BC NDP and Official Opposition Leader John Horgan (BCNDP.ca/youtube)
I suggest that everyone listen to this immediately – it is John Horgan, leader of the BC NDP, promising to shut down Site C and make up the energy difference through conservation, wind and solar power (listen here yourself to his CBC Daybreak North interview from Monday morning).
Site C is something that never should have happened, certainly not for decades to come. It has always been a bad idea and totally unwarranted based on the lack of power needs of BC Hydro and our province. There have been predictions by BC Hydro to justify this project but they neither justify it nor dispel the reality that BC Hydro always overestimates its power needs by a considerable amount.
The challenge for Mr. Horgan, in my view, is to stop Site C and at the same time decrease, not increase, Independent Power Projects (IPPs) which are ruining our rivers and bankrupting BC Hydro while making foreign investors unjustly rich. I’ve no doubt that Mr. Horgan has addressed this issue – if he hasn’t, there’ll be no shortage of experts addressing it for him.
Changing the game
This announcement, at least at first blush, is a game changer. Mr. Horgan is no longer tied to the apron strings of Christy and her LNG fantasies. This is extremely timely given the news over the last 30 days or so which all but set the funeral date for LNG and gazillion-dollar Prosperity Funds and debt elimination in this province. Christy can hardly, at this point, announce that she will cancel Site C too, and since that decision will be hugely popular as the facts come out, she is stuck flogging a dying horse, if not one that’s already been put down.
This decision will also give Horgan an issue where he is once again the Leader of the Opposition, not simply saying “me too” to LNG propositions put forward by Christy and her poodle, Rich Coleman – the beat cop who, like Walter Mitty, fantasizes that he’s become a world expert on energy.
The election campaign is underway and at this point, admittedly early in the game, I would say it’s suddenly advantage Horgan.
Syrian boys at a refugee camp in the village of Atmeh, Syria (Flickr CC / Freedom House)
Before starting, let me state that there is no excusing the massacre in Paris, nor 9/11. When it comes to death of innocent civilians there is no equivalency, period.
The Canadian Establishment has always believed that some newcomers are more desirable than others. A small example – my father, aged 7, arrived with his parents in Vancouver in 1914, the same year the Komagata Maru did. They came from New Zealand and were British subjects. The passengers on the Komagata Maru came from India and were also British citizens. My family were white and, nominally Christian – the Indians were not. I needn’t tell you the difference in reception.
Many concerns are raised about the current lot from Syria. They’re Muslims, considered by many to be dangerous in itself. They’re not quite white, although no one mentions that, and there aren’t many Syrian communities where they can settle. Today, I read that these aren’t the best sort of people, all lower class, so we won’t be getting many engineers and doctors.
What an interesting observation! When young people from Asian countries work hard, win scholarships and excel, Canadian parents become distressed that Asian parents demand standards from their kids that are too high!
A history of refugee success stories
Let’s look back to 1956, the time of the Hungarian Revolution, when we took, virtually unscreened, 100,000 refugees. Concerned citizens fretted that these surely included God only knows how many Communist plantsready to upset our way of life. In fact, it did include many ordinary prisoners released by the Hungarian government just to be rid of them.
It has turned out to be a very profitable adventure for both refugees and Canada.
Perhaps we should look at the Vietnamese refugees of a few years ago and, around the same time, Iranian refugees. Again, these migrations have been mutually successful.
Of course, not all immigrants become successful, law-abiding Canadians but, then, neither do all Canadian-born children. There are discombobulations within all new population groups – always have been, always will be.
What about the original immigrants – British and French?
The concern of so many is that they might bring the troubles of their mother countries into our midst. Perhaps it might be useful to talk about that for a moment.
Of course that happens – but let’s not be selective in our recall, rather fair.
The resentment against both the British and French, and the treaty of 1763 which ceded Quebec to England, have left lasting scars reflected in many ways, one being the unwillingness of many Quebeckers to fight in foreign wars. The rest of Canada has got used to this and for the most part ignores it.
What about the English migration to Canada back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? Nobody ever seems to want to examine that. We should because it led directly to World War I.
In the words of former US Secretary of State James Baker, Canada didn’t have a dog in that fight. It was an idiotic, medieval scrap between ancient enemies over antiquated quarrels led by failing lines of Royalty. Unlike World War II, World War I was about as international as the Franco-Prussian war, with a couple of extra idiots added.
The statistics show that Canadian enthusiasm for this war was almost exclusively in the English speaking areas and dominated by recent English immigrants. It’s not considered fashionable to criticize the English, of course, while the Irish and British citizens from darker-coloured countries are fair game. (To this day English friends speak huffily about “immigrants” as if they themselves somehow weren’t. It pisses me off.)
Irish quarrels, Sikh quarrels, Serb/Croatian quarrels, Polish/Russian quarrels – all un-Canadian. English quarrels, often brutal, racist and aristocratic – quite acceptable, you know.
Two classes of violence
One can’t avoid talking about violence, even though it never excuses retaliatory violence, and it’s instructive to remember that no country in the Middle East ever conquered, occupied, and subjugated France, the UK, or the United States – or Canada for that matter. Meanwhile, people in the Middle East, in fairly recent memory, have been bombed, gassed, and otherwise, cruelly dealt with by those nations – yet somehow that’s considered perfectly appropriate since, after all, they’re European, Christian, and “civilized”. That civilized “enlightenment” rested in the Middle East for centuries until quite recently is overlooked except by scholars. Is it then surprising that people from Middle Eastern countries don’t consider sympathy as a factor when they bomb and kill Europeans who are occupying their countries?
I’m coming close to equivalencies here and I don’t want to do that, so I’ll back away by simply making these observations: Immigration into Canada, from all sources, has made the country strong, prosperous – and interesting. It has brought problems to be sure, but it’s brought in enormous values and virtues as well.
Diverse City
I am often asked about my city, Vancouver, where I was born and raised in the 30s, 40s and 50s. I grew up in a narrow-minded, race-dominated city where “lesser breeds”, in Kipling’s words, were called degrading names andwhere there was de facto segregation. In World War II, to the applause of the white community and its press, we threw those of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps without the slightest evidence that any had disloyal inclinations.
