upon a time, people respected what governments said – when large corporations were taken to be honest, bent only on creating jobs and prosperity for the community.

Those days are long gone and that didn’t happen by some sudden public cynicism but by blatant and mindless rape of the environment for shareholder profit, not just tolerated, but encouraged by governments.

Where is it written that we must, as with the Tar Sands, destroy our environment, bring disease and reduced employment to surrounding peoples and decimate wildlife so that we can sell oil to Asia? If one applied “real world” accounting principles to this undertaking, would it really make sense? Especially if we took into account the cost of environmental degradation and the diminution of the natural beauty of which we are so proud and from which we derive so much pleasure, not to mention tourists?

Don’t expect a straight answer

Because they’ve got away with murder all these years, industry and government, not required to, are unable to tell the truth. They have been fooling of the public for eons and see no reason to end a winning formula.

People are no longer prepared to put up with the tendentious nonsense spouted by Mr. Weston and his government and are demanding proper environmental hearings where their opinions are not only sought but taken into account in the decision-making process – in short, honest “process”.

For the next five years then we’ll likely have to endure a government that believes that “process” denying a real voice to you and me will carry on.

We have, then, a choice – either we sit back and take it or we protest. To protest means that we must consider and where appropriate, practice civil disobedience.

This rubs against the grain for many law-abiding Canadians, but history teaches us that this is the only way you ever get the attention of brain-dead governments and rapacious industry that deny fairness.

It’s not a pleasant choice but I fear it’s the choice we’re going to have to make and in the not-too-distant future.

Watch this video of the flawed public “process” surrounding the proposed Woodfibre LNG plant in Howe Sound:

Rafe: Christy Clark should try being more leader, less cheerleader

September 18, 2014Energy and Resources, LNG, Media, Politics, Western CanadafeaturedRafe Mair

Christy Clark should try being more leader, less cheerleader — BC Premier Christy Clark dons Canucks jersey during 2013 election campaign (Andy Clark / Reuters)

Nowhere in the appalling record of the Liberal government in Victoria has its shortcomings been more obvious than at the very top. Premier Christy Clark has been a terrible leader whose pronouncements get more and more embarrassing as time passes.

However, she so dominates the government that one is hard-pressed to think of even the names of her cabinet ministers, which doesn’t say much for their abilities or courage to speak out on issues.

Tsilhqot’in move merited praise…BUT the proof is in the pudding

I recently applauded Premier Clark for making formal contact with the Tsilhquot’in First Nation. I did this because she was right to do so. What she has said since makes me wonder if she really understood what she was supposed to be doing. That she understands the obvious politics in what she has done is clear but there is no evidence that she and her government comprehend what must now be a clear policy. We wait and see with hope, if not much confidence.

Absence of political courage

The premier simply cannot get serious. She always thinks of photo opportunities and public relations. In so doing, she totally discounts the need for common sense or consistency with other government policies. What she considers least is the impact of her airy-fairy words on the issue in question. Her need to make sense is permanently diminished by her inability to do so.

Nothing in this bankruptcy of leadership has suffered more than the area of energy and the environment.

The Mount Polley catastrophe and the absence of any investigation into her government’s own role simply typifies the utter disregard Premier Clark has for the requirements of leadership – one of the main ones being political courage.

On environment, media hasn’t held Clark’s feet to the fire

Vaughn Palmer of the Vancouver Sun has much disappointed me on environmental matters since the Liberals took office in 2001. It’s not what Palmer has said – it’s the absence of any comment whatsoever which is troubling.

Considering Palmer’s yeoman service when the in the NDP were in power, we were entitled to expect that this same close attention to government policy would be maintained. In fact, in these areas there has been none from the mainstream media.

LNG: house of cards crumbling

Palmer has, in my view, redeemed himself considerably by his writings on LNG. He has consistently poked at the government and their starry-eyed approach to this question and, as time has passed, it is becoming clear that those of us who from the very beginning were throwing cold water on Clark’s blatherings were right after all.

My own skepticism was fuelled simply by what I read about the energy situation in Asia – of much more importance were the words of experts such as economist Erik Andersen and energy scientists who made it clear that the government had no grounds whatsoever for its wild enthusiasm.

“Prosperity” fund shrinks from $100 Billion to “billions”

This, I think, is what is so troubling about the Premier’s actions past and present. You may remember that during the last election, the “Prosperity Fund” which was the subject of the premier’s reveries, was going to add a trillion dollars to our GDP and $100 billion to our provincial coffers!

Instead of the premier and her experts in the energy field coldly and soberly analyzing the prospects for sale of LNG from BC plants to Asian markets, we got the fulminations of a cheerleader, the content of which made as much sense as most high school cheerleaders make. This is not what the public of British Columbia needs and indeed is not terribly helpful to the industry itself.

Today, Clark is promising only “billions of dollars” from LNG – but how many? “Billions” could technically be as few as two. She’s considerably less specific on that point today…

Palmer, in carefully researched interventions, is bringing doses of reality to badly-hyped government propaganda.

NDP opposition not much help either

Unhappily, the leader of the NDP, John Horgan is not much more helpful than Clark. In the very beginning, he anchored himself to a policy of supporting LNG – without any clear idea as to what that blanket support was going to entail. Now, instead of being able to criticize government policy, he is stuck with past pronouncements.

Leadership is not cheerleading

Leadership is not about raising unreasonable expectations or allowing those expectations to remain unchallenged. Quite the opposite. Leadership is about cool, unemotional analysis of issues and putting careful processes in place to make sure that initiatives are successful.

There is nothing the matter, of course – and, indeed, a great deal right – about government and opposition leaders supporting that which is good for the province of British Columbia. It is courageously determining whether or not it is good that is the sign of leadership.

