Category Archives: Western Canada

Gordon Campbell receives an award for his

BC Liberals Disguised Oil and Gas Support with Fake Green Label

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, WATER, Western Canada, , , , , , ,
Share

In my last piece, “The myth of BC Liberal ‘nuetrality’ on Enbridge”, we established that not only are the BC Liberals far from neutral, but rather have been and continue to be complicit in a complex web of legal, administrative and political strategies designed to forward a multi-billion dollar infrastructure development program to enrich the largest most profitable companies on earth at the expense of our Province’s autonomy, economy and environment.
 
Since revealing some of the details that support these claims, issues have been unfolding rapidly on a number of fronts.
 
The NDP has established a “legal team” to look into some of the issues I specifically raised in the piece. This undertaking should fully explore and divulge the many maneuvers the BC Liberals have undertaken over the span of both Gordon Campbell’s and Christy Clark’s time in office which support the largest, most aggressive oil and gas agenda Canadians have ever experienced. As the issues come to the fore from this process I will continue to explore the history of the BC Liberals’ complicity in the oil and gas agenda.
 
Specifically, BC NDP Leader Adrian Dix singled out one pressing issue – the Equivalency Agreement (EA) I and others have worked to bring attention to. This is an action item. Part of the Liberal ‘missing in action’ strategy, defined by the Official Opposition as Government gone “AWOL”, is to let the EA stand despite recent changes by the Harper government which have fatally jeopardized its legitimacy. In legal terms, if BC continues to accept that they have no role or influence while letting the political and jurisdictional wrangling continue unabated, our ability to shape the future of these developments will be further eroded.
 
While there was significant foreshadowing of the BC Liberal desire to streamline approval processes, it was done under the guise of a clean energy strategy. In the 2010 Speech from the Throne, the BC Liberals included their desire to establish Equivalency Agreements in order to overcome “Byzantine” bureaucratic bungling that thwarted the much lauded Climate Change Strategy. Never mind that longstanding bureaucrats responsible for administering these processes see no need for such changes, as duplication was long ago eliminated and further streamlining is hardly required in functional terms.
 
2010 also saw the implementation of the Clean Energy Act and much to do about the green legacy Campbell was establishing; little known to us then was the fact that the augmented approval processes where going to be applied to infrastructure projects to export Alberta’s Dilbit, hardly clean and far from green. In fact, it appears the BC Liberals used their Climate Change Strategy roll-out to couch the required notice needed for the Equivalency Agreement that is now being applied to the Enbridge Pipeline Project, which may explain why no input from stakeholders ever occurred in the 60 days thereafter – a requirement laid out in the act in order to enable these agreements.
 
At the time, it was difficult to see through the puff and pageantry that surrounded the Climate Change Strategy and Clean Energy developments. There was a great deal of very public support for what amounted to a privatized power agenda for some of the largest companies on earth – and a mere two years later we are seeing the that the Clean, Green Energy strategy has served privatized power well.
 
In the next three months, British Columbians will be forking over 180 million dollars to private power producers, paying between $68-100 per Megawatt hour, meanwhile spot markets are hovering around 8 dollars per MWh. Hence, BC Hydro (read you) will be footing the bill for a mark-up of at least 700%! The Campbell “Green” strategy clearly becomes more about cold hard cash for private energy corporations than anything remotely environmentally related.
 
Meanwhile the environment Minister remains “Mum” on the current Joint Review Panel for the propsed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines. This despite having revealed his efforts to grease the skids of the project and the uncovering of his government’s coy ‘duck and cover’ media manipulation with respect to Northern Gateway. As a recent letter writer in the Burnaby Now enunciates, “BC Must Take a Stand Now” – in order to pull out of the EA process which affects four major oil and gas developments. However, he closes the piece saying he does not expect the government to do it.
 
And nor do I, which is why I went to great lengths to point out how the EA was established and how we might simply render it null and void.
 
