Gitxsan leaders of Madii Lii Camp are standing behind the Lax Kw’alaams (submitted)
Several First Nations groups are banding together to block early work by contractors for Petronas’ Lelu Island LNG terminal. Leaders of the Madii Lii resistance camp – situated atop several proposed pipeline routes in the Skeena Valley – are rallying behind hereditary chiefs of the Lax Kw’alaams Nation who have been occupying Lelu Island in opposition to survey work for Petronas’ controversial project.
“We are standing together with the Chiefs on Lelu Island in opposition to the same LNG project. Our Madii Lii territory is on the pipeline route, and their Lelu Island territory is on the terminal site. We have both said no,” said Gitxsan Hereditary Chief Luutkudziiwus (Charlie Wright) in a statement today.
“This project threatens the salmon that all Skeena River and North Coast people depend on, and we thank the Yahaan (Don Wesley) and other Tsimshian Chiefs for what they are doing for all of us.”
Hereditary chiefs hold the line
Hereditary leaders of the Lax Kw’alaams and their supporters – a group of approximately 45 in total – erected a camp on Lelu Island, in the Skeena estuary, about two weeks ago in order to halt seismic and survey work by Petronas’ contractors. The work reportedly stems from concerns raised by the Lax Kw’alaams’ elected leadership over the initially planned location of a causeway for ships visiting the terminal – which sat in the middle of vital, sensitive habitat for salmon and other marine life. The elected leaders granted permission to the contractors to survey the area for an alternate location for the causeway, but this has not sat well with a group of hereditary chiefs now leading the occupation.
They confronted the crew of the Quin Delta drill ship and a barge which moved into the area over the weekend.
According toThe Vancouver Sun, “Some equipment was set up before First Nations went out to the ship and asked the workers to stop, said Joey Wesley, a Lax Kw’alaams First Nation member. The activity ceased, but the workers appeared to have trouble removing equipment from the ocean floor, including heavy concrete blocks with surface markers, he said. The ship and barge remained in their location on Sunday just off Lelu Island, said Wesley.”
Moreover, while Petronas’ contractors are operating under permits from the BC government and the Prince Rupert Port Authority, the federal review for the project is ongoing, after facing multiple delays owing to unanswered questions from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
The Port Authority is nevertheless warning that it will take action against anyone who obstructs survey work for the Lelu Island project – which will likely only inflame an already tense situation.
Gitxsan to take legal action
The Gitxsan leaders of Madii Lii Camp are not only backing their Skeena brethren, but they have been occupying their own territory in staunch opposition to pipeline construction and are now promising legal action of their own. “We are taking the government to court over the lack of consultation, the inadequate baseline information presented, the weak and subjective impact assessment, the current cumulative effects from past development, and the massive infringement of our Aboriginal rights,” says Madii Lii spokesperson Richard Wright.
“People are now on the ground blocking the Petronas project from the coast to far inland.”
Is ‘reconciliation’ possible amid energy conflicts?
These actions are mirrored by the Unist’ot’en Camp in Wet’suwet’en territory to the south, which stands in the path of several planned Kitimat-bound gas pipelines and the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline. Tensions there have also grown recently, with the spectre of an armed RCMP takedown of the camp.
PM Stephen Harper addresses a youth delegation (Flickr/Stephen Harper CC licence)
To: The Rt. Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister
Dear Prime Minister,
Most issues we face today we’ve faced before.
For an older person like myself there is a strong sense of déjà vu. We’ve been through deficits and surpluses; prosperity and recessions; government overspending andgovernment parsimony; and there’s always a list of special issues to be replaced by new special issues in time for the next election.
The sign of a great leader is one who takes a very large, seemingly insoluble problem and deals with it in the interests of the nation. Not many have done that in our history – mostly we just muddle along, watching the United States and the UK, and keeping our heads down.
Canada stingy on constitutional reform
We’ve been shockingly inattentive to our corporate make up, or Constitution. The United States has amended its constitution 33 times since 1787. Great Britain, through its flexible constitution, is constantly amending theirs. We act as if to do so would be like performing self surgery without an anesthetic.
In our recent history the only major constitutional surgery was done by Pierre Trudeau in 1982 when the Constitution was patriated from the United Kingdom to Canada. I was a member of Mr. Trudeau’s Cabinet Ministers on the Confederation (2 from each province, 2 from the federal government) and watched the process unfold. Much was done during those years to address difficulties but since the deal breakers were the Amending Formula and The Charter, most work was there, with other matters to be dealt with in due course.
MPs are powerless
PM Harper enters the House behind Governor General David Johnston for a Speech from the Throne (Flickr/Stephen Harper CC licence)
Since then – and much of the blame for this has been deservedly laid at your feet – the Commons has become a nest of political eunuchs where no longer men and women meet to deal with issues of their choosing but a place about as democratic as the Reichstag in the 1930s.
I do not exaggerate, Mr. Prime Minister. The plain fact is that a government MP has no power whatsoever and is now your pet poodle. He says what you tell him to say, asks what you order him to ask, and otherwise keeps his mouth shut. No Tory MP dares question a government decision on the Commons floor, even if it’s vital to his constituency.
On behalf of many in our community on Howe Sound, where tankers are proposed, and approved by you, I asked your MP, John Weston, in writing, to explain this dramatic discriminatory practice. He refused to do so!
Why, Prime Minister, why? Are you actually ashamed of your untenable Eastern bias but not man enough to admit it?
Committees’ role disappears
On another matter, The Parliamentary Committee, which we inherited from the UK House of Commons, is supposed to be the way backbench MPs can hold the government’s feet to the fire.
As you know, Sir, this simply doesn’t happen. The Committee has been stolen from the backbencher and made a dummy, with you the ventriloquist since you, not the MPs, select the Chair and no uncomfortable agenda arises without you stepping in to stop it.
Independent thinking: a political death sentence
It goes much further – I fear I have only scratched the surface. If a Tory MP does what his conscience dictates and it crosses your policy, he risks of being tossed out of caucus, the party, and never again allowed to run for the party – a political death sentence. Your MPs know that and it assures you 100% control of their minds and souls, never mind their actions! How the hell can such a person be my Member of Parliament?
