A recent earthquake near Wonowon, 100 km north of Fort St. John, is the largest of over 500 seismic events in northeastern BC, believed to be related to hydraulic fracturing. It may be remembered as BC’s 4.6m fracking quake.
“Likely induced by hydraulic fracturing”
Though the connection has not yet been proven, the quake’s epicentre was just 3 kilometres from Progress Energy’s fracking site. The company immediately shut down operations and notified the province’s oil and gas commission.
“It’s still under investigation, but it was likely induced by hydraulic fracturing,” said Alan Clay, the commission’s communications manager.
When the commission monitored seismic events in this area, during the fourteen months ending in October 2014, they “found that during this period 231 seismic events in the Montney were attributed to oil and gas operations – 38 induced by wastewater disposal and 193 by hydraulic fracturing operations. None of the recorded events resulted in any injuries, property damage or loss of wellbore containment.”
A previous study, in the province’s Horn River Basin,”(2012) documented 272 seismic events” that “were caused by fluid injection during hydraulic fracturing in proximity to pre-existing faults” between April 2009 and December 2011.
Though most of these seismic events were also too slight to be felt, the Wonowon quake is different.
“Everyone here felt it”
“Everybody here felt it. I was sitting in my medic truck and I felt the whole thing shake. Some light towers were shaking,” Kaila Walton told the Alaska Highway News.
“My house got shook. My couch I was on was actually shaking with me. It dawned on me it could be earthquake, but it could be fracking in the area. I don’t think they should continue fracking,” Bernice Lilly told the CBC.
Magnitudes growing
There have also been quakes across the border, in the Fox Creek area of Alberta. Prior to the commencement of fracking operations in 2013, this region had one measurable quake a year. There have been at least 160 “small” quakes since then and two measuring 4.4 this year.
According to Gail Atkinson, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Induced Seismicity Hazards at Ontario’s Western University, “the magnitudes have been increasing every year.”
Before I get onto the federal election, let me say I have never been more depressed about governance in this country.
A recent note from a reader pointed out the atrocious record of the Christy Clark government in erasing emails, losing emails, redacting emails (that’s bureaucratese for blacking out anything that might possibly embarrass the government), throwing sand in the gears for anyone who wants public information and on it goes. What struck me is that this egregiously evil behaviour is buried in scandals in the Health Ministry and the Ministry of Children and Families, the skyrocketing provincial debt since Christy Clark took over, not to mention her look of teenage adoration when dealing with out and out crooks in her LNG giveaways; all while utterly neglecting her duty to protect our homes, coastlines and waters from the inevitable consequences of her LNG pipe dreams.
The extent of her reckless negligence is that it’s hard to concentrate on individual outrages like censorship of public information. Moreover, she is never mildly challenged by the “poodle press” which bury her shenanigans in the recesses of their rags, if they mention them at all, while giving “Position ‘A'” to the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation.
Too bad May couldn’t be PM…
The Federal election is a bankruptcy of real choices. The outstanding candidate by far, and I apologize for damning her with faint praise, is Elizabeth May. It’s a shame that she won’t be prime minister. Far from being just an environmentalist, she has a firm understanding of the history of this country, the geographical distortions and demographic differences, and the sad state of our parliamentary system. She also has a deep love and understanding of our province.
Ms. May has profited from her experience in Parliament and knows that it doesn’t work because of the deliberate maneuverings of Stephen Harper. She recognizes that MPs must have their power and dignity restored and will, win or lose, do her best to do something about it. Any who have heard Elizabeth May speak (indeed just watched the debates where, despite Harper’s constant interruptions, she impressed all) know that she’s an outstanding person who’ll serve us well in whatever role she’s called upon to play.
The Canadian Gestapo
Pipeline protesters are criminalized under the Harper regime (Burnaby Mountain Updates/facebook)
Little need be said about Harper since so much already has been. Surely, the hearing to find out whether or not CSIS and the RCMP illegally tapped the telephones of and spied on environmentalists tells all about Harper and the C-51 mentality of present-day Tories. That this could happen in Canada is horrible enough; that the prime minister approves of this behaviour assures all Canadians that it’s unsafe in Canada to dissent from the establishment opinion without being spied upon by the Canadian Gestapo, and tells us all we need know about Harper. Another four years of his progress towards absolute power is too frightening to contemplate.
Lest you think I exaggerate, remember this – no Conservative MP has any power whatsoever to do anything or say anything on his or her own. The PMO tells them what to say, when to say it, what questions to ask, what speeches to make, what press releases to issue and, of course, how to vote. Any independence is subject to political capital punishment.
Harper: LNG too dangerous for East coast, OK for BC
Tory MPs no longer represent their constituencies and only care about those within them that “vote right”. My MP, John Weston, refuses to deal with uncomfortable questions such as:
This though he was asked by mail and publicly. Just one of many examples.
On our most significant issue, the proposed LNG plant in Squamish, Weston, on orders from Harper, pressured the West Vancouver Council to rescind its opposition, rather than listen to them and take their concerns back to government. They told him to get stuffed.
