Category Archives: Western Canada

Fighting the Corporate Take-Over of BC

January 1, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, WATER, Western CanadaBasiVirk, BC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, BC Rail, Enbridge, ipp, Politics, private river power, rafe mair, Salmon, Water and EnergyRafe Mair

I write this not just as a New Year’s thought but also as one looking personally at his ninth and presumably last decade. And a sad scene I see.

From the commencement of time ownership and control of societies have been shared, preposterously unfairly, between “them that has and them that doesn’t”.

It continues today as never before. What the super rich don’t own, they control. 100s of thousands of jobs, thanks to the computer, have been exported to lands where labour is dirt-cheap and where benefits are minimal if they exist at all.

We are witnessing the corporatization of our government by the powerful. It’s an easy task, for the ordinary MP or MLA, by reason of our rotten system, does what his or her leader orders. The decisions of society are no longer made by parliaments – if they ever were – but in the corporate boardroom.

A question or two:

What say did you have re: fish farms? What say have you about the huge damage these farms present? What say have you now on new licenses?

What say have you had in the destruction our rivers by large and very rich foreign companies? Have you agreed that it’s a good thing that these private sector companies get a sweetheart deal, where they sell power to BC Hydro for more than twice what it’s worth, forcing Hydro to buy this power at a huge loss when they don’t need it?

BC Hydro is technically bankrupt – is that what you thought you would have when the Campbell government set forth its private energy policy, turning over power production to rich companies like General Electric?

What say did you have in the privatization of BC Rail where the Campbell government gave our railroad away in a crooked deal that the government hushed up?

What about the Enbridge Pipeline scheduled to ship hundreds of thousands of barrels of Tar Sands gunk (aka bitumen) from the Alberta to Kitimat? Have you had a say in this matter? The only reason to send this gunk to Kitimat is so that it can be shipped down our coast through the most dangerous waters in the world – have you had a say in this?

Of course you haven’t and it’s instructive, I think, to note that Premier Clark will only express her opinion after the rubber stamping National Energy Board has deliberated.

Premier Photo-Op doesn’t seem to understand that the approval of the pipeline means oil tankers at almost one a day sailing down our pristine coast line.

Is the premier that dumb?

Or is it that her government is prepared to approve tanker traffic?

The companies and politicians talk about minimal risk – the plain, incontrovertible fact is this:

THESE ARE NOT RISKS BUT CERTAINTIES WAITING TO HAPPEN.

The issue facing BC can be simply stated: will we give up our land and resources to the private sector and, while we do it, will we accept the destruction of our environment?

The Corporations say that these efforts, fish farms, private power, pipelines and tankers will being lots of money and lots of jobs into BC.

I ask two questions – what money and what jobs? Building fish farms, private dams and pipelines bring construction jobs, mostly to off shore crews, and leave behind a few caretakers to watch the computers. The profits go out of the province into the pockets of Warren Buffet and his ilk.

This is the fact Premier Clark must ponder and soon: will the public of BC simply accept these destructions of our beautiful province? Will they just simply shake their heads and go quietly?

In my view they won’t. Through the ages the long-suffering public takes so much and no more. Read your history, Madame Premier – there comes a tipping point where the public will take no more and in my judgment we have reached that point.

I beg of you, Premier, shake the scales from your eyes, look and think! This isn’t a right wing versus left wing matter but a question of right and wrong.

The last thing in the world I want to see is violence but I tell you fair that the decision rests upon you – if you don’t deal with the fish farmers, the energy thieves, the pipelines and tankers there will be violence, and that will be the legacy of the Campbell/Clark government.

Rafe Reflects on Common Sense Canadian – And Why 2012 is Make-or-Break Year for BC

December 29, 2011Canada, Energy and Resources, Mining, Oceans, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Salmon Farming and Aquaculture, WATER, Western CanadaAquaculture, BC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Fish Lake/Teztan Biny, ipp, Mining, Politics, private river power, Salmon, Taseko, Water and EnergyRafe Mair

It’s customary at this time of the year too look back, comment, and look to the New Year. Why should The Common Sense Canadian (CSC) be any different?

We’ve been going for about a year and a half so my comments may take us a little earlier than last January but let me start by saying that both Damien Gillis and I are pretty proud of our progress.

Neither of us believes in some commonwealth of environmental people and groups. That’s not practical as we all have issues we feel more strongly about than others. We do, however, like to feel that we can bring a vehicle into being that helps all environmentalists and groups find a place to air their feelings. As one would expect, the particular passions of Damien and me will stand out in the work we do but we also support many other groups. Because of the history we bring to the CSC, we tend to look most in four areas, in no particular order: fish farms, private power, pipelines and oil tankers – the latter two being bound together but still two separate issues; but you can’t have one without the other.

What we’ve seen happen in the past year or so is a sense of all environmentalists feeling part of the same general battle – and battle it is.

Let me expand on that last thought a bit. All of us, whether trying to save forests, or a river, or a coastline or whatever are met with the cry “aren’t they in favour of anything?” If they’re not hugging trees they’re against jobs for the young and prosperity for communities. These and similar questions have been raised since the first day someone declared that there were other issues than just monetary ones. To show you how ridiculous this gets, supporters of the proposed “Prosperity” Mine allege that this mine will give employment to 71,000 people! Why not 710,000 if you’re going to be ridiculous?

