Category Archives: Politics

Clark & Redford: What their cozy relationship means for BC pipelines

Share
Clark & Redford: What their cozy relationship means for BC pipelines
BC and Alberta Premiers Christy Clark and Alison Redford (CP photo)

I have some questions for Premier Clark.

Premier, I’m a simple man who by nature asks simple questions.

You and Alberta premier Redford have evidently agreed that there will be a pipeline from her province through ours to the sea and that BC will make some money out of this deal.

  • Is this the end for Enbridge Northern gateway?
  • What will the new pipeline do to satisfy those of us with serious environmental concerns about Enbridge?
  • Does this musing by you and Redford have any bearing on Kinder Morgan who, incidentally, have had several recent spills?

Let’s move on to Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). You have promised, premier, that over the next several decades LNG will have wiped out all provincial debt and put over $100 billion in a prosperity fund. To make this happen we have to know some things:

  • Who will our customers be?
  • Given the huge reserves of shale gas and oil, worldwide, being discovered every day, isn’t it reasonable to assume that by the time we enter the market at the end of the decade, potential customers will be producing their own gas in quantities beyond their needs?
  • What will the price payable to BC be in 2020? And what will the market price be in the places we want to export to? Surely you can answer those questions, for otherwise your statements are egregiously irresponsible.

Let’s look at our own supply of shale gas:

  •  You have announced that Site “C”, a $10 billion dollar project, is to help the natural gas industry. Does this mean industry gets this new power free or for a significant discount compared to residential and small business customers? Does it mean that any shale gas producer who finds his returns don’t meet costs will get more favourable rates from BC Hydro?
  • If we find, alas, that the Site “C” power is not “bought” by natural gas companies, what happens to that power? In, short, what is your confidence that “Site “C” power will be needed?

A couple of questions about “fracking”:

  • Premier, in days of yore, you and then-Premier Campbell were hugely concerned about the burning of natural gas because it was toxic. Indeed, you and he heavily criticized BC Hydro for using gas to operate Burrard Thermal for a few days a year when hydro power is short. How can you condemn Burrard Thermal and support LNG production?
  • Premier, you have to get that LNG to the coast, I assume by pipeline. Will this pipeline take Tar Sands bitumen as well? Could it be easily converted for that process? Do you intend to hold public hearings, not just on environmental grounds but on the question of whether or not British Columbians want this program in the first place?
  • What are you going to do in a few years time when you discover that this LNG project is just a pipe dream?

Premier, forgive me but I might be a bit rude.

I suggest that your natural gas fracking/transporting policy is just wistful thinking. In reality, you are a Mr. Macawber, hoping that “something will turn up”.

I say your dream will turn out to be a nightmare.

Share

Audio: Damien Gillis on ‘Multi-Issue Extremism’, Liberal Gas Agenda

Share

Listen to Damien Gillis and Nanaimo’s CHLY host Rae Kornberger discuss how activism is becoming “extremism” – even terrorism – under the Harper Government’s petro-state regime. Invoking new, secretive anti-terrorism laws, federal agencies including CSIS and the RCMP are being directed to infiltrate, spy on and harass “multi-issue extremists”, whom they define as “activist groups, indigenous groups, environmentalists and others who are publicly critical of government policy.” The pair also cover the Christy Clark Government’s bold – and Gillis suggests foolish – vision to turn BC into a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) superpower. (from June 26, 2013)

 

Share

EcoEnergy money went to Carbon Capture, Tar Sands – No Clean Tech funding for this year

Share

Last month’s announcement by Stephen Harper of EcoEnergy Innovation Initiative recipients and other Government of Canada investments in clean tech provided an excellent example of false and misleading information coming straight from the Prime Minister’s Office.

First, the EcoEnergy Innovation Initiative call for statements of interest came in the form of regional launches across Canada in September 2011. The deadline for submissions of statements of interest for one part of the program was just two weeks after the launches, the second part in mid-October 2011.

While those who have had their projects approved were advised to this effect 2 years ago, the Prime Minister made the official announcementof approved projects on May 3, 2013, to purposely mislead the public to the effect that the government is doing something now. But there is no new funding for clean tech innovation in 2013-2014 – zero!

Note, as well, that 30% of the EcoEnergy Innovation Initiative funding awarded — $24.942M out of the total $82M — went to carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, the greenwashing technologies to make it appear that the fossil fuel industry has the environment at heart. Also, $8.826M, or 11% of all funding, went to tar sands projects.

As for the merits of CCS, according to this article from La Presse: 1) one third of the energy produced by a pilot CCS application to a coal-fired generating unit of the Boundary Dam facility in Saskatchewan is necessary to run the CCS component; 2) TransAlta, despite $800M in funding from Ottawa, abandoned its CCS project in Pioneer, Alberta.

Further on recent investments in clean tech, note that:

1) Sustainable Development Technology Canada, which averaged $56.4M/year in investments in clean tech innovation in the past, was allocated in the last Budget only $1M for 2013-2014 and $12M for 2014-2015;.