I now see many nationalities with lovely restaurants, ceremonies, costumes, cultures that we enjoy and learn from. I’m not so naïve as to deny there’s a cost to this and that not everyone is delighted, yet when I look at other countries I consider just how fortunate I am for all of the many cultures we maintain.
I close with an anecdote. In 1993, we had a national constitutional referendum called the Charlottetown Accord. I was working at CKNW and a prominent Indo-Canadian, Moe Sihota, was a provincial cabinet minister who urged members of his community to vote “yes”. Jas Johal who was a colleague, told me that Indo- Canadians would do as Sihota asked. I made a friendly bet that Indo-Canadian communities would vote precisely as other communities did, and so it turned out.
We may not assimilate but we all become Canadians.
Making Fractured Land: Caleb Behn and Wade Davis (left) being interviewed by directors Fiona Rayher and Damien Gillis (Photo: Zack Embree)
When I’m not wearing my Common Sense Canadian publisher’s hat, I’m making movies. For the last five years, one in particular, called Fractured Land – which examines the “fracking” and LNG industries through the eyes of a young Indigenous lawyer from northeast BC named Caleb Behn.
Caleb and his family graciously welcomed us into their world – one fraught with complex choices brought about by the energy and resources we down south, in the big cities, benefit from, without facing the impacts of the messy extraction process. Caleb’s world is an impossible balancing act – many of his family members work in the oil and gas industry but are deeply troubled by its effects on air, land and water, not to mention their traditional way of life in the Peace Valley and Fort Nelson regions.
Very early on in the creative process, we came to see the literal fracking of shale beds deep underground as an apt metaphor for what was going on inside people like Caleb, his family and community.
10 Vancouver screenings starting Friday
Fiona Rayher and Damien Gillis at VIFF
Now, after a lot of hard work and incredible support from a large community of people, my Vancouver-based co-director Fiona Rayher and I are proud to share the 80-min documentary with audiences across BC and around the world. After six packed screenings on the Island and the Sunshine Coast over the past couple of weeks, we’re kicking off a 10-screening run in Vancouver this Friday, Nov. 20 (tickets to that first show are sold out but available for others).
This process began with a number of Canadian-based international film festivals in recent months – Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, and Toronto’s Hot Docs, where we world-premiered the film last April to a warm reception. We were delighted to introduce it to our home town at the Vancouver International Film Festival earlier this Fall, and humbled by the response, winning both the Best BC Film Award and the VIFF Impact Canadian Audience Award. Now, we’re taking the show on the road with screenings planned all around BC – see the full list here.
Drilling deeper
Much of the reaction to the film is based on the compelling character at its core and the fact that this is no typical “issue” or environmental film. It’s a story about a man who, while unique and exceptional in many ways, also personifies the struggles we face as a country – the push and pull between creating jobs and protecting what’s left of our natural world.
A drill rig in northeast BC
The medium of feature-length film afforded me an opportunity to delve into the sort of issues we discuss here at The Common Sense Canadian on a daily basis on a much deeper level – which is why I encourage our readers to catch a screening. The list below is just a starting point – we are planning many more for the new year, including a variety of panel discussions and q&a’s with the filmmakers and in some cases Caleb himself. We will also soon be unveiling a community screening program, enabling groups and individuals to host their own screening of the film in their community.
Special screening to feature Wade Davis
I’m particularly excited about our screening this coming Tuesday, November 24, at the Rio Theatre – a terrific venue – which will be followed by a q&a with the filmmakers. Also, on December 1, we’ll be hosting a special screening with My Sea to Sky at the Kay Meek Centre in West Vancouver – featuring a panel discussion with celebrated author Wade Davis and retired KPMG partner Dr. Eoin Finn on the controversial, proposed Woodfibre LNG project. Then, we’re excited to take the film up north, to the communities along the proposed LNG pipelines and terminals who would be directly affected by our government’s LNG policy.
In addition to these theatrical screenings, the film has started to be broadcast by CBC’s documentary Channel (the first one was on November 8 – more to come next year), and will be carried by Knowledge Network down the road. I hope you’ll get chance to see the film and spend a little time in Caleb’s world – and, in the process, perhaps develop a better understanding of our own.
BCNDP Leader John Horgan at the party’s recent convention (NDP/facebook)
Political pundits are busy analyzing the recent NDP convention and I can tell you it’s easier to interpret the entrails of a rooster. Conventions organized to look like sunny expressions of the party’s solidarity and readiness for an election usually disguise more than they reveal.
What this NDP clambake tells me is that the party is sick to death of leadership fights and “the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t” – a highly dubious substitute for skill and character.
The good news first
Starting with the good news, the party caucus has done a decent job of exposing government malfeasance, in the health and the email scandals in particular, and demonstrating the general incompetence of the Premier and her cabinet. (Not too tough considering how willingly they do that on their own.)
Unfortunately for the NDP, history tells us that these sorts of issues don’t have “legs”. When it comes to election time, the public has different considerations; from experience they expect government misbehaviour and only want to know what will happen to their pocketbook in the next four years. Election after election has proved that.
It’s also true that parties tend to lose elections rather than win them and the Clark/Coleman government, now old and corrupt, is ready for a rest – a long one. A permanent one, in my view.
Why back LNG?
To take advantage, the Opposition must look like a government in waiting. If, however, as we have just seen in the recent federal election, voters want rid of a government badly enough, they’ll say, “they can hardly be worse than this bunch” and overlook opposition inexperience.
It’s foolish in the extreme for an Opposition to rely on this happening, yet Mr. Horgan, in his keynote speech, said nothing about the environment and showed no inclination to back off the party’s idiotic, wholehearted support for LNG. If this remains NDP policy, it will offer the atrocious Clark/Coleman bunch a lifeline because voters do care about these issues and before you write Premier Photo-op off, remember Mair’s Axiom I: “You don’t have to be a 10 in politics, you can be 3 if your opponent is a 2.”