We are badly handicapped by the absence of a Free Press, including true investigating journalists and dedicated critics as we once had. Let me give you a case in point.
Stephen Harper is stacking The Supreme Court of Canada with right-wingers so that the conservative agenda, which includes violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms whenever necessary, will prevail. This has been largely ignored but independence of the judiciary from political bias goes to the very root of our system.
In 1937, Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the US Supreme Court and all hell broke loose. The issue is still raised when US Supreme Court judges are appointed.
Why was there such a big fuss?
For the same reason there should be one here.
The Court has been set up to be “independent” of the executive and legislative branches – and for a good reason. If most members of the Court are just toadies of the Prime Minister who appointed them, then he can violate the Constitution to his heart’s content, comfortable that his Court won’t interfere.
The entire process of appointing Supreme Court of Canada judges is badly flawed and it’s a cinch for an unscrupulous PM to manoeuvre to enhance his own political agenda. Harper certainly has no desire to change this and, instead, given another four years to appoint more right wingers, he’ll unblushingly do so.
The question is, where are Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Mulcair on this issue? It is a deadly serious one, even though you would never know that reading the Postmedia press or, indeed, the Toronto Globe and Mail.
House of ill repute
What about the disgraceful state of the House of Commons? Does any leader truly intend to give power and dignity back to the MP and thus weaken their own influence? If so, they haven’t shown much inclination thus far.
Justin Trudeau talks a good game and speaks of easing party discipline but that’s partly because he’s running scared of Mr. Mulcair. His record is less than the glittering. For example, he suspended two MPs for alleged misconduct with two female NDP MPs. Given no opportunity to publicly defend themselves, they stand convicted in the public mind and their political careers destroyed without recourse. Does that sound like open government to you?
In Mulcair’s time as leader, not one NDP MP has taken an independent line, such is his ironclad discipline. Does that sound like a man who favours freedom for his MPs?
Grits, NDP weak on pipelines
Mulcair could be clearer – and tougher – on pipelines
I am, frankly, more concerned about the leaders in terms of their policies towards British Columbia.
I need hardly say, then, one of the critical issues to British Columbia is the environment and, in particular, pipelines, LNG plants and the fossil fuel issue in general.
Here is what Mr. Trudeau has to say – and one is reminded of Mackenzie King, when during World War II, he famously said “conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription”.
Trudeau, for his part, has stated his support for pipelines done the “right way that is sustainable, that has community support and buy-in, and that fits into a long-term strategy of not just a sustainable environment but a sustainable economy.”
Now don’t you feel better?
Mulcair isn’t a hell of a lot better. He doesn’t condemn the Kinder Morgan expansion but has denounced the National Energy Board review process, saying an NDP government would “start a new Kinder Morgan assessment based on tougher environmental legislation and a more open public consultation process”. That’s political double talk for “we’ll get rid of the present, obviously fixed process and bring in more subtle, fixed process of our own before approving the pipeline”.
Time to take a stand against LNG in Howe Sound
Citizens fight to protect Howe Sound (Future of Howe Sound Society)
On LNG, I say without hesitation that Howe Sound belongs to all British Columbia, not just those of us who live on it. I spent much of my boyhood there. I learned about the outdoors there. I have never lost my love for this beautiful fjord – the southernmost in our province – and, like so many of my neighbours from North Vancouver to Sechelt and beyond, know how fragile it is.
We’ve seen it restored over the last few decades after industry and a mine closed. I look out and see Orcas back and migratory fish have returned to their old spawning routes. Thanks to a lot of hard work by not just locals but British Columbians all over the province, Howe Sound is Howe Sound again, yet both governments are bent on destroying it for a few pieces of silver.
Everyone knows about the proposed LNG plant for Squamish – everybody, evidently, except Messrs Trudeau and Mulcair. If they do know about it, they’re keeping it to themselves. Harper doesn’t know about it either, but then he he’s always in favour of anything a fossil fuel company does anywhere, no matter how they do it. John Weston, our Tory MP, is as useless as tits on a bull – a glowing example of a Harper Tory who does precisely what he’s told and whose mantra is “the environment is the economy”. God help us!
This issue should to bother the hell out of all of us. Woodfibe LNG is owned by a big time tax-evader and an environmental rapist. Moreover, as readers of this column will know, Howe Sound is demonstrably too narrow for LNG tankers. And both governments support the crook.
Harper has BC on short leash
Christy Clark and Stephen Harper meet with firefighters (BC Govt/Flickr)
I have a theory that I will try out on you.
Remember the HST debacle? As I recall, at the end of that exercise, British Columbia owed Ottawa some billion and a half dollars, more or less.
My suspicion simply is this: Harper and Clark have an understanding that if Christy cooperates with him like a good little girl on fossil fuel issues, especially pipelines and LNG, no one will push for the HST money. That’s why there’s no opposition from her and she hasn’t complained about the phoney National Energy Board. In my theory, these two are hand-in-hand political lovers and will be as long as Christy behaves herself. (Granted, there was some mention back in 2012 of a 5-year plan to repay the HST monies without interest, but we’ve heard nothing of it since, so it does beg the question of what happened on that file).
