Category Archives: Politics

Clark, Harper, Enbridge Taking Suicidal Risks With BC’s Future

Share

Today, because events are moving so quickly, a twofer for you.
 
First, Premier Clark is in one hell of a jam and it’s scarcely improved with a man who I bet left the inner staff of Attila the Hun to join with Madam Photo-op by name of Ken Boessenkool, who amongst other clients worked as lobbyist for Enbridge for two years! What the hell reason could she give for this kind of move?

This woman is out of control. She’s in a political hotbox like President Gerry Ford was when he took over the mess Nixon left him. In fact she’s in a box Houdini couldn’t have escaped.

She’s trying to distance herself from the disgraceful reign of Gordon Campbell and now finds herself in the midst of the worst environmental fight probably in history. The proposed Enbridge Pipeline and resultant tanker traffic is straight from the Gordon Campbell/Fraser Institute playbook and it isn’t working out quite like the Liberal advisors had expected. In fact, Clark is facing, and knows she’s facing a political storm that makes Bill Vander Zalm’s troubles look like a kid’s fight in a sand box.

The trouble is, the public is onto them. It’s becoming clearer and clearer that a rupture or spill is inevitable and that the word “risk” has been replaced by “certainty”. Clark has this problem: the project only has the support of the “right” and the pretty far right at that. This problem wasn’t seen by the likes of Patrick Kinsella and other handlers – it’s called believing your own bullshit.

The NDP, and, of course the Greens have staked out the “no bloody way” voters and you might think well, so what’s the problem?

It’s called The Conservative Party and John Cummins. Without them, Clark might have been able to hold all the non NDP vote and been able to hold on. I doubt that because the government is in deep doo doo on so many fronts. With the Conservatives in the picture it’s Adrian Dix’s dream come true. Not only is their enemy divided but he has a good chance with the voter who perhaps doesn’t like anybody very much but tends to vote right rather than left.

If Ms. Clark were surrounded by happy campers, perhaps the Libs could hang on. The cold fact is that she only had one caucus member who supported her leadership and because he was given a cabinet seat – and then screwed up – she has a nest of adders in her caucus, many of whom will be looking at their own ridings and grasping at the life saver as they jump ship.

The pipeline/tanker issue has Clark buried. She knows it’s a terrible idea for the province and the people but can’t say so because she’ll lose her supporters.

She can’t say yes without jeopardizing her election chances.

She’s apparently without sufficient courage to say “no” and say “to hell with the right”, inside or outside the party, run on that stance then say, “Mr. Dix, we both agree on the pipeline/tanker issue now lets get down to the issue of which party should run this province.”
 
She doesn’t have the jam to do that so even the faint chance of a May 2013 victory is all but gone.

————————————————————————————————————————

Secondly, let us get some things straight for the times ahead – there will be leaks and spills from the pipeline and tankers no matter how much trouble Enbridge goes to avoid them. We’re being asked to commit environmental suicide – by Enbridge, the federal government and, by strong inference, Premier Clark.
 
My old and perhaps late friend, Bud Smith, says we cannot demand perfection. The trouble is, that is precisely what is demanded from Enbridge and its tanker clients because anything less will permanently damage the world’s last great rainforest – it cannot be remedied.
 
The route Enbridge’s pipelines would travel is for the most part inaccessible except by helicopter, meaning that even if there were measures to fix an oil spill (there aren’t) there is no way it could be handled (see map below).

The proposed pipeline crosses several mountain ranges and nearly 1000 rivers and streams, including at least three major ones where hundreds of thousands of salmon spawn. This is a region which caribou, grizzly bears, other species of bear, including the rare Spirit Bear, deer and moose inhabit. It is, in short, an ecological treasure.
 
But let’s play along with Enbridge and let’s say that there is only a one in 100 chance of a leakage. Look at the map and see where that 1 in 100 is going to strike…are you going to gamble away our wilderness on these odds?
 
Forget about the environment for a moment and look at it as a cost-benefit analysis. Given that the leakage will come in a wilderness which will likely be only reachable by helicopter making any equipment for a clean-up out of the question, is the financial gain to BC worth this likely consequence?
 
This is a critical question, for the record is clear – you simply cannot clean up an oil spillage wherever it may occur.
 
