Category Archives: Politics

Rafe on Being Old, Fixed Elections and Christy Clark’s Mandate

Canada, Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, WATER, Western Canada, ,
Share

I received an email recently saying I was too old and should begone – not his precise words but that was the gist of what he said. And I suppose that requires an answer.
 
I am old and will be 80 on New Years Eve; there it is – make of it what you will.
 
Having confessed, perhaps my correspondent would say whether his criticism goes to my antiquity or the message I bring. That will always be your issue and I accept your verdict. OK, let’s get down to business.
 
Gordon Campbell brought in a fixed term for elections to avoid election by ambush. It just wasn’t right that governments could pick the most propitious time (for them). Fairness was the test. Now Premier Clark, who was in cabinet when this decision was made, is prepared to forget all about this and will go to the people soon, probably this fall.
 
She will ask for a mandate and it’s critical that we know just what that mandate actually will be, not the one she claims.
Here are some of the issues she and Liberals will avoid like the plague in hopes voters will ignore them too.

  • The private Energy Policy will continue
  • Large corporations will continue to desecrate our rivers and the ecology they support
  • BC Hydro will continue to be forced to buy the private power under a “take or pay” clause meaning it must either use it at a much higher cost than they can make it for themselves or export it at a huge loss
  • BC Hydro, now technically bankrupt (their raising of rates is all that keeps them afloat), will be broken up and the most valuable parts sold off
  • New private schemes will be approved and new construction will begin
  • Site C Dam will be built to supply shale gas, coal mining and the Tar Sands – flooding 11,000 acres of vital farmland in the process
  • New fish farms will be licensed and there will be no effort to make the existing ones to go to closed-containment
  • The Prosperity Mine (Fish Lake) will go ahead
  • The two Enbridge pipelines from the Tar Sands to Kitimat will be approved.
  • The Kinder Morgan pipeline to Burnaby will be hugely expanded and the company will construct a “spur” also to go to Kitimat
  • Huge tankers will ply our waters using the most treacherous coast line in the world
  • Massive oil spills on land and sea will become a certainty
  • Desecration of the Agricultural Land Reserve will continue

The obvious plan is to push ahead on so many fronts that opposition will be badly divided.
 
The voting public ought to be forewarned and understand that no matter what Premier Clark says is the mandate she wishes, the forgoing is the mandate she will get.
 
Can she be stopped?
 
Of course she can by simple “X’ on a ballot on a piece of paper.
 
This old fart is going to help leaders like Alexandra Morton, Rex Weyler, Joe Foy, Gwen Barlee, Erik Andersen, Donna Passmore, First Nations and so many others with whatever strength he can muster to carry the fight to the people.
 
This is what we all must understand – those proud to call themselves environmentalists are not some wild eyed anarchists or loony left-wingers. This is how we’ll be portrayed because the government has no answers except ad hominem attacks. These are not issues of left or right but right or wrong.
 
Let me end on the “old man theme”.
 
The numbers speak for themselves and I can’t change them. I can only ask you to judge these issues on their merits not on birthdays.

Share

The Need for Civil Disobedience Throughout History…and in BC Today

Canada, Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, WATER, Western Canada, ,
Share

I favour civil disobedience if it’s done responsibly and for good reasons.
 
Civil disobedience was practiced by Jesus; more recently Henry David Thoreau, the 19th Century American philosopher, is seen as father of the modern art of flouting authority. Thoreau had a strong impact on Mohandas Gandhi, who led protests first against South Africa’s laws against Indians (Gandhi lived there between 1893 and 1914) and later effectively against colonial powers in India. Gandhi and Martin Luther King are seen as 20th Century leaders in this field but one must include the entire civil rights movement and especially that in the Southern US in the 50s and 60s.
 
One must also remember the many acts of civil disobedience in BC in recent decades, especially those against killing old growth forests and the good that’s come of them.
 
Precise principles are hard to make but here are a couple from my own research and thoughts.
 
The cause must be “just” – not an easy word to define at the best of times – and has these elements:

  • It is clearly a debatable issue in our society.
  • There is a clear philosophical underpinning such as civil rights, immorality, an intrinsically evil law or policy.
  • The public has been deprived of a fair hearing.
  • There is no reasonable alternative.
  • It is non-violent, which is a better word than peaceful.

The other side of the coin is the need of members of society to obey laws and only change them through the Legislature or Parliament. This “law and order” theme is the song of the “establishment” through whom unjust policy and law is manna from heaven and works substantially in their favour.
 