If I am wrong, and Christy has repaid or is repaying this money, The Common Sense Canadian will say so promptly and prominently and I will withdraw my suspicion.
Whether this theory is correct or not, we British Columbians will have to fight this Woodfibre LNG outrage on our own, for we’ll clearly get no help from any prime minister to come unless by a blessed miracle it’s Elizabeth May.
Thus it would seem that the only thing British Columbians can hope for is a nicer person at Sussex Drive.
There have been complaints about the flawed National Energy Board (NEB) Hearings, on the proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP), from the beginning. Former BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen withdrew last fall, calling the proceedings “a farce and this Board truly a industry captured regulator.” When former ICBC President and CEO Robyn Allan left, last May, she said the panel is “not an impartial referee…the game is rigged.” This morning, another 35 participants left the NEB hearings.
Abandoning ship
Two are representatives of environmental organizations, the other 33 are private individuals.
Peter Wood, from the BC Chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS BC), said he wouldn’t be surprised if more intervenors and commenters leave.
He wanted to stress the positive side of today’s events, “We believe there is more room for an independent evaluation. A made in B.C. process where we have some sense of transparency, where we actually see what is going and the intervenors get a chance to ask the proponents questions. Right now, we are not able to do (this). We also want a process that considers the full scope of the project.”
“Lets talk about Climate Change. Lets talk about the impact the Tar Sands have on Alberta. We consider all of these things part of the whole project.”
Climate change ignored
These were similar to the issues the city of Vancouver raised with the NEB, in February 2014. Around 95% of its economy is “non-resource based.” Vancouver is “a leader in sustainable development,” the city noted.
[quote]The local economy depends on Vancouver’s reputation for sustainability to attract businesses, professionals and other workers…Vancouver has a responsibility for planning and mitigating impacts of severe weather events and rising sea levels…[/quote]
The City of Burnaby had also expressed concerns about the proposed pipeline’s failure to describe “…design elements that incorporate the broader effects of climate change…”
Eoin Madden, from the Wilderness Committee, added that “financial benefits of development of oil sands and oil transportation are front and centre of the TMEP hearings, and that other socioeconomic and environmental impacts are expressly excluded…”
“The fact they have been ignoring Climate impacts is to all of our detriment. Why would we want to lock ourselves into an outdated, dangerous infrastructure when clean and healthy alternatives exist,” said Larissa Stendie, who is not an intervener, but whose organization (Sierra Club BC) has been watching the NEB process closely.
Pipelines through provincial parks
Lorne Craig cartoon
Another concern is that the proposed pipeline route goes through five provincial parks.
“This violates all the values these parks were created for. Why are we even considering that?” asks Wood.
Kinder Morgan was conducting research in some of those parks before the provincial government introduced Bill 4 last March.
Wood said, “The permits Kinder Morgan was operating under were issued before the legislation that authorized the province to do so. So the question is, were new permits issued? We can’t find out that information.”
(This is one of several questions the ECOreport has asked the Ministry of Environment.)
The boundary adjustment process is already at a “very advanced at stage” at Bridal Veil Falls, near Chilliwack, and in the Lac Du Bois Grasslands Protected Area, northwest of Kamloops.
Prioritizing industry over public interest
Madden’s name topped the list of those who left the process today and in a press release he explained, “It’s a sad day for us. The federal government has altered the pipeline approval process so that Canadians no longer have a proper say on these major industrial projects. What we’re left with is a broken system that prioritizes industry over the public interest.”
The 35 departing intervenors and commenters sent the NEB a joint letter of resignation, in which they said:
[quote]“The review has discounted and devalued expert evidence, most specifically the knowledge of the lands and territories the pipeline will pass through, and the likely impact it will have on our waters and salmon. It has under-resourced Nations and Bands, thereby ensuring an unbalanced and ill-informed hearing,” they said in a prepared statement.
“By ignoring the impact the Project could have on our climate, any findings of the review will be fundamentally incomplete. If constructed, the Project will have massive climate change ramifications. The exclusion of any discussion on the climate impacts of the Project from the hearings is a gross failure of public responsibility.”
“The vast majority of concerned citizens, groups and Nations have been shut out of the review. Those lucky enough to secure participation in the review have been deprived of the right to cross-examine Trans Mountain. Participants have repeatedly requested Trans Mountain address a range of issues which Trans Mountain has successfully avoided answering. The review has lost all semblance of a due process.”[/quote]
BC should conduct its own review
They sent the Government of BC a copy of that notice and Wood said he hopes it will initiate a conversation. The province has previously expressed concerns and “has every reason to have a fair say in the process and conduct their own review.” They would shoulder a great deal of risk from the proposed pipeline, “and derive very little benefit.”
As regards the parks, the Minister does not have to allow that project to proceed to the public consultation pored. “If the Minister decides the values for which that park was proposed are inconsistent with those for which the park was created, she has the power to dismiss it outright.”
Allan: govt not protecting public
So far, the province has shown little inclination to have its own environmental assessment.
