Tag Archives: featured

Canada Election 2015: Where do the parties stand on climate change?

Share

Canada Election 2015- Where do the parties stand on climate change

With only a couple of weeks left in the Canadian federal election, voters are starting to ask fundamental questions about where the major parties stand on important issues like climate change. Canadians already rank climate and environment as a top issue both during and between election cycles.

But with both the federal election on the horizon and international climate talks scheduled in Paris for late November, Canadians have a real opportunity for their votes to translate into substantial climate action on the global stage.

Pressure is mounting for Canada to play a leadership role at these negotiations, with major trading partners like China and the United States already jointly announcing their emission reduction goals and commitments in advance of the talks.  

And Canadians are showing a desire for strong climate leadership. Even provinces like Alberta are defying stereotypes by showing a broad public desire for climate action. A recent poll by EKOS found that 53 per cent of Albertans support stronger climate policies and about the same support an economy-wide carbon tax to help solve the problem.

Environmental group Environmental Defence recently issued a new report that outlines where each of the major parties stand on climate. Here DeSmog Canada breaks those climate positions down with further analysis of each party’s election platform: 

Liberal Party and Trudeau on Climate Change

When it comes to actual carbon emission reduction targets the Liberal Party has been rather vague so far in this election, making a promise that they will “provide national leadership and join with the provinces and territories to take action on climate change, put a price on carbon, and reduce carbon pollution.”

In their election platform, Trudeau and the Liberals have committed to a $2 billion Low Carbon Economy Trust that will fund projects that help reduce carbon emissions.

On the international policy side, the Liberals say they will attend the Paris climate summit and within 90 days “establish a pan-Canadian framework for combatting climate change.”

The Liberals also state in their election platform that they support the G20 commitment to phasing out subsidies for fossil fuels in the medium-term and that they will work with the U.S. and Mexico to develop a long-term North American clean energy and environmental agreement.

NDP and Mulcair on Climate Change

The NDP has committed to a nation-wide cap-and-trade system that includes a target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from major sources like the Alberta oilsands. According to the Environmental Defence report, the NDP’s plan puts Canada on track to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 34 per cent by 2025, with a baseline measure of 1990. By 2050, the NDP plan on climate change would see Canada’s emissions drop by 80 per cent. These targets and commitments would be legislated making them much more difficult to reverse by future governments.

The NDP also commits to establishing “Green Bonds” which would allow Canadians to “invest up to $4.5 billion over four years in ‘clean energy, climate resilient infrastructure, commercial and industrial energy retrofits, and other sustainable development projects.'”

A further $1.5 billion would be spent over the next four years in “green programs” like retrofitting homes to be more energy efficient and local clean energy projects for northern and remote communities.

Conservative Party and Harper on Climate Change

As the incumbent party, it is fair to judge the Conservative party’s performance on their record to date, even more so than their election promises. While Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have been mildly better on climate change in the last couple years (by, for example, agreeing with other G7 nations to phase out fossil fuels by 2100), the bar has been set rather low. This isn’t help by the fact that members of the Conservative party still consider climate change a theory consisting of “alarmist claims.”

Under the Harper government, greenhouse gas emissions in Canada have ever so slightly dropped, but as the CBC points out in a recent analysis of claims on climate change made by Stephen Harper, those slight reductions had nothing to do with policy actions by the Conservatives and were instead a result of the major economic recession in 2008 and 2009.

As for Harper’s commitment in this federal election on climate change, his party highlights the commitment they put forward for the Paris negotiations that would see Canada reduce its emissions by 30 per cent by 2030 measured on a baseline of 2005. However, the Conservatives have made this commitment on a sector-by-sector basis and one of the sectors left out of this commitment is the Alberta oilsands, the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country.

Emissions from the oilsands, Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions have increased 79 per cent since 2005. They currently account for nine per cent of Canada’s total emissions and that portion is expected to jump to 14 per cent by 2020.

In a recent analysis the Conservative Party’s commitment was found to be the weakest of all the G7 countries.

The Conservatives have announced some funding for green projects, like a Public Transit Fund, but say funding for that program would not start until 2017.

Green Party and May on Climate Change

No surprisingly, the Green Party offers a very ambitious set of commitments on climate change, proposing emission reductions that are more than double those of Conservative Party of Canada. The Green Party plan would see Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions reduced by at least 40 per cent below 2005 levels by 2025 and by 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050.

The Green Party also commits to a “fee-and-dividend” system, which is similar to a cap-and-trade system and would set an initial price on carbon of $50 per tonne across all sectors, including the Alberta oilsands.

As for investing in green programs, Elizabeth May and the Greens would commit $500 million a year to a “Green Climate Fund” that would assist developing nations in addressing climate change, an additional $180 million a year in clean energy research and development and $1 billion a year for a “Green Technology Commercialization Grants.”

The Green Party would also reintroduce tax credits for homeowners to make their homes more energy efficient, create a national plan for public transportation and provide tax incentives for renewable energy storage facilities and for the manufacturing and purchase of electric and plug-in hybrid cars.

If climate change is an important issue to you, there is one big thing you can do. Bigger, I would argue than changing your lightbulbs or buying a hybrid car and the like. The single biggest thing you can do to help fight climate change in Canada is to vote for the party you think is going to make the biggest difference.

Check out each party’s platform for more details. While you’re at it make sure you’re registered to vote and don’t forget to put October 19th in your calendar!

Share

Anti-Harper vote settling on Trudeau? Polls show seismic shift

Share
Photo: Canada 2020/Flickr CC licence
Photo: Canada 2020/Flickr CC licence

Many a pundit has pointed out that the worst thing that could happen for Stephen Harper in the homestretch of the federal election campaign is for either of his opponents’ support to collapse, consolidating progressive votes around a single challenger. Well, if recent polls are any indication, that’s precisely what is happening – and Justin Trudeau appears to be the chosen one.

Just look at CBC’s Poll Tracker (as of Oct. 6): Out of the eight national polls conducted in October, Trudeau has topped 6 of them while Mulcair has placed a distant third in all but one. Three of the four most recent national polls have Trudeau at 35% or more, with a several point lead over Harper (granted these are all within the margin for error, but still…).