Need further proof that this government will once again sit on its hands and look the other way while our sovereignty continues to erode? Then simply read this excerpt from the Premier’s response to Robyn Allan, whose open letter called for the revoking of the EA:
 
We appreciate the time that you have taken to share your views and insight with us and have forwarded your correspondence to the Honourable Terry Lake, Minister of Environment, for his review and consideration as well. You can be assured that the specific points you have raised in your letter will be included in related discussions between Minister Lake, members of his senior staff and officials in the Provincial Environmental Assessment Office.
 
A diplomatic PFO if I ever saw one. Ms. Allan had to follow up and re-request an actual response from the parties responsible for signing away our right to properly assess, participate and influence the single most pivotal development agenda in the Province’s history. Here is an excerpt of that re-request:
 
I am following up with you as the reply indicates that you will review and consider the letter and discuss the points with your officials.  However, it does not confirm that you will address my comments in a reply to me.
 
Robyn Allan has an impressive breadth of hands-on experience and professional training which dictates her belief that if we do not move now to revoke the EA we will have lost one of our final opportunities to restore our decision-making capacity. This is of great importance and I look forward to hearing exactly what the newly established legal team Dix has appointed does in order to ensure this opportunity is not missed.
 
Everyday British Columbians can act now and pressure those in political office to move on this and if the BC Liberals do not revoke the agreement we can shine the light on how it was established outside the norm – as I did in my last piece – which may work to render it null and void.

Share

Stephen Hume on mismanagement of BC’s most valuable asset – its natural resources

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, WATER, Western Canada
Share

Stephen Hume nails it with this editorial from February in the Vancouver Sun on the decline of good management of BC’s natural resources and the economic consequences of these policies. (Feb 17, 2012)

We pride ourselves on being Super, Natural British Columbia, province of pristine lakes, spectacular wilderness, friendly resource communities and vibrant, sophisticated cities.

We market B.C. as “the best place on earth,” a place where tourists have unparalleled opportunities to view wildlife, hike trackless forests, ski virgin powder, paddle still-wild rivers then relax in splendid surroundings – from remote hike-in campgrounds to five-star resorts.

Even Vancouver and Victoria sell themselves as much for their jewel-like settings in the crown of creation as they do for their restaurants, night-life and cultural attractions.

Yet the engine that all this marketing promotes is in danger of throwing a rod. It hasn’t been serviced properly for years. It’s losing compression on half its cylinders. In fact, it’s evolving into a rusted out jalopy driven by political hicks and hayseeds.

Perhaps we should change that license plate slogan from “Beautiful B.C.” to “The Land of Rip and Run.”

That’s the alarming picture that emerges from research by four retired professionals. They analyze the government’s own data to quantify trends in the management of renewable resources that are mainstays of the provincial economy.

A bit of perspective: renewable resources – forests, fresh and salt water, arable land, range land, fish and wildlife – generate more than $25 billion in provincial economic activity each year.

Industries based on harvesting B.C.’s forests represent a third of B.C.’s exports, more than 30 per cent of Canada’s total exports of forest products and generate almost $10 billion in economic activity.

Renewables like hydro, and agriculture and their associated services generate more than $7 billion.

In 2009, tourism generated almost $13 billion in diversified economic activity. Tourism, by the way, accounts for 129,000 jobs in this province.

Renewable resources and their management are critical wealth-generators in B.C.’s economic well-being.

Yet the study shows convincingly that the provincial politicians to whom we delegate stewardship of these assets have permitted renew-able resource management to deteriorate dangerously.

Diminishing government commitment to managing our renewable resources – and these are the most important resources, for they can still be available long after mines have played out and natural gas reserves pumped dry – risks the province’s future environmental sustainability and threatens social and economic opportunities that arise from it, the paper says.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/resources+need+support/6168223/story.html

Share

New BC Liberal Law Would Make Discussing Farm-related Diseases Illegal

Canada, Farmland and Food Security, Food, Politics, Western Canada,
Share

Read this story from The Province on the new “Animal Health Act”, which would make it illegal for anyone to discuss publicly farm-related diseases, overriding the Privacy Commissioner’s powers in the process. (May 22, 2012)

B.C.’s Liberal government is poised to further choke off the flow of public information, this time with respect to disease outbreaks. The Animal Health Act, expected to be passed into law by month’s end, expressly over-rides B.C.’s Freedom of Information Act, duct-taping shut the mouths of any citizens – or journalists – who would publicly identify the location of an outbreak of agriculture-related disease such as the deadly bird flu.