2) Obama recently announced an increase in clean tech research funding by 30% to reach $7.9B and an acceleration of the permitting approval process for renewable energy production and distribution projects on federal lands – federal lands make up 20% of the continental US land mass;

3) in August 2012, the Government of China announced financial commitments up to the year 2015 in the amount of $372B for emissions and pollution reductions and energy efficiency. http://www.ibtimes.com/china-spend-372-billion-reduce-pollution-encourage-energy-efficiency-759575 This complements the $67.7B in investments in clean techs in China for the year 2012; and

4) the global totals for clean tech investments in 2011 and 2012 respectively were $302.3B and $268.7B, the drop in investments in 2012 in part a reflection of the decline in clean tech prices, policy uncertainty in the US and European economic woes.

Will Dubitsky worked for the Government of Canada on sustainable development policies, legislation, programs and clean tech innovation projects/consortia. He lives in Quebec.

Share

Clean Tech Trade Wars: US, European Union vs. China and how FIPPA Hamstrings Canada

Share

The following is an excerpt from Will Dubitsky’s 3-part blog on FIPPA.

Canada is shooting itself in the foot with the China-Canada trade agreement – the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Act (FIPPA). Specifically, a little known stipulation in the China-Canada trade agreement risks torpedoing the development of Canadian clean energy technology sectors. This stipulation calls for no commercial barriers on environmental technologies. Why is this dangerous?

Well, with Canada’s clean tech sectors still very much in an embryonic stage, FIPPA, as it presently stands, would impose severe limitations on Canada’s potential participation in the phenomenal growth of global clean technology sectors, because of the massive and highly subsidized dumping of Chinese clean technologies on global markets.

More precisely, while the 1) US response to this dumping has been to impose trade tariffs, running from 31% to 250% on solar tech imports from China, along with tariffs of 45% to 71% on imports of Chinese wind turbine towers; and 2) the European Commission in June 2013 announced provisional tariffs on imports of Chinese solar products, ranging from 37.3% to 58.7%. Canada is the only country dumb enough to accept, via FIPPA, a guaranteed exemption for environmental technologies from commercial barriers.

In the US, the action taken by the US Dept. of Commerce in Fall 2012 followed 1) the bankruptcies of 4 US solar firms; 2) complaints filed by The Coalition for American Solar Manufacturing (CASM), representing 11,000 US workers and 150 US companies; and 3) complaints filed by the US Wind Tower Trade Coalition, representing 4 US wind tower manufacturers.

With 119,000 jobs in the US solar sector in 2012 – a 13.2% increase over 2011 – and 75,000 in the US wind sector in 2011, the US wanted to take swift action to address unfair trade practices affecting sectors experiencing solid growth in these difficult economic times.

In Europe, the European Commission (EC) took action on complaints from EU ProSun, a group representing 20 EU solar companies and the majority of European solar industrial capacity. In May 2013, the EC issued a “warning shot” by indicating it might open fair trade probes into Chinese mobile telecom equipment and in June 2013 the EC announced provisional tariffs on solar imports from China, stating that the dumping by China’s solar firms “caused thousands of Europeans to lose their jobs, and 60 European factory closures of which 30 were in Germany alone”.

For Europe, the job stakes are especially high in that its clean tech sectors represented 1.1 million jobs in 2011 – with 372,000 jobs in Germany alone. In effect, “illegal dumping” below the cost of production allowed China to capture more than 80% of the EU solar energy market “from virtually zero” only a few years ago.

Accordingly, beginning on June 6, 2013, the EC tariffs came into effect at a reduced rate of 11.8% for 2 months with the game plan being that, in the event of failed negotiations with China, the full provisional rate would be ramped up to an average of 47.6%, with the high end at 67.9% for the next 4 months. Subsequently, the EC would decide as to whether it would make the tariffs permanent.

In parallel, BSW, Germany’s solar trade association, is reviewing a trade case against China.

Notwithstanding Europe’s sabre rattling, it appears that the majority of European nations, Germany in particular, would prefer a negotiated settlement over trade wars.

China, for its part, initiated its counter-offensive, in July 2012, when it launched WTO anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations into allegedly unfair, low-priced US and South Korean polysilicon exports to China. Polysilicon is a key raw material for solar panels and 44% of the polysilicon used by Chinese solar manufacturers comes from the US.

Moreover, China registered a complaint with the WTO to the effect that $7.3B worth of Chinese renewable energy products have been subject to US tariffs in recent years, contrary to WTO rules. China also launched its own probe into subsidies of 4 US states and found they violate WTO rules.

The irony in all this is that, largely due to US polysilicon exports to China, the US had a $1.6B clean tech trade surplus with China in 2011. Specifically, when polysilicon, PV production machines and solar materials are factored in, the US held a $913M solar trade surplus over China in 2011.

Regarding China’s response to the EC’s June 2013 tariff initiatives, China’s polysilicon producers have called on Beijing to launch an anti-dumping investigation into European polysilicon imports, and urged Beijing to retaliate.

To add some colour to China’s sabre rattling, it has also indicated it would investigate the dumping of European wines in China. China did, however, acknowledge that Europe provided for a 2 month period of reduced tariffs.