Trudeau has averaged 33.25% over these eight polls to Mulcair’s 25% and Harper’s 31.9%. Now, national polls are far less germane than local ones and the Conservatives’ famous ground game is likely to turn out their base on election day. For these reasons, despite Justin’s consistent edge in the national polls, as of today, CBC’s Poll Tracker is predicting 8 more seats for Harper in what would be a relatively weak minority government. But if Mulcair’s numbers were to tumble any further, that could increase Trudeau’s seat count and bolster the case for strategic voting, making a majority government hopeless for Harper, and, quite possibly, even a minority one.

What happened?

Earlier on in the campaign, the safe “progressive” money was on Mulcair (I put that in quotes to acknowledge that a vote for Trudeau and a vote for Mulcair are not one and the same in terms of policy), as he led a tight three-way race for much of the first half and voters seemed reluctant to put their faith in a young Trudeau whose inexperience was a favourite target for Harper’s election advertising.

But a few things have changed since then. Trudeau adopted a tougher posture in later debates, in response to critics’ concerns that he was too soft in the first one. Meanwhile, the Niqab controversy – the wildcard of the campaign – appears to have hurt Mulcair worse than Trudeau, despite the fact that they’ve essentially taken the same position. This is because the issue has tracked more with Quebec voters, whom Mulcair was relying on more heavily than Trudeau.

This time around, Strategic Voting may be real

Lastly, it’s possible that in this anomaly of federal elections, the notion of strategic voting – which typically fares better on paper than in practice – could finally be manifesting itself. Well-organized groups like Leadnow have run a strong ground game driving the initiative and the unprecedented splitting of the polls may be enough to make it a factor in 2015.

Now, strategic voting means that how candidates are looking in a specific riding is ultimately far more important than what national polls are saying heading into election day. Voters intent on unseating Harper may be more justified in backing the NDP – especially in many BC and Quebec ridings – or the Liberals in places like Ontario and Atlantic Canada. But with the national polls the way they’re looking today, there will likely be a growing number of ridings where Trudeau is the answer.

Lesser of two evils?

For some, the idea of throwing their support behind Trudeau will be stretch. This is one of the main challenges with strategic voting – not all anti-Harper parties and candidates are created equal. Many “progressive” Canadians – myself included – have acknowledged their discomfort with some of Mr. Trudeau’s policies in the past, most notably in recent times his position on Bill C-51. And environmentally, both Mulcair and Trudeau have tip-toed around pipelines and the oilsands/tar sands and disappointed critics of trade deals with their lack of vocal opposition.

But the question is whether self-identifying progressive voters believe that Trudeau, when compared with another Harper Government – especially a majority one – is indeed the lesser of two evils. If so, and polling trends continue along this trajectory, he has more than a fair chance of following in his famous father’s footsteps to 24 Sussex Drive.

But, as they say, in politics, two weeks is an eternity.

Share

How Postmedia climbed in bed with the LNG lobby and a PR flack

Share
Screen capture of Brent Stafford and his Regulator Watch program from The Province website
Screen capture of Brent Stafford and his Regulator Watch program from The Province website

It was early last September, as near as I can remember.
While strolling down the lane in tipsy pride.

Not a word did I utter as I lay there in the gutter
When this pig walked up and laid down by my side.

Not a soul were we disturbing, as we lay there by the curbing,
When this high tone lady stopped and I heard her say,

“You can tell someone who boozes, by the company he chooses”
And the pig got up and slowly walked away.  (Traditional)

Today’s column is a riddle: Who is the pig? (Remember that the pig, according to Churchill, was the noblest of all animals.)

First prize is the Common Sense Canadian Political Perspicacity Prize.

The cast of characters

First is an outfit called Resource Works, which, as readers will know, is a business-oriented shill for LNG in general but specifically in Squamish.

Second is Postmedia, the organization which wholly owns and controls, amongst others, the Vancouver Sun, The Vancouver Province, and National Post. It is no longer a journalistic observer of the LNG issue but a full partner with Resource Works in advocating for LNG in general and Woodfibre LNG specifically!

Thirdly is a newcomer, Brent Strafford, who, with considerable license, bills himself as a journalist and has joined Postmedia posing as just that (The Province refers to him as a B.C.-based journalist since 1988 in a story introducing Stafford to their readers).

In fact, he is a consultant to big business and bills himself as:

[quote]…having extensive experience creating and executing innovative marketing campaigns and joint-promotions. He’s worked with over 50 tier-one brands on strategies and tactical programs which leverage the power of entertainment properties and brand assets to build consumer engagement and drive sales. He has created national & global joint-marketing campaigns and intellectual property agreements with companies such as Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola, Wal*Mart, Electronic Arts, New Line Cinema, Disney, NASCAR, Super Bowl, Hasbro, GRAMMYS and Lucas Films to name a few.

Stafford negotiated & executed the largest brand partnership for Disney’s “The Incredibles”​ bringing the studio 11 brands from P&G. He negotiated & executed a 4 country Pringles partnership & promotion with “The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King” and he delivered to P&G the Star Wars franchise for a 16 country theatricStafford negotiated & executed the largest brand partnership for Disney’s “The Incredibles”​ bringing the studio 11 brands from P&G. 

Stafford is also a nationally recognized expert on video games, delivering a $2MM anchor brand partnership to Comcast for the launch of the G4Tech-TV cable channel.[/quote]

Lastly, there’s the poor sap left with only his newspaper to inform him; as the wag said “the game may be crooked but it’s the only game in town”.

The issue

Readers will recall my reporting on a video published by Resource Works, hosted by a young lady, which turned out to be a fraud. It was in fact hosted by a man, the answers given by scientist Dr. Michael Hightower twisted and distorted by Resource Works and the entire matter was exposed by Dr. Eoin Finn – a Howe Sound resident and retired KPMG partner with a PhD in chemistry.