“A person must refuse, despite the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, to disclose . . . information that would reveal that a notifiable or reportable disease is or may be present in a specific place or on or in a specific vehicle,” Section 16 of the Act reads.

It is quite conceivable that the provincial government, in the event of a disease outbreak at a farm, would delay releasing a warning in order to protect the farm in question or the industry it’s part of.

In that event, should you as a citizen hear about the outbreak, or if you were an employee at an affected farm, you would be breaking the law by speaking publicly about it or bringing concerns to the media.

Citizens or journalists breaking the Animal Health Act but not charged with an offence can be slapped with “administrative penalties,” which are fines. And the legislation contains an additional attack on rights of citizens: if you don’t pay your fine, a government representative simply files a paper in court that is the same, according to Sec. 80(2) of the Act, “as if it were a judgment of the court with which it is filed.”

Except for the absence of a judge or any semblance of due process.

Ultimately, this legislation aims to protect businesses from disclosure of information that may harm their financial interests.

Share

BC Media and Government Don’t Want Accountability on Environment, Public Interest

Canada, Politics, WATER, Western Canada, , , ,
Share

Well, well – if I had false teeth I would have swallowed them on Monday morning when I saw, on the op-ed page of the Vancouver Sun, an article by Gwen Barlee on sustainability. Here was the page dominated by the Fraser Institute’s own – Fazil Milhar – doing something on the environment that wasn’t an industry screed.

Ms. Barlee is the Policy Director of the Wilderness Committee and a bright, articulate woman who writes very well as you will see if you take a moment and read it in the paper or online. This is an excellent and balanced column as those who know Gwen would expect.

It raises this question. Gwen, because of tax implications for the Wilderness Committee, must be careful of getting into party politics. This rule concerns all advocacy groups who must maintain an even hand politically or lose their tax exempt status. That being said one wonders how the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation get away with their partisanship.
 
But let’s turn that question over to Mr. Milhar. Assuming that the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation are not partisan (you may take 30 seconds off for laughing here) why do they get constant access to the op-ed page of the Sun and the Wilderness Committee do not?
 
Let’s expand that question – recently you’ve had two large legal firms shilling, in the first case for the great impartiality of government Environmental Assessment procedures, and the other on the benefits of the Tory Omnibus Bill that will remove habitat protection; the Omnibus Bill lumps this in with several other initiatives thus all but eliminating any serious debate on the part that eliminates habitat protection rules for large developers.
 
Over the years, you have given Mary Ellen Walling, shill for the BC Salmon Farmers Association, space any time she has demanded it.
 
Now then, Mr. Mihlar, how many times have you given op-ed space to Alexandra Morton who, since 1992, has fought against fish farms? Or to Dr. Daniel Pauly of UBC, a world wide name in science who has consistently opposed fish farms. Or to any other opponents of fish farms? Please give us the number.
 
How many times have you given space to those fighting private power that now has BC Hydro spilling $150 million dollars over the dam because they are forced, by the Campbell/Clark government to buy the power from private companies? I have tried to get an op-ed piece (and I am a professional writer) but you never even answer my letters. Why have you never given space to Erik Andersen, an economist. Or to John Calvert, whose book Liquid Gold tells the entire story. Please provide me, for passing on to others, the times and places you gave op-ed space to anyone opposing the private rivers scheme which has, essentially, driven BC Hydro into bankruptcy – only formally not so because they can visit their losses on to the public through higher rates or government subsidies, or both.
 