Over the long run, however, Chinese manufacturers will likely to have an advantage in trade wars because of generous, cheap financing, lower production costs, scales of production which lower total costs, and an ability to refine silicon, make wafers and cells and build modules, as well as, or better than, any other group of manufacturers.

Share

Kool, Topp & Guy: Did lobbyists, back room operators kill BC NDP campaign from within?

Share

This Weekend is the party’s most pivotal Provincial Council meeting ever. Will the NDP really change or will it be more of the same?

Fourteen years ago, I had the privilege to serve in the office of the Minister of Forests with an astute NDP “guru”, a modest but brilliant political thinker and one of the strongest “staffers” in the NDP Government of the day.

His name was Dan Barrett, son of former premier Dave Barrett, whose legacy still resonates to this day.  We were ministerial assistants to David Zirnhelt, now the VP of the BCNDP executive, and I held the distinction of his longest serving MA, a bit of an inside joke.

As Ministerial Assistants in a government under siege, the staffers of the late nineties had an unparalleled camaraderie, and there was a great deal of talent in the backrooms of the NDP then.

In addition to Barrett, I had the privilege to rub shoulders with folks like Adrian Dix, John Horgan and Maurine Kariaginis, all of whom found their way to the front bench of the team. As Ministerial Assistant, I served three different ministers and a Premier, so I also spent significant time with “legends” like Moe Sihota, now the paid NDP party President.

However, that is enough about me – I relay these old details simply to set some context for this commentary as it is the NDPers who never put their name on a ballot that I would like to focus on here, on the eve of the most pivotal Provincial Council meeting in the BC NDP’s history.

Back in my university days, I was a Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) representative, a position that came with the office I was elected to on student council, where I cut my teeth in the wacky world of BC politics.

In those days, the CFS in BC was chaired by a young man everyone agreed was an up and comer. So, seven years later when I landed in Victoria as a newbie staffer I was not surprised to see Brad Lavigne as a senior political staffer, then in the office of Andrew Petter, ushering in massive policy suites like the Forest Practices Code.

Lavigne has had an exemplary career, having done a full tour of duty in Canadian universities before serving BC NDP cabinet ministers and ultimately wrapping up his time in BC on the Ujjal Dosanjh bus, which saw the BC NDP crumble under the worst defeat in the history of the social democrats.

But like Ujjal, Lavigne parachuted into Ottawa and anyone who watched the made-for-TV Movie Jack knows that it was Brad who went on to motivate Layton’s leadership bid and was an instrumental figure throughout Jack’s leadership.

Layton’s team became iconic on the Hill, which catapulted them to the stratosphere of New Democrat “guruism” – and Lavigne stands out among them. A regular power panel member on our state media’s flagship political show “Power and Politics,” Lavigne has never stopped his high-energy push through the halls of power.

He and Layton recruited other players in the NDP, such as Brian Topp and Anne McGrath, who have since become “gurus” in their own right, after propelling Jack to rock star status, or so the narrative goes and the movie portrays.

Lavigne now haunts the halls of Hill and Knowlton, a key division of WPP, the worlds largest most powerful lobby. There, he works alongside other staffers whom I shared time with in the dying days of the BC NDP’s reign, including Jim Rutkowski – whom Hill and Knowlton picked upafter a stint Jim did with the Vancouver Port Authority.

Those of us who worked in the nineties NDP, recognized the heavy hitters of the day, including Lavigne, Rutkowski, Horgan and Dix were going places, and while some chose to take up political careers away from the back rooms,  the ones who took a different path may be less known in BC – yet their impact on provincial and national politics has been just as profound, if not more so.

Those now in the employ of Hill and Knowlton are clearly enjoying time at the commanding heights in this country. Yet, back in the day Dan Barrett and I shared an office in the pointy buildings, I am not sure there were any lifetime New Democrats in such positions of power.

H&K, for anyone unaware, has long been the go-to group for corporate titans and masters of the universe. They delivered such melodramas as the Kuwait liberation effort that saw a Kuwaiti diplomat’s daughter roll out the eye-watering story of incubator babies being turfed to the floor that was the last straw responsible for invoking “Operation Freedom”, which liberated the Kuwaitis from the brutality of the madman, Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein…or so the H&K narrative goes. In the end, it turns out it might of had something to do with the oil.

Which brings me to the most recent BC Election experience.

Mere weeks before the writ was dropped, Brian Topp rolled out the press release that he would indeed be the BC NDP Campaign Manager. The mainstream narrative tells us that Topp hand-picked his “team”, unsurprisingly being the same Layton triumvirate of himself, Lavigne and McGrath. Rutkowski too – so H&K were well placed in the BC NDP War Room of Topp’s choosing.

Days later, Topp rolled out the grand opening of his new shop, Kool Topp & Guy. This reverberated through the circle of politicos who pay attention to this kind of thing. Many congratulations were on offer among their high-level colleagues; however, there was among some of us lowly peripherals a gut-wrenching consternation. What we saw was the crumbling of the inevitable BC NDP win, beginning before our eyes that day.