The fact is, except for a few low paying white collar jobs there is no gain for BC. We are letting Enbridge use our wilderness to transfer Alberta’s toxic gunk to Kitimat to be shipped down our highly sensitive coast line to Asia and America. Does that sound like a good deal to you?

I don’t want to deal with economics here but simply the wilderness of the province of British Columbia.
 
We must understand that Enbridge has an unbelievably bad track record. Since 2002 their American subsidiaries alone racked up 170 leaks, and the company itself had a staggering 610 leaks from 1999-2008, including a 2007 explosion in Minnesota that killed two men and brought it $2.4 million in fines – this in addition to a 2003 gas pipeline explosion that killed 7 in Ontario. More recently there is the Kalamazoo River spill in July 2010 which will never be cleaned up.
 
I leave it thusly:
 
Is there any set of circumstances, other than an assurance of God Himself, under which you would approve any pipeline going through our precious wilderness?

Share

Premier Christy Clark Taps Ex-Enbridge Lobbyist as New Chief of Staff

Share

Read this story form the Vancouver Sun, reporting that BC Premier Christy Clark has replaced her Chief of Staff Mike MacDonald with career lobbyist and federal Conservative adviser Ken Boessenkool – whose former clients include controversial pipeline builder Enbridge Inc. (Jan. 13, 2011)

Flagging in the polls, and with just 16 months to go before the next election, Premier Christy Clark has replaced her chief of staff with an influential Conservative strategist who has lobbied on behalf of Enbridge.

Ken Boessenkool, who has served as a senior adviser to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, will start as Clark’s chief of staff on Feb. 15, and is expected to make just under $200,000.

The move not only provides new leadership in Clark’s office, but also helps bolster her Conservative credentials at a time she faces attacks from the upstart right-wing B.C. Conservative Party.

Boessenkool worked on three federal campaigns with Harper, reportedly playing a key role in the campaign’s inner sanctum during 2011.

He has been a key adviser to Reform party founder Preston Manning and to Stockwell Day, former leader of the Canadian Alliance Party.

Boessenkool is also an influential federal lobbyist, having worked on behalf of dozens of top-flight clients including Enbridge, which is now pushing for a major pipeline across B.C.’s north.

Share

Groups Opposing Enbridge Worried They May Lose Their Charitable Status

Share

Read this story form The Globe and Mail about the fears some environmental organizations face of losing their charitable status as a punishment for speaking up against the controversial proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. (Jan 13, 2012)

Environmentalists are fearful that the Conservative government is planning to limit their advocacy role after Prime Minister Stephen Harper complained that groups flush with “foreign money” are undermining a controversial pipeline review.

Mr. Harper and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver stoked activists’ fears in recent days by lashing out at environmental groups that have taken money from U.S. donors to build opposition to the $6.6-billion Northern Gateway pipeline that would carry oil-sands bitumen to the British Columbia coast.

The Conservative-dominated Commons finance committee is set to begin a review of the charity sector, and several activists say government MPs have told business groups that the committee will look at the environmental sector’s transparency, its advocacy role and the flow of funds from outside the country.

PMO spokesman Andrew MacDougall dismissed as “speculation” the concerns that the government is targeting the environmental sector. He said Ottawa is focused on streamlining the environmental-review process so that groups can’t employ delaying tactics, echoing Mr. Oliver’s pledge to introduce new rules in the coming months…

…But John Bennett, executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada, isn’t reassured.

“I’m quite convinced that we’re the next on the hit list of this government that doesn’t know how to find compromises but only bully people,” Mr. Bennett said.

Read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/foes-of-northern-gateway-pipeline-fear-revoking-of-charitable-status/article2298276/

Share
Team

EthicalOil.org and the Harper Government

Share

The various spokespeople for supposed “grassroots” pro-Tar Sands and pipeline organization EthicalOil.org have steadfastly maintained their campaign has no connection to the oil and gas industry or the Harper Government. But as the links between these groups continue to pile up, that contention becomes harder and harder to swallow.

I witnessed conservative pundit Ezra Levant debut his “Ethical Oil” concept when he came to Vancouver to debate the Wilderness Committee’s Ben West in late 2010. The premise Levant laid out at the Rio Theatre – essentially, that bitumen from Canada is the “fair trade coffee” of the world’s oil supply because this country has a better human rights record than Saudi Arabia or Iran – was being parroted soon thereafter by newly minted Environment Minister Peter Kent.