Whether or not Mr. Horgan realizes it, LNG will be an issue in 2017, much including the proposed Woodfibre LNG plant. The Horgan-led NDP has badly let down those who expect that an Official Opposition will ask some basic questions about controversial and dangerous mega-projects like this one. WLNG is not a NIMBY issue at all but a real and substantial danger to life and limb, not to mention to the environment of this beautiful fjord.
Howe Sound belongs not to those who live near it but to all British Columbia – it’s a jewel in the provincial diadem. Thanks to a lot of volunteers particularly, Howe Sound has nearly recovered from decades of dirty industry; the herring and salmon runs are returning to what they once were, sea mammals, including several types of whales, are back, as are seals, sea lions, and even porpoise. It is incredibly beautiful and unspoiled even though next to a metropolis. I would have thought that not even the most cynical politician would place all this in jeopardy without at least asking a few simple questions of the government. I was obviously wrong.
Before getting to the basic environmental questions, I must ask Mr.Horgan why he has never questioned the Clark/Coleman government about the integrity of Woodfibre LNG?
It’s owned, as most now know, by a crook from Indonesia best known for paying a $200+ million fine for evading taxes; for burning down jungles; and brutally evicting people who may be uncomfortably in the way of his plans. He’s not hard to investigate, Mr. Horgan, so why don’t you want to know why the Clark government is involved with this sort of man in an operation of this magnitude?
There’s the question of the plant itself, the pipelines involved, the safety of converting natural gas into LNG, the disposal of waste – especially warm water – the impact on marine life around Squamish, which is becoming increasingly important. All the normal environmental concerns and questions the citizens of Squamish and surrounding areas want answered were sloughed of or ignored by the ersatz environmenal assessment “process”.
Mr. Horgan, why won’t you, as Leader of the Official Opposition, on behalf of all British Columbians but Squamish people especially, carefully examine the Clark/Coleman bunch on these critical issues? Isn’t that your job?
Tanker danger
Then there’s the question of transportation of the LNG by tankers down Howe Sound itself. Here, in a nutshell, is the explosive (sick pun intended) issue.
The Society of International Gas Tankers and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO)* – the acknowledged world authority on LNG issues – has set standards for the LNG tanker trade. SIGTTO’s #1 and overriding criterion is that there is no acceptable probability of a catastrophic LNG release, i.e. the only acceptable probability is ZERO.
On the critical issue of separation, Sandia International Laboratories has defined for the US Department of Energy three hazard zones of 500m, 1600m, 3500m surrounding LNG tankers. The largest, a circle of 3500m radius, centred on the moving ship, represents the minimum safe separation between tanker and people. Other LNG hazard experts say at least 4800m is a more realistic minimum safe separation.
Plainly – and you need only look at the chart – Howe Sound is far too narrow. Surely that in itself must be fatal to the project!
Isn’t the safety of Howe Sound, extending to western West Vancouver, even worth a question to the Premier, Mr. Horgan?
Let’s just sum up what you evidently see as unwarranted whining, Mr. Horgan.
1. The owner of the company we must depend upon for taxes and royalties, plus caring of our delicate environment, is a big-time tax evader with an utterly appalling environmental record.
2. The people of Squamish and surroundings, facing the immediate consequences of any environmental “accidents”, are asked, and arrogantly expected, to accept a phoney environmental process, where the “fix” was in from the start, and which gave Woodfibre LNG the patented Christy Clark corporate whitewash. They would have been more honestly dealt with by a denial of process than by a process reminiscent of a Soviet Show Trial.
3. The most disastrous consequences to be feared are from a tanker mishap, which, mathematically, is not a possibility or even a probability but a certainty – merely a matter of time. This time will clearly be abridged by an utter lack of concern about internationally-recognized rules re: hazard and separation zones yet, Mr. Horgan, you haven’t uttered a peep to the government about this critical issue!
NDP ignores call for help
We’ve asked for NDP help, yet on these issues, of so much concern to so many of your fellow citizens, the Official Opposition, including you and your MLAs – because of your blanket approval of LNG – has been as scarce as a tumbler of Glenfiddich at a temperance meeting.
Is this the care you will show for British Columbians if you become premier?
Yes, the sunny simpleton and her trained seals now running the province must be replaced, but with the likes of you, sir? A man lacking the political or moral courage to help citizens threatened by crooks, environmental rapists, and tanker disasters, as our Premier? A Leader of the Official Opposition who doesn’t understand his duty? A man who imposed a catastrophic LNG policy on his party because he’s afraid of losing a couple of seats where highly destructive and dangerous fracking is prevalent?
God forbid!
BC deserves the Green Party or a new party representing the people of the province, not just cheerleaders led by a political sissy. But time is short, with just a year and a half left for serious contenders to get their asses in gear.
*WLNG claims that because they are members of SIGTTO that their plan is safe. This is corporate bullshit. Membership does not imply let alone confirm compliance and, indeed, anyone reading this can join SIGGTO as an associate member – which is all WLNG is!
Rafe Mair – with more than a few grey hairs (photo: Youtube/CMHABC)
Like most Canadians, I’ve a spent much of the past week or so trying to figure out what the general election really meant. As I did, a horrible thought occurred to me – my perspective might just be affected by the number of grey hairs I’ve gathered over the years!
One’s age, gender, and position in life always affect one’s outlook and that affects how you vote. Why is it so bad that my outlook is different than that of my children and grandchildren? Actually one of my grandchildren inherited my contrariness and our letters seem more like plots than the usual letters between a lovely young lady at university and her adoring grampa!
Time changes one’s perspective, if only because there isn’tmuch you haven’t seen. One gets, at my slightly advanced age, a strong sense of déjà vu when viewing election campaigns and their aftermath.
God only knows how many wastrels I have seen who have bankrupted the country, only to find that the next business cycle bailed out his successor and made him look like a financial genius.
Heroes become bums and vice versa – the process doesn’t take long. One need only remember Pierre Trudeau to see how a man could be loved, then hated as a wastrel, then revered once death has ensured his absence from the scene. I could go on but it might be more useful if I gave the perspective of this senior citizen and let you see whether or not it has any merit.
Becoming a conserver, not a Conservative
As we age we tend to become a little conservative but not necessarily in the political sense of the word. In fact, I have tended to move the other way over the last 30 years or so.