What we try to do is challenge people to make a value judgment on what is done and place the environmental issues securely on the table. The main reason we do that is that damage to the environment is permanent while the economics diminish as time goes by, leaving only the scars.

Let’s look at a so-called “run-of-river” project. We’re told that these are necessary to create jobs yet when the deed is done there are only a bare handful of caretakers left behind while the river, and the ecology that depend upon it, are permanently and seriously impaired.

Now we are democrats. If the public, fully informed, wish to create permanent environmental damage, that is their right. What happens, however, is that the public, if they are informed at all, only see the glitzy ads by the company and the smooth assurances of the politicians.

Public hearings are, frankly, bullshit. The decision has been made and, like a trial in the old Soviet Union, a “show” trial must take place.

Let me give you a recent example: when President Obama refused to authorize the Keystone XL project which would take “gunk” from the Tar Sands to Texas, Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty instantly responded and said that we would have to put the proposed Enbridge pipeline from the Tar Sands to Kitimat, BC, on “the front burner”! Before the National Energy Board hearings even get off the ground the Finance Minister is assuming the result! Yet, he’s right to do so because the “fix” is well and truly in.

This takes me to the meat of the matter for, in the past couple of years there has been an astonishing cooperation of environmental organizations to fight these things together.

I’ve been all around the province making speeches and often the stage has been shared with COPE union spokespersons, the Wilderness Committee, Alexandra Morton and her Raincoast Research Society, the redoubtable Donna Passmore and her work on highways and farmland issues, CoalWatch Comox Valley regarding the proposed Raven coal mine, citizen groups fighting local issues like overhead transmission lines and numerous grassroots organizations in the Kootenays in Northern BC, on the Sunshine Coast – and the list goes on.

Of enormous consequence has been the work all the different environmental groups have done with First Nations on the issues I have mentioned. One of the most touching moments in my Roast of November 24 last were the speeches given by Grand Chief Stewart Philip, Chief Bob Chamberlin and Chief Marilyn Baptiste; and I tell you truly that I wept when they spoke and sang and considered how far down the road to true understanding of their concerns I had come – something, I might add, Chief Philip commented upon with a twinkle in his eye to match my tears.

Let me pause here to note that I have left out many people and organizations that have every right to stand out in front as those I have mentioned and I deeply hope that I haven’t offended any of them.

Let me speak out clearly on political matters. The Campbell/Clark government are enemies of the public at large. The destruction they have caused, and which will happen because of their policies, beggars description. Not unnaturally, the NDP have been the beneficiaries, often accidentally, from this public disgust with the government. I can tell you that at my “Roast” were people I knew from my old Socred days – people who a year ago would have preferred to be found in a house of ill repute than be seen with the CSC helping us in our fundraiser.

I must say this: the NDP gets no easy ride from us. It’s simple to jump on a bandwagon but we demand commitments from them – not airy, fairy crap that passes for commitment in political jargon.

I’m going to end now with this look ahead. 2012 will be the year that decides where we go in BC.

Will we have more rivers destroyed for private profit? Will we see our province, my homeland and yours, turned over to the 100% certain destruction by pipelines? And to the 100% certainty of catastrophic oil spills on our coast and in Burrard Inlet? Will we continue to allow fish farmers to annihilate our sacred Pacific Salmon? Will we watch idly as Fish Lake is destroyed to set the precedent of more of the same?

Will we do nothing as we lose more and more farmland? Will money promised and jobs pledged suck the wind out of our ability to see what’s really happening to us, our children, our grandchildren and for some of us great-grandchildren?

That is the advantage, you see, of old age – right before your eyes are the people we hold BC in trust for. The wisdom of the ages, in the soul of our First Nations, is the wisdom we must listen to and apply if we want to save our province from those who would convert it into cash for private use, leaving us with nothing but the scars to remind us what damned fools we’ve been.

The Common Sense Canadian will be in this fight in 2012 and in the years to come and, along with those we march alongside, do not intend to lose the battles nor the war.

US-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council Plan’s Orwellian Transportation Pact

December 24, 2011Canada, Politics, Urban & Transport, Western CanadaPolitics, Transportation and Urban PlanningDamien Gillis

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the second of three articles by Nelle Maxey examining the wide-ranging ramifications for the Canadian public, economy and environment of the new Canada-US Border Security Deal and its ancillary agreements.

With my first article on this topic I set the background for Canada’s new trade deal with the US and discussed the Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) and its Joint Action Plan for cooperation in the Energy & Environment trade sector. This installment will look at the Transportation sector as discussed in the RCC Action Plan and the poison pills therein. Remember, “a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down”.

The Joint Action Plan divides transportation into three modes of travel: land (vehicle and rail), marine travel and air travel. To facilitate cross-border trade, the land section will align both vehicle and rail safety regulations, the marine section will align recreational boat building and life jacket standards and the final section will align transport of dangerous goods regulations. So that’s the sugar. The medicine is as follows.