The synchronicity of talking points between Ethical Oil, Enbridge, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (the oil and gas industry’s official lobby) and the Harper Government should be our first clue that these entities are working together on some level.

“Ethical Oil” didn’t just spring from nowhere – it was carefully conceived in the manner of major advertising campaigns and the work of Republican strategist Frank Luntz (who coined “the death tax” in order to push lower estate taxes, and encouraged the Bush Administration to re-frame global warming as “climate change”, for instance). In fact, what we are presently witnessing around the Enbridge debate is the full-force implementation of American-style political campaign tactics – where everything is built around a single, simple concept – like “socialist” Obama-care (right!), “tough on terror”, or Orwellian distortions like the “Patriot “Act – which, no matter how illogical, gain traction through relentless, monosyllabic repetition, delivered via the triple threat of corporate media, government and corporate-backed lobbies, “think tanks” and pr firms.

It remains to be seen how effective these tactics will be with Canadians. Already there has been some surprising push-back in the mainstream media – from Stephen Hume’s shrewd analysis in the Vancouver Sun this week, to tough questions from CTV News and the CBC’s Evan Solomon (a must-watch) and Anna-Maria Tremonti (a must-listen) in recent weeks. At least some of the nation and province’s top political commentators aren’t falling for the Ethical Oil routine.

The parallel messaging extends to the notion of “foreign meddling” in the National Energy Board review of Enbridge’s proposal, now underway. The contention – from both Ethical Oilers and Stephen Harper, Industry Minister Joe Oliver and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty – is that because some large US philanthropies are donating money to campaigns in BC opposing Enbridge’s proposal, the decision making process is being “hijacked” by “radical environmentalists” fronting for American interests. I won’t go into this argument any further – for Stephen Hume and Terry Glavin of the Ottawa Citizen have both nailed the subject in their columns this week. The main point I wish to make is the extraordinary parity of messages coming from two entities that allegedly have no connection. 

We don’t know where Ethical Oil’s funding derives from – it’s certainly not from $10 grassroots donations! – but here’s what we do know about the connections of this organization and its spokespeople to the federal Conservative government:

1. Ezra Levant is the former publisher of the conservative magazine the Western Standard, author of the book Ethical Oil and host of a political talk show on the Sun News Network. He is also the man who stepped aside for Stephen Harper in a 2002 byelection in Calagry Southwest so that the new Alliance Party leader could win a seat in parliament. Levant was apparently reluctant to do so at first, but eventually ceded to public pressure – thus doing a big favour for the future Prime Minister.  

Prior to that bit of political gallantry, Levant had a long history of campaigning for key Reform/Alliance candidates. According to Wikipedia, “While he was a student-at-law, Levant was an active political organizer in the Reform Party, and guided the successful attempts by Rahim Jaffer (as the campaign manager for his nomination in Edmonton-Strathcona and later as his communications-director during the 1997 Federal Election) and Rob Anders to win party nominations. In 1997, he went to Ottawa to work for the Reform Party, becoming a parliamentary aide to party leader Preston Manning and being put in charge of Question Period strategy.”

Mr. Levant has also worked at both the right-wing Fraser Institute and the Charles G. Koch Institute – a think tank sponsored by the Texas oil billionaire family which is one of the leading financial backers of both the Republic Party machine and the oil lobby.

2. Levant resigned his duties as EthicalOil.org spokesperson soon after he launched the book and website, handing the role over to one Alykhan Velshi. A 29-year old lawyer, Velshi has been a top Conservative staffer for a number of years. He served as Immigration Minister Jason Kenney’s director of parliamentary affairs and communications until the 2011 federal election. Prior to that he worked for then-Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird.

In 2011, Velshi briefly left the Harper Government to lead EthicalOil.org, only to return to Parliament Hill in late fall 2011 as the director of planning for the Prime Minister’s Office, no less.

Mr. Velshi’s mom also recently obtained a plum appointment by Industry Minister Joe Oliver (he who dismissed Enrbridge’s legions of opponents as a handful of environmental radicals in a recent open letter) to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The Opposition was quick to slam the hire as a patronage appointment. NDP MP Charlie Angus told Embassy Magazine, “There are a lot of credible engineers out there, but there’s not a lot of credible engineers whose sons are closely tied to the prime minister, Jason Kenney, and their ethical oil campaign for the tar sands. This is another case of who you know in the PMO.”