The consequence of all of this is that the Tory MP, elected by citizens to represent their issues, at all times does precisely what you tell him to do.
There are also the practical considerations of the carrot and the stick. It’s entirely in your hands as to which MP is promoted to parliamentary secretary or cabinet minister or any other office. It is up to you alone whether they’re fired – no cause need be shown, there’s no severance pay. You have unconstrained control, a privileged hitherto reserved to God.
Even lesser matters such as going to a warm island in the winter to attend a useless conference is yours to offer the MP who behaves himself.
UK MPs far more rebellious than Canadians
What are you afraid of? In the Mother of Parliaments, Prime Ministers often lose votes, even “three line whip” votes, and life goes on. They don’t resign but call a confidence vote which has been the practice here since Lester Pearson.
Here’s some history of lost major votes in the UK:
In the 1st Harold Wilson government (1965-70) – six times
In the Edward Heath government (1970-74) 6 times
In the 2nd Harold Wilson government, (1974-6) – 25 times
His successor, Jim Callaghan (1976-9), 34 times
Margaret Thatcher (1979-1990) 4 times
John Major (1990-97) 6 times
Tony Blair (1997-07) 4 times
Gordon Brown (2007-11) 3 times
In the last 4 years, David Cameron was beaten 6 times
Remember, in all of those defeats, a “three-line whip” was in effect and members were ordered to vote for the government, “or else”.
Opportunity for a positive legacy
Tom Mulcair supports electoral reform, as do the Greens and Grits
Now, prime minister, you can go down in history as a great prime minister if you sincerely commit to serious reform and are reelected.
I should note that your NDP, Liberal and Green counterparts have each backed proportional representation or some variety of serious electoral reform should they form government this October. Change is clearly in the air on this front. My concern here is what happens should you defy recent polls and form government again yourself.
Nobody expects you to have the magic bullet. To redo the way we elect MPs and the powers we give them is open to many options which must be thrashed out. The power of the PM and the cabinet is another matter of debate. There are those who stand firmly for proportional representation or a combination of that and first past the post and there are those who want transferable ballots and so on. I daresay, however, you will be hard-pressed to find too many, excepting party hacks, supporting retention of the present system.
There must be Reform! The stakes are very high, sir, since despite what you might think from 34 Sussex Drive, there is a lot of unrest in the land. Surely, the days when less than 40% of the popular vote achieve 100% of the power must be put behind us. Is there any wonder so many Canadians don’t bother to vote?
I close by saying this, prime minister: I don’t think you want to do this. I believe that you enjoy your position as a dictator, with everyone around you obeying you in all matters, large or small. I don’t think you could stand your own MPs being critical of your policies, much less voting against your wishes.
You, sir, are quite prepared to put the ego of Stephen Harper ahead of the best interests of the country.
Prove me wrong by pledging major reform to Parliament and the voting system.
I’ll not hold my breath, nor, I daresay, will many other Canadians.
Editor’s note: This letter is open to republication by any group or individual, without permission required from the author or publisher.
Tsartlip Chief Don Tom opposing another unwanted project – construction of a luxury home on burial grounds
The Tsartlip First Nation on southern Vancouver Island is weighing in on a proposed LNG project for the Saanich Inlet – pouring cold water on an August 20 announcement by proponent Steelhead LNG touting the support of the neighbouring Malahat Nation. Both groups are jumping the gun, warns Tsartlip Chief Don Tom:
[quote]Tsartlip has requested a meeting with Steelhead LNG and it will take place onSeptember 11th. We intend on making it clear that Tsartlip First Nation’s approval will be required for any LNG project to proceed. We oppose the aggressive approach taken by Steelhead LNG and their Board of Directors by publicly announcing the project prior to any discussions with the Tsartlip community.[/quote]
This strong statement comes two weeks after Steelhead – which describes itself as “a Vancouver-based energy company focused on LNG project development in British Columbia” – trumpeted a “mutual benefits agreement” with the Malahat for a proposed floating LNG terminal in the Saanich Inlet at Bamberton. At the same time, the company announced that it had secured a builder, US pipeline company Williams, to begin designing the “Island Connector Project”, which would carry gas from Cherry Point, Washington to the floating plant.
“Tsartlip are the owners of the territory located on the eastern shore of the Saanich Inlet in Brentwood Bay and Tsartlip owns Goldstream Indian Reserve #13 directly to the south of the proposed LNG terminal location,” said a news release from the nation earlier today.
[quote]Steelhead LNG appears to be using a ‘cookie cutter’ approach in dealing with First Nations, this approach will not work with Tsartlip. We take offense to the aggressive pursuit of Malahat LNG without respectful acknowledgment of our Territory.[/quote]
Further south, concerns have been raised by a growing number of groups and individuals about the risks of running LNG tankers through narrow passages and highly populated areas – which Chief Tom echoed in his comments today: “Tsartlip takes tremendous pride in protecting all aspects of our community and will not subject our people to the risks around pipelines and LNG terminals, so far their process can be characterized as disrespectful and insulting.”
Green candidate Ken Melamed doesn’t see a future for Woodfibre LNG (facebook/Mitch Stookey)
Local NDP and Green candidates are steadfastly opposed to the Woodfibre LNG project near Squamish, reveals a recent series of one-on-one interviews.
Meanwhile, the Liberal candidate for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, is on the fence, while Tory incumbent John Weston remains predictably supportive of the controversial project.
According to the survey (see full results here), conducted by Propeller Strategy – a non-profit group with a focus on environmental and public interest issues in BC – former West Vancouver Mayor Goldsmith-Jones has “four conditions that would need to be in place before Woodfibre LNG could be properly reviewed.”
[quote]The criteria included a marine strategy, a climate strategy, genuine consultation and most importantly an audit is needed of the new environmental laws resulting from changes made by the Conservative government.[/quote]
But for NDP candidate Larry Koopman and the Greens’ Ken Melamed, a former Whistler Mayor, the answer is a hard “No”, as Woodfibre clearly lacks the social licence required to proceed.