Until this day, slavery in economic chains of those who were freed from formal slavery is justified as “the law” but contains within itself my basis truth – this issue alone tells us how long it takes to get equality before the law and the impotence of decent people who simply want that for everyone. Unions and civil rights leaders have fought for basic justice for many years with every step painful and blocked by those who complain that they are outlaws – overlooking, conveniently, whose interests those laws support and how they came to be passed.
 
An interesting example is that of Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, a British banker and politician who was, in 1857, refused his seat in Parliament because, as a Jew, he could not (so the established MPs decided) take the Christian oath. Catholics were similarly rejected. Disraeli’s father had him baptized in the Church of England to avoid this problem.
 
Would anyone see these laws as supportable just because a parliament passed them?
 
Another famous case was Gandhi’s protest in 1930 in order to help free India from British control. He proposed and led a non-violent march in clear defiance of a Salt Tax which essentially made it illegal to sell or produce salt, allowing a complete British monopoly.  Since salt is necessary in everyone’s daily diet, everyone in India was affected. The Salt Tax made it illegal for workers to freely collect their own salt from the coasts of India, making them buy salt they couldn’t really afford. This protest set Gandhi and the Congress Party on the pathway to Indian independence.
 
Could anyone seriously claim that this law, being passed by a colonial power, must be obeyed?
 
British Columbians today face huge assaults on their environment from those who control our legislatures. Let me deal with just two – pipelines and tankers, and private power producers (IPPS). In each case the environmental damage is monumental.
 
With pipelines and tankers, huge irremediable environmental catastrophes are not just a risk but a mathematical certainty with immense and lasting consequences.
 
IPPs are destroying – not just impacting – our rivers.
 
What chance to protest has been given the citizen? When did the citizen have the opportunity to affect IPPs politically? Their MLAs and MPs are not bound to the public’s interests but the party line from which they dare not deviate.
 
These same questions pertain to pipelines and huge oil tankers.
 
The answer is that worse than having no hearings at all are the phony hearings which permit no discussions of the merits (if any) of these proposals.
 
The argument is made that our legislators speak for us – the very argument used by the establishment to sustain slavery, keep black children out of “white schools”, outlaw labour unions because they were a conspiracy to interfere with employers’ right to set wages and working conditions, keep Jews from Parliament, to deny women the right to vote, to allow restaurants to keep Blacks out, and on it goes…
 
It’s interesting how the law deals with these matters today:

  • First, legislators on the government side pass laws dramatically helpful to those whose money gets them elected.
  • Second, they give away that which they hold in trust for us, to these corporations to desecrate for their own very profitable use.
  • Third, people protest by getting in the way of the contractors’ relentless, uncaring and lawful abuse of our environment.
     
  • Fourth, the corporation goes to Court and gets an injunction against the
    protesters. (These hearings give no opportunity for the public to deal
    with the “merits” of the project.)
  • Fifth, the protests continue.
  • Sixth, turning a civil act into a crime, the corporation seeks and gets an order to imprison these “criminals” – not for breaking any law, but for “contempt of court”. 

Before this year is out I think we’ll have protests where decent, contributing citizens, wanting no more than to pass the province they love to future generations without the scars of private power development or spilled oil. They will go to jail for as long as it takes them to admit their “error”, as in other times, with similar legal machinery (Galileo confessed his “error” when he said that earth went around the sun instead of the other way around).
 
That’s right, these “criminals”, our friends and neighbours are sent to jail forever unless they recant and apologize.
 
It is thus democracy is practiced in our fair land.

Share

Stopping Debate – Again!

Canada, Politics, Western Canada
Share

Under the current government, the BC Legislature seems to have become a necessary evil to be used sparingly or otherwise avoided.

In the Liberals first term, Premier Campbell introduced a sweeping set of democratic reforms that were supposed to elevate the role of individual MLAs, revitalize committees, and improve the function of the Legislature.

A budget transparency act, fixed session dates, fixed election dates, “free” votes within the governing party, promises to use legislative committees more, and open Cabinet meetings, were all hailed as a “new era” in democratic government in BC.

Slowly but surely, each of these promises has been broken or made a mockery of by the actions of the government.

So, here we are in 2011 with two new leaders, a ton of government Bills and budget estimates yet to be debated, and the government House Leader announced, once again, that debate will be unilaterally time limited.