On page 18 of the RCC Plan this clause is found in the land travel initiatives: “Work together on the development of regulations and standards to fully support the integration of intelligent transportation systems.”

The benefits of this initiative are listed on the same page as follows: “Coordinated standards for intelligent transportation systems will promote the seamless development of tomorrow’s vehicle technologies and infrastructure and allow the two countries to be global leaders in this area.”

Turning to wikipedia for a definition of “intelligent transportation systems”, you find the following:

The term intelligent transportation systems (ITS) refers to information and communication technology (applied to transport infrastructure and vehicles) that improve transport outcomes[1] such as transport safety, transport productivity, travel reliability, informed travel choices, social equity, environmental performance and network operation resilience.

That sounds laudable enough – until you read the next section titled Background:

Recent governmental activity in the area of ITS – specifically in the United States – is further motivated by an increasing focus on homeland security. Many of the proposed ITS systems also involve surveillance of the roadways, which is a priority of homeland security.[2] Funding of many systems comes either directly through homeland security organizations or with their approval…Much of the infrastructure and planning involved with ITS parallels the need for homeland security systems.

Since it is the US with whom we are “harmonizing”, a bit different spin on ITS emerges. Reading further in the wiki article you can find out about RFID chips, CTV cameras, “floating” vehicle GPS data and “floating” cell phone data and how these data sources are tapped into by these “intelligent” systems. I can only suggest that a better name for these systems might be intelligence systems. Is this really how you want your tax dollars spent? All under the guise of traffic control and traffic safety?

Unfortunately, it gets worse. The RCC Plan’s marine travel section reads:

Align the marine transportation security requirements to prevent duplication of services and remove impediments to cross-border operations and incorporate the ability to use alternative security arrangements in the Canadian regulations.

So cross-border security operations will have no impediments? I can only suppose this means we will see more presence of American enforcers in Canadian waters. The phrase “alternative security arrangements” is undefined in the document; so this remains food for thought and investigation. Although the following section may provide more clues as to where things are headed.

The air travel section is much more explicit. Here is the initiative from page 20 of the RCC Joint Action Plan:

Establish a mechanism to share experiences on regulations related to unmanned aircraft systems, with a view to aligning regulatory approaches. (emphasis added)

The benefits of this initiative are stated on the same page as follows:

Aligning Canadian and U.S. requirements for unmanned aircraft systems would allow both countries to gain safe and routine access to airspace without restricting other airspace users.

So, apparently opening up Canadian airspace to drones is now a priority and we must draft regulations for this. Or perhaps as this American news broadcast explains, we will just be adopting the US FAA regulations which are now being drafted “to allow unarmed drones to fly up to 400 feet above the ground”?

The discussion on page 19 in the Joint Action Plan says:

…for unmanned aircraft systems—aircraft weighing less than 35 kg [77lbs] used for flight testing, aerial photography, filming for television documentaries, or offshore geophysical surveys. Canada and the U.S. can jointly undertake to develop and adopt common standards for unmanned aircraft systems and establish a mechanism to share regulatory experiences, with a view to aligning regulatory approaches.

Oh, well, you think – this is just about little drones used for benign aerial photography. Watch this January, 2010, news video out of Houston,Texas to see the 40-pound drone being tested for us by local police and to hear the police chief’s comments on its possible uses.

More recently, on December 11th, an article was posted by the LA Times on police use of drones in North Dakota which belonged to US Customs and Border Protection to chase down rustlers of 6 cows. This article was followed two days later by an article in the Wall Street Journal titled, “The Law’s New Eye in the Sky: Police Departments’ Use of Drones Is Raising Concerns Over Privacy and Safety”.

The article begins:

Drones, the remote-controlled aircraft used in combat zones, are now hovering over some U.S. cities as police enlist them to get a bird’s-eye view of crime scenes and accidents at relatively low expense.

But as financially strapped municipalities add drones to their crime-fighting arsenal, they are facing increasing questions about the vehicles’ safety, as well as their potential to violate citizens’ privacy.

The story was accompanied by the photograph shown at the top of this article.

Considering that the Border Security deal not only appears to allow American agency operations on Canadian soil and does allow the transfer of data from said agencies, I can only ask: Is this what you want to see in Canada? Best contact your MP about these proposals.

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.

New Data: BC Better Off Compared with Other Provinces Under NDP in 2000 than Under Liberals in 2010

December 22, 2011Canada, Politics, Western CanadaPoliticsDamien Gillis

Read this report from The Globe and Mail which further undermines the BC Liberals’ claims of economic superiority compared with the NDP of the 1990s.

Premier Christy Clark and the Liberals have often claimed bragging
rights over the NDP on economic issues, saying the province is much
better off today than under the “NDP’s reckless policies” of the 1990s.

But a critical assessment of B.C.’s performance over the past decade
shows that, in comparisons with other provinces, B.C. in 2010 actually
ranked lower than it did 10 years earlier on key economic measures.

The
report was released this week by the B.C. Progress Board, a government
advisory agency that provides the most comprehensive review available on
how the province performs relative to other provinces.

The board
states that British Columbians had above-average growth, a 24-per-cent
increase in income and strong employment growth over the past decade.
British Columbians in 2010 were significantly better off than they were
in 2000, the report stated.