Woodfibre wrong for many reasons
Woodfibre LNG would see large tankers travelling up Howe Sound (Eoin Finn)
According to a media release from Propeller Strategy, the “LNG export industry is not appropriate for BC,” says Melamed, nor is it “consistent with the values of Canadians and a strong economic policy.”
Propeller conducted a similar survey of municipal candidates throughout the region before last year’s election, which revealed that a staggering 94% of respondents were opposed to Woodfibre. Those indications were borne out post-election, as Squamish took a harder tack with Woodfibre, denying permits to build an expanded pipeline connected to the project through the Squamish estuary.
Propeller’s Stan Proboszcz, who carried out the interviews with several constituents in attendance, commented, “Important local issues are often absent from federal election campaigns.”
[quote]Woodfibre LNG will put the local economy, environment and citizen safety at risk, and voters deserve clear positions from all candidates on this issue before the election.[/quote]
Photo: Province of British Columbia/Flickr CC licence
Wildfires are ripping across California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia and Alaska during this summer of 2015, the result of unprecedented droughts and record temperatures. Millions of hectares are being burned along with hundreds of homes. Fire-fighting costs are multiplying, the economic damage is soaring and the environmental consequences are foreboding.
The old ecologies of the Pacific Northwest are being reshaped as climate change begins the long and disruptive process of altering the weather and remaking the biological structure of the region.
Washington fires claim lives, threaten BC
Countless statistics tumble out of news reports as uncontrolled fires scorch California and dozens of active fires burn in Oregon and Washington. Bushfires explode because of unprecedented heat and wind, igniting whole neighbourhoods and even parts of downtowns, as was the case at the end of June in Wenatchee. Sometimes firefighters are the casualties.
Grass becomes tinder in the Pacific Northwest, waiting for any spark to set off a conflagration. Washington stopped counting and even fighting some its fires during parts of August, letting them burn to exhaustion, whenever that may occur. At least one has spread northward toward British Columbia.
BC’s firefighting costs exceed budget by 4 times
BC’s fire situation is similar to that in the American states to the south. Over 1,734 have been counted in the province since April and firefighting costs of more than $224 million have dwarfed a budget of $63 million. The focus of media attention shifts quickly from place to place depending on the size of the fire, the loss of property and the extent of human tragedy. Some people have barely escaped with their lives as walls of flames have roared toward them. The charred bodies of dead wildlife are commonly found in the ashen remains of the blackened landscapes. The danger in BC is exacerbated by the 18 million hectares of interior forest attacked by the mountain pine beetle.
Baked Alaska
Alaska, like BC, has undergone an average temperature increase of about 1.4°C, mostly during the last 50 years, and is at least as vulnerable to the effects of rising temperatures, droughts and wildfires. Record areas of the state have burned in 2015, 183 more than the 216 fires that burned during the scorching season of 2004.
From a climate perspective, Alaska’s fires are particularly serious because they burn off the deep layers of organic insulation that are protecting the permafrost from further melting and the subsequent release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. “Everything is connected,” notes Bob Bolton, a University of Alaska hydrologist.
[quote]The climate, the permafrost, the water, the fires. You can’t look at one without looking at the other. Changes in one changes everything. It’s a really, really sensitive system.[/quote]
A scary forecast
Complex ecologies such as the Pacific Northwest are similarly sensitive. Increased levels of atmospheric of carbon dioxide from human sources are raising temperatures, changing weather and forcing the region into a protracted and traumatic transition. Altered precipitation patterns are lowering crucially important snowpacks, degrading the vitality of watersheds and transforming the character of West Coast forests as California’s climate shifts northward.
The summer fires are just part of a difficult and disruptive climate revolution we have set in motion. This change may be welcomed by those who like California’s climate, but the process is going to leave many others badly burned.
Justin Trudeau continues to defy expectation (Flickr/Canada 2020 CC licence)
Churchill once stated that the best time to predict events was after they had happened and I think he was probably right.
The current federal election is demonstrating that predictions at any time are pretty iffy but in a hugely long campaign like this one, they’re positively dangerous.
I find myself flying all over the place, which is hardly unusual considering my record on these matters. The benefit of this experience of incompetence is, of course, that you learn that changes always take place and often very rapidly. The question is whether or not this, like logarithms in high school, is quickly learned and just as quickly forgotten, as has hitherto been my case.
Trudeau’s surprising comeback
For example, I doubt very much that anybody would have disagreed with me a month or so ago that Justin Trudeau had badly soiled his copybook with his support of Bill C-51. He was supposed to be through by the opinions of many pundits and was given no hope up against the other three in the great debate. I probably said so too.
The fact of the matter is he did very well in the debate, particularly against the prime minister. C-51 has been called a black mark on Trudeau’s record, but that’s all it is, and everybody has those. To me, it is a very serious black mark, but to the voting public, as time passes, I suspect it will be forgotten in favour of whatever the latest hot issue is. He has already shown signs that rumours of his political death were much exaggerated.
The real issues of this election campaign will likely not emerge until the last month and, I would wager, not all of them are even thought about at this moment. At least that’s the way it usually works.
Harper’s negative ads backfire
I think, looking back, it was fortunate for Trudeau that the Tories did all those vicious attack ads early because the impact has faded and after the debates Trudeau at least looks as if he could be a leader if needs be. In other words, his task was to look better than presented by typical Tory attack ads – and he did.
I also believe those ads helped Mr. Mulcair. Those seeking another choice than Tory just might say, “OK, so Trudeau’s not ready, but Mulcair looks as if he is”. This is not quite bringing deserters back to the Tories as intended.
Mulcair looks strong – especially in BC
Mulcair with candidate Joe Cressy (Flickr/Joe Cressy/Tim Ehlich)
Thomas Mulcair has been seen as the knight in shining armour who has flashed out of nowhere to become the saviour of the nation. So far, he has weathered well and is certainly doing extremely well in British Columbia, according to the most recent polls.