I have become conservative in the sense that I want to conserve what is good and let go of antiquated styles and narrow concepts. I recognize those things change and that the times we viewed as being pretty stuffy and sexless were often quite the opposite, in fact. I’m much concerned with what is going to happen to Canada and the way it is governed than the usual worries about kids, their music and sex habits, money and whether we will all have driverless cars.
A huge country
I have confessed too often to deny now that I am a devout British Columbian before all else. That being said, I strongly believe it’s worthwhile to keep Canada together, but know that that will take hard work and that time is short. What’s required is a combination of what’s turned out to be good and to confine changes to curing fundamental and related evils.
The first issue we must examine is pretty basic.
The country is huge, with a substantial populations in a few areas and sparseness in the rest. This leads to political and economic imbalance. Larger population areas like southern Ontario, are going to have more money, thus more clout politically, which in turn will mean that their view of what Canadian rights should be will, perforce, be very different from someone who lives in Smithers, BC, or Cornerbrook, Newfoundland. Indeed, the rights will be different, creating resentment.
This raises an obvious question: Is this such a natural development that nothing can be done and we should just accept it? If we do, as the future unfolds, will the country remain reasonably content at being together, in fact, as well as legally? Or, will resentment simmer and grow, such that in time many Canadians will simply say, “To hell with it, I would rather go it alone”?
Distinct regions and cultures
This has been a basic question in Quebec for a very long time and is one that more than occasionally passes the lips of British Columbians. There are distinct regions in Canada which stand alone economically and, I daresay, culturally. For those who feel that we need to do nothing because the country will always stay together, I ask this question: What if Quebec were to secede? It seems less likely now than 20 years ago but these things tend to be cyclical. Does anyone believe that the rest would stay together with Ontario, having about 50% of the members of the House of Commons?
We must renew our vows, so to speak, just as many older married couples might wish to do. Not toss them out butre-visit a few of them and perhaps adjust them to suit the present situation, not the catechism of all those years ago!
Reforming the system
This is why I have written so much about reforming, not radically changing our system. I recognize that even if, from on high, gold tablets were to appear bearing the formula for perfect government, we wouldn’t want to cast aside what has evolved from a couple of thousand years of political development.
We’ve learned in the last 10 years that the spirit of our system can be quickly and effectively destroyed if the Prime Minister so desires. All he need do is use the powers of the whip and the carrot, very effective weapons indeed, as we have seen, and the essence of parliamentary democracy takes an air of pantomime and the power of the MP might just as well be in the pub as in the House of Commons.
This raises two critical changes that must be made.
First and foremost, the system must be such that ultimate power remains in reality, not just in theory only, in the members of the House of Commons and that the government be always subject to recall by them – not just in theory but in workable practice.
Second, power must be distributed so that all regions in fact participate in the nation’s governance and are not merely onlookers whose only involvement is membership in a political party whose leader drops in at election time.
I don’t think that doing this would be as difficult as it sounds. If Mr.Harper has left any worthwhile legacy it’s a strong desire in Canadians to change and with a much clearer understanding of why change is necessary and what needs to be done.
It’s not my purpose to outline my own private solutions, not just because they may not be helpful, but because they alter as I think about the problem!
Kill “first past the post”, fix Senate
I’ll leave with these two observations:
We have an electoral system where almost 50% of those who vote will waste that vote. Just as bad, it discourages people from voting. No amount of skating around will alter the fact that “first past the post” only works in favour of prime ministerial dictatorship and those who profit because of it.
Secondly, in a country this large and so unevenly populated, there is the clear need for an upper house, which is a long way from endorsing the present set-up. The fundamental flaw with the present Senate is that it is supposed to represent the regions, but Senators are appointed by the prime minister!
When you combine that with the gross geographical distortions that have taken place, where, for example, New Brunswick has more senators than does British Columbia, it’s obvious wholesale changes are necessary.
Having been involved in constitutional discussions at the highest level, I’m confident that we can make the necessary alterations. It will take a great deal of taffee pulling and goodwill but when people are under great pressure to succeed, it usually brings out the best in them.Canadians are demanding change where MPs represent them, speak for them and vote for them, not get paid $170,000 to be a ventriloquist’s dummy.
In short, this old fisherman sees the country at the point where it must fish or cut bait – and the time is now.
Gitxsan leaders of Camp Madii Lii stand behind the Lax Kw’aalams Nation at Lelu Island (submitted)
A letter written by Lax Kw’alaams Hereditary Chief Yahaan (Donnie Wesley), calling on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to reject Petronas’ controversial LNG proposal near Prince Rupert, has gained a long list of unlikely, high-profile supporters.
The signatories include over 70 leaders of First Nations, environmental organizations, businesses, unions, university groups and faith groups, plus several scientists and academics such as David Suzuki and Wade Davis. Amongst the notable First Nations leaders are Garry Reece, Chief Councillor of the Lax Kw’alaams Band Council, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, Chief Na’Moks (John Ridsdale) of the Office of the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs, and Fort Nelson First Nation Chief Liz Logan.
Federal decision expected soon
The plea comes in advance of a decision on the project’s federal environmental permits, expected in early 2016 or sooner – following several delays. By contrast, the BC government has already enthusiastically signed off on the project, but without the support of local First Nations, who rejected the government and proponent’s offer of some $1.15 billion in economic benefits and a significant grant of crown land.
Since then, hereditary leaders of Lax Kw’alaams and their supporters have been occupying Lelu Island in defiance of test drilling and exploratory work by contractors for the proponent. This has led to increasing tensions between First Nations and the Port Authority, which claims jurisdiction over the test work.
“The people of Lax Kw’alaams have unanimously voted ‘No’ against the project because of devastation it would cause to Flora Banks,” said Chief Yahaan on the occupation.”
[quote]It’s a habitat for juvenile migrating salmon, crabs, eulachon, halibut…We are here and we’re telling the people of Canada and British Columbia that we’re not giving up Flora Banks.[/quote]
“Lelu Island is part of the Yahaan’s tribal territory of the Gitwilgyoots,” according to a media release on today’s letter.