The exposure

It came to my attention that the falsified video was done by the said Brent Strafford. I was referred to his new website – RegulatorWatch.com –  and there I saw him at work, quoting Dr. Finn out of context and then having those remarks commented upon by Captain Stephen Brown, who, far from being an independent observer, is president of the Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia, which represents “vessel owners, operators, shipping agencies, ports and a wide range of key stakeholders engaged in international and domestic trade through Canada’s Asia-Pacific Gateway.”

The Story

Brent Stafford is the face of a new online video series and website, Regulator Watch and has joined Postmedia – with his own video blog page on the Province’s website one presumes as an independent commentator. There is nothing there differentiating this as paid or “advertorial” content – in fact, Regulator Watch appears right below the masthead, next to other news categories and series like “Federal Election 2015” and “Pets and Animals”. 

A screen capture of the Province's online masthead - with RegulatorWatch highlighted
A screen capture of the Province’s online masthead – with Regulator Watch highlighted

Did Postmedia hire Stafford? Or is this an in-kind barter – free content for the Province in exchange for the paper’s journalistic credibility and a bigger platform for Stafford and his Resource Works client to spread the gospel of LNG? These are questions which it would only be fair for Postmedia to answer with a full disclosure its Regulator Watch page. To date, the only thing remotely approaching that was an introductory post that noted “This video was produced independently by Regulator Watch…It is being hosted on TheProvince.com for commercial purposes.” What exactly does that mean? And why is this disclosure nowhere to be found on the blog page today, which, incidentally, appears under the “news” section of the website?

What is Regulator Watch all about?

A quick look at RegulatorWatch.com will show that it’s a Reaganesque program dedicated to bashing any and all forms of regulation, especially of the extraction and transportation of resources. It is described as “a founder-funded start up with limited support from industry and other stakeholders impacted by the regulatory process in Canada.” Just who are these silent backers? Stafford doesn’t say – neither did the Province when introducing him.

Given this man’s record, including tampering with a video to benefit a client; given his highly unprofessional “interview” slagging the absent Dr. Eoin Finn; given Postmedia’s journalistic obligations to serve the public, why the hell would the Province bring Stafford into their fold?

Is it not fair in the extreme to look at Postmedia’s becoming a formal shill for Woodfibre LNG and the crook that owns it and the sleazy record of Brent Strafford and remember what your parents taught you – you’re judged by the company you keep?

We start the stroll down the lane

We now have a combo then with the new partnership of Postmedia and Brent Stafford, both of whom are financially partnered with and indistinguishable from International Business and might just as well be arms of the Conservative Party of Canada.

There is nothing illegal about this at all. What is wrong and so clearly wrong is that they pass themselves off as giving independent advice to readers who are led to believe that they are picking up journalism not propaganda. It is this horrific deception that is being played upon the Canadian public and thus far they are blissfully ignorant of what is happening!

This is understandable. Would one expect a Canadian, brought up in a society professing free-speech and journalistic integrity, to think for one second that their daily newspaper would be taking one side of an issue and not only propagandizing that side, but doing so in the subtlest of ways? Indeed to actually be a financial partner on that side?

Canadians are beginning to cotton onto what’s happening. Postmedia is in terminal trouble and so it ought to be.

To see what was once one of the noblest of professions descend into the obloquy of a yellow journalism is excruciatingly painful to watch. To see the traditions of the  London Times, the New York Times, and the Guardian used this way by cheap cheaters and sleazy publishers is too sad for words. Even worse, perhaps, is to see honourable journalists pulled into this sleaze without the ability to defend themselves.

And then there’s the trusting, decent Canadian who wants to read a reasonably fair and accurate summation of public affairs, and a bit of peace and quiet – a bit of a lie-down, you might say.

There we have the contest. Who will hear the wise words, look around him, arise and slowly walk away?

The winner of the Common Sense Canadian Political Perspicacity Prize will soon be presented at a formal dinner at the White House, time to be announced.

And the winner is?

Share
Rafe- Niqab defence may cost Trudeau, Mulcair...but they're right

Rafe: Niqab defence may cost Trudeau and Mulcair…but they’re right

Share
Rafe- Niqab defence may cost Trudeau, Mulcair...but they're right
Photo: Flickr CC Licence / Flood G

I find myself, late in this election campaign, ashamed to be a Canadian. As a longtime supporter of the rights of Quebec going back to days where I was involved in constitutional affairs in this country, I find myself utterly appalled at their creation and fanning of the “niqab” issue.

Let’s make no mistake about it, this is racism pure and simple. When I read Jason Kenney saying, “If anything’s dangerous, it would be legitimizing a medieval tribal custom that treats women as property rather than people,” I want to throw up.

What has happened to this country under Stephen Harper, the instigator of this disgrace? What’s happened to a nation famous for tolerance, understanding, and I suppose most importantly of all, minding one’s own business?

Don’t we see what’s happening to us? Don’t we have the ability to look back at our glorious history with regard to relations between peoples and see that we are being corrupted?

I once hosted a 39-part TV series on religions and can tell you that after examining 38+ atheism I came to the conclusion that every single tenet of faith stretched credulity to the utmost, yet what really stuck out was the willingness of all Canadians to tolerate the beliefs – or lack of them – of their fellow citizens.

Given the history of other parts of the world, many of whose citizens are now Canadians, this for me set Canada apart as a very special place. That Mr. Harper, the prime minister of the country, would raise a woman’s veil as a matter of public safety is so appalling that I, who has made his living with words for 60 years, am speechless. Somehow, I feel unclean.

Fortunately, there is a bit of courage around. Mr. Mulcair in Quebec has shown that rare commodity in standing up for what is right, knowing that every utterance was costing him and his party votes.

Similarly, Mr. Trudeau, in the traditions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the simple raw decency for which Canadians have hitherto been known, has also taken the road of courage not convenience.

I expect that Mr. Harper will win the election on this issue. In doing so, he will destroy our hard-earned reputation as a nation of tolerance, generosity of spirit, and fair play – sully the reputation of a country respected the world over for its ability to live and let live.