To be fair, however, more debate time would not resolve the real problem we have in this Legislature. The sad fact is that both sides use every opportunity to politicize debate purely for electioneering purposes. Simply adding more time will not ensure there’ll be any more quality to the debate.

The seven and a half hours of “debate” on the HST Motion is a classic example of this. This wasn’t “debate,” it was pure political rhetoric by MLAs from both parties in advance of a possible election this fall.

The real solution to this matter lies in the government sticking to the fixed sessional dates for both fall and spring sessions, with the focus on the budget in the spring and legislation in the fall. However, legislation and budget debate should also be moved to permanent standing committees rather debate in the Chamber.

BC is one of the few jurisdictions that use “sessional” select standing committees that are formed and dissolved each session during a Parliament. Standing Committees are formed at the beginning of each Parliament after an election and continue to work even when the Legislature isn’t sitting. These Committees can be structured so they can call witnesses, question senior bureaucrats, and de-politicize both budget and legislation debate.

I’ve put forward and Amendment to the Standing Orders calling for BC to change to permanent standing committees — that’s really the best way to introduce more quality to the debate.
 
And, hopefully, that quality will lead to better overall governance.
 

Share

Canada leaves out rise in oilsands pollution from UN climate report

Canada, Climate Change, Energy and Resources, Politics, Tar Sands, ,
Share

From ipolitics.ca – May 30, 2011

by Mike De Souza

The federal government has acknowledged that it deliberately excluded
data indicating a 20 per cent increase in annual pollution from
Canada’s oilsands industry in 2009 from a recent 567-page report on
climate change that it was required to submit to the United Nations.

The
numbers, uncovered by Postmedia News, were left out of the report, a
national inventory on Canada’s greenhouse gas pollution. It revealed a
six per cent drop in annual emissions for the entire economy from 2008
to 2009, but does not directly show the extent of pollution from the
oilsands production, which is greater than the greenhouse gas emissions
of all the cars driven on Canadian roads.

The data also indicated
that emissions per barrel of oil produced by the sector is increasing,
despite claims made by the industry in an advertising campaign.

“The
oilsands remain Canada’s fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas
pollution, and they’re the subject of a huge amount of attention and
scrutiny in Canada and internationally,” said Clare Demerse, director of
climate change at the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based environmental
research group. “So it’s very disappointing to see Environment Canada
publish a 500-page report that leaves out these critical numbers —
especially when last year’s edition included them.”

Overall,
Environment Canada said that the oilsands industry was responsible for
about 6.5 per cent of Canada’s annual greenhouse gas emissions in 2009,
up from five per cent in 2008. This also indicates a growth in emissions
that is close to about 300 per cent since 1990, which cancel out many
reductions in pollution from other economic sectors.

The report
attributes the six per cent decrease in Canada’s overall emissions to
the economic slowdown, but it also credits efforts by the Ontario
government to reduce production of coal-fired electricity as a
significant factor.

Environment Canada provided the oilsands
numbers in response to questions from Postmedia News about why it had
omitted the information from its report after publishing more detailed
data in previous years. A department spokesman explained that “some” of
the information was still available in the latest report, which still
meets Canada’s reporting obligations under the UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change.

“The information is presented in this way to be
consistent with UNFCCC reporting requirements, which are divided into
broad, international sectors,” wrote Mark Johnson in an email.

He
was not immediately able to answer questions about who made the decision
in government to exclude the numbers from the oilsands or provide a
detailed explanation about changes in emissions.

An industry
spokesman said it favoured more transparency from the government,
suggesting that some of the figures may be misleading because of changes
in methods used to identify and calculate emissions.

“It’s just
too bad you weren’t able to get a hold of (Environment Canada) on this
one, because here I am telling you my understanding of what’s going on,
but really it’s best to hear directly from them,” said Greg Stringham,
vice-president of oilsands and markets at the Canadian Association of
Petroleum Producers. “We report the information to them, and they choose
to pass it on — they must pass it on the UN. But then they choose how
to disclose it and put it out there.”

Although Stringham said that
the industry figures did not show any significant growth in emissions
per barrel of oil produced, the full report noted an intensity increase
of 14.5 per cent from 2008 to 2009, “mainly the result of a new
integrated mining and upgrading facility as well as a new integrated
in-situ bitumen extraction and upgrading facility,” that were not
operating at “peak efficiencies.”