Topp’s new business partner, Ken Boesenkool is one of Conservative Canada’s top operatives. He is a young, telegenic man with direct ties to the PMO, Manning Institute and other conservative mainstays, including a long association with disgraced former Harper Chief strategist, Tom Flanagan, with whom he co-authored the Alberta Firewall, among many other less than flattering undertakings which delivered power to the Harper Conservatives. And finally the West was “in”.

Boesenkool also did a stint with – you guessed it – Hill and Knowlton, where he had a long list of clients, whom I cannot reveal because he does not discuss them – but it has been well publicized that he did time fighting the good fight for Enbridge.

The shiny new Kool Topp & Guy shingle, hung out days after Topp announced his role as BC NDP Campaign Manager, was a shocker, no doubt. Many were aware that Kool left Christy Clark’s side mere months prior under the cloud of a short lived and rather strange “scandal” that had no paper trail and few details.

Many observers were blindsided by the development of the BC NDP campaign manager teaming up with the architect of the Christy Clark BC liberal revival, mere days before the writ.

There were rumblings – quickly dashed – that included a call for Topp to step down. Concerns raised by bloggers and party supporters fell on deaf ears, as the rank and file were poll-drunk and the Topp-down orchestrated NDP campaign had an iron grip on the Kool-aid jug being liberally poured for everyone,  from the leader on down.

Which brings us to today. This weekend the NDP has its quarterly Provincial Council. The first item of business is the report from the Campaign manager. Bill Tielman,  identified as an NDP strategist, quipped that there “could be recriminations” in a recent Justine Hunter Globe and Mailpiece, suggesting that the heat Topp has taken since the “surprising upset” could be met with significant push-back from Topp`s strategists that occupied the war room.

A full disclosure of who exactly occupied the war room and handled the leader has yet to occur, but at this point, Topp, Lavigne, Mc Grath, Rutkowski, along with high-level elected executive types, Sihota, O’Brien and Zirnhelt have all been identified as key figures in the construction and execution of the campaign in its entirety. However, fundraising seems to have been executed outside of the direct leadership of the war room.

Topp did say weeks ago during some of the debate which ensued while sifting through  the ruins of the BC NDP 2013 election experience, that he intended to “write about the campaign after the leader spoke.” That did not happen and his twitter account has fallen silent since the day the BC Liberal campaign accused him of a conflict of interest – based on his associations with the film industry lobby and the policy being forwarded by the BC NDP Campaign. Not a single tweet from the twit since – the silence has been deafening.

Regardless, the entrails have been pored over in an informal fashion as Dix was quoted saying that an informal NDP review of the party’s election failures is already underway. “There’s lots of reflection taking place right now and I think that’s useful,” Dix claimed recently. Throughout this reflection period we have seen a wide variety of observations, ranging from blaming the apathetic, the Greens, the BC liberal voters and even questioning the polling that clamped down the internal campaign and candidates. But in the end, the one thing everyone agrees on is that the campaign was indeed the reason why BC is still governed by the single most regressive government in history.

Why that is the reality will be further explored as the “Terms of reference” will be set out for a formal review this weekend at Provincial Council. The run-up to this weekend’s gathering of the faithful from fall corners of the Province has already received some harsh yet insightful commentary and the leader is going to be in the hash marks.

The NDP risks squandering a potentially useful exercise if all they do is put Dix in the hash marks, as the 2013 election clearly cannot solely be attributed to him, and doing so may avoid digging deeper to the core of the problem and the generals in the war room whose conflicted interests are at the very heart of the defeat.

The last Provincial Council meeting I attended, my old colleague, Dan Barrett’s father stood up to the mic, delivered one sentence and sat down: “The NDP should change its name, because its no longer new or democratic.”

I am sure Dave Barrett`s observation never rang more true and was never more relevant than it will be at this weekend’s Provincial Council, over ten years later.

Part two of this two-part piece, will be published after we hear from Kool Topp Guy this weekend – and will include the H&K war room damage control report, language and efforts.

Share

Heritage Minister Excludes Watershed Sentinel from Funding

Share

Unless you are a magazine publisher, you’ve probably never heard of the Canada Magazine Fund. Administered by Heritage Canada, the CMF was established 24 years ago to “contribute towards the production of high-quality magazines showcasing the diverse work of a wide cross-section of Canadian creators” and to build “capacity to help ensure the continued growth and vitality of the Canadian magazine publishing industry.”

Over the years, the CMF did indeed help many Canadian publications, including small but important arts and issues-oriented magazines.

In 2010, the Conservative government incorporated the funding role of the CMF into the newly created Canadian Periodical Fund (CPF).Concerns were raised about the negative impact the accompanying changes could have on small magazine publishers. However, the remit of the new fund was reassuringly similar: to provide “financial assistance to Canadian print magazines, non-daily newspapers and digital periodicals to enable them to overcome market disadvantages and continue to provide Canadian readers with the content they choose to read”.

The emphasis on the word “they” is mine and made for reasons which will soon be clear.

Watershed Sentinel, BC’s scrappy environmental magazine, is a past and very grateful recipient of financial assistance through the CMF and the now defunct Publications Assistance Program. Last year the magazine applied for CPF funding to improve its on-line services for readers.