This election, too, will pass. When it does and the final words are written, Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Trudeau will stand high amongst their fellow citizens while Stephen Harper and Gilles Duceppe – and John Weston, my MP – will stand out as cheap politicos who would inflame the passions of the public and sacrifice the nation’s self respect in order to satisfy personal ambition.

Share
Why Rafe Mair gave Sun and Province a stay of execution

Postmedia’s alternate version of energy realities

Share

Why Rafe Mair gave Sun and Province a stay of execution

Yesterday in my email inbox, the chickens began to come home to roost for Postmedia – the Canadian newspaper chain.

My first letter came from a constant correspondent who gave the Official statistics for BC Hydro losses going back to the old NDP years. Since the Campbell/Clark government, the losses have been staggering and BC Hydro is clearly in huge trouble. Those who have read this publication and followed such economic luminaries as Erik Andersen know that most of this goes straight to the catastrophic Campbell energy policy of 2002 which gave the production of new power to the private sector and forced BC Hydro to pay a huge premium for this power. Amongst other things, it was a policy that took hundreds of millions of dollars per year out of the BC treasury, in addition to setting BC Hydro on a path to bankruptcy.

On the eve of Christy Clark’s election in 2011, I had this to say on my website:

[quote]What does this [Energy Policy] mean in real terms?

The bankruptcy of BC Hydro, which will remain only as a conduit by which the private producers (IPPs) funnel their ill-gotten gains to their shareholders abroad.

It means that more and more of our precious rivers will be dammed (IPPs prefer the word “weir” in keeping with the Orwellian “newspeak” that abounds with these guys), with clear cuts for roads and transmission lines.

It means that new pipelines and enlarged old ones will carry the sludge from the Tar Sands to our coast with the mathematical certainty of environmental disasters – without our government making a nickel out of it.

It means that supertankers will proliferate on our coast again with the mathematical certainty of catastrophic spills.

It means continuation of the phoney environmental hearings where the public is denied its right to challenge the need for the project in the first place.

It means that the already truncated BC Utilities Commission, which oversees (or is supposed to) all energy proposals, will be abolished or maintained as a lame duck puppet of the Liberal Government

It means that the private sector will, unhindered, do as it pleases to our environment.

People like me will be jeered as being “against progress, against profit and anti-business”.[/quote]

The Common Sense Canadian, over the years since its inception in 2010, has quoted scientist after scientist, economist after economist, in column after column, to back up our claims. I, along with the estimable Joe Foy of the Wilderness Committee, campaigned against this policy all over the Province in the 2011 Election.

Today we learn that BC Hydro’s debt under the Liberal governments of Campbell/Clark has increased $9.4 Billion!

Yet this monumental story of incompetence, stupidity, political favouritism, ruination of our rivers and fish, fattening the wallets of international business at the expense of the BC taxpayer has been virtually ignored from the start, in all its aspects, by the Vancouver Sun, the Vancouver Province and the National Post – the Postmedia papers. Columnists once famous for holding governments’ feet to the fire have been silent. I wonder why? Perhaps we will see the answer in a moment.      

Postmedia teams up with oil and gas lobbies

The second email I received this morning set forth the deepening and ever-increasing reaction from the public to the revelations that Postmedia are official partners in promoting LNG in Squamish.

Damien and I have been reporting on the public relations shenanigans surrounding the proposed Woodfibre LNG project, chapter and verse, cheat by cheat, lie by lie – including doctored interviews – for many months. These tactics have been directed by Resource Works, the unofficial lobby for Woodfibre. Their efforts have been helped greatly by an official Partnership with the Province – evident in all the op-ed space they receive in Postmedia’s pages. 

One can’t blame people for taking a while to react because this is such an extraordinary event that it completely takes the breath away. Here we have Canada’s largest newspaper company financially involved with a highly controversial industry and pretending at the same time to report on it impartially.

You’ll be hard-pressed to find in either of the two Vancouver papers or indeed the National Post, any critical analysis on LNG whether it be its extraction as natural gas, its impact on the atmosphere, the “fracking” process, its conversion to LNG, its transport abroad, or any other aspect.

It goes further than this because Postmedia has developed a multimillion-dollar partnership with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP). This is evident in the National Post, Postmedia’s flagship, which has virtually endorsed, root and branch, the positions of the industry on all matters of oil production and distribution.

All of this has been reported here in The Common Sense Canadian in clear, unadorned English on several occasions without response.

Media and democracy

Now let’s talk in real terms.

You, the reader, a free citizen, are quite entitled to whatever opinions you may wish on the whole aspect of fossil fuels. You may be dedicated to the proposition “the more the merrier” and that’s what a free country is all about. I think you’re a damned fool but that, too, is what a free country is all about.

At the same time, you, I and everybody else, are entitled to all possible information about this and other issues so that we can make up our minds based upon knowledge not simple prejudice.

This you have been denied and it is going to get worse.

Let’s look at a practical example from the last couple of weeks in the Vancouver Sun and Province. They’ve been full of “feel good” stories about LNG communities popping up around the province with all kinds of good things for all.

These stories are not accidents. They are plain and simple plants by the industry through their journalistic partner in order to affect, positively, your view of the LNG industry.

We have, most of us at any rate, grown up with the suspicion that you can’t believe everything you read in the newspapers. Nevertheless, most of us feel we’ve learned to read between the lines and to sort out the pepper from the fly shit. This, I hate to say, is no longer possible because they’re now the same thing.

No longer can you read a single solitary item about fossil fuels in general or, in our bailiwick, LNG specifically, in the Postmedia press and believe a single word. Everything published by the Vancouver Province, the Vancouver Sun, or the National Post concerning LNG is done as a paid partner in the project. That can never ever be forgotten by any who wish to be informed, objective observers of the LNG scene.

It truly sickens me to have to make these observations. I have known, respected, liked, gone to UBC with, spilled beer with – you name it – print journalists going back some 65 years. I grew up on newspapers and, even given the crap provided today, still subscribe. It’s very difficult for me to think of Postmedia going under with all of the jobs that entails.