“One of the major reasons I applied as an intervenor is the serious concern I had that our provincial government was not protecting the public interest,” former ICBC CEO Robyn Allan told the National Observer last month. “If an intervenor does not ask questions, then the intervenor is saying they accept the evidence as provided by the proponent as non-contested.”
At that point, Vancouver had sent in 171 queries, Burnaby 132, and the province 23.
Another of the ECOreport’s as yet unanswered questions to the Ministry is whether BC is willing to withdraw from the NEB process and have its own environmental assessment.
Demonstration planned
Sierra Club BC will soon be sending out an invitation to a creative demonstration at Vancouver’s English Bay Beach: 10:30 AM, Sunday, August 16.
“It will be a theatrical opportunity to discuss and dramatize some of the potential health risks posed by tankers plying those waters, ” said Stendie.
Construction of a private power project on the Ashlu River (Photo: Range Life)
A flash of anger came over me when Ian Jessup of CFAX 1070, Victoria, asked me to come on his show and talk about so-called independent power producers (IPPs), euphemistically referred known as “run of river”.
No, I sure as hell wasn’t mad at Ian – he’s is one of the few bright lights left in radio who is not afraid to do the tough subjects and to call it like it is. I congratulate CFAX for having the balls to do the show.
What angered me was that no one in the mainstream media has touched this subject from the beginning.
IPPs: a shockingly bad policy for ratepayers, environment
When Gordon Campbell, in 2002, changed the energy policy of the Province, he made it unlawful for BC Hydro to create any more power, except through Site “C” – which had already long been on the books –and decreed that all new power would come from private producers. This led to the most extraordinary results that one gasps when one thinks that the Liberals got away with this without a scratch.
The finance minister of the day, Colin Hansen, published a piece on the Internet outlining all of the benefits of “run of river”, every one of which was an outright falsehood, which I stated and demonstrated publicly, many times. The private companies have ruined the rivers, destroyedfish runs, wiped out much habitat, thus depriving wildlife of their food source, and depleted the water levels dangerously.
If environmental matters don’t concern you, how about this?
BC Hydro has been compelled to buy all the power produced by IPP’s, whether they need it or not, at over 3 times what it would cost them to buy it on the open market and many times more their own cost to produce it. This ruinous policy, uncriticized by the media, is bankrupting the power company you own that used to supply hundreds of millions of dollars yearly to the Treasury.
Can you imagine what the Vancouver Sun and Province, in particular Vaughn Palmer, would have said if this had been the NDP?
The sad part of that question is that timely, tough questions might have stopped the policy in its tracks or at least stopped it from increasing once the damage became obvious.
Getting away with murder
This is not by any means the only failing of the mainstream media. In a broad sense, this Liberal Campbell/Clarkgovernment has got away with blue murder.
Not only have they gotten away with murder, the Postmedia papers, the Vancouver Sun and Province, have done virtually nothing to criticize them from the beginning. There is some criticism in the columns but it is usually muted and confined to one narrow aspect of the issue. This free ridehas been even more egregious under Christy Clark.
When was the last time you said, “Hey, Honey, you should see this Sun (or Province) article! They really give Christy (or the Liberals) shit! Palmer/Smyth is brilliant!”?
And how often did you say that when the NDP were in power?
Goverment in bed with shady folks for LNG
Embattled Malaysian PM Razak and PM Harper (AP/Lai Seng Sin)
It’s the same with the proposed Woodfibre LNG plant. The owner, Sukanto Tanoto, is, not to put too fine a point on it, a crook plus an environmental catastrophe – facts that somehow have escaped the local media’s attention.
One would have thought that apart from everything else, the management of WFLNG, being the excrement of Enron, would have itself been the matter of considerable journalistic investigation.
One can understand how Clark and her inarticulate henchman Coleman wouldn’t care, considering they’re as dumb as a sack full of hammers, but whatever Postmedia is,it’s not stupid. Are they saying to us that the fact that the owners of our proposed partners are criminals doesn’t matter?
LNG tankers too dangerous for Howe Sound, Fraser
We have demonstrated in this paper that Howe Sound and the Fraser River are far too narrow, by acceptedinternational standards – indeed, by rules now the law in the US – for LNG tanker traffic. Now, in days of yore, had this been an NDP government, you could be sure that Palmer and Smith would’ve been all over this and the minister involved would’ve had his political life in serious jeopardy. Today, from the mainstream media, zilch!
Is not this flagrant favouritism of no interest to Vancouver papers, especially the one that bills itself as “Seriously Westcoast …”?
Media’s double standard for Liberals, NDP
The Ministry of Children and Families has fallen not only into disarray but into such a state that our children are actually being seriously damaged. Has the minister, roundly criticized by the courts for her management, or more accurately lack of it, been put under the slightest pressure by the mainstream media to resign?
Of course, no one has to resign under the Liberals, not even a premier who gets jailed for drunken-driving, but you would surely think that Postmedia, especially given their longevity, would be front and centre reminding the government of parliamentary tradition. They sure were good at that in the NDP years!