There seems to be little any of us can do about it. So long as the Liberal Party is content to stay with Ms. Clark, she will likely stay. Dislodging a sitting leader is a daunting prospect, indeed. As the NDP have shown, it’s difficult enough to dislodge one that isn’t sitting.

Unless there is a miraculous sea change in the attitude from Mr. Horgan and his party, they are not going to provide the “government-in-waiting” that oppositions are supposed to provide. This is a most unhealthy situation.

Media matters

Once more, this all underlines the importance of a vigilant media. Mr. Palmer deserves credit for his assumption of leadership on the LNG issue. This leadership, must, however, be broadened to include the entire energy picture – and, of course, the overall issue of the environment.

This journal will continue to be ever on top of these issues, but it needs help from the mainstream media, who thus far have abdicated their responsibilities herein.

May the example of Mr. Palmer extend to others at his newspaper, the Vancouver Sun, television media and others.

Only when it does will we have a force in this province that effectively holds governments’ feet to the fire and exposes the puerile blatherings of the premier for what they are.

Rafe: Premier’s Tsilhqot’in meeting a sign of real change for BC?

September 11, 2014Canada, First Nations, PoliticsfeaturedRafe Mair

Premier's Tsilhqot'in meeting a sign of real change for BC — Tsilhqot’in Chief Roger William and Premier Christy Clark meeting in Vancouver today (Damien Gillis

This is the story of change.

Premier Christy Clark is to be congratulated for going to the Nemiah Valley and meeting with the Tsilhqot’in First Nation leaders about their position on land claims now that they have won a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision.

It is easy to say “about time”, except that same criticism could be applied to several premiers, going back years. I believe this is the first time a BC premier could have made such a visit and that we all had to have a very big wake up call before such a commitment was possible.

Move significant for all British Columbians

There is no question that this signals quite a change in the attitude of the current government. It also, however, signals quite a change for the people of British Columbia.

I can only relate my own experience – which I have done – which was a long, slow epiphany from the attitude I started out with as a boy in British Columbia to what I have now.

They didn’t teach us this stuff in school

I grew up in a very traditional background in the 30s and 40s. I’m not going to relate now what our attitude towards “Indians” was because it would be insulting. Suffice it to say we had no understanding whatsoever of the aboriginal peoples of British Columbia.

This is not surprising when you consider that we learned absolutely nothing about aboriginals when we went to school. That’s not quite true, we learned all sorts about aboriginal peoples in Ontario – the Algonquins, Iroquois, Huron and so on. That’s because we all used Eastern textbooks. As to the Haida, the Shuswap, or Musqueam, we were totally ignorant.

My ignorance carried on until very recent times. My observations tell me, however, that I did very little other than reflect the views of other British Columbias who were, like me, moving – at a glacial pace, perhaps – towards a better understanding of what aboriginal peoples stood for and what they meant to our overall community.

Series of legal victories changed the game

Much of the learning process came with pails of cold water from the court system. Decision after decision taught us what the Constitution of Canada plainly said but we did not believe. Many of us did not like what we originally heard.

In my own case, I can say that the light went on and I realized that it didn’t much matter what any of us might have wished the Constitution said, we had to live with it as it was. As time went on it became pretty clear to me and I’m sure to many others that we ought to be respectful of the Constitution because it was in fact right, where we had been wrong.

We simply took the land

As I thought about it, it was not rocket science. The Europeans had come to British Columbia and simply taken the land that they found, created their own land registry system – and Bob’s your uncle. That this was not satisfactory ought to of occurred to us a long time ago but didn’t. It all seemed so right. We had conquered them, hadn’t we?

In fact we hadn’t, and even if we had, modern international law does not regard conquest as the end of the matter. In any event, the laws we as Europeans had made bound us to adjust our views and recognize native title.

We have reached this point where we must adjust and we must make accommodations. We have no choice but to accept the fact we cannot do as we please with native land or disputed land. And that, in my view, is as it should be. That premier Clark has recognized this and is making moves towards establishing lines of communication is a very good thing.

Mount Polley a game-changer too

There has been another companion change which I have seen in my lifetime and it’s been a very subtle one. Not long ago, Premier Clark, after the Mount Polley disaster, flew over the lake and made the idiotic statement that she would make it pretty again.

Perhaps that wasn’t so idiotic after all because she probably touched a nerve with all of us. Impossible though it may be to change the topography of the area, we all felt the loss of the beauty concurrent with the dam disaster. Perhaps we couldn’t do anything about it and maybe it was silly to pretend we could, but we very much wanted it cleaned up and we were angry about our loss.

People starting to care

For most of my life, industry has been able to move in and tote up the value of the area in terms of timber, minerals, and so on, and the value of the beauty of the area was not part of the equation. We never thought we could quantify a beautiful mountain, lovely lake, or a gorgeous ocean shore. Those things were there, they were ours, but they were not quantifiable in terms of monetary value. As a consequence we simply accepted the fact that they would be impaired or destroyed. We didn’t like it, but we had no choice.

That has slowly but surely changed. I live in Howe Sound and the people of my area are appalled at what may happen to us if there is an LNG plant in Squamish, the trees of Gambier island destroyed or a rock quarry goes into the mouth of McNab Creek. It is not just the traditional concerns that are being expressed – it is the aesthetic values that are front and centre and being expressed in strong terms.

Companies have never understood this nor have the governments that they run. If you were to speak to somebody like the big-mouth easterner, Joe Oliver, minister of finance, who is always flapping on about how BC must accept these desecrations, you would see an indifference to such things as the beautiful mountains, lovely oceans, lakes and so on. That simply does not compute in the minds of people like Oliver, nor the prime minister. These are just not factors to be considered.

Corporations will have to face change

It is much different with the people and changing every day. While Enbridge and Kinder Morgan are stunned at the attitude of people towards their trees and rivers, they and their client governments will have to change. They will have to change because people have changed and insist that those changes they recognized.