Watershed moment for LNG opposition
The letter could signal a watershed moment in the growing movement against LNG development and the fracking that would supply it with fuel. “This is the first time that such widespread and unprecedented agreement has been reached in BC on LNG”, said Greg Horne of the Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition. “From every corner of the province, we are all in agreement that Lelu Island and Flora Banks is the worst possible spot on the north coast to site an LNG facility”.
Whereas projects like the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline and Kinder Morgan’s TransMountain project have seen strong, clear resistance from early on – especially amongst First Nations – LNG has proven a more complex issue. The combination of economic benefits offered to communities and the perception that LNG is somehow less dangerous environmentally than Tar Sands bitumen has meant that traditional oil and gas opponents were slower to take on the Clark government’s LNG vision. But that has changed over the past year, as more groups have connected the dots between fracking in northeast BC and the LNG industry; while the enormous climate impacts of the industry have begun to become clear.
Meanwhile, risks to marine habitat and wild salmon from LNG terminals have sparked a backlash amongst coastal nations and communities along the proposed pipeline routes, where several resistance camps have emerged in recent years.
“Of all the thousands of miles of coastline, they chose the one location most critical for Skeena salmon”, said Des Nobels, Northern Outreach Coordinator, T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation. A separate letter from the United Fisherman and Allied Workers Union (UFAWU) and environmental groups emphasizes the same point to the new PM:
[quote]We urge you to reject this project outright because mitigation will not be possible. The importance of this specific site is long standing common knowledge in the scientific community.[/quote]
Even if it receives its federal permits, Petronas faces un uphill battle to get its project built – including potential court challenges from First Nations and a rapidly cooling global market for LNG – which led a leading Malaysian business publication to predict the project would be put on hold for a number of years.
Justin Trudeau visits US Capital in 2013 (Susan Walsh/Associated Press)
It’s official: After seven years of withering on the vine, the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to the US Gulf Coast is dead, by President Barack Obama’s hand.
Newly-minted Canadian Prime Minister and avowed Keystone supporter Justin Trudeau is reportedly disappointed at the decision but says he respects the US government’s right to make it. “The Canada-U.S. relationship is much bigger than any one project and I look forward to a fresh start with President Obama to strengthen our remarkable ties in a spirit of friendship and cooperation,” said Trudeau in a statement.
Obama finally came to the long-awaited decision on the basis that the project would “not serve the national interests”, adding:
[quote]The pipeline would not make a meaningful long-term contribution to our economy.[/quote]
He also noted that it had taken on an “overinflated role” in the climate debate and relations with Canada.
The announcement explains proponent TransCanada’s recent request to the US government to “pause” its pipeline review – which the Obama administration rejected just two days before officially killing the project. It evidently didn’t want to drag the process out any further, preferring, at long last, a clean break.
On that note, Mr. Trudeau would do well not to sulk over the death of a project he once ventured to Washington, D.C. to defend. Trudeau also argued in a speech to Canada’s oil men and women at Calgary’s Petroleum Club that then-PM Harper’s downfall was his ham-fisted handling of the file, not the fact that he was backing it. Trudeau argued that he could do a better job selling the project south of the border. “Alberta’s interests have been compromised more than just about anyone else’s by Mr. Harper’s divisiveness,” Trudeau told the energy industry.
“It has made enemies of people who ought to be your friends, and turned what should have been a reasonable debate into an over-the-top rhetorical war. Most importantly, it has impeded progress.”
But he made no bones about his support for the project, saying:
[quote]Let me be clear: I support Keystone XL because, having examined the facts, and accepting the judgment of the National Energy Board, I believe it is in the national interest…On balance, it would create jobs and growth, strengthen our ties with the world’s most important market, and generate wealth…Most of all, it is in keeping with what I believe is a fundamental role of the Government of Canada: to open up markets abroad for Canadian resources, and to help create responsible and sustainable ways to get those resources to those markets.[/quote]
Apparently, Mr. Obama didn’t share those views – nor did the woman who wants to replace him in the Oval Office, Hilary Clinton. The former secretary of state, who at one time oversaw the project’s review, has spoken out against it during her presidential campaign.
By the time Mr. Trudeau took over the file from Harper, it was clearly too far gone for him to do anything about it. Now, if he’s serious about forging a new relationship with Obama and the US, he would do well not to shed a tear over Keystone and to move on to more important matters.
A young Peter MacKay (left) and Stephen Harper join forces in 2003
Can the Conservative Party come back?
Of course, but first, the Conservative Party must return.
Sound confusing?
It’s not. The pre-Harper party wasn’t remotely like his bunch. It’s not enough to get rid of Stephen Harper if you don’t also get rid of his party, which goes back to the Faustian bargain between Harper and Peter MacKay in 2003 when Canada’s version of the “Grand Old Party” was subverted then overrun by the Reform Party, a.k.a. Stephen Harper.
The Thatcher comparison
It’s tempting to compare this situation to the UK Tories when Margaret Thatcher pinched the party from the “old guard”, but she was eventually tossed out by her caucus, while our version chose to go down with the ship rather than deal with their leadership problem.
Moreover there was no Sir Geoffrey Howe in the Canadian House of Commons to insert the dagger and no Michael Heseltine waiting patiently for the prime minister’s office key.
Mrs. Thatcher raised chippiness to an art form. Quickly gaining absolute control over her cabinet and servile caucus, she imposed her iherent nastiness on policy and thus on the people. In due course, the considerable good she did in the early stages was forgotten by Tories, including the grassroots, who just got pissed off with her.
Never having a whole lot to start with, Attilla The Hen, like Harper a quarter century later, had lost her common touch.
Again, like Thatcher, Harper had no respect for the House of Commons and the traditional and constitutional rights and prerogatives of its members.
Where, then, to look for the common touch and respect for Members of Parliament to act as an example for the survivors?
The Common Touch
How about the old aristocrat himself, Winston Churchill?
God knows I will not compare the two, but contrast, if you will, the attitude Churchill and Harper each brought to the PM’s office.
Let’s look at the Common Touch.