Let me pause here for a moment to make this point: The NDP years were pathetic. By and large it was probably the worst government, if not BC history, certainly in living memory. The criticism levelled at them in those days by the media was more than justified. My point is that the Campbell/Clark Liberals are not really a hell of a lot better.
Credit where credit is due, Vaughn Palmer and Mike Smyth have covered the health scandal reasonably well, though it’s hard to conceive that they could have avoided this issue, what with admitted illegal firings and a suicide. Still, they have covered it and pulled few punches.
I think readers will know that I could go on and on. I would rather ask this question: Why is this so? Why is the mainstream media silent on these major issues, indeed scandals? Where has tough radio gone?
Media and industry partner up
Most of us can remember the NDP days and the preceding ones of Bill Vander Zalm and the day-after-day hell given them by the media, as if it were yesterday.
This was justified. Not in every case and to the extent it took place but, in the event, more than justified by the revelations of utter incompetence in those governments. Those of us who remember that are bound to ask the question, why is the Liberal government exempt from the same treatment?
UntilI uncovered the fact that the Province – thus the Sun and the National Post by extension of law as well – are partners with Resource Works, an out-and-out tireless shill for Woodfibre LNG, while learning that Postmedia virtually supports the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) uncritically, I would not have dared ask this question.
Has Postmedia got some arrangement whereby favourite advertisers are guaranteed good treatment in their newspapers? It has been suggested – and not denied – that the Province has a “backscratching” arrangement with Resource Works, otherwise why would a newspaper take formal sides in a public dispute? I don’t ever recall that happening before.
I acknowledge that were it not for the Resource Works issue and the Postmedia-CAPP matter, this could be regarded as a most irresponsible question. But given the fact that these matters have not been explained, surely it’s a reasonable question to ask.
LNG issues ignored
Let’s just take the LNG issue, bearing in mind the Province’s partnership with Resource Works. When was the last time you saw a serious investigation of LNG, especially the “fracking” that would supply the industry, their contribution to global warming, the dangers involved, and the tanker traffic issue, raised here and, I might add, The Globe & Mail?
When have you seen in our media any discussion, much less a serious one,about the integrity of the ownership of the LNG companies we’re going to be partners with?
When was the last time you saw any discussion, much less a serious one, about the permitted width of channels and rivers for LNG tankers?
When was the last time you saw any discussion in the mainstream media about the plethora of tankers which will come from proposed pipeline expansions and LNG plants?
Have you seen any discussion about the obvious bias of government environmental commissions, including the National Energy Board, in either of the Postmedia papers? Bear in mind that tougher and fairly-enforced rules are not in the interest of fossil fuel companies. An energy expert who has headed up three public power companies and another who was President of ICBC resign from the NEB hearings into Kinder Morgan, yet where the hell are the once-vaunted media critics?
I have already mentioned the indefensible indifference of the media press to the IPP scandal, with its consequent environmental catastrophe and bankrupting of BC Hydro.
I cannot and do not say that there is some sort of arrangement, either formal or nudge-nudge-wink-wink, between the mainstream media and their advertisers – however, I can say this:All of the above and much more sure as hell raise questions that the media must answer.
Many long years ago, there was a lawsuit in England where a barrel of flour rolled out of a second-story window and flattened a passerby. The flour company claimed that the victim could not prove its negligence.
The learned judges, however, stated that there are some circumstances where there is no other obvious explanation but negligence and that they onus is on people with barrels of flour to explain why one rolled out a window. This is called Res Ipsa Loquitur – “the thing speaks for itself”.
Under the circumstances, are the media in British Columbia not subject to Res Ipsa Loquitur and obliged to defend themselves?
It was an unwelcome surprise on the eve of BC Day for critics of open net pen salmon farms: the Liberal government’s quiet doling out of four new tenures to the big three Norwegian aquaculture giants – Marine Harvest, Cermaq and Grieg Seafoods.
While some local First Nations are partners in the deal, others further upstream have openly criticized the move to open new farms in the wake of the largely-ignored Cohen Commission and concerns about the impact of open net pens on wild salmon. A June 1 letter signed by a coalition of 13 Fraser River chiefs implored the BC government to heed Justice Cohen’s findings and refrain from issuing new tenures:
[quote]Given the mounting evidence that fish farms on wild salmon migration routes are a threat to our wild salmon, we are writing you to inform you that the Province of BC must not expand existing farms, offer new licenses of occupation or renew fish farm leases without our consent.[/quote]
Meanwhile, a public petition led by independent salmon biologist Alexandra Morton has garnered over 110,000 signatures calling on Premier Christy Clark not to permit any new farms.
First Nations divided on new farms
Despite the strong opposition to the plan, a July 31 media advisory announced that the BC government is following up the recent issuance of federal aquaculture licences with corresponding tenures under the Land Act for two farms near Hope Island, off northern Vancouver Island, one near Tofino, and another in the Broughton Archipelago’s Clio Channel. The two Hope Island tenures went to Marine Harvest, to be operated in partnership with the local Tlatlasikwala First Nation, while Grieg Seafood BC – which has an impact-benefit agreement with the Tlowitsis First Nation – picked up the Clio Channel site, east of Port McNeil. Finally, Cermaq got a new Clayoquot Sound site near Flores Island, where the company has an impact-benefit agreement with the Ahousaht First Nation.