People change – perhaps “evolve” is a better word. British Columbians have altered their views on questions of aboriginal peoples and the quantifying of our beautiful surroundings which, just as timber and minerals, have a value. Those changes are new and permanent.

The governments and industry are going to have to adjust to that.

Lead lawyer in Tsilhqot’in Williams Case presents alternate history of BC (from 2008):

Rafe: Why Bennett should resign over Mount Polley

August 20, 2014Metals and Minerals, Mining, Politics, Western CanadafeaturedRafe Mair

Rafe- Bennett should resign over Mount Polley — In the old days of BC politics, Minister Bennett would resign, says Rafe (Youtube/Got News Network)

One day, in 1863, Mr. Byrne decided to take a stroll to get a little bit of Liverpool air. As he ambled down the street he went past Mr. Boadle’s flour factory. To his considerable surprise and horror, flying out of the window on the second floor, came a barrel of flour which fell upon Mr. Byrne, knocked him to the ground, inflicting on him grievous bodily injury.

Mr. Byrne, a tad upset by all of this, decided to sue Mr. Boadle.

When the case came to court, Mr. Boadle’s lawyers argued that there was no evidence of negligence. After all, no one had seen the barrel of flour come out of the window so how can anybody tell what in fact had happened? Mr. Byrne, said Mr. Boadle, had to prove negligence and all he could show is that somehow, God only knows how, a barrel of flour had fallen out of a window and hit him on the head. That, said Mr. Boadle, was scarcely proof of his negligence.

Somehow, the learned judges hearing the case, were not impressed with this argument.

Res ipsa loquitur

Shorn of the Latin and legalese, essentially they said, “How the hell else could this have happened?” Barrels of flour don’t usually fall out of second-story windows on people walking down the street. Mr. Byrne was given damages. (If you happen to be interested, the legal doctrine is called “res ipsa loquitur”, or in English, “the thing speaks for itself”.)

How does this relate to the Mount Polley catastrophe, you might well ask – I’m sure that was on your mind!

Well there is now considerable argument as to whether or not anybody was negligent in the breaching of that dam, if so who it was, and how could you prove it anyway? Mr. Byrne would be able to answer that question easily.

There is no need to concern oneself about who is liable here – those who own and run the dam and those who have a duty to inspect that dam and make sure that it was kept in proper repair. That is the barrel of flour in this case.

Investigation designed to fail

Somehow Premier Christy Clark and Minister Bill Bennett have never read Byrne v. Boadle. They are flopping about talking about investigations – announced at an appalling press conference earlier this week.

By careful but not very clever design, the “independent” engineering inquiry from the outset exonerates Mr. Bennett’s and Ms. Polak’s ministries. When you look through the 14 recommendations, there is one that faintly suggests that the commissioners might want to look at the regulatory regime surrounding this disaster. There is no mandate to do so and it is not any more than a casual comment. Moreover, none of the commissioners have any expertise to look at this aspect of the matter.

I don’t mean this in unfairness to the commissioners – I don’t know the gentlemen, but their credentials with respect to mining seem impeccable. But to check into the regulatory obligations of ministries and whether or not they have been fulfilled requires a lawyer or a judge.

Bigger than Mount Polley

There must be, of course, a full and independent investigation. It is not simply the Mount Polley case with which we are concerned here.

There are not only countless other dams in the province but a number of other edifices which are under statutory scrutiny by the government of British Columbia and one or more of its ministries. The fact that no other dam has burst for awhile has nothing to do with it (though there have been no less than 46 “dangerous or unusual occurrences” at tailings ponds around the province from 2000-2012).

Dams don’t burst very often, the Saints be praised, but when they do, all hell breaks loose. It’s rather like tankers full of bitumen or LNG hitting something, or a pipeline bursting, isn’t it, when you think about it?

No one out for an afternoon fishing, a couple of weeks ago, would have predicted that the dam was about to burst. That’s why there are government regulations. Dams sit there for a long time without looking like they’re going to burst.

[signoff3]

Being part of the Environment or Mines ministries, in the regulations department, is rather boring work. Nothing much happens. It’s pretty easy to assume that since nothing much is happening but nothing much will.

Now, it is not the good and skillful people that work within these ministries who assume that nothing will happen. Quite the opposite, their training is to know that something will happen sometime and their job is to prevent it.

No, it’s the idiots that run the ministries and politicians whose only concern is that catastrophes happen other than when they are in charge.

That’s why Mount Polley disasters happen.

Government’s regulatory failure is key issue

What is irrelevant, at this point, is how much damage this has all cost. Now, don’t get me wrong, it’s appalling to think of the consequences of this. I only say what I say because that is a separate issue which will have to be dealt with separately. As a man who’s been a lifelong opponent of capital punishment, I must say I could change my mind if I could catch the people who destroy our precious salmon and our God-given environment. That, however, as I say, it is not the point I’m going on today.

Today we must find out why our government and those who run it failed so utterly in their duty and what we must do about it. Remember, there is evidence that the ministry staff did indeed point out defects and ordered that they be corrected. There is evidence that the company simply failed to do what it was told to do.

A lack of enforcement

If that indeed happened, it means that there was a lack of enforcement. Lack of enforcement, be it fish farms, independent power projects, or dams inevitably points the finger at the politician. You cannot expect the companies to behave anything other than like companies. Their job is to make money and to explain away terrible things that happen by saying they’ll never happen again.

However, it is the bounden duty of those we elect to enforce the law.

We will never know all the answers until somebody of considerable talent and learning can stand back from this and investigate the entire matter going back to that day in 2001when industry began to get a free ride from its new friends in government led then by Gordon Campbell, now by Christy Clark.