3. Mr. Velshi handed off the Ethical Oil baton to a 26-year old conservative law student at the University of Calgary named Kathryn Marshall this past fall. According to the Ottawa Citizen, it turns out Ms. Marshall is married to Hamish Marshall, Harper’s former strategic planning manager.

Watch Marshall get slaughtered by Evan Solomon on Inside Politics (note how Ms. Marshall refuses a dozen times to divulge whether her organization is bankrolled by Enbridge – if you still believe the Ethical Oil argument after watching this, I’m afraid you’re beyond help):

It is also worth noting as an aside that former Conservative minister David Emerson is today helping the Chinese buy into the Tar Sands.  In 2009 Mr. Emerson became a member of the International Advisory Council for the Chinese Investment Management Corporation, which recently purchased an $801 million stake in Tar Sands properties near Peace River, Alberta. This on top of a long list of major recent Chinese investments in the Tar Sands. And of, of course, Chinese oil giant Sinopec recently revealed that it was one of 10 companies which ponied up $10 million each to sponsor Enbridge’s campaign to build the Northern Gateway Pipeline – some of the others we know about are major multi-national players based in Europe and the United States. Talk about foreign intervention in Canadian pipeline politics!

You can bet the Ethical Oil crew and Harper Government will carry on with the exact same talking points and revolving door connections, all the while maintaining the right hand has no idea what the left hand is doing.

It’s all just a big coincidence.

And if you believe that I’ve got some pond-front property in northeast Alberta you might like to buy.

Share

Rafe Challenges Premier Photo-op to a Debate

Share

I have good news for our premier.
 
If what I’m about to say is wrong, you have nothing to worry about. You see, Premier, I have this radical notion that the mood of the voter has changed – you evidently don’t, making it obvious (sorry to talk as if you are a slow learner) that if you just paddle along, down the happy old stream, why the voters, so afraid of the bad old NDP, will put you right back in government in 2013.
 
In fact, if I’m wrong and you’re right, may I respectfully suggest that some tactics are natural:

1. Keep right on charging us the HST. No matter that if you could start it in an instance you could stop immediately. I’m sure that the voter knows that you’re really trying hard on this matter.

2. Ignore the Fish Farm issue – most of the jurisdiction is now with the Feds so just wash your hands of the whole mess. Some might suggest that you should now speak up for BC and urge the Feds to get rid of this monstrous rape of our precious wild salmon resources, but I’ll betcha most people will overlook the fact that you don’t want to piss off the feds just when you’re trying to make a deal on that pesky HST.

Even though I and others will, tiresomely remind voters that it was under your stewardship that this horrific mess came about you can depend upon the fact that the voters will still have faulty memories.

3. On the question of those private power plants you should assume that I’m wrong to say that voters are pissed over losing all those rivers to foreign companies to make power BC Hydro must pay for yet doesn’t need. I’m obviously a bad British Columbian who doesn’t realize voters don’t care about BC Hydro going broke, and trust in your bosom buddies at the Fraser Institute who say it would be a great blessing if all crown corporations and agencies went into private hands. (By the way, Madame Premier, did you know that a fairly recent “Fellow” of the Fraser Institute believes in “consensual slavery”? If, for example, a young single Mom can’t feed, clothe and educate her kids she should be permitted to enter permanent bondage to some guy with lots of loot! Look it up…I can give you the guy’s name but your government should, I know you would agree, do its own research.)

4. If I’m wrong about the pipeline issues clearly you should maintain your position. Just in order for people to understand what that position is, can we infer from recent comments that you don’t think the Enbridge pipeline from the Tar Sands to Kitimat should be dealt with by the National Energy Board? And that I’m wrong again to point out that a spill from such a pipeline is inevitable and the ability of Enbridge to get to, much less do anything about it is nil? Again, with respect, might I suggest that your people “google” Enbridge/Kalamazoo?