But so were many other Canadians.

B.C.
dropped in rankings among provinces on the economy, personal income and
jobs, but maintained its number one standing on environmental quality
and health outcomes. The province’s ranking on social conditions, as
ninth, remained unchanged, the report stated. (Dec. 22, 2011)

Border Security Deal’s Ugly Twin Carries Major Energy and Environmental Implications for Canada

December 19, 2011Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, WATER, Western CanadaBC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Keystone XL, Oil and gas, Politics, Water and EnergyCommon Sense Canadian

Harper’s government officially announced in recent weeks a new Border Security deal with the US. However, little press space was given to the ugly twin of this deal – the Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) and their “Joint Action Plan”. The RCC was set up to “streamline” regulations in four economic sectors engaged in cross-border trade. These sectors are Food & Agriculture, Transportation, Energy and Environment and Personal Care Products.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the press release for the RCC’s Joint Action Plan. The word “Energy” was dropped from the Energy and Environment sector. That’s right. Never mind that energy, including oil, natural gas and hydroelectricity, is arguably the most important sector of Canada-US trade in today’s constrained energy supply world.

Mounting opposition to pipeline development on both sides of the border make the Energy word a bit loaded politically for Harper and especially Obama right now. (Visions of the protesters surrounding the White House and the BC First Nations announcement of opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline float in my head as I write this). At any rate, it was conveniently dropped. The new Environment-only sector in the Action Plan concerns itself with fairly benign co-operation on air quality standards for emissions from light duty vehicles and trains and levels of particulate matter in air.

To understand what poison pills may await us in the not-talked-about-but-still-there Energy trade sector, a look at the RCC Consultation Report released in February of this year is required.

This document is important in that it contains the complete consultation list of regulatory harmonization items to be considered for implementation. That is the basis of Action Plan items, which is clear from the page 5 Action Plan statement: “Stakeholder input was key in developing this initial Joint Action Plan, which represents a first set of actions and initiatives that will begin the process of developing more closely aligned regulatory systems between the U.S. and Canada.”

And also from the page 9 Statement: “…there were a number of suggested initiatives that were considered but not included in the initial Joint Action Plan. The RCC will continue to examine these suggestions as it develops areas for future work.”

Of the eight suggested initiatives which the government chose to list in the Consultation Report’s Energy and Environment section (Appendix B, page 22) consider the following three:

Streamline permissions for and construction of new cross-border energy infrastructure, e.g.,a single Canada–U.S. regime for permitting oil and gas pipelines.
Ensure common approaches to nuclear liability in the event of litigation arising from nuclear incidents.
Avoid policies that discriminate against particular fuel sources, such as low-carbon fuel standards (for types of crude oil) or renewable electricity standards (for large-scale hydro).

As is always the case, the public is the last to find out the government’s plans, but it takes only a modicum of common sense to see that Harper’s moving of the Environmental Assessment Process to the National Energy Board from the Ministry of Environment, the subsequently announced streamlining of the Environmental Assessment Process, and the budget cuts to the Ministry Environment resulting in fewer and fewer monitoring facilities and scientists to staff them or to write reports on environmental implications of resource extraction are all related to establishing a “single Canada–U.S. regime” for pipelines and other cross-border infrastructure.

In the wake of both the Fukushima disaster in Japan and the privatization of the Canada’s nuclear industry, the limiting of liability in the wake of nuclear accidents is particularly chilling. One expects that like the US (which, for example, limits liability on the costs of oil spills to a ridiculously low amount in dollar terms), we can expect to see similar regulations in Canada regarding nuclear accidents.

And finally, neither Tar Sands oil nor hydroelectricity will be “discriminated” against in the future by regulations in either country. The term “Large-scale” hydro projects remains undefined in the document. But surely Site C Dam would qualify for non-discrimination and perhaps some of the larger ruin-of-the-river projects.

The RCC documents are all written with the outdated and disproven arguments of increased “customer choice” and “decreased customer cost”, hand-in-hand with public safety and environmental protection enhancement. The public knows none of this is true. But Harper marches on, head down and in step with his corporate buddies, to the beat of the trickle-down economics drum, while global markets implode, citizens arise en masse and peak everything envelopes the world. No wonder he and Obama need to continue to build a police security state to enforce their policies on us.

The other three trade sector action plans and consultation report items will be discussed in future postings. They are equally, if not more, disturbing.

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.

Winning the Salmon PR “War”? Emails Reveal Government Scientists Acting Like Flacks

December 18, 2011Canada, Oceans, Politics, Salmon Farming and Aquaculture, Western CanadaAquaculture, cohen commission, Politics, SalmonDamien Gillis

The second of three extra days of hearings at the Cohen Commission into disappearing Fraser River sockeye yielded more surprises – the biggest of which came in the form of a telling internal email strain between DFO and Canadian Food Inspection Agency staff. The emails were sent following a teleconference for media hosted by the two departments, aimed at quelling concerns over the recent discovery of Infectious Salmon Anemia virus in wild BC salmon.