Churchill surveys the damage after German bombing
Churchill had every right to be publicly arrogant and uncaring about the people during the war years when he bore a burden unlike that of any leader in history. Yet after a serious bombing he would take to the streets in the East End which bore the brunt and, tears streaming down his face, and mingle with the residents who poured out to see him. At no time did Churchhill pretend by putting on overalls or trying to be what he was not; he looked like the prime minister he was, Homburg hat and gold watchchain, and the people who had just lost their homes surrounded him with affection.
They knew he cared – really cared.
During this terrible time, the House of Commons met regularly and debated the issues of the day. A number of MPs freely and fully criticized Churchill not just in broad terms but with details as to where they considered he was making serious mistakes. These criticisms were often nasty and came from bitter foes like Emanuel Shinwell and Aneuran Bevan. Without doubt, Churchhill could have brought an end to this but fully accepted it as part of the democracy they were all fighting for.
Then, not once but twice, came parliamentary moments of truth, Votes of Confidence, and here are his words about the first of those:
[quote]… I have come to the conclusion that I must ask to be sustained by a Vote of Confidence from the House of Commons. This is a thoroughly normal, constitutional, democratic procedure. A Debate on the war has been asked for. I have arranged it in the fullest and freest manner for three whole days. Any Member will be free to say anything he thinks fit about or against the Administration or against the composition or personalities of the Government, to his heart’s content, subject only to the reservation, which the House is always so careful to observe, about military secrets. Could you have anything freer than that? Could you have any higher expression of democracy than that? Very few other countries have institutions strong enough to sustain such a thing while they are fighting for their lives.[/quote]
Later in the War, speaking to an American audience, Churchhill said this: “In my country, as in yours, public men are proud to be the servants of the State and would be ashamed to be its masters.”
I am not suggesting that the Conservatives need find a Churchill to lead them, nor could they.
What they can and must do is develop the Churchillian attitude that ordinary people matter and that Tories are not, either by reason of their birth or status in life, superior to the people they serve. That one of Churchill’s lessons is easy to understand but probably very difficult for their sort to put into practice.
Learning from the Niqab issue
They can begin by understanding that the poor and the infirm of our citizens depend upon all of us as a society to help, without acting as if we were benevolent lords of the manor dispensing alms to the needy.
They must, as Justin Trudeau has demonstrated, treat all minorities and distinct groups of Canadians equally and with respect because that’s the proper thing to do, not because they’ll be criticized if they don’t. If the Tories don’t learn from the Niqab issue, they’ll be a long time in the wilderness.
Respect for Parliament
The Conservative Party was once the party of Parliament and extolled the rights and privileges attendant upon its members. I need not spend time telling you how under Harper they descended, with the cowardly consent of caucus, into a reasonable facsimile of a tawdry dictatorship.
Certainly, in my constituency, one of the principal issues was the lack of accountability of our MP to the people. He wouldn’t ask awkward questions of the government or indeed utter a murmur of mild criticism of policies which clearly were at odds with the wishes of his Riding. I’m told this feeling extended right across Canada.
What seems certain is that the new Liberal government will be different. I was encouraged to see senior Liberal MP and Foreign Minister Stephane Dion quoted thusly in The Tyee:
[quote]We have been elected to change the policies of the country, but also to change the way these policies are decided – the process by which we may improve our democratic practices in Canada, our Parliamentary democracy and our democracy in general…a democracy that has been damaged over the last 10 years.[/quote]
Possible failure of the Trudeau government is all the more reason there must be a viable option available. It’s critical that our democracy return and that people believe once again that their Member of Parliament is important and not just a button to be pushed, from time to time, by the Prime Minister’s Office.
I might say that the NDP, as they re-group, might well apply Churchill’s lessons to themselves, since under the otherwise admirable Mr. Mulcair, they were just as cowed a caucus as the Tories.
Conservative reform
To bring back a Conservative Party that has a human face and heart, and cares once again for the parliamentary system is an awesome task. If my former MP is any example, the MPs left to the new Tory leader are unrepentant and brainwashed into submission. This is quite unlike the post-Thatcher Tory caucus in the UK which had itself turfed her out and quickly swung behind their new leader and won the next election.
Personally, I don’t give a damn what they do since, except for a brief period in the 70s when I was attracted by Red Tories like my friends John Fraser and Flora Macdonald, I’ve never supported the party and can’t imagine that I ever will again. It may be that they become like the Liberal Democrats in the UK and barely cling to life, leaving the Liberals in a position of covering the moderate right-wing and centre, leaving the NDP the rest.
That would be politically unnatural and sooner or later the Tories will return. To return to competitiveness, however, requires a complete reform of their attitude towards the public and our democratic traditions.
We’ll soon know whether or not the badly wounded Tories are aware of the essential political truths that Churchill bequeathed and, if they do, have the wit and guts to implement them.
If you don’t think that the approval of an LNG plant in Squamish – Woodfibre LNG – was a raw political decision, you not only believe in the tooth fairy, you must be the tooth fairy herself.
The alleged “environmental assessment” by the Province, was a farce – as has been the federal process thus far. The government solemnly avers that everything is up in the air until there’s a full blown investigation with evidence taken on all matters of concern and a judicious decision rendered strictly on all the facts.
This, and I hate to disillusion you, is utter crap. I’ve attended too many environmental assessments and – forgive me for repeating myself – I would rather have a root canal without an anesthetic than go to another. They’re about as fair as a Soviet Show Trial. The sole reason for the “process” is to make a government decision appear fair and of course it does the very opposite.
I’m not a spokesman for any of the groups, in the Howe Sound area or elsewhere, who are opposing this project. The principal organization is My Sea To Sky of which I am a keen supporter but not a member, much less a spokesman. It’s generally conceded that the principal spokesman is the eminent Dr. Eoin Finn, whom I support and admire immensely. I’m dedicated to the fight and I certainly offer my two bits worth from time to time but what I say has no sanction, official or otherwise.