In April, editor Delores Broten was informed in a letter written on behalf of Heritage Minister James Moore, that the application had been rejected. Apparently the magazine did not meet the government’s objective to fund projects which “meet the needs of Canadians.”

So who, exactly, decides what the needs of Canadians are?

In the past year, Watershed Sentinel has revealed:

  1. The betrayal of Canada’s own energy security by the rush to export liquefied natural gas to Asian markets.
  2. The backroom machinations of General Electric Canada, Talisman Energy, and other members of the murky Aqueduct Alliance seeking to grab up rights to Canada’s water.
  3. The suspect process by which Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency approves the use of pesticides, including the continued use of the neonicotinoids strongly linked to the global demise of crucial bee populations.
  4. How the Canadian government (along with major tar sands players), having abandoned all pretence of meeting Kyoto goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, is throwing money at carbon capture and storage, and other dubious money-making geo-engineering projects.
  5. The glaring inadequacies and corporate hijacking of safety regulations and enforcement in Canada and the US.
  6. How the absence of the precautionary principle in the approval process for chemical pollutants has led to dramatic increases in childhood ailments, including asthma, diabetes and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
  7. The known and suspected links between synthetic chemicals in the environment and the current breast cancer epidemic – and the role of Canadian and US breast cancer charities in keeping the focus not on prevention, but on the never-ending race for an ever-elusive cure.
  8. The vested interests behind plans to pipe diluted bitumen from Alberta’s tar sands through Canada’s most populous areas to east coast refineries.
  9. How Bill C-38 has dismantled environmental protection and blocked public participation.
  10. The growing body of evidence linking hydraulic fracturing with a variety of health and environmental problems.
  11. The dangers of the rush to embrace nuclear energy, after decades of failing to act on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
  12. How the Harper government’s decision to tie foreign aid to the interests of Canadian mining companies harms the world’s most needy. (This March 2013 article prompted an indignant rebuttal from Julian Fantino, Minister of International Co-operation. Two days later, the government announced it was rolling the Canadian International Development Agency into the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.)
  13. The close connection of Environment Minister Peter Kent and PR giant Hill and Knowlton, whose tar sands clients have successfully lobbied for the evisceration of Canada’s environmental protection laws.
  14. The full extent and dire consequences of Stephen Harper’s war on science.

Call me crazy, but I think these are things Canadians need to know.

Like science, environmental reporting is not popular with the Harper government. Earlier this year, the 25-year-old National Roundtable on Energy and Environment produced a final report before it shut down for good. The report is entitled “Reflections of Past Leaders of the NREE.” Environment Minister Peter Kent forbade the public posting of the report (a leaked copy of which has been posted by DeSmog Canada) or any of the agency’s previous reports.

In the case of Watershed Sentinel, I’m not saying that what the magazine reports is why Heritage Canada rejected its funding application. But I am wondering.

Miranda Holmes is an associate editor of Watershed Sentinel.

Share

Brazil, Russia force Olympic-sized wake-up call

Share

For years, the occasional Cassandra has tried alerting the world to the true nature, purpose and “legacy” of the Olympic Games – yet their warnings have fallen on deaf ears, muted by the cacophony of corporate advertising, saccharine network TV coverage and “patriotic” celebration.

All that may be about to change – thanks to the grave challenges facing two Games in development: Russia’s Sochi 2014 and Brazil’s Rio 2016. Their respective problems look like those of previous Games on steroids.

Projected costs for Sochi, still over half a year off, now top a record $51 Billion! In Brazil, runaway Olympic spending is a key grievance of protesters now marching in the streets. What began as a reaction to escalating bus fares has grown into a heated conversation about the government’s spending priorities. What Brazilians need now is better health care, schools and public transit, not shiny, new stadiums for the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympics, they declare.

While Vladimir Putin is unlikely to lose his grip on power over the preposterous bill for Sochi, according to Time, Brazil’s nationwide protests “could threaten President Dilma Rousseff’s re-election hopes next year” That would be a first. The Olympics playing a direct part in the ouster of a national leader.

It’s about time the Olympic Games are seen for what they really are – a multibillion-dollar racket designed to fleece taxpayers for infrastructure spending that benefits developers, while providing a global platform for corporate advertisers, supported by draconian, often unconstitutional protection from trademark violations.

Of course, the International Olympic Committee, though clearly a “for-profit” operation, pays no taxes. It exists, on many levels, outside the laws of the countries in which it operates. A pretty sweet deal they’ve enjoyed all these years.

Olympic critics have long been dismissed as unpatriotic Debbie Downers. The Olympics, after all, are about the triumph of the human spirit, the celebration of amateur athletic achievement, those precious moments like the one when Canada’s son scored against the Americans in overtime of the Gold Medal hockey game. I was in Whistler Village, watching Sid the Kid on the big screen when it happened, surrounded by 5,000 rejoicing compatriots, covered from head to toe in red and white. It was electric, unforgettable.

But that is not what the Olympics are about – at least not anymore.