The government explained its role in sanctioning new farms as follows:
[quote]The B.C. government, in its role as landlord, issues Crown land tenures in the form of leases or licences of occupation that allow businesses to operate on provincial Crown land, including water lots and any related activities on shore to ensure any potential impacts on other leases can be managed. As part of the tenure application review process, other agencies, First Nations, local governments and the public are consulted.[/quote]
And yet, many First Nations up the Fraser River clearly feel that they too should be consulted, as many fish affected by diseases and sea lice in the waters off Vancouver Island ultimately make their way through other territories upstream.
“Wild salmon that we have title and rights to are currently being exposed to untreated farmed salmon effluent throughout their migration routes along coastal British Columbia, ” the chiefs noted in their June letter. “Our fishers have witnessed too many pre-spawn deaths, salmon discolored with open sores, too weak to swim upstream and escaped farmed Atlantic salmon.”
BC missing boat on sustainable alternatives
A Kuterra employee shows off one of its land-raised fish (Kuterra.com)
For her part, Morton remains dismayed by the what she sees as the same old pattern or government favouring foreign industry over local voices. “Clearly, there’s nothing people can say anymore to stop this industry – not science, not local industry, not chiefs,” Morton said on the phone from the Broughton Archipelago.
“It’s a shame because BC is well-placed to be a global leader in closed-containment salmon farming,” she added, referencing the land-based Kuterra project – a partnership involving the ‘Namgis First Nation of Alert Bay. “Even the Norwegian government is starting to invest millions to develop closed-containment, amidst continued challenges to the ocean-based open net pen industry, such as algae blooms, high water temperatures and disease.”
To make matters worse, says Morton, these new tenures are long-term – up to nine years each – instead of the old method whereby they had to be renewed by the government on an annual basis. That means these communities and those affected upstream will face the consequences of these approvals for years to come.
Shrimp fishermen turned down $260,000 payoff
Another group negatively impacted by one of the new farms – the Clio Channel tenure – is local wild shrimp fishermen. Ten of them were each recently offered a $20,000 payoff by Grieg to go along with the new net pen installation – plus $60,000 to the their collective organization. All of them said, “No,” yet the farm is going ahead regardless.
As Chritopher Pollon explained in his Tyee piece that broke news of the letter:
[quote]The fishermen are opposed to the farms because the two proposed sites occupy some of the best harvesting grounds in the region for wild side-stripe and pink shrimp, which are caught by bottom trawling along a soft-bottomed, underwater prairie unique to the upper reaches of the Channel. It’s also an important harvesting area for spot prawns, an increasingly lucrative “foodie” commodity in B.C. and beyond that are sustainably caught in traps.[/quote]
These shrimp fishermen may not reel in the kind of revenues that a million-fish net pen operation does, but at least they are local businesspeople who supply an in-demand product to BC restaurants and tables, notes Morton.
“What a way to celebrate BC Day,” she quips. “Give away more farms to Norwegian companies who take the money out of our economy and put it in the pockets of their foreign shareholders.”
I find myself spending more time than I would like on Resource Works, the invention of The BC Business Council, that blindly supports approval of Woodfibre LNG in Squamish.
To follow on last week’s column, where we learned that Resource Works’ website contained the names of two “partners” which stoutly deny they’d ever been such.
Well, I have another for you, this week.
BCIT’s name used without knowledge
BCIT’s logo on Resource Works’ “Partnerships” page as of last week. BCIT has since been removed and the name of the page changed to “Partnerships & Sponsorships”
I was alarmed to read that the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) was also listed as a partner. What, I asked myself, was this much-admired academic institution doing in the middle of this dispute in our communities?
Well, it turned out to be a hell of a good question because they advised me that they were not a partner, never have been, and had demanded that this entry be eradicated. I note that this has since happened and that their president, Kathy Kinloch, is no longer on RW’s Board of Directors (though, as of this writing, she is still listed as such on RW’s website).
I wondered, with more of these revelations to come, what RW would do now?
Well, get this for shysterism non pareil!
In the past week they have changed “Partners” to “Partners & Sponsorships”, noting, “We’re proud to work with a diverse range of partners, and to help sponsor exciting initiatives”. Now, anyone RW declares that they support is automatically thrown in this new category and there is no way anyone reading the “About” section of their website can tell which is which – the obvious hope being that the company is taken to be a partner!
All RW need do if it wants to have a big name appear to support them is write a letter to said group telling them how much RW supports whatever it is they do!
My God, the BC Business Council, former attorneys-general Bud Smith and Geoff Plant and ex-Premier Dan Miller (each advisors or board members) have stooped to this sleazy slight-of-hand!
Come on Mr. Stewart Muir (Executive Director), Iknow that the complete truth is a difficult concept for a newspaperman, especially an editor, but give it a try and split that list in two so that the public can tell who is a partner and who is not. It will only hurt for a little bit!