Emissions from a mining
category, which includes oilsands extraction, saw a 371 per cent
increase in greenhouse gas pollution, according to the report. But other
categories showed significant decreases due, in part, to the recession,
but also because of changes in use of fuel and manufacturing
operations.

Environment Canada’s report recognizes that climate
change is occurring, mainly due to an increase in heat-trapping gases in
the atmosphere. The objective of the UNFCCC is to stabilize these
emissions in order to prevent dangerous changes to the climate.

Critics
have suggested the Harper government is deliberately trying to delay
international action to fight climate change, following revelations,
reported last fall by Postmedia News, that it had set up a partnership
with the Alberta government, industry and several federal departments to
fight pollution-reduction policies from other countries that target the
oilsands through lobbying and public relations.

Environment
Minister Peter Kent has said the federal government is committed to
reducing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions and will introduce its plan
to regulate pollution from the oilsands within months. But he has also
acknowledged that existing federal and provincial policies would still
result in an increase in emissions over the next decade.

Although
the report was due in April, during the last election campaign, Canada
was the last country to file its submission. Environment Canada even
filed its submission after earthquake-stricken Japan, and was unable to
explain in detail why its report was late.

Read original article

Share

Rafe’s Books Nominated for Samara Awards

Canada, Politics, Western Canada,
Share

I’m astonished and hugely flattered to learn that a long time
listener and reader of my stuff, Gavin Bamber, has nominated three of my
books for recognition as the top Canadian political books of the past
25 years by Samara. This about Samara and the awards:

25 Influential Books on Politics: Samara will be collecting
nominations from people across the country—and the political spectrum—on
their picks for the 25 most influential political books of the last 25
years. Samara is a charitable organization that studies citizen
engagement with Canadian democracy. Through our projects we hope to
strengthen the health of our democracy and encourage others to do the
same. Samara was created out of a belief in the importance of public
service and public leadership.

Our work focuses on three areas: political leadership; the
participation of citizens in public life; and public affairs journalism.

The books selected are, Canada Is Anyone Listening? (Key Porter), Rants Raves and Recollections (Whitecap),  and Still Ranting (Whitecap).

Mr Bamber says, “Unfortunately I had to narrow it down to only three… but those 3 work great as a trilogy. I worry that as is typical of the “national” scene that a BC writer such as Rafe Mair will be  overlooked, so I figure ‘what the bleep!’ (To quote Rafe!) Please help get Rafe the recognition that I believe he deserves!”

This project’s website is:

http://www.samaracanada.com/Best_Political_Books

The page to endorse me is:

http://www.samaracanada.com/Nominate_Books

Political books from BC writers suffer greatly from being all but
ignored by Indigo/Chapters which site books about as far away from
potential buyers as is possible and discourage local publishers. I’m not
whining just laying it out.

Still Ranting is available through TheCanadian.org for $20 (plus $5 shipping) – all proceeds go to supporting our work at The Common Sense Canadian. To order a copy, click the contact link on the home page and put Still Ranting in the subject line, along with your name, mailing address and email.

Share

Mike Smyth: Flippin’ and floppin’ on the Site C dam

Canada, Politics, WATER, Western Canada,
Share

From the Province – May 26, 2011

by Michael Smyth

The proposed Site C dam has moved to an environmental assessment _ and an eye-popping new price tag: $8 billion.

The 1,100-megawatt megaproject would be the long-planned third dam on
the Peace River. B.C. Hydro says it would provide power for over a
century, and generate enough clean electricity to power more than
450,000 homes a year.

The governing Liberals support the project. So what is the opposition NDP’s position?

When it comes to NDP energy critic John Horgan, it’s been like trying to follow a bouncing ball.

Horgan said this week the project is a “boondoggle”, the
environmental review is a “sham” and he’s “not sure” if the electricity
is needed anyway.

However, he said the NDP stil might support the project. Maybe. Maybe not. He’s really not sure.

Par for the the course for Horgan, who has been all over the map on
the project for many years. Here is just a small sampling of his earlier
positions:

“I was a proponent and an advocate for Site C when I worked in
government, talking to the engineers and the forecasters at Hydro.  It
made a lot of sense.” Shaw Cable’s Voice of BC, July 3, 2008.

“The party has historically been opposed to Site C. We continue to be
opposed. We don’t believe we need the power at this time. If this
environmental assessment can demonstrate that there is a minimal
environmental impact, then I think we would perhaps change our
position.” A News, April 19, 2010.