Having said that I can issue this warning to Premier Clark:
[quote]If you and your tiresome toady, Rich Coleman, think that this will be a slam dunk, think again. I might say that I’ve warned you of this in these pages several times. Remember what happened to John Weston, until recently our MP, who steadfastly ignored his constituents on this issue and was humiliated on October 19.[/quote]
Tanker risks ignored
Your so-called environmental assessment spent little if any time on one of the most critical issues, namely the width of Howe Sound and it’s suitability for LNG tanker traffic. In this regard, there has been, even for matters of LNG, an unbelievable amount of bullshit.
Much of it has been peddled by Captain Stephen Brown, President of the Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia, scarcely an independent observer. His mantra, to cover all possible questions on LNG tanker transport, is that they have a perfect record for the last 50 years, 75,000 voyages without incident.
Captain Brown misses a rather important qualification to these statistics – he’s only counting voyages on the high seas. He studiously ignores problems inshore, in fjords, harbours, rivers and coastal waters. The last time I looked, Howe Sound is a long way from those high seas the good skipper speaks of.
If you want a more accurate picture, subscribe, for free, to gCaptain published daily on the goings-on in the shipping industry. It reports about one serious tanker accident every two or three weeks. If you take the time to consult the archives you will know that Captain Brown should have his mouth washed out with soap.
One interesting place to look is the Bospherus, between Turkey and Greece, leading into the Black Sea, which is by no means unlike Howe Sound and is a veritable hotspot for tankers bumping into things.
It’s not my position that LNG tankers are unsafe for they’re remarkably well constructed vessels and, from what I read, about as safe as a tanker can be. That being said, they still run into things, as often as not because of human error, and when they do, they pose a very substantial danger – especially to narrow fjords like the Bospherus and certainly Howe Sound if this madness isn’t stopped.
LNG accidents aren’t small
This is the second misleading part, to put it charitably, of Captain Brown’s statements. It’s by no means only how many accidents there will be that’s important but how serious they are when they happen.
That this is a matter of huge concern and community action was recently outlined in these pages by My Sea To Sky co-founder Tracey Saxby:
[quote]So far community opposition has been loud and clear, with Powell River, Lions Bay, Gibsons, West Vancouver, Bowen Island, and Squamish all signaling strong opposition to Woodfibre LNG through recent resolutions. My Sea to Sky has partnered with more than 20 other organizations that oppose this project, and our volunteers have hit the streets to gather over 4,400 signatures (and counting) to the Howe Sound Declaration, stating opposition to the project.
There is no social license for this project in Howe Sound. A rubber stamp isn’t going to change that.[/quote]
And those concerns are very real, not mere NIMBYism. If we’re to have some 500 tankers going out of Vancouver harbour every year and the odds of an accident are, let’s say, 1 in a 1,000 – hell, say 1 in 10,000 – it’s only a matter of time, and not much time at that, before there is a serious accident. Make that 1 in 100,000 then look me in the eye and say you still want to bring your family to Lions Bay to live.
That’s what troubles those who are concerned about LNG traffic in Howe Sound and waterways like the Fraser River or Saanich Inlet.
The issue is not if a serious accident will occur, but only when.
Pushing the limit
Courtesy of Eoin Finn
The standard width within which LNG tankers should travel, recommended by world-leading Sandia Laboratories in New Mexico – now the law in the United States (not known for overly strict environmental rules) – sets the danger zone around LNG tankers at 3,500 to 4,200 metres.
Howe Sound is so narrow that its shores are well within danger zone. Looking at a Chart prepared by Dr Eoin Finn and Cmdr. Roger Sweeny, RCN (Ret), based upon proper standards demonstrates beyond question that Gambier, Keats, Bowen, the Sea to Sky Highway, Lions Bay, Horseshoe Bay and West Vancouver would be at serious risk. Proposed LNG Tanker traffic even runs afoul of the standards of the industry’s international trade organization, the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO).
If this point was seriously considered by the pseudo-environmental assessment process, you wouldn’t know it from their report.
Woodfibre’s owner doesn’t inspire confidence
WFLNG owner Sukanto Tanoto (right)
As Ms. Saxby says, there’s no social license – indeed Liberal MLA, Jordan Sturdy, has not only acted contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of his constituents, he’s pooh-poohed their concerns that Woodfibre LNG is run bythe unsavoury, to say the least, Sukanto Tanoto.
Perhaps that’s because Woodfibre LNG, owned by Tanoto, paid big dollars to kiss Sturdy’s political backside with a fundraiser last February at the ultra-posh Capilano Golf Club. The media, as well as Eoin Finn, were refused entry. The entire cost for the event, including big bucks handed over to Sturdy, was paid for by Tanoto, whose massive-tax evasion and rainforest destruction record across the Pacific has put his business reputation into serious question.
[quote]It’s difficult for the community to have trust that this person will not cut corners or be disrespectful to our environment.[/quote]
As Ms. Saxby and Mayor Heintzman wonder, is this the sort of business we want in our community in exchange fora minuscule number of construction jobs for local citizens and maybe 100 low-paying permanent jobs (if that)?
Knowing the price of everything, the value of nothing
Photo: Future of Howe Sound Society
Premier Clark had best be ready, for Howe Sound is sacred territory to far more than just those of us who live on its shores. She can expect that amongst our allies at the protests to come will be people from all over the province who recognize what Howe Sound really means.
The similarity between the Clark government and the late, unlamented Harper government is uncanny. Neither have the faintest idea about any value that doesn’t have a $ attached. The fact that there might be safety issues, spiritual issues, and plain issues of beauty would never occur to Christy Clark or her “henchpersons” if there’s a buck to be made.
In the words of Oscar Wilde, they know “the price of everything, and the value of nothing.”
I say no more except that it would be wise for our politicians to reconsider this matter.
For it’s not just that the people are angry, they also happen to be right.
Five year-old River Summer looks on at Brenot Creek landslide (Photo: Leigh Summer)
A series of landslides above the northeast BC community of Hudson’s Hope has been dumping contaminated soils into several local creeks, extending now to the Peace River. Local landowners whose water supply has been affected are demanding answers.
But Mayor Gwen Johansson, who has been monitoring the situation since trouble first appeared last summer, says all she really has is a lot of questions.