The fact remains that Postmedia doesn’t deserve to exist in any world of journalism where there is a soupçon of journalistic ethics remaining.      

Share

BC Hydro breaks promises in logging eagle’s nest for Site C Dam; May have lacked permits

Share
As the fog lifted on the Peace River Monday morning, it revealed this clearcut island (Donald Hoffmann)
As the fog lifted on the Peace River Monday morning, it revealed this clearcut island (Donald Hoffmann)

BC Hydro’s clearcut logging this past weekend at the location of the proposed Site C Dam appears to have broken a promise about care for active eagles’ nests and may have lacked federal permits, critics charge.

See no eagle, hear no eagle

The work came within days of the Union of BC Municipalities’ (UBCM) call for a halt to Site C Dam construction until proper independent reviews have been conducted. While Hydro has provincial permits to cut down eagles’ nests on islands in the Peace River, spokesperson Dave Conway has stated it would “take great care to avoid or mitigate effects on active bald eagle nests during Site C construction.”

Yet, based on evidence captured and provided by local photographer Donald Hoffmann, an apparently active eagle’s nest was cut down over the weekend.

A statement issued by Hydro on “protecting” eagles said the following:

[quote]What does inactive mean? Inactive means the nest is no longer being occupied by a bird or an egg.[/quote]

Yet an eagle was still clearly seen occupying the nest as of Friday, September 25 (pictured below with machinery operating behind the nest). By Monday, the nest, along with every tree on the island, was gone.

A bald eagle sits in its nest on a Peace River island on Sept. 25 (left); Logging occurring near the same eagle's nest on Sept. 26 (Donald Hoffmann)
A bald eagle sits in its nest on a Peace River island on Sept. 25 (left); Logging occurring near the same eagle’s nest on Sept. 26 (Donald Hoffmann)
The same island - site of the proposed Site C Dam - on Sept. 28 (top arrow shows location of former eagle's nest; bottom arrow shows where logging equipment crossed river channel) - Donald Hoffmann
The same island – location of the proposed Site C Dam – on Sept. 28 (top arrow shows location of former eagle’s nest; bottom arrow shows where logging equipment crossed river channel) – Donald Hoffmann

Not only was Hydro to leave active nests in place, but it promised “300-metre no activity buffers will be implemented around active bald eagle nests”. The above photo clearly shows a feller buncher machine working in far closer proximity to a nest with an eagle sitting in it.

Conway confirmed in comments emailed to the Alaska Highway News that the nest was removed, but maintained that “a qualified environmental professional was on-site to determine the nest was inactive, and no eagles were present or harmed in the process.” How the “qualified environmental professional” missed the eagle captured in photographs by Hoffmann is a unclear.

Hydro may have lacked permits

The path built on the north side of the Peace River to move equipment across a channel, onto an adjacent island - work that may have lacked federal permits (Ken Boon)
The path built on the north side of the Peace River to move equipment across a channel, onto an adjacent island – work that may have lacked federal permits (Ken Boon)

Ken Boon of the Peace Valley Landowners’ Association was partaking in a wooden boat race on the river this past Saturday when he learned of Hydro’s construction work on the island – where he ventured to see it for himself. He is concerned that BC Hydro moved equipment across a side channel in the river without proper permits.

“Two pieces of logging equipment were moved to the island by crossing the river during the best low water conditions possible, in co-ordination with the Peace Canyon Generating Station,” Conway told the Alaska Highway News. “This was done in accordance with our provincial permits, and an environmental monitor was on site.” Boon counters, “That may be so, but to our knowledge, there are no federal permits issued that would allow for the crossing of a main river channel with that equipment.”

This notion is backed up by lands staff for the Treaty 8 Tribal Association, who told me yesterday that Hydro acknowledged during recent injunction proceedings Hydro that it did not have the necessary federal permits to impact a fish-bearing river. 

Hydro’s poor track record

“This incident highlights again the fact that BC Hydro, as a public crown corporation, cannot be trusted to be doing self-monitoring and self-reporting,” adds Verena Hofmann, a Peace Valley resident working with Treaty 8 on Site C-related issues.

She points to Hydro’s poor track record with environmental studies. The crown corporation committed a series of missteps throughout its filed studies and investigative work leading up to the Join Review Panel hearings – including “archeology infractions that resulted in an RCMP investigation, improper sampling methods, test holes that were too shallow and had to be redone, and improper baiting for wildlife studies.”

In each of these instances, Treaty 8 members had to intervene and insist of problems being addressed, maintains Hofmann. “We’ve seen that it’s BC’s practice to allow industry to police itself, but Hydro does not have the same deal with the federal government. Where are the federal agencies whose responsibility it is to monitor fish habitat and fish-bearing watercourses?”

Early signs of Site C’s disruption

From further west on the Peace River comes this account from homeowner Caroline Beam:

[quote]A bald eagle was hit on the highway near our riverside home outside Hudson’s Hope a few days ago. My husband came upon the scene as the driver was trying to figure out how to capture and contain the obviously injured bird. He was attempting to use a coat, which my husband explained to him would not be adequate for safely containing such a large, strong and well-armed bird. My husband then called the local RCMP, who asked him to retrieve a large animal crate from our home and meet him at the scene to try to capture the bird properly, after which it would be transported to a facility in the lower mainland. If it survived its wounds and the journey, trained professionals would try to heal it and hopefully release the bird back into the wild. Chances of success: unknown.

It turns out that, upon returning to the scene, my husband discovered that the eagle was nowhere to be found. Hopefully, the bird was not as injured as it initially appeared and simply flew off once it regained its bearings. I’d rather not dwell on darker possibilities.

The whole incident got me thinking about the raptors in this valley, and the effect we humans have on them. Every day, we encroach on their habitat, endanger them with our contraptions, disrupt their food sources, and threaten their futures. And all the while, we celebrate them for their beauty, grace, and fierce spirits. Our southern neighbors have even adopted the bald eagle as their national bird! It all seems so incongruous.[/quote]

Clark’s hurry-up offence

This early work on Site C Dam comes as the project faces increasing scrutiny from a litany of reputable individuals and groups, as summarized recently at The Common Sense Canadian. The list includes a former head of BC Hydro, the retired chair of the official Joint Review Panel into Site C, and now BC’s mayors and councils with the recent UBCM resolutions.