Frankly, we’re looking at a judge. Anybody else will simply not have enough credibility with the public.

Minister should have resigned

Minister Bennett ought to have instantly resigned, not because of any personal negligence but because the time honoured rule is that if a ministry fails in its fundamental duty, it is the minister who must run up on his own sword. Unhappily, we don’t seem to pay much attention to these little rules anymore. I say unhappily, because the essence of good government is that the minister for each and every ministry is “responsible” for the actions of that ministry.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that if one of his employees did something naughty, that the minister would be responsible. It does not mean that the minister must resign any time his ministry makes a mistake. To err is human.

No, we’re talking about the failure of a ministry to do its fundamental and in this case statutory duty.

It is remarkable to me, as one who has been in the BC Cabinet, the casual attitude being betrayed by the government in general. I recognize that Mr. Bennett is losing sleep and that the Premier wants to make the lake just as pretty as it used to be and promises to do so.

There is, however, the huge question of Public Duty involved and that is simply not being addressed. Either we have a government where there is ministerial responsibility or we do not. Evidently the answer is we do not.

If we, the public, don’t take this seriously, even if it means a little serious philosophizing about what governments are supposed to do, then we will deserve to have this kind of government forever.

David Suzuki: Leaders must put people before politics

August 19, 2014International, Politics, UncategorizedfeaturedDr. David Suzuki

David Suzuki: Leaders must put people before politics — G7 leaders meet in The Hague in 2014

When we elect people to office, we give them power to make and enact decisions on our behalf. They should have a vision that extends beyond the next election and the latest Dow Jones average — to our children and grandchildren.

We expect our leaders to have a clear picture of our world and the conditions necessary for human life and well-being. If they don’t, how can they make informed decisions? So let me outline some simple, scientifically validated truths about us and the world we live in — truths that should guide our political decisions.

We are, above all else, biological beings, with an absolute need for clean air from the moment of birth to the last death rattle. We take air deep into our lungs and filter whatever’s in it. Plants on land and in the ocean take in the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and release oxygen during photosynthesis, creating the atmosphere we depend on.

We are about 60 per cent water by weight, so we need clean water to be healthy. When water falls to Earth, it’s filtered through tree and other plant roots, soil fungi and bacteria, cleansing it so it’s safe to drink.

All the energy in our bodies that we use to move, grow and reproduce is sunlight captured by plants in photosynthesis and converted to chemical energy, which we ingest. We eat plants and animals for our nourishment, so whatever they’re exposed to ends up in our bodies. We need clean soil to give us clean food.

These are basic, biological facts and should be the prism through which any decision is made at individual, corporate or government levels. Protection of air, water, soil and the web of life should be the highest social, political and economic priority.

We’re also social animals. Scientists have shown that love during childhood is essential for healthy development. Children who are deprived of love at critical points can develop a variety of physical and psychological deficits. To avoid those, we have to work for strong families and supportive communities, full employment, justice, greater income and gender equity and freedom from terror, genocide and war.

Finally, we are spiritual creatures who require sacred places, a sense of belonging to the world and a recognition that we are not in charge of nature, but dependent on the biosphere for our health and well-being. We are not outside of nature; we are part of it.

[signoff3]

To be fully healthy and human, our most elemental needs are biological, social and spiritual. Politicians ought to know this. Their role is to protect and enhance those necessities of life; otherwise there is no vision, direction or leadership.

That’s why it’s absurd for a politician or government representative to speak about any aspect of the economy without acknowledging the threat of human-induced climate change. Many oppose doing anything on ideological grounds, but the science is overwhelming and compelling, and the need for action is clear. What can you say about “leaders” who choose to ignore the best available evidence to the detriment of the people they are elected to represent?

Surely those who act only for short-term economic gain, imposing destructive consequences on generations to come, must be held responsible. We must also consider the consequences of rapid and excessive exploitation of fossil fuels on the world’s poorest people, who have done little to create climate change but are most affected by it.

Even though Canada ratified the legally binding Kyoto Protocol, which spelled out our obligations to reduce the risk of climate change, many of our “leaders” have wilfully ignored scientific evidence and urgent calls to meet the protocol’s targets, and Canada eventually abandoned the agreement. What should we call that?

And what can we say about “leaders” who can see something is wrong and have the means to respond but choose not to? This is what Canada is doing — in the face of overwhelming evidence and pleading of other industrialized nations.

Our elected representatives deserve respect for their commitment. But the elevated status and power of politicians also carries responsibilities. Many are abrogating those responsibilities for ideological reasons that have nothing to do with our well-being.

Mount Polley owner donated half a million dollars to Liberals, gets easy ride from Bennett

August 8, 2014Metals and Minerals, Mining, Politics, Western CanadafeaturedCommon Sense Canadian

BC Minister of Mines Bill Bennett (CP) — BC Minister of Energy and Mines Bill Bennett (CP)

By Alex Hanson

The Bill Bennett dog and pony show has been wheeled out in the media once again, this time to cover for his long time pal and major campaign contributor Murray Edwards – the biggest shareholder at the now infamous Mount Polley Mine.

The recent debacle at Mount Polley has the potential for being the biggest environmental disaster in BC history. It has the president of the mining company, Imperial Metals, running in circles with claims that the sludge from their tailings pond is “very close” to drinking water quality.

It also has Minister of Mines and Energy, Bill Bennett doing damage control on behalf of the BC Liberals for their mismanagement of mining in BC – choosing to let companies police themselves as the BC Liberals rid themselves of government inspectors.

Here’s what Postmedia columnist Stephen Hume had to say about Bennett’s response: “…the usually ebullient and forceful minister sounded uncharacteristically querulous, a hand-wringer rather than a strong leader. The best he could initially summon was the observation that the disaster shouldn’t have happened. Gosh, you don’t say! But it did happen, on his watch, and he is responsible for making sure accidents like this don’t happen.”