The three biggest ones are:
1. Did nearby fracking operations – or related wastewater disposal – cause the landslides?
2. Is fracking wastewater the source of the contamination unleashed into a series of interconnected creeks?
3. If not, and the the contamination is naturally-occurring in local soils, as the Oil and Gas Commission contends, then what are the implications for the proposed Site C Dam, which could further erode and carry contaminated soils downstream for decades to come?
What we do know
Slide at Brenot Creek (submitted)
Since the summer of 2014, the ongoing slides have spewed sediment laced with toxic heavy metals – including lead, arsenic, barium, cadmium and lithium – into Brenot Creek, which flows into Lynx Creek, which in turn feeds into the Peace River. Large bars of sediment have formed in Brenot and Lynx Creeks and contaminated water has now nearly reached another major river in the area, the Halfway – according to local landowner, Ross Peck.
Farmer Leigh Summer, whose property lies below the slide area, has watched with horror as Brenot Creek has become packed with toxic silt. “Now it’s so muddy that when you put your hand in it, if you have an inch of water over top of your hand, you can’t see your hand,” Summer told the Alaska Highway News. “There used to be fish in the creek, but it’s basically dead today.”
His neighbour, Rhee Simpson, has seen the well she depends on run dry, likely filled in with sediment. “I have no water,” Simpson, a resident and farmer near the creek for 62 years, told the CBC earlier this week. “You can’t play in it. You can’t fish in it. You can’t drink it. Your stock can’t drink it. Someone has to do something to get our water back.”
We also know that there were fracking operations in close proximity to the slide approximately 3 years ago, with more in the surrounding areas of Talisman (now Progress Energy/Petronas’) Farrell Creek play – but likely not close enough to be related. See the map below – provided by the District of Hudson’s Hope (click to expand).
We know that the shale gas extraction process is associated with increased seismic activity – as we were reminded by the recent 4.6 magnitude quake in Wonowon, some 70 km away, as the crow flies. This is most frequently associated with the injection of “produced water” (used fracking fluids) into waste wells to dispose of it underground after a well has been fracked – though in some cases the fracking process itself can trigger seismic activity.
We also know that the terrain in this region is no stranger to landslides, as it’s composed of loose materials like shale, sand and clay. That’s always been a strong argument against Site C Dam by local landowners who know this. The Williston Reservoir, West of the planned Site C reservoir has seen massive expansion since its flooding in 1968, gobbling up the banks of the water body far beyond original predictions, due to the instability of the soils. The terrain East of there, where Site C is proposed, is even less stable. More on that in a moment.
See no evil
Fracking near Hudson’s Hope in 2012 (Damien Gillis)
The testing of the Brenot creek slide and contamination been pretty pitiful thus far, given what’s at stake. The OGC has declared the toxins “naturally occurring”, maintaining, “there’s no evidence” thatfracking operations are the source of the contamination – which has the ring of the sort of technicality-based, legalistic denials we heard for years from the tobacco industry. As Carl Sagan said, “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.” Bear in mind, too, that the OGC is hardly known for its tough, independent monitoring and regulation of the oil and gas industry.
The municipality spent its own money to hire independent hydrologist and shale gas expert Dr. Gilles Wendling to conduct some preliminary tests beginning last summer, but it lacks the resources to carry the load with the kind of in-depth, ongoing testing required here. According to the mayor in a letter to the community published in January, 2015 (see page 22), “Dr. Wendling’s readings were consistently above guidelines for the heavy metals, and the origin was sand in the water coming out of the bank at a slide on Brenot Creek.”
Those findings prompted the District to install a water advisory in September, 2014, which the Ministry of Environment supported, formally warning people to avoid the water for personal use, animals and irrigation.
In January, Johansson wrote, “The MoE representative said they have no plans to do anything further, other than file a report. He said he expected that eventually the creek would cleanse itself.”
Well, a year later, the creek has not cleansed itself. According to Johansson, The Ministry Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO) has a landslide specialist who has been monitoring expansion of slide. He has explained that because the slide is so vertical, we can expect that it will continue moving for some time to come.
Mayor Johansson notes that in the old days, this is the kind of work MoE could have been counted on to carry out in a thorough manner but they haven’t been back to investigate further to date. In the wake of recent media attention on the issue, though, officials have indicated they are coming up for a site visit by helicopter next week. If what they see from the air is enough cause for concern – as it well should be – then Johansson hopes they will return to take soil samples and conduct thorough testing.
Another possible culprit
The Williston Reservoir and Bennett Dam
Landowner Leigh Summer isn’t convinced that shale gas activity is responsible – or at least the sole culprit – for the slides. “I was pretty convinced initially, but the flow seems to increase with the level of Williston (Reservoir) increasing, so I have a feeling it’s a conjunction of the two,” he told the Alaska Highway News.
“There’s something going on with the aquifers underneath…I suspect, in my mind, that there’s some connection between one or the other, or both.”
Pandora’s box
Regardless of the cause of the slides, if the OGC is correct and this erosion has simply unleashed naturally-occurring contaminants in the soil – a sort of opening up of Pandora’s Box – that’s a frightening prospect indeed.
Plainly put, if fracking operations are the source of the contamination, that’s bad news. But if they aren’t, that’s perhaps even worse news when you consider that the proposed Site C Dam would engulf much of the area below the slide, closer to the river, and potentially continue carrying contamination far downstream well into the distant future.
“If these contaminants are in the soil, how far along the Peace Valley do they extend?” asks Mayor Johansson. The fact is, given the dearth of studies, we don’t yet have a clue. And the implications could be massive for the region – and well beyond – as Summer notes:
“We are really subjecting ourselves to the risk of having a contaminated reservoir which, obviously, contaminates the river all the way to the Slave (River) and to the Mackenzie (River) and the Arctic Ocean, so it’s pretty significant.”
Either way, we need serious, credible testing now. The Clark government is already spending hundreds of millions of tax dollars, rushing ahead with early Site C construction 70 KM downstream, at the proposed dam site. This despite BC Hydro’s own acknowledgement that the power from the dam won’t be required until at least 2029!If this naturally-occurring contamination extends for a great distance along the banks of the Peace River, then building Site C and flooding this area is a nightmare scenario we would do well to avoid.