Given the anticipated decade-long construction process for the project and the legal opposition it still faces, critics are questioning the hurry-up approach to controversial logging of sensitive areas, eagles’ nest, etc.

Referring to the mounting calls for an independent review of the project by the BC Utilities Commission and Agricultural Land Commission (both deliberately excluded from Site C’s review), Boon notes, “The BC government’s response has been to ramp up the destructive clearing of old growth forest, road building and other costly work associated with the project.”

[quote]Premier Clark should instead show real leadership and halt all work right now.  Until that happens, we will continue with our legal challenge, and pressure will continue to mount on the premier to stop construction as more ‘scorched earth’ images emerge.[/quote]

With news that Site C will be debated int he BC Legislature today, Treaty 8 First Nations and their supporters are staging a rally today at the Legislature.

Share
Suzuki- Volkswagen cheated climate, people's health

Suzuki: Volkswagen cheated climate, people’s health

Share
Suzuki- Volkswagen's cheating has serious climate, human health consequences
Photo: Ben Harrington / Flickr CC licence

Volkswagen was caught cheating on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency emissions tests by installing “defeat devices,” which allowed its diesel vehicles to pass nitrogen oxide emissions checks but spew up to 40 times allowable pollutants once they were completed. The scandal has resulted in plummeting share prices, CEO Martin Winterkorn’s resignation and up to $18 billion in fines, as well as recalls, stop-sale orders, impending lawsuits and possible criminal charges.

A million tonnes a year of hidden pollution

Beyond the betrayal and legal and financial issues, the effect on global pollution is massive. Volkswagen is the world’s largest automaker by sales, and as many as 11 million of its diesel vehicles are implicated. According to the Guardian:

[quote]The rigging of emissions tests may have added nearly a million tonnes of air pollution by VW cars annually — roughly the same as the UK’s combined emissions for all power stations, vehicles, industry and agriculture.[/quote]

Nitrogen oxide pollution creates particulate matter that causes respiratory problems and is linked to millions of premature deaths every year worldwide. It’s also a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide and so contributes to global warming.

VW’s cheating takes human toll

By Christopher Dombres / Flcikr CC licence
By Christopher Dombres / Flcikr CC licence

The Volkswagen debacle is bad enough in itself, but it also raises questions about automaker practices, pollution, emissions standards and testing and the implications of our rampant car culture.

Volkswagen cheated on regulations designed to protect human health and the environment, and the consequences are increased rates of asthma, lung disease, cancer and death. But it’s not just diesel cars and it’s not just vehicles from one company. Cars kill and harm millions of people every year, with accidents, pollution, climate change and other environmental damage. And car-makers have in the past resisted safety improvements such as seatbelts and air bags.

Loopholes big enough to drive a truck through

Illegally rigging vehicles to pass emissions tests hurts everyone, but legal loopholes create similar problems. Just look at SUVs. I did a quick count of the many passing my office during the afternoon, and almost all contained a single driver — no passengers or even pets! Under emissions laws in Canada, the U.S., Japan and elsewhere, SUVs are classified as “light-duty trucks” and are subject to less strict emissions standards than cars. Yet, most people treat them the same as cars.

This creates incentives for manufacturers to produce more heavy vehicles or even to design cars as trucks, such as Chrysler’s PT Cruiser. According to the Economist, “As vehicles above 3.8 tonnes were long exempted from the American regulation, manufacturers started producing enormous vehicles such as the Hummer to avoid any fuel-economy rules.”

Vehicle emissions double

Even with fuel-efficiency improvements, vehicle emissions have more than doubled since 1970 and will increase as demand rises in countries like China, India and Brazil, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Studies show that because fuel efficiency makes it less expensive to drive, people drive more. Clearly, we need better solutions.

It’s easy to say it starts with individuals. We can all find ways to reduce private automobile use. But individuals aren’t entirely to blame for our fossil-fuelled lifestyles. Incentives, regulations, policies and infrastructure are needed to create the necessary shift away from reliance on wasteful, inefficient transportation and fuel options.

Revving up solutions

We’ve seen many positive developments in recent years. In my hometown, Vancouver, and many other cities, car-sharing programs and cycling and pedestrian infrastructure are expanding rapidly. Hybrid and electric vehicle technologies are making great inroads. Recognition of the need for efficient public transit is also spreading around the world. And fuel taxes and carbon pricing have been proven effective at reducing reliance on private automobiles.

Taxing fossil fuel consumption may be more efficient than emissions standards because, as the Economist points out, fuel taxes encourage people, especially those who drive a lot, to buy more efficient cars and to drive less. And, “A fuel tax does not rely on dubious testing nor does it create distortive loopholes.” Revenue from taxes can be invested in cleaner transportation alternatives or, as with B.C.’s carbon tax, used to reduce income taxes or provide rebates to people with lower incomes.

It’s outrageous that a car manufacturer like Volkswagen would stoop to devious practices to get around laws designed to benefit all people, but in our car-driven culture, it’s not entirely surprising — just another signal that it’s time to rethink the way we move ourselves around.

Dr. David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.

Share

UBCM calls for delay to Site C construction as clearcutting set to begin

Share
Location of proposed Site C Dam - slated for imminent clearcutting (photo: Damien Gillis)
Location of proposed Site C Dam – slated for imminent clearcutting (photo: Damien Gillis)

The Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) passed several resolutions at its annual gathering this week calling on BC Hydro and the BC government to stand down on construction of the controversial $9 Billion Site C Dam, pending more review and consultation regarding the impacts of the project.

“We are very happy to hear that that the UBCM will be calling for work on Site C to stop until there’s a proper review by the BC Utilities Commission (BCUC) and the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC),” said Joe Foy, National Campaign Director with the Wilderness Committee.