I must say at this point that I hardly trust polls and I am ever mindful of Sir Humphrey in “Yes Minister” explaining to Bernard how by asking a different series of questions on the same subject, you can get two very separate answers.
Moreover, I believe that a lot of people lie because they consider it none of the pollster’s business or, like me, promptly hang the phone up with the international words for “go away” and go back to their dinner.
BC NDP opposition is non-existent
I think Mr. Mulcair has something else going for him in British Columbia. Past NDP national leaders have had to concern themselves with the policies of the provincial NDP and, there being none, there’s nothing for Mulcair to worry about.
If, for example, John Horgan and Co. took a strong stand against LNG, especially in Howe Sound and in Saanich Inlet, Mr. Mulcair might have a problem being wishy-washy and avoiding the subject. Fortunately for him, he finds the local NDP in the midst of what should be an impossible task – making Christy Clark look good.
BCNDP Leader John Horgan talking LNG (Photo: BCNDP)
Horgan, in thrall to former premier Dan Miller, is a firm supporter of LNG and quite prepared to desert supporters and those who would be, in places where plants are proposed and people are upset.
You may remember that when Mr. Miller briefly became the premier of the province, he immediately grabbed John Horgan, who was in business in the private sector, and brought him in by his side. Those who know tell me that Mr. Miller is like an uncle or perhaps a godfather to Mr. Horgan, who adores the former premier and would never cross him. Since Dan Miller is a devoted supporter of bitumen pipelines and tanker traffic – not to mention Resource Works, the shills for Woodfibre LNG – it can be understood why Mr. Horgan has suddenly become a fossil fuel capitalist.
That he has been able to drag his caucus into taking this position shows that none of them understands how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work and the critical duty of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition to oppose.
Having said that, I think that Mr. Mulcair has done well in British Columbia and this province is now his to lose.
Don’t count Harper out yet
I am not prepared to write off the prime minister at this stage, for the following reason:
Suppose, as I suspect, that Mr. Trudeau is making some inroads in BC and that he and Mulcair become extremely competitive one with the other – that may open the door for Mr. Harper to do much better here than anyone now predicts.
May shines
Elizabeth May being interviewed during Calgary Stampede (Flickr/ItzaFineDay CC licence)
The outstanding candidate in my view is clearly Elizabeth May. Those who watched the debate or have had the privilege of hearing her speak, or both, will know that she is a very substantial person indeed, steeped in the history and tradition of this, her adopted country, and with a far wider vision than just the environment – although that is pretty damned important.
She not only demands electoral and parliamentary reform, unlike others, she understands the subjects.
There is some hope that the Greens will do well in parts of Canada – at this point Vancouver Island looks like it’s in the hopeful section.(I make no secret of my support of the Greens.)
Trudeau has leg up with media
Let me get back to Mr. Trudeau. He has the advantage, if advantage it is, of support from the mainstream media – now that their beloved Tories seem to be heading for the ditch. They’re horrified at the thought of an NDP government and are turning their fond attention to the Grits in desperation. You may have noticed that the stories about Justin Trudeau and the pictures of him are far more jolly and upbeat in the last couple of weeks than they once were.
Although I am by nature one who would normally be a Liberal, they fell from my favour under Pierre Trudeau because of his attitude towards British Columbia, especially exemplified by him giving the finger to some protesters in Salmon Arm. Moreover, he, and the election gang surrounding him, like Keith Davey and Jim Coutts, worked out the obvious mathematics of concentrating all efforts on Ontario and Quebec and to hell with the rest of the country, especially British Columbia.
In his last speech in the debate, Trudeau, Jr. tried to say that his father had instilled in him an appreciation of the nation as a whole. Having been alive at that time and up close to Trudeau, Sr. during constitutional debates, I don’t believe that crap for a second.
When Mark Anthony gave as part of his oration on the death of Caesar “The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones“, he certainly wasn’t foreseeing Pierre Elliot Trudeau, who’s now subject of a posthumous love-in, the evidence be damned!
Now, the sins of the father are not passed onto the son – neither are the good deeds for that matter – and Justin Trudeau will have to make his own way to the hearts of Lotuslanders. That he has family connections here, including a terrible tragedy, does not make him a British Columbian – something that one cannot easily acquire any more than one can easily become a Quebecer. It does, however, give him a leg up on Harper and Mulcair and that could prove to be important. For example, when Trudeau reads about the childish behaviour of UBC, at least he knows where it is, having once been a student.
For once, BC counts
I don’t remember the election where it wasn’t solemnly intoned that BC counted and I’m hard-pressed to think of one where it actually did. This year, with the strong possibility of a minority government, and with reform of the system in the wind, perhaps every MP will finally make a difference.
I am going to leave it at that without any predictions because, in my dotage, I think I have finally learned that October 19 is a hell of a long way away and a great deal not only can happen but probably will.
For the last several decades, the fuel consumption requirements imposed on vehicle manufacturers in Canada were the same as those applied in the US. The premise of the Conservatives and Liberals alike has always been that Canada has no choice but to emulate the US, because Canada is part of an integrated North American market.
That line of thinking is half right. Canada is part of an integrated North American market but to date, vehicle manufacturers have gotten off easier in Canada than in the US and Canada does have option of more stringent stipulations within the North American framework.
Understanding CAFE
To put the above considerations in context, thus far, what has been the same in Canada as in the US are the obligations that each vehicle manufacturer must comply with corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards – standards which each year incrementally decrease the required average fuel consumption of vehicles sold.
These CAFE standards are sales-weighted, which is to say, that a CAFE year-specific goal represents the mandatory minimum average fuel consumption for all vehicles sold by a given manufacturer, in a given country, in a given year. Thus, the greater the proportion of sales associated with high-energy-consuming models, the worse will be a manufacturer’s CAFE and the more difficult it will be for the manufacturer in question to comply with the CAFE standard for that year.
At least, this is the way things stand prior to 2016.