Let’s move on to pipelines and tanker traffic. John Brajcich, a lifelong commercial fisher (as was his father and is his son) can be found on The Common Sense Canadian – his letter tells what will happen with oil tankers full of bitumen going out of Kitimat down Douglas Inlet. How about Rex Weyler? What about Andrew Nikiforuk, whose book Tar Sands gives the full details about the Tar Sands and the consequences of them being piped ands shipped.
 
Have you permitted any op-ed pieces on the record of Enbridge, who propose the Northern Gateway Pipeline? They have had at least 811 spills since 1998 including one into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, in July 2010, called a minor spill by the company, which spill has yet to be cleaned up, despite millions being spent, because one cannot clean up bitumen spills.
 
I challenge you, Fraser Institute Fellow Fazil Mihlar, who has long been in charge of the op-ed page of the Vancouver Sun, to tell me of any op-ed pages offered to environmental groups opposed to fish farms, private power or pipelines and tankers.
———————————————————————————
 
Rich Coleman, who learned about democracy as a cop, has taken away from the BC Utilities Commission the right to review proposed Hydro rates and promises that the government will keep rates down for consumers.
 
THE ONLY WAY HE CAN REDUCE RATES IS BY SUBSIDIZING BC HYDRO WITH YOUR TAX DOLLARS!
 
That’s right, folks. Instead of putting several hundreds of millions into the public treasury each year, BC Hydro must cover its losses, taking mandatory private power by financial donations from us, the citizens of BC.
 
This is not rocket science, folks. As we speak, BC Hydro is spilling millions of dollars over its dams because it is obliged by the Campbell/Clark government to buy power it doesn’t need from private companies at 2+ times the market price. It has been reported that this is costing BCH $150,000,000 this year – it will be much more in the coming years.
 
The reason Coleman, who since Campbell left has taken over as Pinocchio, wants BCUC out of the setting of rates is because they would look closely at this private power public theft and Coleman can’t allow this to happen.
 
A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, THE BCUC DETERMINED THE PRIVATE POWER CONTRACTS WERE NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST – AND THAT’S WHAT THIS DECISION IS ALL ABOUT.
———————————————————————————
 
Lastly, today, I want you to know what you can expect from the Common Sense Canadian re: First Nations’ fight against pipelines and tanker traffic on unceded lands and waters.
 
We support the position of these First Nations but we would never presume to interfere in any way with their pursuit of these claims – if for no other reason than they clearly don’t need us to tell them how to proceed.
 
On the other hand, First Nations are also protesting against pipelines and tankers because of the certainty of enormous damage to the province we all share and in that we have a common cause and on that aspect of the issue, First Nations can expect our whole-hearted and active support.
 

Share

Cartoon: Who you callin’ Goofy? Clark vs. Mulcair on expanding the Tar Sands

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Tar Sands, Western Canada, , , , , , ,
Share

Last week, BC Premier Christy Clark attacked Federal NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair for raising the economic downside of becoming a petro-state – namely, the phenomenon known as “Dutch Disease”. Speaking to CBC’s Evan Solomon, Clark referred to Mulcair as “goofy” for questioning the unrestrained expansion of the Alberta Tar Sands to new markets in Asia.

Share

Clark Govt Backtracks on Committment to Cosmetic Pesticide Ban

Canada, Politics, Western Canada,
Share

Read this blog from TheTyee.ca on the Clark Government’s decision not to proceed with an outright ban on cosmetic pesticides after committing to do so last year under pressure from the NDP. (May 18, 2012)

A year ago British Columbia Premier Christy Clark promised a province-wide ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides. But now the government majority on the bi-partisan committee she appointed on the topic has recommended against such a ban.

“The evidence just simply does not support a recommendation to ban pesticides for cosmetic use in British Columbia,” said Bill Bennett, who chaired the Special Committee on Cosmetic Pesticides.

He outlined the arguments the committee heard both for and against such a ban, saying that on balance he didn’t hear anything that persuaded him the provincial government should overrule Health Canada and the federal scientists who make decisions about what pesticides can be sold and used in the country.