A dishonest broker
My involvement with Resource Works started a couple of months ago when I read their Mission Statement. I could not believe that educated, rational, and honourable members of the business and a labour union communities could write tripe like this:
[quote]Resource Works is a non-profit society, open to participation by all British Columbians, to help bring fact-based information to the public discourse about the natural resource sector and its role in BC’s future.
We bring people together for a respectful, fact-based dialogue on responsible resource development in British Columbia.[/quote]
Noble sentiments if they were remotely true. In fact, RW, far from being some sort of honest broker, by any objective standard, uncritically supports Woodfibre LNG.
This is a free country, of course, and while I profoundly disagree with their position, I accept their right to present it – as long as it’s done honestly and candidly, words with which RW seems to have a great deal of difficulty.
First of all, in their presentation A Citizen’s Guide To LNG: Sea To Sky Country Edition, a booklet of 58 pages, they uncritically present the case for Woodfibre LNG using the company’s own propaganda as fact! Don’t take my word for it – read it for yourself.
Then we get into the faked interview with acknowledged LNG tanker safety expert Dr. Michael Hightower, making out that Dr. Hightower supported tanker traffic in Howe Sound whereas he’d never addressed Howe Sound.Moreover, the measurements he and Sandia Laboratories recommended made it clear that Howe Sound is utterly unsuitable for tanker traffic. (Alongside you’ll see these measurements, which are the law in the United States, applied to a chart of Howe Sound – giving you the true picture.)
Let’s move to the legal case brought by the WildernessCommittee and The Sierra Club against Encana as described by RW in this document thusly:
“When a ruling came down in late 2014 it showed that the regulatory processes in place, and industry compliance with them, are sound and well managed.
“In an overwhelming endorsement of current practices in water protection, justice Fitzpatrick concluded that when it comes to the regulation of industries water usage, British Columbia is in good shape with a ‘justifiable transparent and intelligible framework for the regulation of short term water use.'”
When I, a lawyer by trade, read this, I was suspicious. I couldn’t believe that Madam Justice Fitzpatrick would offer this effusive praise so I obtained a copy of the judgment, which you can easily do, and found that the judge not only said nothing of the sort but made it plain that she was only deciding whether or not section 8 of the Water Act was constitutional.
58 pages of barnyard droppings by an organization professing to be even-handed!
Woodfibre’s shady owner
As you may have noticed, in all the thousands of words published by RW, there’s not been one peep about the ownership of Woodfibre LNG. Wouldn’t you have expected voluminous praise of his acumen, experience, honourable reputation and, of course, commitment to the environment?
Little wonder this has not been forthcoming!
The owner, Sukanto Tanoto, is a crook* who has been found guilty of substantial tax evasion, paid over $200 million fine and is well-known around the world as having destroyed tropical jungles and having no regard for environmental concerns if there’s a buck to be made. I recommend you do some research on him.
The company itself is loaded with former Enron employees and its structure is such that it would be duck soup for a first-year law student to siphon off all taxes and royalties and send them off to Singapore where there’s no tax on LNG. I don’t say that will happen, just that it would be easy to do and Tanoto has done it before.
The obvious question: Why has Resource Works never addressed the question of the ownership of Woodfibre LNG? Do they endorse the sort of behaviour its owner has displayed? Are they not concerned that this company has never built an LNG plant before? Before advising the public that we should support this outfit, has RW done any “due diligence” whatsoever? If so, tell us about it.
Unanswered questions
In fact, one of the biggest unanswered questions by Resource Works and Premier Clark is why on earth would they invite lawbreakers into our communities when we have enough of our own?
A second major question is why Resource Works has never dealt with the issue of the width of Howe Sound, other than by childish misrepresentations?
The mantra of RW and executives of Woodfibre LNG is that LNG tanker traffic has a 50 year safety record, therefore we have nothing to worry about.
This is the sort of delicious half-truth that somehownumbs the mind when it should inspire skepticism. The fact is that this LNG Tanker record is for the high seas and not narrow passages like Howe Sound or the Fraser River!
In fact, narrow passages have inspired a good deal ofstudy.
Hazard zone
Let’s return to Dr. Hightower and the internationally respected Sandia Laboratories, which have set the standards that are law in the United States. Bear in mind that the US is a capitalistic society that doesn’t much like restrictive rules and regulations.
Sandia National Laboratories defines for the US Department of Energy three Hazard Zones (also called “Zones of Concern”) surrounding LNG carriers. The largest Zone is 2.2 miles/3,500 meters around the vessel, indicating that LNG ports and tankers must be located at least that distance from civilians. Some world-recognized LNG hazard experts, such as Dr. Jerry Havens (University of Arkansas; former Coast Guard LNG vapor hazard researcher), indicate that three miles or more is a more realistic Hazard Zone distance.
When Dr. Eoin Finn superimposed the measurements on a chart, it was clear that most of Howe Sound is within the Hazard Zone and above is a copy of that chart.