Loopholes open up for car makers
The new US CAFE legislation, which comes into effect for the 2016 to 2025 period, is written in a way that allows a corporate compliance target to be a moving target. That is, should the manufacturer sell a “higher than expected” number of larger (higher fuel consumption) vehicles, that manufacturer would be have the “privilege” of having a higher than desired average fuel consumption compliance target.
Unfortunately, Canada has adopted the above-described new US CAFE formula, while continuing to leave more wiggle room for manufacturers under the Canadian CAFE rules than under its US counterpart. As a result, the Canadian approach risks encouraging the dumping/marketing of the larger vehicles on the Canadian market.
By contrast, there are options for Canada to have more stringent requirements than the US, without any of the constraints associated with the integrated North American market, and remaining consistent with the actions of 8 US states.
Canadian fuel efficiency hugely exaggerated
The fuel consumption figures used to determine a manufacturer’s compliance or non-compliance with CAFE targets are not the same in the US and Canada. The Canadian numbers highly exaggerate what one can expect on the road, while the US numbers are not far off from what the consumer can expect under SUMMER driving conditions.
In the US, the formula for churning out the numbers is based on a combination of test results that are subject to mathematical calibrations to reflect the on the road experiences of consumers.
Furthermore, in the US, though the manufacturers are responsible for doing the testing, to keep them honest, the US Environmental Protection Agency randomly tests about 15% of the models. This aspect of the US system seems to work quite well.
However, in Canada, the manufacturers do their own testing and their data is not verified by the Government of Canada. This is how we end up with vehicles rated as having exceptionally better fuel economy in Canada than the very same models in the US.
The implications are: 1) the calculation of a manufacturer’s year-specific Canadian CAFE is not reliable; 2) it is easier for a manufacturer to comply with a Canadian CAFE target for the year in question than it is to comply with the identical US CAFE target for the same year; and 3) Canadian consumers are mislead as to the fuel consumption to be expected for the models on our market.
With regard to the latter point, knowing that the fuel consumption ratings claimed by the manufacturers via their advertising are not credible, Canadian consumers are discouraged from taking into account fuel consumption ratings when making a selection for a vehicle.
New US CAFE rules too complicated, weak
US President Barack Obama is letting automakers off easy
The US CAFE stipulations that apply to the 2016 to 2025 period, as negotiated by the Obama administration with automakers in 2010, are represented by a 1500-page agreement and new legislation that is 300 pages long.
As indicated earlier, Canada has followed down the same path as the US. This is a pity because the US path for 2016 to 2025 is a departure from the greenhouse gas reduction principles of previous CAFE legislative models, leaving the automakers with more flexibility than ever before – which undermines the spirit of GHG reduction goals.
It has been surmised that the reason why President Obama was so accommodating to the industry was because in 2010, US-based vehicle manufacturers had just survived a near-death experience and needed breathing room for their respective recoveries.
In theory, nevertheless, the US had adopted laudable targets, with the 2016 CAFEs set at 6.2 litres/100km for cars, and 8.2 litres/100km for trucks – and the 2025 CAFE target for cars at 4.3 litres/100km. Pretty impressive, one might say. But the devil is in the details of the 1500 page agreement and 300 page legislation.
Fast and loose
Under the new 2016 to 2025 US CAFE formula, distinct fuel economy targets are established for each category of vehicle. These categories are defined in terms of footprints, as measured by multiplying the distance between the front and rear wheels (the wheelbase) by the distance between the right and left wheels (the track).
Where the new US CAFE rules depart from the spirit of the original CAFE goals is the fact that the mandatory CAFE for a given manufacturer becomes more lenient should a manufacturer sell a greater proportion of vehicles in the larger footprint, or the high energy consumption footprint categories.
This means that these are not hard, defined targets at all, rather “… projections because, unlike today, when every manufacturer’s car and truck fleet must meet the same mandated corporate-wide sales-weighted fuel consumption average, the future requirements will be instead based on the size of each vehicle in a manufacturer’s fleet… calculated by averaging the footprint-based CAFE targets of each and every vehicle it sells in a given model year,” and adjusting “the miles-per-gallon targets to match the industry’s real-world production tallies and market conditions at the end of the year.”
The result is that the CAFE goal becomes a moving target to suit the whims of auto manufacturers. Moreover, for legislation to be effective, it must be clear, reasonably succinct and minimize caveats.
As if all these “willful loopholes” are not enough to be dismayed with Obama agreement, even the US “virtual manufacturer-wide CAFE targets” are not that ambitious when compared with those of the European Union. In the EU, the average emissions/vehicle is set at 95 grams for 2020 while the US target for 2025 works out to be 93 grams.
Time for a shift
Canada has the option adopt more stringent CAFE targets than those of the US. Manufacturers would simply need to adjust the distribution of models made available on the Canadian market.
A solar ev charging station in San Francisco
Since manufacturers have always had differences between the selection of models offered on the US and Canadian markets, a more stringent Canadian CAFE would merely accentuate the differences, without imposing any technological constraints on the auto industry. As such, a more demanding Canadian CAFE would not create any undue challenges pertaining to the North American integrated market.
Moreover, Canada could join California and 7 other US states in requiring that a certain percentage of sales be zero emission vehicles and low carbon (hybrid) models, beginning in 2018. The required percentage would incrementally rise through to 2025.
The seven other states are Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
A Made-in-Canada model
Taken together, the above information suggests it is time for a Made-in-Canada solution – which could include the following components
Back to Simpler CAFE, without Loopholes
First, and perhaps most important, a Made-in-Canada solution need not be as complicated as the US departure from the original company-wide CAFE concept – one which allows the auto industry to stray from overall manufacturer-wide CAFE targets whereby the targets are adjusted to fit with vehicles sales, rather than the other way around. This allowance for a higher aggregate fuel consumption is, in reality, a license for manufacturers to promote higher profit models with the help of advertising images of SUVs climbing over rocks and speeding along narrow winding roads at the edge of cliffs.