In a message dated November 9, 2011, Joseph Beres, an inspection manager at the CFIA, wrote to colleague Dr. Con Kiley and other senior DFO and CFIA staff who had appeared on the conference call:

Con,

It is clear that we are turning the PR tide to our favour – and this is because of the very successful performance of our spokes[people] at the Tech Briefing yesterday – you, Stephen, Peter and Paul were a terrific team, indeed. Congratulations! One battle is won, now we have to nail the surveillance piece, and we will win the war also.

Cheers, Joe.

In the same strain, Dr. Kiley replies, “Concentrate on the headlines, that’s often all that people read or remember. Both the ‘Top Stories’ and the ‘Related Pieces’.” (emphasis added)

And it appears Dr. Kiley really knows of what he speaks. That conference call and a subsequent one several weeks later – at least temporarily – removed some of the pressure from his department, as many media outlets in Canada and around the world ran with their talking points.

Commission Counsel Brock Martland asked another CFIA representative on the stand Friday, Dr. Kim Klotins, Acting National Manager for Disease Control Contingency Planning, what she thought Mr. Beres was thinking went he sent the above email. After much stammering, she replied, “We may get a little bit exuberant internally, but…I really can’t speak to what he was thinking during this.”

Mr. Martland questioned the “adversarial” attitude displayed in the emails, suggesting it smacks more of hockey players than scientists in pursuit of truth.

Further testimony heard by the Inquiry on Friday and throughout the previous day’s session demonstrate the tactics these officials were using to knowingly cover up the discovery of ISAv in BC. Earlier that morning, the Inquiry heard from Dr. Fred Kibenge, director of the Animal Veterinary College at the University of PEI – one of only two approved testing labs for the ISA virus sanctioned by the world animal health organization. Dr. Kibenge related the enormous political pressure he faced after confirming ISAv in two wild salmon from BC.

Under questioning from the conservation coalition’s counsel Karen Campbell, Dr. Kibenge described an inspection his lab faced by the CFIA soon after discovering the positive test results. “The inspection was meant to be about understanding my processes so they could improve their own practices, but once the inspection began I got the sense that it was about obtaining information, because the first thing they asked me about when they did the inspection was the samples.” Dr. Kibenge added, “I quickly realized that the purpose of the site visit…was actually in my view, to confirm a hypothesis that had already been presented in the media.”

On the stand beside Dr. Kibenge was Dr. Nellie Gage, who heads up the Moncton-based lab that found contradictory results upon which the CFIA seized to publicly invalidate Dr. Kibenge’s findings. The Inquiry learned that far from confirmed “negative” tests for ISAv in these wild fish, Dr. Gagne’s lab had also turned up a weak positive, which it discounted based on its inability to repeat the result. Yet, rather than call the tests “inconclusive” as they were, the CFIA described them as “negative”, which was plainly not the case.

To that end, Alexandra Morton’s counsel Greg McDade asked Dr. Gagne, “Did you ever speak out to your communications people, suggesting that DFO was misleading people based on your inconclusive results?” Gagne admitted, “No, I have not.” McDade also put to Gagne a media statement from the BC Salmon Farmers’ Association in which head lobbyist Mary-Ellen Walling declared unequivocally that Gagne’s “negative” findings proved Dr. Kibenge had been wrong and that ISA was confirmed not to be in BC. A weary-sounding Gage produced a few chuckles in the gallery when she retorted, “Do you know how many things are wrong that have been published up until know? That’s really just a drop in the bucket.” (emphasis added)

Dr. Kibenge explained he was concerned when he later learned that the Moncton lab had been consulted ahead of time as to what issues to look for at his lab. “Did CFIA consult you in a similar way about possible issues with the Moncton lab?” Campbell inquired. “No, they did not,” replied Kibenge.

Counsel for the aboriginal aquaculture coalition later asked Dr. Kibenge whether he feels there have been threats to him professionally and financially as a result of the criticism leveled at him and his lab over these ISAv tests. Dr. Kibenge responded, “This has been so public that my reputation and everything else has been questioned, so yes, you could say that.”

McDade followed up on this theme of political pressure on Dr. Kibenge when he asked, “If you had found a negative you would not have submitted to that pressure, right?” Kibenge’s answer: “Yes.” McDade continued, “Why such pressure because of a simple scientific finding?” to which Kibenge replied, “It’s a problem when the science is above any question, as was the case here.”

Dr. Kibenge intimated in his testimony that he understood why the Harper government was reacting this way, given the amount of money at stake with threats to the aquaculture industry from his findings. He was also sure to acknowledge the support of his college and university, suggesting that made it easier to deal with these attacks on his lab and professional integrity.

More emails released during Friday’s hearing revealed the lengths to which senior CFIA and DFO staff went to clamp down on Dr. Kibenge’s work. One note from Dr. Klotins to Dr. Kiley stated, “Dr. Kibenge did test the fish submitted by A. Morton. I believe we must check those samples for integrity. I’m thinking we should also advise all laboratories in Canada to not test any more samples of wild finfish for ISAv from the Pacific Ocean (Canada and US). K.” (emphasis added)

When pressed by McDade, Klotins downplayed the email, suggesting no further action came of it.