Let us not forget the role Greece’s $11 Billion Olympic folly played in its present-day financial woes. It’s been all downhill for the country since it hosted the Athens Games in 2004. As this Bloomberg story notes:

With public debt totaling €168 billion in 2004, it’s clear that the Olympics alone did not bring about an economic collapse. Yet the Athens Games epitomized the structural problems that bedeviled the country for decades. It’s not just a question of how much money was spent on the Olympics, it’s also how it was spent and where it came from. After a period of austerity to tighten up its finances and qualify for euro entry in 2001, the Greek government loosened the purse strings once it entered the single currency. The games were just one of several areas where public spending was unchecked and funded by unsustainable borrowing.

Canada has been no stranger to Olympic-related fiscal issues. It took Montreal three decades to pay off its debt from the Games.

In BC, we’ve cleverly hidden much of the true infrastructure costs of the 2010 Games as public-private-partnership contracts – along with other assorted expenses the government is loathe to publicize – in a $100 Billion secret debt category, euphemistically labelled “contingencies and contractual liabilities”.

The intellectual leader of the anti-Olympic movement in Vancouver, Dr. Chris Shaw, wrote a fine book on the subject, aptly titled Five Ring Circus – which filmmaker Conrad Schmidt followed up with a companion documentary.

In his book, Shaw catalogues and foresees the gentrifying effects of the Games on social housing in Vancouver and the diversion of tax dollars toward otherwise unjustifiable infrastructure projects to open up real estate opportunities for developers. He describes a symbiotic relationship between local property and construction magnates hungry for taxpayer-subsidized infrastructure and IOC “vultures endlessly circling the globe, waiting for local developers in the various countries to bring down the prey, the local citizenry.”

The IOC gets its tax-free profits, corporate sponsors get their global audience, media get their ratings, and the developers get the long-lasting prize: new roads and bridges to open up previously inaccessible or low-value land to development – plus billions of dollars of government construction contracts. “Tying the Games to such projects,” Shaw writes, “suddenly imbues them with a different aura, and all previous rationality about real costs versus potential benefits goes out the window.”

Shaw also predicted the unconstitutional creation and application of laws designed to sweep trademark infringement and unseemly vagrants off Vancouver’s streets, lest our image be tarnished or the IOC and its corporate partners offended. For their efforts, Shaw and his colleagues were harassed at their homes and places of work by overzealous Games security forces.

The 2002 Salt Lake City Games brought the corruption of the bidding process into full view, as lead organizers admitted to bribing the IOC’s selection committee, forcing the resignation of key Salt Lake organizers. As subsequent investigations would reveal, this was far from the exception, rather the rule in the Olympic bidding process. In the wake of the Salt Lake Scandal, a senior Swiss IOC official, Marc Hodler, alleged that bribery has featured extensively in Games votes since at least 1990 – including the selection of Nagano 1998 and Sydney 2000.

According to a 2004 BBC story, “IOC vice-president Kim Un-Yong was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in jail on corruption charges. He was found guilty by a South Korean court of embezzling more than $3m from sports organizations he controlled, and accepting $700,000 in bribes.”

This systemic bribery and corruption appear to extend to corporate partners as well. According to Bloomberg, the world’s largest mining company, BHP Billiton, is currently under investigation in its native Australia, regarding its “dealings with foreign officials, including Chinese dignitaries, under a multimillion-dollar hospitality and sponsorship program at the 2008 Olympics.”

Will the excesses of Sochi and the social unrest spawned in part by Rio lead to major changes on the Olympic front? Hard to say; the IOC has demonstrated a teflon-like ability to deflect all manner of controversy in the past – from bribery and corruption to a litany of high-profile doping scandals.

Maybe this time is different. Perhaps the broader civil uprisings the Olympics are now getting roped into in Greece, Brazil – and, who knows?, one day maybe Russia – will finally change the Games.

Share

Are You a Multi-Issue Extremist? How Activism is Becoming Terrorism

Share
Defend Our Coast rally - Oct 22, 2012, Victoria, BC (image: Utopia Photo Blog).
Defend Our Coast rally – Oct 22, 2012, Victoria, BC (image: Utopia Photo Blog).

Are You a Multi-Issue Extremist?

If you read this site regularly, and subscribe to the claims and advice of Rafe Mair, you probably are. Because the 81 year-old Mair is British Columbia’s most well-known and well-loved Multi-Issue Extremist (MIE).

The now long-established CSIS “Counter Terrorism Strategy” has defined individuals who express dissent toward any number of issues in this way.

In particular, people who are committed to opposing unbridled oil and gas development, defined as “activist groups, indigenous groups, environmentalists and others who are publicly critical of government policy.”

Many people who feel the current rush to massively exploit Canadian resources is the wrong path, also feel the same about farmed salmon,GMO’s and private river power expansionism. To name but a few of the Multiple Issues people are concerned with today.

In all likelihood, those of you sharing these views are “Multi-Issue Extremists”, and you have a working file at CSIS.

Many of you have also probably expressed your concerns about these issues on the Internet or attended protest events such as the Defend our Coast event last fall, which included a “pledge” of “civil disobedience.”

And this is where the rubber hits the road.