A far superior model would be that of straightforward Canadian CAFE targets pertaining to the average fuel consumption for all vehicles sold by each manufacturer, for each year – without there being any footprint categories.
By taking this path, the Government of Canada would have the necessary assurance that its goals would be met.
Providing reliable information to consumers
Second, to address the built-in leniency of the current CAFE approach, new fuel economy testing methods and calculations could be introduced to be similar to the US Environmental Protection Agency’s methodology – with a number of significant differences. To this effect, it would make sense that a Canadian testing procedure include WINTER DRIVING conditions with snow tires on and that the test results be properly calibrated to reflect on-the-road experiences.
Also borrowing a page from the US, the Government of Canada would be wise to randomly test around 15% of the models put on the Canadian market. In addition, the selection of vehicles for government testing could include models for which there have been a significant number of complaints or which have been identified as problematic for other reasons.
By taking this approach, Canada would have reliable data for calculating the CAFE of each manufacturer and consumers would have reliable information for comparing vehicles on the market, thus encouraging them to take fuel consumption ratings more seriously when purchasing a vehicle.
Joining leading US states on zero and low-emission vehicle goals
Finally, by adopting legislation similar to that of California and 7 other states – regarding the percentages of sales that must be zero emission vehicles and low carbon vehicles beginning in 2018 and increasing through to 2025 – Canada could surpass typical US CAFE standards without running into market integration problems
For those who might suggest that Canada cannot do this because it is part of the integrated North American market, one could remind them that California has roughly the same population as that of Canada and all 8 US states taking part in “enhanced low/zero emissions targets” are part of the North American market. Indeed, should Canada participate in the “enhanced approach”, it would be helping automakers improve their economies of scale for meeting the requirements of the jurisdictions in question.
To sum up, Canada not only has considerable scope for having more stringent vehicle fuel consumption legislation and targets than those of the US, it can pursue such a strategy without creating havoc to the North American market. There is nothing stopping Canada from shifting to a better system.
Unist’ot’en Camp leader Freda Huson speaks to RCMP on July 15 (Youtube video/Stimulator)
You’d hope we’d come a long way since the crises of Gustafsen Lake and Oka . You’d hope.
This is, after all, 2015. Post-Tsilhqot’in decision. Post-Truth and Reconciliation Commission – out of which the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada used the words “cultural genocide” to describe the treatment by the crown of generations of aboriginal peoples.
To top it all off, we’re in the midst of a federal election – hardly the time for strong-armed tactics driving forth federal energy policy.
And yet, in the recesses of the ivory tower that is the PMO in Ottawa, there has likely been a running conversation in recent days and weeks about directing the RCMP to dismantle a First Nations-led encampment on the Morice River, wherein indigenous titleholders to those lands and waters are peacefully denying access to surveyors from TransCanada Pipelines who want to build a natural gas conduit to the coast.
If there is any need to cut down those nests, it won’t come for years into the future, when the dam is raised and the valley flooded. But permits were issued by the Clark government to begin cutting them down in a few days. Why? I’ve thought long and hard about this and can’t find any other good reason than out-and-out provocation of First Nations.
They dare to gum up the cogs of the progress machine? Hit ’em where it hurts. Show ’em who’s boss.
Pushing buttons
The same can be said for TransCanada’s survey work. All summer we’ve been hearing a familiar, frustrating tune. The company tries to enter this contentious stretch of territory – occupied for years now by members and supporters of one of the five clans of the Wet’suwet’en Nation, the Unist’ot’en. They have made their position clear: No oil or gas pipelines through their territory. They are backed up by the hereditary chiefs of all five clans. They have not been ambiguous in any way.
Yet the company returns, with predictable results. Then, they turn to the police – pitting members of the camp against armed law enforcement.
Under intense pressure from social media and concerned citizens, groups and prominent leaders, the RCMP issued the following statement on Friday evening:
[quote]To clarify, the BC RCMP has no intention of ‘taking down the camp’ set up by the Unist’ot’en…Despite what is being portrayed by some media and on social media, the BC RCMP would like to emphasize that we remain impartial in this dispute. We understand that there has recently been progress made and we are very pleased with these developments. Our Aboriginal Policing Members continue to remain in contact directly with the Unist’ot’en and we will continue to assist in any way we can. [/quote]
If this is true, it’s a step in the right direction and an indication that public pressure is working.
But it would be foolish not to take such a statement with a pound of salt. After all, we’ve seen this before, all too recently, in New Brunswick, where members of the Elsipogtog First Nation stood up to unwanted shale gas exploration in their territory. Rubber bullets, tear gas, jack boots, German Shepherds. Ugly, ugly stuff.
Moreover, note how the above RCMP statement does not preclude arresting the members of the camp – only “taking down” the camp itself. It will be very interesting to see their next move.
What’s the rush?
Lelu Island and Flora Bank (foreground) – site of controversial proposed LNG plant (Skeena Watershed Conservation Soc.)
What this issue has in common with the eagles’ nests in Peace Country is the unnecessary haste. Wherever you stand on LNG, nothing real is happening anytime soon. Not because of protest – though that’s certainly an important factor – but because the market is simply not there. Heck, it was bad at $50 oil and China bailing out in favour of cheaper Russian pipelines. At $40 oil (Asian LNG spot market prices are indexed to oil prices), with Japanese nuclear plants firing back up, the Chinese economy in trouble, and the Malaysian government imploding, you could not pick a worse time to be developing BC LNG.
So when you hear about Petronas’ contractors carting in geotechnical instruments to Lelu Island, near Prince Rupert, or TransCanada barging into Unist’ot’en territory for survey work, we’re talking early, early, wishful, whimsical, shot-in-the-dark work here. What we are not talking about is anything closely approximating an LNG industry actually being built in BC.
Which brings me to my point: What’s the rush? If this stretch of the Morice River is so sacred to and so forbidden by the First Nations who hold title to it, and meaningful development of a hypothetical plant in Kitimat is so far off in the distant future – not to mention bloody unlikely, period – then why risk provoking another ugly chapter in Canadian colonial history?