5. I am always on about tanker traffic and simply oppose it as being a sure source of catastrophe. Again, with respect and just for clarity, might I infer from your statements that you don’t understand that the Enbridge Pipeline must result in about 300 tankers a year out of Kitimat, down the most beautiful and most dangerous coastline in the world? It’s like the old song about Love and Marriage – “you can’t have one without the other.” I should add, Madame Premier, that I’m sure you know about the new capacity and planned huge expansion of the Kinder Morgan line to ship Tar Sands gunk through Burrard Inlet.

No, of course, a person of your attainments must understand the big picture here and just think that in this modern world we need gunk from the Tar Sands going to China more than a pristine environment.
 
I do have this little query Ms. Clark: what does BC get out of all this except short term labour? Are we getting royalties? Any security against damages certain to happen?
 
6. I have been making a lot of noise about First Nations rights where land has not been ceded. I believe First Nations have rights and, following the Supreme Court of Canada, ownership of land not yet dealt with. Following the theory that the opposite of Rafe’s opinions are the right ones, you should continue to ignore these interests and just barge ahead – after all, we’re only talking about a bunch of Indians here and you will surely make the case that Rafe’s concerns about their rights are not in the best interests of the Province. Standing against Rafe and all those who stand with First Nations, especially where the environment is at issue will surely be understood by voters for what it is – loyalty to all your old friends. Surely that trumps concerns for touchy-feely things like birds, bears, fish, caribou that don’t make you a nickel for election expenses.
 
May I make another assertion on your behalf, namely that the NDP are fiscally irresponsible and that your government is business-oriented. I want you to know my stance so that you can be clear what you oppose.
 
Here’s Rafe’s take:
 
Party philosophies and positions tend to change over time and the coming of new issues – surely you and your party would agree to that. I believe that the NDP has learned much more from its mistakes than you have learned from yours.
 
I say that there are things the public should know about.
 
The NDP from 1991-2001 doubled the Provincial debt. From 2001-2011 the Campbell/Clark government more than tripled it.
 
I understand that your claim is that the Liberal debt was caused by events over which you had no control. If that’s the case you must be saying that when you put together your 2009 budget and ran an election on it you hadn’t heard of the 2007 stock market crash and the 2008 massive Recession.
 
At the same time – I hope I’m not embarrassing you Madame – when the NDP were in power the Asian Flu occurred, all but obliterating that market for our forest products. I would like to say that then-Opposition Leader Gordon Campbell pitched in and offered bi-partisan support in our province’s time of need but, alas, such was not the case.
 
So there we have it Premier – your view of things and those who are of another persuasion.
 
Disagreement on all fronts – so let’s you and me have a debate!
 
Looks like pretty easy pickings for you but I’m used to being beat upon and will do it just so you can demolish all my silly, left wing notions with one swing of the bat.
 
Surely you, a premier with all the resources of government behind you isn’t afraid of an octogenarian who’s not running for anything. (I’m not running away from anything either – are you?)
 
So, let’s do a TV debate on these matters – any time, any place – and let the chips fall where they may.
 
 

Share

BC Government to Review Fracking for Impacts on Human Health

Share

Read this story from The Globe and Mail on the BC government’s decision to launch a review into controversial oil and gas practices, including hydraulic fracturing and flaring to determine what impacts they may be having on human health. (Jan. 3, 2012)

The B.C. government has launched a review to determine if controversial practices by the oil and gas industry such as fracking and flaring pose a threat to human health.

“We want to do this so we can all have some peace of mind,” Peace River South MLA Blair Lekstrom said Tuesday.

Premier Christy Clark promised a review during a public meeting in Fort St. John last March in response to a question from Lois Hill, a hay farmer who lives on top of the Montney Shale gas field near Dawson Creek.

“It’s a start,” Ms. Hill said Tuesday. “We had asked for something much broader, but I’m hopeful that we can turn this into something we need to happen.” She wants a formal registry of residents who have suffered adverse health effects because of exposure to toxic gases. Some northeastern B.C. residents have blamed sour gas leaks, for example, for severe health issues ranging from cancer to depression, but it’s a link that industry has not accepted.

Read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politics/bc-launches-review-of-oil-and-gas-industry-practices/article2290621/

Share

Cross-Border Deal’s Grave Threats to Canadian Food Security

Share

The following is the third installment of a three part investigation by Nelle Maxey into the wide-ranging environmental and socio-political implications for Canada of the recently signed US-Canada cross border security deal and ancillary agreements related to the Regulatory Cooperation Commission. Read part 1 and part 2 here.