Since the upset of the May 14th provincial election, many people endeared to “defending our coast” are ready to double down on their efforts.

There have been escalating calls for civil disobedience as a result of the current election, coupled with the realization that the protest options available to British Columbians are now severely limited on a whole array of pressing issues.

Recently, the unwarranted surveillance of average citizens has come into the spotlight. Most activists are aware that this practice has been in place since 9/11 and some are aware that they existed well before. Defense Minister Peter McKay confirmed in the House this past week that he approved secret electronic eavesdropping in 2011.

The laws ushered in by 9/11 had sunset clauses and were targeted toward “terrorism.”

However, since the most recent American “terrorist” event, the Boston Bombing, the Harper government has brought back into effect “sunsetted” anti-terrorist legislation.

Those of you who pledged a commitment of civil disobedience during the Defend our Coast event did so at a time when these laws were not in place, so you should pay particularly close attention to the CSIS “counter-terrorism” initiative and its focus on MEIs and what it all means now that they have been reintroduced.

Because, as of today, most of the millions of Canadian citizens “surveiled” without their knowledge have little if anything to be concerned about, besides the outrageous violation of privacy such practices entail.

However, those of us who have committed to the good fight and pledged to massive civil disobedience have much to be concerned about. In fact, as it stands today, you can be arrested right now, and your electronic footprint and pledge to undertake civil disobedience is all that they require.

You can be taken from your home, without charge, for up to three days. Your release will be conditional, and if you do not agree to the conditions – such as no longer participating in petro-insurgency – you will not be released and could be detained for up to a year.

Yes, you! Right now, you can experience “preemptive arrest” and “preventative detention” under the CSIS counter-terrorism classification of MIE, for what you have already done and what they already have on you. All perfectly legal.

But surely this is all hypothetical – powers that exist on paper that our government wouldn’t dare implement in reality. Unfortunately, the government’s record over the past several years suggests otherwise.

According to The Guardianin 2011, “a Montreal, Quebec man who wrote letters opposing shale gas fracking was charged under Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act. Documents released in January show the RCMP has been monitoring Quebec residents who oppose fracking.”

In February, we learned through a report from two Canadian academics, based on documents they obtained through Access to Information, that prominent ENGOs like Greenpeace and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have been classified as “Multi-Issue Extremists”. The report observed, “Intelligence agencies have blurred the categories of terrorism, extremism and activism into an aggregate threat matrix.”

Industry is apparently getting into the act too. According to a Desmog Blog story this past week, “Documents recently obtained by Bold Nebraska show that TransCanada – owner of the hotly-contested Keystone XL (KXL) tar sands pipeline – has colluded with an FBI/DHS Fusion Center in Nebraska, labeling non-violent activists as possible candidates for ‘terrorism’ charges and other serious criminal charges.”

Meanwhile, according to this Dominion story, the Canadian government has been orchestrating briefings for energy companies by CSIS, the RCMP and other agencies to share sensitive information involving activist threats to industry.

So while we are all fixated on the most recent American whistle blower’s “revelations”, we should be directing some of that attention to our own government and gaining a better understanding of the terrain we intend to traverse.

Share

National Research Council’s New Business Focus Ignores How Science Works

Share

The federal government recently announced a reorganization of the National Research Council to make it more “business-led” and industry-focused. It appears we’re coming full circle to the early 1970s, when Sen. Maurice Lamontagne released “A Science Policy for Canada,” a report proposing Canadian science be directed to “mission-oriented” work rather than “curiosity driven” research.

Since then, many politicians have encouraged support for science that serves market interests. I believe we should support science because curiosity and the ability to ask and answer questions are part of what makes our species unique and helps us find our way in the world. Still, basic research aimed at specific outcomes can lead to game-changing applications, from transistors and pesticides to nuclear bombs, penicillin and oral contraceptives. But how do new applications flow from science?

Many scientists support a mythical notion of what makes science innovative. To be “relevant”, they write grant applications as if their work will lead to cures for cancer, new energy forms or salt-tolerant plants, depending on the priorities of funders and governments. This creates the illusion that science proceeds from experiment A to B to C to solution. But we really have no idea what results an experiment will produce. If we did, there would be no point to the experiment.

It’s more likely that a scientist will do experiment A leading to F then O, while another in a different area will do experiment Z leading to W then L. Maybe the two will meet at a conference or even a pub and, in talking about their respective work, realize that results O and L could lead to a new invention!

In 1958, during my genetics studies, we were assigned to critique papers by corn geneticist Barbara McClintock. She painstakingly crossed corn plants, harvesting two crops, first in Indiana then in Mexico. She discovered an amazing and mystifying phenomenon: “jumping” genes that moved from one chromosome location to another, suppressing gene activity wherever they landed. It defied everything we had learned. I sweated blood to make sense of her elegant experiments, although we assumed the phenomena she studied were peculiar to corn.

Decades later, scientists discovered jumping genes in other organisms, including fruit flies, and found they were useful for studying their development. McClintock was belatedly lionized for her discoveries and ultimately awarded a Nobel Prize in 1983. If her research proposals had been assessed for relevance or potential applications, she wouldn’t have received funding for her early, trailblazing work.