“The majority of the committee believed the government should base as much of their environmental policy as possible on science,” he said. “Since this was a legislative committee and since we were unencumbered by pressures from cabinet and from the premier’s office, and since I was lucky enough to have like minded committee members, we made our decisions on our understanding of the science and the process that everyone gets to in terms of their points of view.”

A year ago the NDP opposition proposed a law to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides in the province and Environment Critic Rob Fleming, who was deputy chair of the committee, today said an NDP government would put such a ban in place.

Read more: http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/BC-Politics/2012/05/17/CosmeticClark/

Share

Alberta Oil Magazine: Christy Clark Floats Tar Sands Revenue Sharing for BC

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western Canada, , , , ,
Share

Read this story from Alberta Oil Magazine on BC Premier Christy Clark’s idea that BC could share in resource revenues from Alberta Tar Sands to help compensate the province for risks associated with piping and shipping bitumen across BC and down its coast. (May 14, 2012)

British Columbia Premier Christy Clark is becoming a particularly uncomfortable thorn in Alberta’s side.

In a wide-ranging interview with Brian Hutchinson at the National Post, the B.C. Liberal Party leader suggests – without explicitly saying so – that her government will not lend its support to Enbridge Inc.’s $5.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline without first seeing a commitment to oil sands royalty sharing.

“Because at the moment, what we know about it is, we’re moving an Alberta product through British Columbia, with no value added in our province, and we’re taking 100 per cent of the risk,” she said.

Clark is understandably reluctant to back the Pacific-bound oil sands pipeline. With a provincial election on the horizon, Hutchinson notes, polls show the B.C. Liberals trailing a resurgent New Democratic party. Adrian Dix, the NDP leader, is blunt about his party’s opposition to the Gateway scheme.

From an April 30 caucus letter submitted to the Gateway Joint Review Panel:

We believe that the NGP will cause significant adverse economic and environmental effects and is not in the public interest. Therefore the NGP should not be permitted to proceed.

Against this backdrop, Clark has wholeheartedly endorsed plans to liquefy and ship tanker-loads of super-cooled natural gas to many of the same markets targeted by Enbridge.

The B.C. premier is so enthusiastic about LNG that she is prepared to alter the western province’s climate-change policies to take credit for greenhouse-gas reductions in countries that import B.C. gas, Justine Hunter reports at the Globe and Mail.

Overlooked in her zeal for natural gas – a jobs plan calls for three LNG terminals to be built by 2020 – is the fact that a good deal of B.C. exports currently pass through Alberta (via the Alliance Pipeline) en route to the Chicago market.

Read more: http://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2012/05/b-c-premier-floats-oil-sands-royalty-sharing/

Share

Christy Clark Dismisses Federal NDP Leader’s Economic Critique of the Tar Sands as “Goofy”

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Tar Sands, Western Canada, , , , ,
Share

Read this blog from CBC.ca on BC Premier Christy Clark’s recent dismissal of Federal NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair’s concerns about the net economic impacts of unchecked Tar Sands development on Canada’s economy is simply “goofy”. (May 12, 2012)

B.C. Premier Christy Clark is firing back at federal NDP Leader Tom Mulcair, calling his stance on the oilsands “goofy.”

Clark told CBC Radio’s The House that Mulcair’s comments about the negative economic impact of Western Canada’s resource sector on provinces that rely heavily on manufacturing don’t make sense.

“I really thought that type of thinking was discredited and it had been discredited for a long time. It’s so backwards,” Clark said. “I think that’s just goofy.”

Clark was responding to an interview with the NDP leader on CBC Radio’s The House last week. Mulcair told host Evan Solomon that the resource sector in Western Canada is driving up the dollar artificially and straining the manufacturing sector in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.

The Opposition leader compared Canada’s economic realities to “Dutch disease,” referring to the collapse of the Dutch manufacturing sector in the 1960s after oil-industry development raised the country’s currency.

Clark said that comparison isn’t accurate.