The most Bennett could muster was a whopping $1 million fine for this colossal fiasco.

But why would Bennett take a political hit by being so weak on the issue, when Imperial Metals has been so openly reckless in their stewardship of the environment?

Mount Polley owner one of Liberals’ biggest donors

Back in January 2013, two men – Murray Edwards and Rod Love – put on a $125 per plate fundraiser in Calgary for the BC Liberals, prior to last provincial election. Dig a little deeper and you’ll find that various companies in which Calgary billionaire and Flames owner Edwards is a major investor gave an additional $482,857 to the BC Liberals over the last several years:

Imperial Metals: $178,300
Canadian Natural Resources: $153,480
Penn West Petroleum: $65,835
Mount Polley Mining: $46,720
Resorts of the Canadian Rockies: $23,522
Ensign Drilling: $15,000 (source: Elections BC)

No wonder the BC Liberals began gutting the Ministry of Mines and paving the way for pipelines as soon they got into power. Less regulation and enforcement means more room for profit.

And with the 18th richest billionaire in Canada as Bennett and Clark’s major campaign contributor, we should expect to see more of the Minister of Energy and Mines sitting pretty in front of the cameras, as he whitewashes the Mount Polley disaster for his buddy Mr. Edwards.

Say cheese Minister Bennett!

Alex Hanson
Fernie BC

[signoff3]

Rafe: Mount Polley Mine proves Liberal “de-regulation” doesn’t work

August 7, 2014Metals and Minerals, Mining, Politics, Western CanadafeaturedRafe Mair

Rafe: Mount Polley Mine a "colossal screwup" by BC Liberal govt — Blame the BC Liberals’ lax regulations for Mount Polley Mine, says Rafe Mair (BC Liberal facebook page)

The Mount Polley Mine/Imperial Metals disaster is such that one scarcely knows where to start. Fortunately, the people of British Columbia have a writer like Stephen Hume, who in the Vancouver Sun tells chapter and verse about the failings of the Ministry of Environment’s statutory obligations to regulate.

You know, there must’ve been a date back when that all of the civic dignitaries and the executives of the company and a number of politicians had a glorious day opening the mine and telling everyone how safe it was and how the company’s record was perfect and that in the very unlikely event they missed something, why, there were always those faithful government inspectors to make sure that things were up to snuff.

Expect same (de)regulation of LNG, pipelines, tankers

This naturally got me thinking about the same things now being said about LNG plants and tankers; about Tar Sands pipelines and tankers. Same corporate public relations departments – same addle-headed politicians.

But, I can’t shake it! How come no one has to resign? This is a colossal screwup by the government of British Columbia. Is no one to blame? Whatever happened to the notion of ministerial responsibility?

[signoff3]

I suppose the answer is that when you have political lightweights like the Christy Clark government, totally unmindful of their responsibility to stand by their actions, you’re not going to have anyone even pause for a moment to think that they should pay a price. The whole question of ministerial responsibility has become less and less fashionable as the years go by, but surely there must be some point where the screwup is so bad that someone must run up on their sword.

They should have seen this coming

Lest one think that the Clark government hasn’t had the faintest idea the trouble was brewing in the inspections department, Stephen Hume tells us that the University of Victoria’s Environment Law Center reported in 2012 that environmental assessment certificates issued by government were often “vague and unenforceable”… and that by 2008, the number of mine inspections had fallen to one half what they were in 2001. The Ministry of Environment staff shrank during that time by 25% and the chief mining inspector had insufficient staff to complete the annual the monitoring reports required. And – this has to shake you – the report said:

[quote]This ramshackle enforcement regime is not good enough for an industry that can create environmental and financial catastrophes.[/quote]

Thus the Clark government knew that their enforcement system was inadequate to the task, yet when that breach of public duty spawned disaster, they pay no price!

The Campbell/Clark liberal government has been playing Russian roulette with the safety of British Colombians since it took office in 2001.

Same lax regulations applied to fish farms, IPPs

You may remember that one of the first things this government did was return all of fines levied against fish farmers for illegal practices.

Then came the “raping” of our rivers by private power concerns who were given the opportunity to bankrupt BC Hydro at the same time. These private schemes, which put up dams on the rivers which they prefer to call weirs, are under strict guidelines as to how much water they can use and when, in order to protect the fish. The trouble is that the companies have paid no attention whatsoever to these guidelines unless it suited them and the government hasn’t enforced them, nor has it demonstrated any intention to.

Thus, when you look at the failures of the Ministry of Environment as outlined by Stephen Hume, you see a systemic avoidance of enforcement going right back to the days the Liberals were elected. Yet no minister nor the government need take any responsibility for this!

“Red Tape” and other euphemisms

Enforcement rules are usually referred to by industry and their captive politicians as “red tape” and “de-regulation” or “streamlining” become buzzwords. It’s assumed that if all of these silly bureaucrats would stop trying to enforce idiotic safety regulations, we would all make lots more money. The notion perpetuated by industry is that every rule and regulation is there to stop them making money and, of course, distributing that generously amongst the less well-off in the community, and that these stupid bloody rules should all be tossed aside or ignored; that government regulation, whether it be by way of safety in a factory or a mine, or protection of fish and wildlife, are all bureaucratic nuisances set in place by “socialists” to prevent the entrepreneur from doing great things.

This is the history of these matters. When you read about the struggles of labor unions to get essential safety features into the workplace and see just how minor those reforms were and the fuss the politicians and industrialists made, you can’t believe that caring human beings with souls were involved on the corporate and government side.

Corporations have but one objective

The problem with the general public is that by and large it doesn’t understand what corporations are all about. Companies have one sole purpose: making money for their shareholders. Every penny that is taken from that undertaking is a penny misspent. This is not some sort of socialistic cynicism – it’s simply describes the beast. It has always been that way and it always will be.