Clearcutting set to begin

At the same time, local landowners and First Nations are warning that feller machines are now on the island where the dam would be located – at the confluence of the Moberly and Peace Rivers – and that clearcutting “is set to begin any moment now”, according to the Wilderness Committee. The island is home to several eagles’ nests that were recently slated to be cut down until Hydro representatives agreed to hold off on this work as part of the resolution of a recent injunction hearing. Yet, despite increasingly loud calls from a wide array of prominent voices, Hydro now appears intent on proceeding with early construction work.

“Clearcutting islands in the Peace River would eliminate important wildlife habitat,” said Foy.

[quote]We are calling on the BC government to heed the UBCM resolutions and stop work so that a proper investigation by the BCUC and the ALC can occur. This independent oversight would have already happened were it not for the provincial government’s actions to prevent proper lawful assessment.[/quote]

Site C faces growing list of opponents

The UBCM is just the latest organization to add its name to the list of individuals and groups who have publicly challenged the project, including:

Moreover, while a number of lawsuits challenging Site C have been dismissed by the courts, there are still several active cases and appeals in the works.

Share
Why Strategic Voting is essential in Canadian Election

Why Strategic Voting is essential for Canada

Share
Why Strategic Voting is essential in Canadian Election
Justin Trudeau (Photo: John McCallum/Flickr/Som Jandu) and Tom Mulcair (Photo: BCNDP/Flickr)
By Doug Carrick

The Conservatives may be a disaster at governing a nation, but they are experts at manipulating  electoral wins.  In the last two elections they improved their position by 6% in the weeks just before the elections – providing victories in both cases.  It may happen again.

Off to see the Wizard

The Conservatives are noted for their propaganda and negative advertising.  The corporate media will explain the wisdom of “staying the course”.  And now the Conservatives have recruited the highly successful spin-doctor from Australia, Lynton Crosby, also known as the Wizard of Oz or the Lizard of Oz.  In Australia, he is sometimes called the “attack dingo” and in Britain, a “political rottweiler”.  His favourite phrase is “below the radar”, meaning sneaky.

So we better brace ourselves for a struggle.  He was behind four successive conservative wins in Australia and also behind the majority win of David Cameron in the recent British election.  Lynton Crosby is a winner…and we might be the losers!

Three-way race tightening

The polls, at the time of writing, show Canadians to be in a vulnerable position:  the NDP are at 32%, Conservatives 30%, Liberals 30%, Greens 5% and Bloc Quebecois 3%.  If  the Conservatives make their usual 6% increase (with Lynton Crosby’s help), they will end up with 36% – knocking the NDP down to 29% and the Liberals down to 28%.  In other words – another Conservative victory.

Power in working together

This situation is a threat, but only if we lose sight of the real battle. The critical struggle is between the vast majority of progressive Canadians (70%) and the corporate controlled Conservatives (30%). It is the struggle of the combined forces of Liberals, NDP and Greens to regain a caring society. But we must work together for the common cause, through strategic voting.

There is terrific power through strategic voting. The Conservatives may gain 6% through a propaganda campaign, but that is nothing compared with what Canadians can do through strategic voting. In the last election the Conservatives had won 21 seats in BC, but are currently polling to win only 7 seats. In four of these ridings, the Conservatives are leading by only 2%, 4%, 6% and 7% – and could easily be defeated by a relative handful of voters swinging their votes to the party most likely to defeat the Conservatives. There is real power by working together. Divided we fall.

Change is within reach

Strategic voting can defeat almost any Conservative candidate in Canada.  In this election, we must abandon our old habits of voting for the party we think is best.  Instead, we should vote for what is best for Canada – removing the Conservatives.   Does it really matter whether the Liberals win a few more seats than the NDP or vice versa?  They are both essentially progressive parties, and so are the Greens.  They all promise to bring in electoral reform.  They all are concerned about climate change; they all are concerned about the unfair distribution of wealth;  and they all believe that peace-keeping is more important than war-making.  They all want the restoration of democracy.  These are exceedingly important issues – but not shared by the Harper Conservatives.

Great things can happen with the removal of the Conservatives.  And what a boost to our self esteem!  To think that we were the ones who faced up to the problem and made the critical change –  no longer wimps putting up with unacceptable values.  All of this will happen…as long as we do not split the progressive vote.

And for those who feel that voting is frustrating and insignificant, you can be assured that every vote done strategically will actually count.  Every vote goes directly to defeat the Conservatives.   Just vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the Conservatives – and that will make the difference.

Doug Carrick writes regular articles for the Hornby Island “First Edition”,  the Denman Island “Flagstone” and occasionally for the “Island Tides” and other publications.
Share
A baby boomer's plea- On Harper, Legacy and the Canadian election

A Baby Boomer’s plea: On Harper, Legacy and the Canadian election

Share
A baby boomer's plea- On Harper, Legacy and the Canadian election
At least one Baby Boomer hopes to see Harper exit the political stage on Oct. 19 (Flickr/Stephen Harper)

This is for my fellow baby boomers. Yes, I mean you +55ers – the ones who lived through the 60’s and 70’s and even remember some of it. Think back to those days. Do you remember “Make Love Not War”, “Ban The Bomb” or how about “Power to the People” or “Never Trust Anyone Over Thirty”? Do you remember what your priorities were back then – your values, your ideals?

We were going to change the world and, for a short time, we did. Ours was the generation that stopped a war. Although Canada stayed out of Vietnam, we welcomed over 30,000 Americans who came here to avoid killing and being killed and we gave refuge to more than 50,000 “boat people” after Vietnam fell. We stood up for civil rights and women’s equality. We marched for a nuclear free world and even started Greenpeace, right here in Vancouver, because we thought saving our planet was important. But as I think about this election and the state our country is in, I remember a few years ago my son telling me that his generation was sick to death of hearing about all the noble things our generation had done and asking the question, “What have you done lately?”

Thinking about that question today, the only answer I can come up with is that we SOLD OUT!