Commission Counsel Brock Martland posed a similar question to senior DFO manager Stephen Stephen, who took the stand in the afternoon. This time it was in reference to his alleged attempts to shut down the research into ISAv being conducted on the Pacific Coast by Dr. Kristi Miller. “Did you suggest Dr. Miller shouldn’t continue her ISAv research?” Martland inquired. Stephen answered, “I did suggest that until CFIA completes their investigation we should defer further testing.” Martland asked Stephen, “Was Kristi Miller’s discovery of ISAv a ‘game-changer’?” Stephen replied, “I don’t think it’s a game-changer at all,” followed by more of the party line about conducting further tests before jumping to any conclusions.

The day ended with yet another example of DFO covering up ISAv science. This time it involved an unpublished 2004 paper by Dr. Fred Kibenge’s wife, Molly Kibenge, which made headlines when it was leaked to media a few weeks ago. Dr. Jones headed up the lab where Kibenge was a post-doctoral student at the time of the paper and it was his decision not to publish it. Moreover, Jones also didn’t see fit to disclose the document to the Commission, even though he was legally required to – especially given its significance relative to these special hearings into ISAv.

Martland asked Jones, “Why didn’t you produce these documents to the Commission earlier? Didn’t you understand this was going to be an issue?” “No, I didn’t understand that,” replied Jones. “The concern that we had with Molly’s work was that we were not able to reproduce her findings. At the time it was just confusing and didn’t seem to have meaning…It was essentially a negative result.”

Essentially. Just not actually.

The Cohen Commission resumes Monday for one final day of special hearings into ISAv – when it is expected Jones, Stephen and others will face more tough questions on the cover-up of science related to the potentially deadly virus.

ISA Virus Researcher Faced Political Pressure Due to Positive Test Results

December 16, 2011Canada, Oceans, Politics, Salmon Farming and Aquaculture, Western Canadacohen commission, Politics, SalmonCommon Sense Canadian

Read this report form The Winnipeg Free Press on the revelation at the Cohen Commission into disappearing sockeye by ISAv expert Dr. Fred Kibenge that he faced political pressure due to his positive test results suggesting ISAv exists in wild BC salmon.

VANCOUVER – A scientist who found signs of a potentially lethal fish
virus in B.C. salmon has told a federal commission he’s come under
government pressure for work he considers “above question.”

The results of Fred Kibenge, who runs a lab in P.E.I., were
widely publicized in October after he detected infectious salmon
anaemia in two of 48 sockeye smolts.

He told a special hearing for the inquiry studying the
collapse of the Fraser River salmon run that since then, he’s faced
difficult questioning from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. (Dec. 16, 2011)

Serious Finacial Costs and Trade Implications for Canada from Abandoning Kyoto

December 16, 2011Canada, Climate Change, Politics, Western Canadaclimate change, PoliticsCommon Sense Canadian

Read this article from The Globe and Mail on the very real risk of serious economic impacts to Canada stemming from the Harper Government’s decision to abandon its treaty commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

There’s politics in climate change and money at stake in talks. Moral arguments aside, the politics will matter.

Canada’s
Kyoto withdrawal was an unusually big news story for a country that
gets little mention, playing as a big deal in international media. It
was a top Web-hit story for the BBC. Reporters kept asking U.S. climate
negotiator Todd Stern about Canada. Canada’s emissions story jumped to
the masses. It could be the new seal hunt. Japan and Russia won’t meet
Kyoto targets either, but Canada withdrew and got headlines.

There was also pointed criticism from countries such as China and France, and many more…

…It’s not just that the oil sands are a fast-growing source of
emissions. Canada is 30 per cent over Kyoto targets, and the oil sands
are just part. Canada is the eighth-largest greenhouse-gas emitter.
China is largest, but per person its emissions are one-third of
Canada’s. Ottawa has no regulation plan for big emitters. Canada can’t
combat the story that the oil sands make us dirty.

One day,
politics will bring cost. A 2009 U.S. bill to apply tariffs on goods for
countries that fail to meet climate standards passed the House but died
in the Senate. Mr. Levi expects Europeans or others to revive the idea.

Mr. Leach said: “I think you’re going see countries looking to apply blame by punishment.” (December 15, 2011)

Why the BC Liberals Can’t Save Our Environment – Or Their Own Party in 2013

December 12, 2011Canada, Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, WATER, Western CanadaBC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Salmon, Water and EnergyRafe Mair

I see that Premier Photo–Op has appointed George Abbott, Education Minister, to work on revamping the Liberal Party to get it out of the ditch prior to the May 2013 election.

Good luck, George – you’ll need it.

My latter day concerns have been about environmental issues, something I don’t believe the Liberals can do, or even want to do anything about. The government would go a long way down the path of reconstruction if Premier Clark did four things: put a moratorium on fish farms along with a program of getting them on land; put a permanent stop to any new so-called “run of river” projects; announce the end of Taseko’s Fish Lake project; announce that no oil tankers will ply BC waters.

The trouble with the first three is the Campbell/Clark government doesn’t have the political courage to do them and, moreover, doing so would cost the party substantial political donations – a telling point with this bunch to whom election funds always trump honesty and honour..