Does anyone seriously think that entrepreneurs would go out of their way to voluntarily provide safety regulations and environmental protection and things of that sort that were adverse to their ability to make money? History is crystal clear on the point.

Of course, there are areas where it makes sense for companies to do the right thing by the general public. But it has to make sense on the balance sheet.

What about salmon?

Dead fish found downstream from Mount Polley tailings pond breach (Chris Lyne)

I haven’t spoken about the sockeye salmon. Here we are in a year where huge returns are expected and the Quesnel run may be destroyed. It’s too soon to know what the total impact will be but it bodes to be huge.

The sad thing here is we’re not talking about natural disasters but man-made disasters that could’ve been and often were predicted but ignored. We’re like Charlie Brown and football – we know Lucy’s going to pull it away at the last minute, but we play the game anyway and we always lose. It’s as if we don’t want to know the answers.

Just what are the dangers associated with an LNG tanker crash? What will be the consequences of a Tar Sands tanker crashing in one of our beautiful and sensitive fjords? What will be the consequences of a punctured pipeline in the rugged territory they pass through from Alberta to the BC coast?

Lessons learned

This may seem unrelated to the Imperial Metals disaster, but it actually is very apropos. It is not just the likelihood of a disaster we must concern ourselves with but the extent of that disaster. We then must decide whether or not we’re going to take adequate steps to police these undertakings or just blissfully ignore them because the public relations departments of large companies tell us there’s nothing to worry about?

The Imperial Mine disaster story has legs. We now have in front of us a snapshot of what happens when large undertakings with potentially catastrophic consequences are not policed.

This is what happens when we leave it all to the Company.

This is what happens when a right-wing government takes over and decides to go easy on big business.

This is what happens when we allow ourselves to be deluded into buzz phrases such as “we’re being ruined by red tape”.

This is what happens when we turn a blind eye to common sense and assume that because nothing has happened yet, it’s not going to happen.

The Imperial Metals disaster proves, as if proof were necessary, that no large corporation will do anymore than it has to and then it will always place money in shareholders pockets ahead of money in public safety. It proves again, as if it were necessary, that governments in the pockets of industry will pay no attention to troublesome details like public safety and the security of our Wildlife.

What now?

The real question is what do we people think or care about this. If we believe that industry knows best and that our wellbeing depends upon our accepting their terms – so be it. We can’t be heard to complain about the consequences.

If, on the other hand, there is more to life than making money for foreign companies and we do care about the safety of our people, the preservation of our environment and the wellbeing of our wildlife, then we have to make some economic sacrifices. These economic sacrifices include not just passing regulations to ensure that those who invade our environment do so safely, but enforcing those regulations and being prepared to spend the money to do that.

Heads should roll on this one, but of course they won’t. Premier Clark hasn’t the faintest idea about responsibility of cabinet ministers to back up their mistakes with resignations. We the public should learn that laissez-faire government carries with it the inevitable consequence that the rich get richer and that the public and the environment in which they live get much the poorer.

If we don’t learn these lessons from this disaster, then we get what we bloody well deserve.

Examining the BC Liberal Government’s real fiscal record

August 2, 2014Economics, Politics, Western CanadafeaturedCommon Sense Canadian

The Common Sense Canadian’s Damien Gillis discusses the BC Liberal government’s real fiscal track record with CFAX radio’s Ian Jessop in Victoria.

The two contrast a history of serious cost-overruns on major infrastructure projects with the oft-repeated myth of the government’s sound fiscal management. From the Port Mann Bridge and Hwy 1 widening (550% of initial estimate) to the a new roof for BC Place Stadium (514% of original projection), emerges a shocking pattern of inept project management.

From July 29 (19 min)

[signoff3]

Can environmentalism be liberated from partisan politics?

July 28, 2014Politics, Western CanadafeaturedKevin Logan

Can environmentalism be liberated from partisan politics — Ex-BC Green Leader Jane Sterk (left) and Premier Christy Clark on the 2013 campaign trail (Facebook)

In BC, conflating environmentalism and politics is a mainstay. Is it possible to restore environmentalism in BC, free of partisan politics and more in tune with the actual environment? Here is where environmentalists can learn a lot from the rich and much longer history of the labour movement.

Much like labour, the environmental movement has hitched itself to a political party. This approach did not – and has not – served labour well as a force for progressive change, but rather doing so allowed electoral politics to marginalize the agenda of the majority of the populace, otherwise known as working people.

Interest groups, or lobbies like labour and environmentalism, are much more able to forward their cause as independent, partisan-free organizations whose sole intent is to leverage whomever is in power to make gains for their constituency. In this vein, it is of course crucial to be political, however, if such a group is already committed to a political body it impairs their ability to properly leverage gains, regardless of who is in power and what industry dominates the economic and political landscape.

The Green-industrial alliance

Environmentalism in BC has not only marginalized progressive environmental policy and the desires of BC’s majority by embedding itself in the Green Party, but in so doing has adopted Green Party politics. It should be obvious to anyone paying attention that the Green Party in BC is an enabling mechanism for the dominant industries and political players, most all of which are antithetical to what are commonly understood to be green values and policy objectives – at least, as they are advertised.

This corporate subordination of Green politics has been evident in many ways – from the Liberal Party paying for Green Party advertising during last campaign, to now-Green MLA Andrew Weaver’s support of Gordon Campbell in 2009, and now a proposed refinery and supporting oil pipeline. Vote splitting between the Greens and NDP has long enabled brown governments, while enviro campaigns focus on simple targets like Enbridge, to the exclusion of much bigger industrial objectives, LNG being a prime example.