“The NDP talk their gobbledygook, but really … they want less economic development,” she said. “We all know it’s a recipe for disaster.”

Clark said British Columbia is stepping up investment in mining and forestry and that Mulcair’s perspective clashes with the province’s philosophy on economic development.

“What I hear him saying is ‘you know Western Canada, we don’t want you to make that big contribution anymore. It distorts our ability to be able to do things in Eastern Canada,'” she said.

“I’m sorry, that is not what this country is built on.”

Clark isn’t the first premier to criticize Mulcair’s comments. Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall said earlier this week that Mulcair’s take on the oilsands is divisive.

“It’s a concern for people out West,” Wall said. “I think his economics are wrong. And there’s a lack of recognition there that the resource strength for Western Canada is a strength for the whole country.”

Clark was set to leave for her second trade mission to Asia on Saturday. She has made exporting Canadian resources to Asia a priority and the route for the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, which would ship crude from the oilsands to the Pacific coast, passes through British Columbia.

Read original post: http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/politics/story/2012/05/12/christy-clark-tom-mulcair-the-house.html

Share

NDP Leader Dix Lawyers Up for Enbridge Fight

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western Canada, , , ,
Share

Read this story from the Vancouver Sun on BC NDP Leader Adrian Dix’s decision to seek legal counsel on stopping the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. (May 13, 2012)

B.C. NDP leader Adrian Dix is predicting a “businesslike” relationship with Prime Minister Stephen Harper if the NDP wins next spring’s provincial election, even though he’s investigating ways to challenge a critical component of Harper’s economic plan: Enbridge Inc.’s Northern Gateway pipeline megaproject.

Dix said Friday he’s assembling a legal team headed by Vancouver lawyer Murray Rankin, a specialist in aboriginal, natural resource and environment law, to consider his legal options to oppose the controversial $5.5-billion pipeline proposal now before a federal review panel.

Dix said the legal team is looking at various legalities surrounding the issue, including the federal legislation and the Harper government’s approach to the joint review of the Enbridge proposal by a panel drawn from the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

One matter they’re looking at is a 2010 deal in which the B.C. government said it accepted that a federal environmental review would be equivalent to a B.C. process.

The agreement notes that the federal review will “take into account” the views of the public and first nations. Dix said there may be questions about whether Ottawa has fulfilled that commitment.

The NDP leader had tough words for Ottawa’s handling of environmental reviews of two controversial natural resource projects: Calgary-based Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline and Vancouver-based Taseko’s New Prosperity gold-copper mine.

The Harper government is aggressively championing the pipeline, tabling legislation certain to ease the project through the regulatory review process despite aggressive opposition from many B.C. first nations.

The project is also the centre-piece of Alberta Premier Alison Redford’s so-called national energy strategy, which is seeking cross-Canada approval for infrastructure to get natural resources – especially oilsands crude – to key markets like China.

Share

BC First Nations Bogged Down in Treaty Negotiations

Canada, Politics, Western Canada,
Share

Read this story from The Canadian Press posted on The Tyee about a new report calling into question the aboriginal treaty process in BC. (May 7, 2012)

VICTORIA – Ottawa needs to consider a flexible exit strategy for British Columbia First Nations frustrated and debt-challenged by slow-moving treaty negotiations, says a special report prepared for federal Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan.

The 47-page report by former Campbell River, B.C., mayor James Lornie, appointed Duncan’s special B.C. treaty representative last year, states First Nations treaty negotiations debt now tops $420 million, which is insurmountable and an unsustainable barrier to reaching treaties.

The report doesn’t suggest dumping the treaty process after more than 20 years of negotiations, but states First Nations need the option to leave the table without feeling intense pressure to pay off debts and with nothing to show after years of talks.

First Nations should also be allowed to return to negotiations at a later date, it adds.

“I consider that the single most important response that the federal government can make is to re-commit to treaty-making as a federal priority, and to commit to that priority at every level of the federal system,” stated Lornie in the report.

Read more: http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Aboriginal-Affairs/2012/05/07/BC_Treaty_Talks/

Share