To introduce the third article in this series on the Regulatory Cooperation Commission (RCC), let’s begin with a brief reminder of the Martin-era Security and Prosperity Partnership, or SPP. The SPP met with significant public opposition on both sides of the border when it became known. Then it seemed to disappear. The Border Security deal and the RCC are simply a continuation of the SPP under new names. This is readily apparent from this statement in the RCC Joint Action Plan introductory comments:

The United States and Canada will seek, to the extent possible, to coordinate the RCC’s activities with the work of the U.S.-Mexico High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Council when the three governments identify regulatory issues of common interest in North America.

These policies have been transacted by government bureaucrats and private business leaders behind closed doors with no involvement of parliament or public debate. This excellent background video, End of Nations, from Global Research in Toronto gives a great overview of the subversion of the SPP into the current Harper Border Security and RCC policy deal. Please do not kid yourselves. This deal IS about national sovereignty and the formation of a North American Union.

Nowhere will Canadians be more personally affected by this deal than at their own dinner tables. That is the subject of this article — the agricultural trade sector and what the RCC Joint Action Plan reveals is in store for us as “misalignments” (their word) in regulatory “processes, practices and activities” are “fixed” by the swell deal.

The first section of the Agricultural initiatives concerns “Food Safety”. The justification for this portion of the deal is stated as follows:

“Food produced under the regulatory systems in both countries is some of the safest in the world, and it should usually not be necessary to apply additional inspection or testing requirements, simply because it is crossing the Canada-U.S. border.”

While many Canadians may take exception to this statement about the safety of our food supply as teenagers drop dead from energy drinks, the elderly keel over from their listeriosis-laced sandwiches, and obesity and illnesses like cancer and diabetes rage in the general population, the fact remains that the government is sold on its business-friendly policies regarding food additives and contaminates, GMO crops and foods, lax food labeling, lax inspection procedures and opposition to natural supplements and locally-produced foods. I present here the most worrisome of the specific details provided in the Joint Action Plan and its supplementary document, The Consultation Report.

Here are the specific initiatives (emphasis added):

  • Develop common approaches to food safety, in light of food safety modernization efforts in both countries, to jointly enhance the safety of the Canada-U.S. food supply and minimize the need for routine food safety surveillance inspection activities in each other’s country (applies to products within the mandates of both the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the U.S. Food and drug Administration).
  • Enhance equivalence agreements for meat safety systems to streamline, simplify, and, where possible, reduce import and administrative procedures, while maintaining public health outcomes.
  • Establish mutual reliance on jointly acceptable food safety laboratory recognition criteria, test results and methodologies to ensure that food safety laboratory testing conducted in one country is acceptable to regulators in both countries and facilitate cross-utilization of laboratory results by industry and regulators (applies to products within the mandates of both the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration).
  • Streamline the certification requirements for meat and poultry, including, where possible, the reduction or elimination of redundant certification, data elements and administrative procedures for shipments flowing between Canada and the U.S

The second section concerns “Agricultural Production”, with the following initiatives listed (emphasis added):

  • Further align crop protection product (e.g., pesticides) approvals and establishment of maximum pesticide residue limits/tolerances in both countries.
  • Further align marketing application submission and review processes for veterinary drugs, including efforts to establish identical maximum drug residue limits/tolerances in both countries.
  • develop a perimeter approach to plant protection with a view to leverage each country’s efforts to mutual advantage and, where possible, streamline certification requirements for cross-border shipments.
  • Work towards a common approach to zoning of foreign animal diseases.

The third section is “Marketing” and is the only section we heard anything about in the press, namely the initiative to adopt a common approach to naming meat cuts for labelling and inventory purposes. The other initiative in this section regards adopting similar “financial risk mitigation safeguards” for nonpayment of producer bills.

The implications of the entire Agriculture section raise the following questions. Please click on the links so you understand fully what is at stake here as regulations, testing, processes and procedures (like inspections) are harmonized.

There was a hard-fought, 10-year battle to keep Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH) out of Canadian dairy products because it had not (and still has not) been proven to be safe for human consumption. The concern is risk of breast and colon cancer in humans. So, will Canadians be forced to drink milk and eat cheese containing this genetically modified veterinary drug now as happens in the US under FDA approval?