Simple adjustments like electing environmental leaders through democratic reform of their organizations could be one small step to avert such dichotomy.

As it is, self-appointed leaders of green organizations dominate in BC and what we see are the brownest industries on earth undertaking an agenda that is anything but green – advanced under an unelected, social license machine that markets itself as “green.”

[signoff3]

This is not incidental or new or a mere inconvenience. Nor is it a tactical corporate tool such as “greenwashing” – rather it is a well-honed, long-practiced underpinning of both our corporate and social fabric. As a result, those that exploit oil, gas, timber, mineral and other resources are inextricably linked to the green movement and its lead organizations. It’s not simply a synergy or an alignment of convenience but rather they are one and the same.

The 2009 election saw a major schism within the so-called environmental community, whereby some leaders backed the Liberals in the name of climate action – over their controversial “run-of-river” program – even as the Campbell government vowed to build the Enbridge pipeline and continue developing the province’s oil and gas resources.

This result is not unlike the history of the labour movement in BC, despite labour having a more democratic footing and elected leadership – which only proves that democratic reform is but one step in the right direction. The two movements have much in common and face similar challenges, which is why it has always seemed odd to me that labour and environmentalism have been pitted against each other, often resulting in political failure for progressive people, policy and politicians.

“Economy vs. Environment” = false dichotomy

The age-old debate of “Economy vs. Environment” that has brought BC’s progressive forces to their knees is a false political construct, one foisted upon us by regressive, often conservative forces. It’s akin to suggesting to someone their car does not run because of the “air vs. gasoline” problem. While it is true that a combustion engine depends almost entirely on the air/gas mixture, these forces are not opposed but rather required to work in harmony, in the right balance, in order to perform as a finely tuned machine.

It’s pretty clear to me that we are not going to be scrapping the combustion engine that is our “global economy” anytime soon, despite it setting the world on fire – but we in BC can work to ensure the economy and environment balance is that of a well performing machine. That sort of tune-up is what BC needs and may still be within our grasp.

Democratic reforms could help solve problem

One step in that direction is to restore the autonomy of lobby groups/PACS/interest groups through law. This could include, or rather should force them to be non-partisan, while providing a framework for forwarding policy objectives and political goals that is much more defined. Doing so would help level the playing field and neuter the abuse undertaken by the powerful and privileged who manipulate perception and public opinion with front groups whose true agenda is often far removed from their public mandate.

From there, political party reforms are required. These could reinforce this notion by banning lobby groups/PACS/interest groups from holding membership blocks in political parties, while simultaneously ending their ability to finance parties. This could be achieved by funding parties solely with public dollars and capping their election marketing campaign expenditures. All of which would level the political playing field by offering each party the same access to the public with the same capacity to spread their message.

And of course, no parties should be run by the Kool Topp Guys at Hill and Knowlton or other major corporate lobbies, and especially not their election campaigns, all of which should be clearly banned in law. (By the way, the Toronto Star has just published a piece on the issue of the status and purpose of political parties that is worth a read, as is this follow-up piece by Don Lenihan).

Regardless, serious reforms are required and this is becoming more evident to the majority now. Yet, however fundamental, change is never easy, and often we see where such changes result in even worse setbacks, especially if the general trajectory is downward, which seems to be the case in North America. And certainly when they are about stripping power and privilege from those we have allowed to gain such immense and unprecedented power and privilege. Such entitlement is not easy to erase or even correct.

Saving BC means building new alliances

These are the circumstances that give rise to organizations that pander to power while working to inspire hope and change amongst the faithful and downtrodden, progressive-thinking populace. It’s a necessary component to political stability in a “capitalist” society run by oligarchs. BC’s environmental movement has not escaped this dynamic.

Labour has long gone down this road and fulfilled this role, in BC and elsewhere. Environmentalism seems to be their junior partner now, as the house of labour allowed itself to become stagnant and often irrelevant in our fast-changing world and labour market.So we see a partnering now, not one that delivers political victory but rather one that continues to sustain the oligarchical system, while working to maintain political stability by manufacturing consent.

If BC is to survive this global corporate onslaught, we need to get busy reforming the long-established mainstays of our political culture, which ranges from First Nations political bodies, through environmentalism and labour, as well as, our political parties – not to mention the media.

These are all public institutions made up of British Columbians, therefore change is within our grasp. Doing so may allow us to avert simply being manipulated by a small minority who implement their strategy in unison with influential interest groups, devising the rhetorical narrative that drives the plunder of our province.

Time is short and resistance is no longer a luxury but instead has become necessary for our collective well being.

Under BC Liberals, big projects often double in cost…Why would Site C Dam be any different?

July 17, 2014Economics, Hydropower, Politics, WATER, Western CanadafeaturedDamien Gillis

Under BC Liberals, big projects routinely double in budget...Why would Site C be any different — Seeing red: The roof on BC Place Stadium is just one of many cost overruns on the BC Liberals’ watch

Oh, for the days of the fast ferries…compared to what we have now.

Most British Columbians will recall Premier Glen Clark’s late 1990’s boondoggle, which saw the construction of three new coastal vessels balloon from a projected $210 million to nearly $460 million.

How could we forget? After the relentless salvos from pundits like Vaughan Palmer and Mike Smyth led to the NDP government’s collapse, in every election cycle since, the incumbent BC Liberals have dragged out these ghost ships to bolster their own economic credentials. To Gordon Campbell and Christy Clark, the fast ferries are the gift that keeps on giving.

Liberal fiscal record sets new lows

The only problem is the Liberals’ own fiscal fiascos absolutely dwarf those of their NDP predecessors – though they’re consistently able to get away with it.

Sure, Mr. Palmer has poked holes in the government’s laughable election promise of a debt-free BC and raised red flags over the government’s routine cost overruns, but the pundits’ knives have been decidedly less sharp over the past 13 years. Unlike the NDP, Liberal governments face no real consequences for their misdeeds.