Hydro forced to stand down…for now
Treaty 8 drummers above proposed Site C Dam (Damien Gillis)
In another piece of encouraging news – depending how you look at it – an injunction hearing brought this month by Treaty 8 First Nations over the eagles’ nests and other early work by Hydro yielded some progress with a ruling Friday. While the court declined to issue an injunction, as a part of the proceedings, BC Hydro committed to stand down for now on some of this contentious work – until current cases before the courts have been decided.
“We went to court to protect our old growth trees, eagle nests, beaver dams and our traditional way of life”, said Chief Roland Willson of West Moberly First Nations. “As a result, BC Hydro will not be destroying the forests or removing eagle nests and beaver dams in the Moberly River valley [which runs into the Peace River at the dam site]. We asked for those areas to be protected”.
Broader concerns over the legitimacy and constitutionality of Hydro’s work permits for Site C will be decided at a judicial review hearing in November. Yet these temporary concessions from Hydro are cold comfort amidst the Clark government’s obsessive drive to build a $9 Billion-plus project that we plainly don’t need and to which First Nations and farmers and many supporters around BC are steadfastly opposed.
What’s Harper driving at?
Stephen Harper announces the Government’s intent to support the creation of BC’s LNG industry in Surrey, BC (PMO)
It’s not terribly surprising that Clark continues pushing forward her LNG and Site C pet projects while she faces little opposition from an absent NDP and her next provincial election is a ways off yet. But the RCMP’s enforcement of pipeline construction is a federal matter that, knowing how the Harper government operates, must be micromanaged from the PMO. This in the midst of a federal election campaign.
Which begs the question: What is Harper up to?
The logical conclusion is that he sees an opportunity to prove his point on Bill C-51 – to offer up an example of the kind of “radical” protest of “critical infrastructure” for which he designed it. If the RCMP were to push their way into the camp and things went badly, in his twisted mind, this would provide fodder for his campaign. “See, I told you. These are the kind of radicals you need my protection from.”
If this is what he’s thinking, I submit he’s wrong. The Unist’ot’en have indicated their intention for peaceful, title-and-rights-based opposition. Nothing good can coming of provoking this sort of conflict. And as I say, there’s simply no need for it at this stage in the game. Meaningful LNG development is miles away, if it ever comes.
Time for a Time-Out
So, to TransCanada, I say, you’ve got 1,000 km of survey work to do. Leave the Unist’ot’en alone.
To Stephen Harper, you just polled 23% to Mulcair’s 40% in a major national poll, partly because of this very attitude you continue exhibiting. I suggest you worry more about staying in office than beating the policies of your last term over the heads of the Unist’ot’en and other First Nations and concerned citizens. Canada needs to grow up, not regress to the travesties of Gustafsen Lake and Oka.
And to Christy Clark, I say, your own election campaign is not really that far off. Should you stay this course, your fiscal recklessness, disrespect of the courts and First Nations will come back to bight you in the you-know-what.
While you are out this weekend enjoying the last days of summer on the beach and the RCMP come by to check whether your cooler is full of (gasp) beer or wine, you have every right to tell them (I would suggest politely) that no, they cannot look in your cooler.
Now I am not a lawyer (although I did consult one to write this article), so don’t come looking for me if the whole exchange doesn’t go smoothly, but the law is very clear in Canada that the police only have a right to search your cooler if they have reason to suspect you have alcohol or something else illegal in inside.
And this extends to all sorts of other things, like driving your car, which reminds me of the old police shows where the local rebel is pulled over and when he asks the sheriff why he was pulled over the sheriff pulls out his baton, smashes a tail light and says, “broken tail light.”
Even the redneck sheriff knows that in order to pull a person over he has to have a reason for doing so.
In Canada, we have a reasonable expectation of privacy. We have the right to go about our lives without being bothered by the police, unless the police have a justifiable reason for doing so.
[quote]Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.[/quote]
While section eight of the Charter protects all sorts of things, one of the biggies is our right to a reasonable expectation of privacy.
So unless you are acting like a drunk idiot at the beach this weekend, it is reasonable for you to expect your privacy and the RCMP cannot butt into that privacy by demanding (or even politely asking) to see the contents of your cooler, backpack or whatever other personal belongings you have with you.
National insecurity
If it is the case that the police, or any other form of law enforcement, are not allowed to search you or our belongings without reason, how could it be okay in Canada for law enforcement to search and seize our personal information and digital conversations without probable cause?
The RCMP might not have reasonable grounds to search your drink cooler while you lay on the beach, but under new laws rammed through with little debate by Stephen Harper and his Conservative government, law enforcement agencies like the RCMP and the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS), will have more power than ever to monitor, collect and share the information you are transmitting on that fancy new iPhone 6 Plus of yours, or any other electronic device you have.
Your right to privacy is extended to online activities, which was confirmed in a 2013 Supreme Court of Canada case involving Telus, in which the court ruled that Canadians should have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to electronic transmissions like text messaging and emails.
So what is the government to do if it has a burning desire to monitor more of its citizens’ activities – especially online – in the name of national security?
What the Harper government did with Bill C-51 is loosen the definition of what behaviours are considered an indication of potentially illegal activity. By broadening the definition of what activities are considered a possible threat to national security, the government now has more reasons to monitor your behaviour.
Loosening and broadening the definition of what is an indication of possible criminal activity is the key trick in Bill C-51 and harms your right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to a reasonable expectation of privacy.
“Critical infrastructure”
Burnaby Mountain/Kinder Morgan arrest (Photo: Brad Hornick/facebook)
It is in the definitions section of the final version of C-51 that was passed June 15, 2015 where we can see the introduction of very broad terms to define what is an “activity that undermines the security of Canada.”
For instance, one such activity that would undermine the security of Canada (according to C-51) is the “interference with critical infrastructure.” In the context of pipeline protests this is a cause for concern for those citizens who want to show up and voice their opposition to the construction of a pipeline.
In the definitions section of C-51 there is a statement that, on the surface, would seemingly protect pipeline protestors: “For greater certainty, it does not include advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression.”