It would be bad enough to say we sat idly by as our government destroyed our democracy with bills like the Orwellian-named “Fair Elections” Act; eliminated our freedoms by passing its anti-terrorist bill C-51; passed Bill C-24, making it possible for someone like Calgary’s Mayor Nenshi to be stripped of Canadian citizenship even though he was born in Toronto; muzzled or vindictively destroyed anyone who disagreed with them (Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission president Linda Keen); turned the peacekeeping forces that we were so proud of into a war machine; gutted environmental protections for the benefit of big (mostly foreign) corporations; sold off our natural resources (along with our wheat board) to other countries; allowed entire industries to be wiped out and well paid jobs to be shipped to third world countries; widened the income inequality gap; increased the number of homeless and allowed 1 in 5 children to live in poverty; slashed social programs and eliminated safety nets (healthcare, EI, support for veterans, the national child care program); increased the age of eligibility for OAS and changed retirement age for CPP; took aim at women by slashing funding, closing offices and removing “equality” from the stated goals of the Status of Women ministry; drastically cut funding of the CBC and the arts (because “nobody cares about the arts”); made secondary education less and less affordable for anyone but the privileged upper class; waged war on First Nations by cancelling the Kelowna Accord, ignoring Supreme Court decisions and refusing to uphold laws and policies set out in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (even refusing to ensure they had the barest necessities such as access to clean drinking water); and abandoned our injured veterans saying we had “no moral obligation” to them.

It would be bad enough to say that we ignored their secrecy (European and TPP trade agreements; avoiding the media or screening their questions; gagging scientists, federal public servants and their own MPs; delaying, restricting or denying public and media requests under the Access to Information act); their lies (F-35 stealth fighter jets); their corruption ($50 million in taxpayers’ money funnelled into Tony Clement’s riding under the guise of G8 expenses, the artificial lake); their misuse of funds and attitudes of entitlement (Bev Oda’s $16 orange juice, Peter McKay’s personal use of military helicopters); the laws they broke (Harper breaking his own fixed-date election law, the In-and-Out scandal in which the party exceeded national campaign spending limits by moving funds through local ridings, Robocalls); their criminal charges and convictions (Dean Del Mastro – Harper’s “ethics” spokesman jailed for crimes committed while sitting as an MP, top aide Bruce Carson convicted of 5 counts of fraud); Harper appointing Senators in clear violation of requirements regarding residency and the consistent pattern of unethical conduct of other Harper appointees.

It would be bad enough to say we did not pay attention to all the other abuses of this government, such as being found in contempt of Parliament (for refusing to release costs on programs to opposition MPs); proroguing Parliament 4 times and shutting it down for 181 days; re-naming the Government of Canada the Harper Government; eliminating the long-form census; omnibus bills; attacks on the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; spying on environmental and aboriginal activists; auditing charities and non-profits (all of them environmental, civil society, anti-poverty, foreign aid and human rights groups); using tax dollars to fund political ads and propaganda for oil companies; retroactively passing legislation to protect themselves from crimes already committed (the shredding of long gun registry data); and last but certainly not least, the Senate scandal (the $90,000 cheque, who knew about it and when, attempts to interfere with an official audit). 

Yes, it would be bad enough to say we just ignored all of these things (and more) but the truth is that not only did we do nothing to stop them, we gave them our support! We became the establishment that we fought against – those people over 30 that we did not trust (and for good reason). We voted for this government and according to polls, we are the one age group that is overwhelmingly going to vote for them again.

Now, I realize that not all of you voted for the former Reformers, who have convincingly painted themselves as the Conservative party of old, and I realize that not all of you will vote for them on October 19th, but for those of you who will, I have a few questions.

1. Why? Why would you support a government as secretive, corrupt and hellbent on destroying our freedoms as this one? Someone suggested to me that it is because you care more about your money than anything else but that simply does not make any sense. When Harper took over, the economy was growing at 3% a year, there was a surplus of over $13-billion and our debt was $492-billion (and falling). Since being elected, he has run 6 straight deficits and the federal debt is now $615-billion (and rising). Whether he admits it or not, we are in a recession with our loonie tanking, unemployment climbing and commodity prices plunging. Why would you trust a government with this kind of a track record to keep your money safe? 

2. When? When did you abandon your values and decide that lying, cheating, stealing and breaking the law were not a problem? When did you stop caring about other people and become okay with our military bombing innocent civilians, with children in this country starving, seniors having to choose between groceries and medication, people having to work 2 or 3 jobs in order to feed their families or keep a roof over their heads, with healthcare cuts that forced mental patients onto the streets, with jobs being given to temporary foreign workers while qualified Canadians went unemployed and with a dead child being washed up on a beach on the other side of the world while we ignore a refugee crisis that we are at least partially responsible for creating with our bombs?

3. Do you have grandchildren? Do you care if they grow up to be honest, ethical, compassionate adults? Do you teach them values? Do you teach them your “new” values – the ones that you accept from your government – that the end justifies the means and it is perfectly acceptable to lie, cheat, break the law and do anything else you have to do in order to get what you want? Or do you teach them to do as I say, not as I do because that always works out so well?

4. How? How do you plan on explaining to your grandchildren that you didn’t care? You didn’t care enough about their future to stand up for healthcare, education, the environment, their rights, democracy and for honesty and decency? How will you answer if they ask why you didn’t love them enough to protect them?

5. And finally, can you give me just one reason to justify voting for this man who vowed that no one would recognize Canada when he was finished. Did you really hate our country that much the way it was? 

Canadians used to have much to be proud of and we can be proud again. Our country’s best days do not have to be behind us. October 19th may be the most important election of our lifetime. We have a choice. We can continue down this path of destruction, giving up our ideals, our freedoms, our democracy and our very identity or we can change direction and start repairing the damage, healing the wounds and restoring our standing in the world.

This is our chance to show that our generation still has values we are willing to stand up for and we can still make a difference. It is your opportunity to show your grandchildren that their futures matter and you will do everything in your power to protect them. By living your values, you will be leaving them a legacy. They will learn by your example and will never have to ask why you didn’t care. 

Marilyn Koyanagi is Baby Boomer and retiree.

Share