“I supported, as you know, Site C in the 1990s before I’d ever been
to Fort St. John, but since then I’ve had an opportunity to meet the
people in the region; I’ve had an opportunity to go to the valley, to
fly over it and see what the impacts of Site C would be; and I’m not
convinced that that’s the best option today. If I can be persuaded by
science and economics that that’s the case, then I’ll try and argue that
for the people in the region, but as it is right now, let’s get some
answers to those tough questions.” CKNW, January 16, 2011.

“It would be as clean and green as any dam in North America.” The Province, 2007.

“We should pay a premium for renewables so that we can rid ourselves
of technologies like coal, and [this is] why I get excited about the
prospect of large projects like perhaps Site C.” The Province, 2006.

Nothing like taking a strong, clear position and sticking to it, huh?
When it comes to the Site C dam, this guy _ and this party _ have more
positions than a Romanian gymnast.

Can’t wait to hear what they come up with next.

Read original article

Share

How the Campbell/Clark Liberals Brought Real Lying into BC Politics

Canada, Politics, WATER, Western Canada, ,
Share

I have been in politics or commenting on them (same thing) back to the days of WAC Bennett. My first published piece was a criticism of Bennett’s position on the failed (thankfully) Victoria Charter.
 
During that time I’ve seen plenty of gilding the lily, massaging of the truth, opinions presented as truth – in fact the things we all do ourselves – yet I’ve seen very little actual lying, deliberate untruths. When we would hear, say, a premier making a statement which the Opposition Leader says is untrue, that was a difference of opinion. I must admit that some opinions come perilously close to falsehoods but it was not until the Campbell government that we saw a government whose basic political strategy has been to lie. Not just puff up a story, slide over the troublesome bits – but outright lie.
 
I make that statement after considerable thought because it’s the worst behaviour possible in government.
 
I’m going to give examples.
 
With the Campbell government, it started early with fish farms and persists to this day. Campbell and his then most unsatisfactory Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fish, John Van Dongen pursued their disastrous policy saying that the science was all with them. This wasn’t a mistake or a bit of government flatulence – it was untrue and the government knew that; in short it was a lie.
 
In two election campaigns Campbell promised he would never privatize BC Rail yet after he won office he did just that and, it must be noted, lied like a dog when he called it a fair process. We lost our railroad and were left with a hugely expensive lawsuit in the bargain.
 
The government, through the mouth of then Finance Minister Hansen, got serious with deliberate untruths with their Energy Policy. These statements are based on a transcript of a youtube video Hansen made during the 2009 provincial election campaign:
 
Colin Hansen: “I think, first of all, that we have to recognize that British Columbia is a net importer of electricity. We seem to think that, with all the tremendous hydro electric generating capacity we have, that we are a huge exporter. Well, we do export some, but we are a net importer…”
 
This is unquestionably and demonstrably FALSE as the records of the National Energy Board and StatsCan prove. The province of BC over the past decade has been more often than not a net exporter electricity.
 
Hansen (cont’d.): “…from Washington State, which largely produces their electricity from dirty coal, and also from Alberta, which uses a lot of natural gas in their electricity production. So I think it’s incumbent on British Columbia to develop its own source of needed electricity. And quite frankly, the independent power projects are the best source of that…”
 
Unquestionably and demonstrably FALSE. Even if we did need more energy, because private river diversion projects produce most of their power during the spring run-off when BC Hydro has plenty of electricity, their energy would be of little if any impact on our energy needs.
 
Hansen (cont’d.): “…where we can encourage small companies…”
 
Unquestionably and demonstrably FALSE – unless Mr. Hansen considers General Electric, Ledcor and the DuPont family small. The companies involved are huge, largely foreign corporations.
 
Hansen (cont’d.): “…to build small scale hydroelectric projects that are run-of-the-river, and what that means is, instead of having a big reservoir, a big dam that backs water up, and creates a great big lake, these are run of the river, so the river continues to flow at its normal [pace] but we capture some of the energy in the form of hydroelectric power from this.”
 
Unquestionably and demonstrably AND EGREGIOUSLY FALSE. All these rivers are dammed and/or diverted, often using long tunnels and pipes and leave only traces of the original river in the river bed throughout the diversion stretch. The sheer scale of some of these projects and all the roads and transmission lines involved gives them an enormous ecological footprint.
 