With the Liberals on track to double the $34 Billion provincial debt they inherited from what history would now suggest was a surprisingly restrained NDP, it’s high time for an update to their fiscal report card. (That debt doesn’t even include an additional $100 Billion in contractual taxpayer obligations, like private power contracts, which they’ve swept under rug).

This is especially important with projects like the $8 Billion proposed Site C Dam currently under review (and if you believe that sticker price, I’ve got some pond-front property in northern Alberta you may be interested in).

In the real world, budgets don’t double

On that last point, Fort St. John businessman Bob Fedderly put the Liberals’ woeful record of project management in perspective when I interviewed him recently about Site C, which he and a growing number of businesspeople are opposed to.

“If you look back over the last 10 or 12 years to every project of any magnitude, it’s ballooned right out of proportion – two times, three times is not uncommon,” Fedderly noted. “This is a pattern that’s appearing on project cost management.”

Contrasting the government’s track record with his own companies’ construction projects, he acknowledged a 10% margin for error was acceptable – but no more than that.

[quote]In the real world of people building houses, they don’t double in price.[/quote]

How bad is the government’s legacy with major capital projects? Pretty darned awful. Here are a few lowlights:

1. Port Mann Bridge/Hwy 1 widening: 550% of initial estimate

Artist's drawing of new Port Mann Bridge — Artist’s drawing of new Port Mann Bridge

According to The Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation, “Originally, the government said the cost of improvements to the Port Mann would be $600 million. That ballooned to $1.5 billion in 2006 when the government announced it would twin the bridge. Now, the total cost of the project is expected to be $3.3 billion” (that’s $2.46 Billion, rising to $3.3 Billion including operation and maintenance costs).

Extra demerits for a serious design flaw that led to falling ice bombs, putting passengers at risk and ringing up $400,000 in insurance claims for ICBC.

2. BC Place Stadium roof upgrade: 514% of initial estimate

While the official line is that the upgrade to BC Place Stadium skyrocketed from $365 to $514 million, a January 2008 letter from operator PAVCO’s Chairman David Podmore to Vancouver City Manager Judy Rogers pegged the total cost at just $100 million. I’m no architect, but that seems like a reasonable price, whereas $514 million does not. After all, Seattle built a perfectly good stadium for its Seahawks in 2002 for just $360 million. All we got is a roof.

Extra demerits for design flaws which restricted the retractable roof’s ability to…well, retract.

3. Northwest Transmission Line: 182% of initial estimate

Crown corporation BC Hydro’s construction of the Northwest Transmission Line – designed to power an assortment of proposed mines in the Sacred Headwaters region of the province – has nearly doubled from initial estimates of $404 million to the most recent tally of $736 million (expect the final number to be considerably higher).

Extra demerits for management error that could cost BC $130 million in federal “green infrastructure” support for the project. The Liberal government received the grant to electrify the village of Iskut, getting it off diesel power. All the province had to do was file a plan for the spur with the feds by June 30, 2012 – but it missed its deadline by nearly a year, meaning that, technically, the BC public is on the hook to repay the entire $130 million.

4. Vancouver Convention Centre: 178% of initial estimate

The Vancouver Convention Centre (Wikipedia)

For all its LEED certifications and architectural attributes, the Vancouver Convention Centre also exploded from estimates of under $500 million to nearly $900 million by its 2009 completion.

What’s worse, all this could have been avoided if the Liberal government simply followed its own critique of the NDP’s fast ferries experience – namely, not having people without construction experience overseeing the project (i.e. Liberal powerbroker Ken Dobell) and being sure to have finalized plans for the contractor to execute. Lacking the latter, a fixed-price contract proved impossible to nail down.

5. South Fraser Perimeter Road: 169% of initial estimate

Perhaps the only way for the Liberal government to assert it’s on time and on budget with a major project is to lie about it, as this unnecessary, convoluted truck highway through Delta and Surrey demonstrates. Laila Yuile, a blogger and one of the province’s shrewdest transportation project watchdogs, recalled last year that initial estimates for the project ranged from $700-800 million.

[signoff3]

By the time it was completed in 2013, it was a year late and the cost had risen to $1.264 Billion – significantly more than a revised estimate of around a billion dollars. But that didn’t stop the government from boasting that its project was “on time and on budget”. As Vaughan Palmer quipped at the time, “Regular readers of this space will be familiar with the more flexible approach that the B.C. Liberals have taken toward the concept of being on time and on budget.”

Why won’t the NDP stand up for itself?

Perhaps the biggest mystery in all of this is the NDP opposition’s failure to call the government out for its dismal fiscal record. How “Mr. Nice Guy” Adrian Dix saw fit to let the Liberals off the hook for this series of blunders that make the fast ferry overruns look like pocket change is baffling. It cost them the last election, as I noted in the aftermath of that sorry affair.

Liberal record a harbinger of Site C boondoggle

Alberta concerned about downstream impacts of BC's Site C Dam proposal — Proposed Site C Dam on Peace River

These numbers and examples of the Liberals’ fiscal ineptitude should be of real concern to BC taxpayers today as we ponder projects like Site C Dam – whose $8 Billion estimate (making it one of the highest-priced government infrastructure undertakings in Canadian history) is surely only the tip of the iceberg. Dams, as a rule, are highly prone to cost overruns – the World Bank estimates an average of 27% around the globe.

This is a project that will not serve the homes and businesses of BC, which are already self-sufficient in electricity far into the foreseeable future – rather, we’re told it’s to power liquefied natural gas production or to export to California (likely at a considerable loss for some time).

When you factor in the usual Liberal premium of doubling the cost, it’s not hard to see how this dam could sink us in more ways than one.