Will Canadians see higher levels of pesticide and herbicide residues than we already see on our vegetables and fruits as American standards are adopted?

Will we see a proliferation of GMO crops which are dangerous to human and animal health and are producing resistant insect and weed strains, not to mention actually killing the crops themselves?

Will more GMO foods begin hitting our dinner plates? Specifically, will Canadians see toxic but FDA-approved Gulf Coast seafood, or genetically modified and ISA-contaminated salmon, or GM pigs on our dinner plates soon?

Will levels of veterinary antibiotics increase in our meat supply so even more antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria will appear in the Canadian population?

Will we see raids on small farmers, organic co-ops and health food stores as documented in the movie Farmageddon? These raids are being carried out under the US Food Safety Modernization Act. The RCC Consultation report says:

Develop common approaches to food safety requirements and policies, aligning new regulations and guidance—specifically, implementation of the U.S. Food Safety Modernization Act requirements.

Unfortunately, the answer to all these questions seems to be “YES”, as regulations are harmonized. Think about what this may mean for our food security, the right to choose what foods we eat, the sustaining of small, local farms, and above all for our health and our children’s health. Then consider taking political action on this vital matter.

Nelle Maxey is a grandmother who lives in the beautiful Slocan Valley in south-eastern BC. She believes it is her obligation as a citizen to concern herself with the policies and politics of government at the federal, provincial and local level.

Share

Vancouver Sun Op-ed: Fraser Sockeye Dying of Politics

Share

Read this op-ed in The Vancouver Sun by Dr. Craig Orr and Stan Proboszcz of Watershed Watch, which provides a compelling summary in the wake of the Cohen Commission of the political dynamics threatening Fraser River sockeye. (Dec 27, 2011)

Sockeye are plagued by a lack of food, lax pollution standards, ineffective habitat protection efforts, archaic water laws, harmful hydro impacts, unjustified riverbed mining, a “modernized” Fisheries Act, illegal fishing, subpar catch monitoring, and debilitating climate change. Unlucky Oncorhynchus nerka must also swim a gauntlet of non-selective nets, predators, toxic algae blooms, and pathogen-bearing fish farms — all for an increasingly slim chance to spawn and die.

If these stresses weren’t troubling enough, the federal review of Fraser sockeye woes recently reopened to testimony about positive tests for the infectious salmon anemia virus (ISAv) in wild and farmed salmon. Indeed, despite vigorous government assurances to the contrary, compelling evidence suggests this virus has been here for some time. Governments’ reaction to the news — and to leaks that they had known of a possible virus for nearly a decade — prompts one to fear that wild salmon ranked disturbingly low on their list of priorities.

Reaction to reports of a virus associated with salmon farms predictably meant strident denial among Canada’s regulators, followed by something more insidious. Governments seemed less inclined to act on disease and public concerns, and more intent on firing back at the scientists who reported ISAv positives. Judge Bruce Cohen was told scientists felt “intimidated,” “attacked,” and “alienated.” Samples were seized, methods publicly questioned, labs audited. Fisheries ministers unleashed media releases chastising highly accredited academics for “reckless behaviour” and “unsound science.”

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/Fraser%20sockeye%20being%20hung%20politicians/5916281/story.html?mid=56534

Share

Canadian Food Inspection Agency Stops Investigating Health Claims of Canadian Food Products Due to Lack of Funding

Share

Read this story from The Province on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency – which has recently come under fire for covering up the ISA salmon virus in BC – which is halting its investigations of health claims made by food products due to a lack of federal funding. (Dec. 2, 2011)

The federal government has abruptly stopped testing grocery store product labels for exaggerated nutrition information and unproven health claims.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency put the sampling program “on hold indefinitely due to budgetary constraints” after test results from previous years showed widespread problems with food labels on store shelves.

The controversial decision was taken just days before the 2011/12 fiscal year started in April. A “post-meeting addendum” further clarified that all “retail surveys” have been postponed.

Inspectors will continue to follow up on consumer complaints.

The move to pull the plug on proactive and random sampling of a specific number of food products in stores follows a decision earlier this year to suspend another project that policed nutrition claims made by chain restaurants and coffee shops.

 

Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/life/Federal+teams+halt+testing+health+claims/5801083/story.html

Share