The fourth one is tricky. The provincial government probably doesn’t have the authority to do anything about the pipelines but it sure as hell does over tankers – and without tankers there will be no pipelines. The Campbell/Clark lack of courage is because of its stupidity with the HST and it’s now so deep in debt to the feds they dare not oppose them. Yes, folks, the HST has us in thrall to Ottawa, something that in my time has never happened. In plain language the feds hold Premier Clark in a blackmail position – if BC is to be shown any mercy over the HST cock-up it must permit the Fish Lake project to proceed, make no noise on the Enbridge pipeline project and approve oil tanker traffic on the coast.

This, dear readers, is one reason Gordon Campbell was eager to clear out and one of the reasons Prime Minister Harper gave him that plum job in London.

Those are not the only problems Mr. Abbott has. The underlying malaise that the C/C government must deal with is that they have done a lousy fiscal job. While painting themselves as the fiscally sound party, they have kept the story of NDP fiscal sins front and centre, for wasn’t it they who bollixed up our economy?

The answer is no. The NDP look like Ebenezer Scrooge compared to the government of wastrels we’ve been governed by for the last 10 ½ years. It started right after the May 2001 election when Campbell gave away more than a billion dollars in taxes on the well off.

From that point until now, the Campbell/Clark government has more than tripled the real provincial debt, putting the province in hock for as far as the eye can see.

Because of the lousy media we have, it wasn’t much noticed that when the Liberals came down with their unbelievable 2009 election budget – which was over a billion dollars short of reality – that it was phoney as Hell and that the Liberals knew it throughout. This came out when, after the election was safely behind them, the government said that it was all the fault of the Recession. To accept this bullshit would mean that the Liberals didn’t notice the Stock Market crash in 2007/08, nor the recession that followed! They also had to ignore the information that the Finance Ministry had that tax revenues were dropping.

In short, the Liberal government either was so stupid as to not notice a market crash, a huge dose of criminality on Wall Street, or the severe Recession that followed – or they deliberately lied.

Then there was the HST that one need not mention.

In short, the Liberal Party’s renowned fiscal prudence is a crock of crap. And it’s worse – the government ought have foreseen the fiscal problems even before it hit the fan – reading numbers and foreseeing trouble is what Finance Ministries are all about.

To Mr Abbott – while you’re reorganizing your party, looking to the future as politicians always say, I must warn you that you will be looking to the past as well as you will be asked questions. There are, even in your own party, a great many British Columbians who want answers, no matter how awkward it might be to give them.

Pipelines and Battle Lines Drawn by Harper Government

December 9, 2011Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Tar Sands, Western CanadaAlberta Tar Sands, BC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Enbridge, KinderMorgan, Oil and gas, PoliticsRafe Mair

The paths, inexorably to a meeting point to violence, can only be changed by the senior governments, especially the feds. The cause of these paths are three: 1. the proposed Enbridge oil pipelines to Kitimat, carrying bitumen (sludge from the Tar Sands) mixed with gas (condensate), with one line running the condensate to the Tar Sands; 2. the Kinder Morgan line bringing the Tar Sands (and if the company has its way, much more of them) to Vancouver Harbour; 3. the tanker companies that would ship this gunk from Kitimat, down through the dangerous Inner Passage to China or the US – and those taking it through the dangerous 2nd Narrows into the Salish Sea, again bound for Asia or America.

Before going further, these projects are not only opposed by First Nations – polls show 80% of British Columbians oppose the tanker traffic and, of course, the pipelines are useless unless the gunk can be shipped.

The matter came to a head when President Obama refused to pass the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to Houston. Instantly, federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced that the BC lines must therefore be put on the “fast track”, overlooking, one supposes deliberately, the mandate of the National Energy Board to hold hearings (whose completion time was extended this week by a full year, due in part to the enormous number of citizens and organizations who’ve registered to speak at these hearings). In fact, Flaherty confirmed suspicions that the Federal Government regards this process as a nuisance to be done then ignored.

Over the past few years First Nations have made it clear that this – in former Coastal First Nations’ President Gerald Amos’ words – “is not going to happen”.

Let’s look at the position of First Nations today.

This from an article I did here on December 4. This is saying a hell of a lot but the coverage of the events I’ll deal with were marked by one of the lousiest examples of media mis-reporting I can remember.

…Damien Gillis and I attended a press conference last Thursday called by First Nations who would be impacted by scheduled pipelines and tankers to outline their “Save the Fraser Declaration” – a document that leaves no doubt about their unified opposition to these proposals. In all, 131 nations have now signed on.

Moreover, this declaration almost certainly will be signed in the near future by the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation, who face the proposed expansion of Kinder Morgan’s pipeline from the Alberta Tar Sands to their traditional territory on Burrard Inlet. The Tsleil-Waututh first came out against the company’s plans – which could see up to 300 super tankers loaded with Alberta bitumen plying the waters of Vancouver – in a press release last month…

This hugely important event received a brief column in the Business Section of The Vancouver Sun while the following day’s front page story – with a banner headline – told how Elmer Derrick, one of 60-plus hereditary chiefs of the Gitxsan Nation, had made a deal with Enbridge.

So typical for this sad excuse for a newspaper – bury the big story about an agreement that 131 Chiefs make and pounce with glee on the one who dissents.