Hansen (cont’d.): “…Again, from the perspective of some of the opposition, they would have you believe that every single river in British Columbia is being impacted. In reality, it is .03% of the rivers in British Columbia that could sustain any kind of hydroelectric activity, are being used for these independent power projects.”
 
Unquestionably and demonstrably FALSE. In fact it’s double that amount but this is a numbers game. The fact is over 600 river systems (with over 800 individual diversion applications) and the ecologies they support are at risk.
 
Hansen (cont’d.):  “So, it’s being widely supported by many of the leading environmentalists, because it’s clean and sustainable. It’s also being supported by many of the First Nations communities in the province. So, I think that we have to look behind the scenes on this, and really question who is funding the opposition, and clearly they have their own agenda, and in my view, it’s not a responsible environmental agenda.”
 
Misleading at best and you should judge the matter with these facts in mind:

  1. Some of the key opponents (apart from the NDP), have been  the Wilderness Committee, Save Our Rivers Society, and now our organization, The Common Sense Canadian. Speaking for The Common Sense Canadian, it  has no institutional funding (corporations, Labour or otherwise).
  2. Who is or is not an environmentalist is a matter of choice but here are the ecologists, biologists and academics upon whom we rely: Dr. William E. Rees, Dr. John Calvert, Dr. Craig Orr, Dr. Michael Byers, Dr. Marvin Rosenau, Dr. Gordon F. Hartman, Dr. Marvin Shaffer, Dr. Elaine Golds, Dr. Michael M’Gonigle, Rex Weyler, Wendy Holm and Otto Langer.

We have, then, an Energy Policy based on a tissue of lies – not mistakes.

Perhaps the biggest lie of all is that BC Hydro is in good shape when our independent economist, Erik Andersen – a conservative-minded fellow with decades of experience working for the federal government and the transportation industry, I might add – says that if BC Hydro were in the private sector it would be headed for bankruptcy. The only reason it’s not is its ability to soak its customers – me and thee – with increasingly higher power bills to keep itself afloat.

In the election of 2009 Hansen and Campbell stated clearly that the budget of the past April was a statement of the true financial situation. Then, with the election safely behind them, they admitted that the budget was way out of whack but they didn’t know it until, conveniently, the election was over.

I’ve been there and I can tell you that the Finance Minister knew the province was in financial doo doo. For Hansen and Campbell to say that they didn’t have the evidence of falling tax revenues – the sales tax and stumpage are reliable barometers of the truth – is like a man standing across the road from a burning building with people jumping out windows saying he didn’t notice a thing because he was busy reading his paper.
 
The same scenario prevailed with the HST as Campbell and Hansen announced the HST after the election saying that it “wasn’t even on the radar screen” during the campaign, whereas it transpired that Hansen had received a detailed analysis from his ministry long before the election, which told him the HST would be a big mistake. Again, Hansen was apparently reading his newspaper across from the burning building.
 
There we have it – the government now led my Premier Clark won three elections by lying to the people.
 
The Common Sense Canadian will be doing a great deal in the days to come on Site “C” and we will, I assure you, be exposing interesting facts on the need (or lack thereof) for this mega-project; the costs, and what it means for the environment.
 
The plain facts are that the Campbell/Clark government has lied and thus fooled us in three elections.
 
If they do it again, we will get what we deserve and future generations will inherit the consequences of our shame.

Share

DFO gets a new minister and – SURPRISE! – he’s from the East Coast…again

Canada, Politics,
Share

From DFO’s Website:

The
Honourable Keith Ashfield
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway

Fredericton (New Brunswick)

Keith Ashfield was first elected to the House of Commons in 2008
and re-elected in 2011. In October 2008, he was appointed Minister of
State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency). In January 2010, he was
appointed Minister of National Revenue, Minister of the Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway.

Prior to his election, Mr. Ashfield served in the New
Brunswick Legislative Assembly. From 1999 to 2003, he served as Deputy
Speaker of the Legislature and as provincial Minister of Natural
Resources from 2003 to 2006.

Prior to entering politics, Mr. Ashfield was active in local,
provincial and national school trustee associations. He has also held
senior positions in local companies, and has owned and operated his
own businesses.

Mr. Ashfield studied business administration at the University of New Brunswick.

He resides in Lincoln, New Brunswick. He is married to Judy and they have two children.

Read original post

Share

Electoral Reform: An Unfinished Conversation

Canada, Politics, Western Canada
Share

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

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

Share

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

Canada, Politics, Western Canada,
Share

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

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

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

Share