As a graduate student, I also studied the experiments of microbial geneticists Werner Arber and Daniel Nathans, and biochemist Hamilton Smith, who were investigating an esoteric phenomenon: bacteria that resisted infection by viruses called bacteriophages (meaning “eaters of bacteria”). Like McClintock’s work, their experiments were elegant, especially when you consider they were working with microorganisms you can’t see the way you can observe a corn plant or fruit fly.

It was astonishing. The bacteria produced enzymes that cut DNA into pieces. They were called “restriction enzymes” and acted by recognizing specific sequences within the DNA and cutting at that point. Various bacterial species evolved distinct restriction enzymes, cutting DNA at different sequences. When the original experiments were carried out, no one could have anticipated that these enzymes would turn out to be critical tools for genetic engineering. It was just good science. And, like McClintock, the scientists were awarded a Nobel Prize for their work.

Canada’s contribution to science is minuscule compared to countries like the U.S., Britain, Germany and even China. But if our top scientists are as good as any, they become our eyes and ears to cutting-edge science around the world, are invited to speak at top universities and institutes and attend meetings where the latest ideas and discoveries are shared.

If we’re serious about creating partnerships between science and business, we have to support the best scientists so they are competitive with any around the world. We also have to recognize that innovation and discoveries don’t always come from market-driven research. We should recognize truly internationally groundbreaking work to inspire young people who will grow up knowing they can be as good as scientists anywhere. This takes commitment from governments, more generous grants and long-term support.

Share

Rafe: What the Heck are John Horgan and the NDP Thinking?!

Share

Ok, John Horgan (BC NDP Energy critic), now I’m pissed off. You were quoted in the Vancouver Sun this week as saying you’re unhappy that the NDP lost, etc, weep, sob.

Here it is in plain, unadorned English: I TOLD YOU SO! In fact, my advice to you and your party has been constant and goes back to Bob Skelly’s day. The fact is that politics is a blood sport – not just in BC but everywhere and in politics as in baseball. Lou Durocher was right – “nice guys finish last”.

Who the hell made the decision to ignore the Liberals’ appalling record? Defeated candidate Harry Lali, when I spoke to him weeks before the election, agreed with me that the election policy of the NDP was calculated to lose.

Who ran this show? Moe Sihota? Was perpetual loser Gerry Scott back? Or was it former Liberal Government chief of staff/Enbidge lobbyist/bottom pincher Ken Boessenkool?

Yes, I’m going to be a bit self-centred today, but I’m entitled. Who established the nice guy, new petty policy-a-day technique? I called it, with indelicacy but truth, a fart a day. Meanwhile, your opponent stuck to one simple, effective narrative.

Now, Mr. Horgan, to the meat of the matter. Those British Columbians uncommitted to either party were, like me and the Common Sense Canadian, not pulling for you because we love the NDP. For the most part, we didn’t give a rat’s ass for any of the parties. We wanted to save our province from the ravages of large industry, bound and determined to ignore out environment.

Where were you – yes, John, you especially? Where were you on fish farms? Where were you on pipelines? Oil tankers? What of private power?

Let’s deal with the latter for a moment. You know what has happened and continues to happen to our rivers as Independent Power Producers (IPPs) dam them, dry them up as fish try to spawn, then sell their electricity to BC Hydro at double or more the market price. You knew better than most that BC Hydro is technically bankrupt, only alive because it can raise our rates.

Ponder that Mr. Horgan – the jewel in BC’s tiara tossed away, and you and your party virtually leave the issue alone!

Coming out against Kinder Morgan didn’t kill you – it was the timing and manner of Mr. Dix’s announcement that did the damage.

Your position on “fracking” and creation therefrom of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) was bewildering to say the least. The environmental movement around the world and most scientists in this field are urging, “Go slow! Let’s get answers to some very serious concerns before we hurl ourselves into this free-for-all”.

On the economic side of LNG, where is the market going to be? China, which has enough natural gas to last 500 years? The US that’s awash with the stuff? What about our competition – Australia, Poland, Russia, which has the biggest gas reserves in the world?

According to the Premier, the $8 BILLION+ going into Site “C” would be used to supply the LNG industry. And you support that?

In fact, what you and the opposition did, by inference at least, is support Premier Clark’s absurd notion that by 2017 LNG will have us debt free, with $100 Billion or so in a “Prosperity Fund”.

The real point is the NDP spat out issues as if they were of equal importance. As I say, sir, a fart a day.

What you did was let down British Columbians who couldn’t care less about political parties but looked to you to save us from the corporate bulldozer.

In fact, the NDP abandoned the position that oppositions traditionally occupy in a democracy. “The duty”, said Lord Randolph Churchill, “of the opposition is to oppose”. This is the only way full knowledge of issues can be attained. Part of that job is to be a government in waiting – in fact you weren’t even an opposition in waiting.

If it weren’t for this terrible “first past the post” system we have, the alternative government would be the Green Party. They alone of the opposition parties hit the issues.

You owe the people of British Columbia, of all political stripes, a huge apology for a gutless election where the government got a free ride.

Share