But it is the broadness and vagueness of this text that is concerning, especially when Conservative party members have a history of labelling those speaking up on environmental issues as “eco-terrorists.”
Human rights, Canada’s reputation at risk
Again though, I am not a lawyer, but here’s what a group of prominent experts, including 106 law professors, had to say about C-51:
[quote]Protecting human rights and protecting public safety are complementary objectives, but experience has shown that serious human rights abuses can occur in the name of maintaining national security. Given the secrecy around national security activities, abuses can go undetected and without remedy. This results not only in devastating personal consequences for the individuals, but a profoundly negative impact on Canada’s reputation as a rights-respecting nation.[/quote]
Stephen Harper, the hypocrite
The kicker here is that while the Harper government wants to invent new reasons to watch what you do, the same does not go for Prime Minister Harper himself, who is so tight with his own information that he is rarely even willing to talk to the media!
Stephen Harper wants you to be willing to give up your privacy, but is not willing to make his activities and those of his government more transparent and open.
Glenn Greenwald, the journalist and constitutional lawyer who worked with whistleblower Edward Snowden to expose the massive intrusion of privacy by the US government against its own citizens and countries around the world, has a very well-thought-out opinion on why people should have a reasonable expectation of privacy and why if you are not doing anything wrong, you should still expect that privacy.
And on the hypocrisy of those, like Stephen Harper, who call for less privacy, but take steps to further protect their own privacy, Greenwald had this to say:
[quote]…the people that say that, that privacy isn’t really important, they don’t actually believe it. And the way that you know that they don’t actually believe it, is that while they say with their words ‘privacy doesn’t matter,’ with their actions they take all kinds of steps to safeguard their privacy. They put passwords on their email and their social media accounts, they put locks on their bedroom and bathroom doors. All steps designed to prevent other people from entering what they consider their private realm and knowing what it is that they don’t want other people to know.[/quote]
Watching over your back
In this election, like most elections in recent history, public safety is a hot issue, and every party wants you to think they have your back when it comes to protecting you, your family, friends and fellow citizens.
But there is an important line that needs to be drawn between watching your back and watching over your back.
Our right to a reasonable expectation of privacy is stated pretty clearly in our country’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is a right that past generations fought and died for and not something to be taken lightly.
And our right to privacy is definitely not something that should be compromised by a new set of ham-fisted laws that were rammed into existence with little debate.
So vote smart in this election if privacy is something important to you, because it matters, and what is a law today can be changed by a new government tomorrow.
According to Stephen Harper, the coming election offers a choice between the certainty of Conservative economic expertise on the one hand…or the risk of Liberal or New Democrat inexperience. However, a closer examination reveals a different picture. It is the Conservatives who have the shaky economic record.
All his eggs in one basket
Mark Robinson/Flickr cc licence
For example, instead of diversifying the economy, Harper has put all his eggs in one basket (the tar sands). Farmers on the prairies know all about diversification. To cover the possibilities of crop failure or an unexpected drop in market price, they plant a variety of crops – wheat, canola, legumes, oats, barley, flax, or some such mix. They know it would be disastrous to speculate on one crop…and be wrong! Harper has done just that with oil. An inexcusable risk that went wrong!
The Conservatives have tried to project the image of business expertise by showcasing a “balanced budget”. The Huffington Post examined this budget and listed “Seven Conservative Tricks to Faking a Balanced Budget”. It wasn’t balanced at all. In fact, the Conservatives hardly know what a balanced budget looks like. They have produced nothing but “deficit budgets” in each of the previous seven years. That is why our national debt has sky-rocketed in the Harper years.
Worst Canadian economic record since WWII
Harper warns us never to trust the spendthrift Liberals. Our memories are so short! It was during the Liberal years that the two “spendthrifts”, Chrétien and Paul Martin, reduced the national debt by an unprecedented $81 billion. Since then, Harper has increased the national debt by $176 billion – also unprecedented! Economic expertise?
[quote]Stephen Harper and his Conservatives are running the most poorly performing economy the country has seen since the Second World War.*[/quote]
Their study “examined the economic data from nine Canadian governments…using 16 indicators of economic progress, including job creation, Gross Domestic Product growth, export growth, household debt and real personal income.
“The Harper government ranked last or second last in 13 of the 16 indicators”, resulting in “a score of 8.05 out of 9, with 9 being the worst possible score.” Based on economic performance, the Harper government was rock bottom. And at the other end of the scale, “Lester Pearson has been the most successful prime minister, followed by Pierre Trudeau.” *
Child poverty, homelessness reach abysmal levels
But we hardly need such studies to prove their economic ineptitude. It is obvious. Under the Conservatives we have had more children living in poverty, more homeless people, more people depending on soup kitchens, and greater family indebtedness. Highly paid jobs have been replaced by low paid part-time jobs with no benefits. And young people despair of ever owning their own homes.
Most damning is their tax policy. They keep reducing taxation on the rich and on Corporations – forcing government agencies to reduce services to everyone else – thus creating more billionaires each year and more paupers. Good economics for the top 1%, but horrible for the rest.
Putting economy above planet
Even worse, is the Conservative policy of promoting the development of the Alberta tar sands at the cost of permanent damage to the world’s climate. The greenhouse gases created are causing droughts in the best farmland; are wiping out the glaciers and snow fields which are reservoirs for next summer’s water; are destroying forests (by diseases and fires); are destroying the oceans (by acidification and overheating); and are causing massive damage to islands, coastlines and port cities (by rising oceans and extreme storms). The harm done to people around the world is much greater than the paltry economic benefit to Alberta. Is this good economics?
Harper’s request for us to “stay the course” with the Conservatives is like staying the course with the Titanic. Contrary to Harper’s propaganda, Conservative economics is a disaster.
* Jeremy J. Nuttall, The Tyee.com, July 31 2015
Doug Carrick writes regular articles for the Hornby Island “First Edition”, the Denman Island “Flagstone” and occasionally for the “Island Tides” and other publications.