Reaction from the Gitxsan was quick with opposition to refuse to recognize the agreement, saying that Derrick was not speaking for them – as this video taken at an emergency community meeting just days after the announcement of the deal demonstrates.

Enbridge fired back that they were comfortable with the deal with Derrick and had many other Nations on side and that they would proceed with signing with them and others.

In jumped Joe Oliver, federal Natural Resources Minister, as reported by the Sun: “[Oliver] said the project, if approved by the National Energy Board, shouldn’t be
held hostage by aboriginal and environmental groups threatening to
create a human ‘wall’ to prevent construction.” The minister continued, “Look, this is a country that lives by the Rule of Law and I would hope that that would be the standard going forward…we can’t let unlawful people oppose lawful development.”

I, apparently, came to Mr. Oliver’s mind – and to remove all doubt, sir, I will indeed be part of that human “wall” and perhaps I should tell you why.

I hardly need any publicity in this my native and much-beloved province. At any age, but especially at 80, I’ve no wish to expose myself to the health hazard posed by prison, but I can’t stand idle while the very essence of this land will be desecrated to satisfy greed without the consent of its people.

Interesting approach. I would have thought he would have said, “When the National Energy Board makes its report and if it supports Enbridge, we hope that the company can get approval from the First Nations involved.”

The scene now shifts back to Mr Derrick. Just yesterday – after going into hiding for five days from the media that had given him so much press – he had an op-ed piece in, where else, The Vancouver Sun, which, apparently, has become a great fan of his. In it Mr. Derrick extols the virtuousness of his involvement with Enbridge and who is in and speaks for the Gitxsan and why. Interesting story but not a single solitary syllable about the environment – nor about the recent controversy of his own making, or even his alleged firing from his job as a treaty negotiator by the community he purportedly represents!

Now I don’t wish to intrude on Gitxsan politics but wouldn’t the rank and file expect their leader, who has made them $7 million for something to be received sometime, would discuss the many questions being raised by 131 of his colleagues and neighbours – men and women of many tribes – all opposed to Enbridge?

Enter the Lawyer. For any decent dispute you need lots of them. Name of Nigel Bankes from the University of Calgary. I can’t tell you what got him cranked up…was it Mr. Derrick? The Conservative government? Enbridge? The Vancouver Sun? Or did he just wake up one morning and decide to unburden himself of his long commitment to the principle that parliaments can do whatever they want?

His contribution consists in telling us that Enbridge does not need to get permission for its pipelines from “every first nation over (the pipelines) it passes…at the end of the day there isn’t a first nations veto.”

He does concede, according to the Sun, that “governments do have an obligation to consult with nations…and must demonstrate they have ‘integrated the result of consultations in the project’s design.’”

The government, Enbridge and Mr. Derrick seem to be saying that the rank and file First Nations, through their leaders, do not have the right to use the international words for GO AWAY to Enbridge, because in the government reposes the law of the land, which, after a little pas de deux to entertain the masses, it can do as it pleases!

I hate to disappoint Messrs Derrick, Oliver, Bankes (sounds like a good name for a law firm) but many First Nations and their lawyers hold a contrary view and say that section 35 does in fact give them a veto.

Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 provides constitutional protection to the aboriginal and treaty rights of aboriginal peoples in Canada. The rights Section 35 has been found to protect are fishing, logging, hunting, the right to aboriginal title and the right to enforcement of treaties. There remains a debate over whether the right to aboriginal self-government is included within section 35. Since 1995 the Government of Canada has had a policy recognizing the inherent right of self-government under section 35.

The leaders in the aboriginal community that I have spoken to make it clear that if rights in Section 35 grant them powers as indicated, clearly they must have full rights to protect them. They go further and say that their law prevails on all matters save where their title and rights might have been ceded – and they haven’t been, where the proposed Enbridge pipeline and tanker routes are concerned.

My question as a lawyer of long ago – if the government and Enbridge say they have the right to do as they please, why not just do it? If Mr. Bankes is right that there is no right of First Nations to stop them, why doesn’t Enbridge hold some hearings with the First Nations, say that they have consulted, then get on with it?

This isn’t a smart alec question at all, for if all Enbridge need do in Bankes’ opinion is integrate the results of consultation in the project’s design, a first year law student would be all that’s needed to gussy their design up to suit.

I close with a serious warning to the government and Enbridge: You are proceeding down a one-way path to disaster. Enbridge doesn’t care for the environment – look at their record. Look at what they did in 2010 in the Kalamazoo River! Oil spills are simply a cost of business which is, happily, a tax credit.

Aboriginal peoples say that they stand upon the Rule of Law, which they say includes their own law as guaranteed under Section 35 of the Constitution Act. They make the sensible argument that to have rights over fishing, logging, hunting, the right to aboriginal title and the right to enforce treaties, those words must mean that they can legislate to protect them – otherwise the words mean nothing.

Mr. Oliver – you’re being a damned fool and a dangerous one and when the violence comes, as it will, it will be on your head and that of your government. I’m not inciting violence – on the contrary, it is because I so abhor violence I plead with your government to come to its senses.

Don’t say you weren’t warned!