In short, by internationally accepted standards, there’s no way any LNG tankers would be permitted to proceed from Squamish to the ocean.
The question then becomes, why are Resource Works and their client Woodfibre LNG unwilling to address this question?
The only assumption a reasonable person can come to isbecause they can’t.
A question of credibility
My final question concerns credibility.
Why does Resource Works not tell the truth? Why do they consistently play word games? Why do they use little tricks as when suddenly caught out, changing “Partners” to the trick phrase “We are proud to work with a diverse range of partners and to help sponsor exciting initiatives” which, apart from all else, doesn’t distinguish between the two, so that the reader has no way of knowing which category the company falls into?
Why did they fake a TV interview and distort evidence?
Why did they take a judge’s remarks out of context? Why do they avoid discussion of fracking? Why do they not deal with the Eoin Finn chart which clearly shows that LNG tankers in Howe Sound are, from a safety point of view, completely out of the question?
Why don’t they talk about ownership and, indeed, management shortcomings? And the fact that Woodfibre LNG have never built an LNG plant before?
In sum, if they truly want, as they so piously state, to help bring fact-based information to the public discourse about the natural resource sector…why do they so carefully avoid dealing with any of the serious questions?
A fair conclusion is that they avoid these questions because the answers would destroy their ambition to visit an LNG plant on Howe Sound, which, in any civilized a jurisdiction, would be a park.
*Merriam Webster: a person who engages in fraudulent or criminal practices
Leaders like the NDP’s Tom Mulcair are looking West (Laurel L. Russwurm / Flickr)
Republished from the ECOreport
The race is on. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has asked the Governor General to dissolve Parliament early, to launch what is expected to be the most expensive election in Canadian history. “Upwards of $700 million” could be spent on this campaign and a large chunk of the contributions to all parties will be claimed as tax deductions. According to Dr. Maxwell Cameron, from UBC’s Department of Political Science, BC may determine the outcome.
Battleground BC
“There are many battleground ridings in British Columbia. We have 42 seats, due to the redistricting, and many of those seats are in play. I don’t think the NDP or the Conservatives can hope to put together any sort of majority without substantial support in BC,” said Cameron.
Polls can be deceptive, “as they do not reflect how support is distributed across ridings,” but Cameron believes both the NDP and Liberals are picking up support. The NDP could win between 22 and 25 seats. The Liberals will probably do better than in 2011 (when they won 2 seats). The Greens “might pick up one (additional) seat, but I will be a bit surprised if they get more than that.”
Pipelines could swing votes
The recent bunker diesel spill in Vancouver’s English Bay was a wake-up call for citizens (Vancouver Aquarium)
“The pipeline issue is potentially a significant one, as there is a lot of opposition along the Coast and the Lower Mainland as well. Fears of tankers and spills have been very much at the front of voters minds,” said Cameron.
“It can be very disempowering (for communities) to be told this is what is going to happen and you don’t really have any say in the matter. I think the procedures we have in place, for doing the consultation, the stakeholder negotiations, environmental assessments etc are flawed. ”
[quote]The recent bunker fuel spill in Vancouver drew attention to the weakness of our response. Frankly when you close the Coast Guard station off Kitsilano (as the Conservative government did) and then you can’t respond to a spill, it looks like there is a responsibility for that.
On the other hand, this is a resource-dependent province, big parts of the province depend on timber, mining, oil and gas. There are going to be people who argue we need growth through exploitation of natural resources and those voters are more likely to go to the Conservatives.[/quote]
Slow economy hurts Harper
Canada appears to be heading into a recession, and the Conservatives are expected to campaign on their “record of sound fiscal management.” Expect Harper to say, “now is not the time to change.”
In reality, under the Conservatives economic “growth has been slow, slower than under any PM of recent memory. This is not all Harper’s fault, but he hasn’t made (the necessary) improvements to foster productivity and innovation.”
Even during times of prosperity, the benefits have primarily gone to the wealthy. Wages “have flatlined” for most Canadians, and unemployment has increased.
This is a trend that goes back to the 1980’s, with the adoption of international agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement and cutbacks to public spending. It has continued under Harper.
Minority government a real possibility
Cameron added it is possible that neither the NDP or Conservatives will get a majority. “All of the current projections have us going into a minority government.” In that case, we could be going back to the polls again in 18 months.
Third Party Advertising laws during a federal election can be a challenge to navigate
Given that we could be going into a federal election here in Canada as early as this weekend (sigh) and I have a lot of folks asking me about the rules and regulations around election advertising by third parties, I thought I would share the most important points for those interested in knowing more about the regulations.
To be clear, I am not a lawyer, just a guy who can’t help but stick his nose in elections. I actually hope this summary sparks a few more people to get involved as third parties in this election.
What I am doing in this post is pulling verbatim the most important points, to provide an overview and a general understanding. If you are planning on advertising as a third party during the election, I would suggest reading the entire Elections Canada handbook on the rules and regulations and also consult a lawyer familiar with the area.
Do social media and websites count?
Off the top and before we get into too many details, the one big question I am asked is whether a website or posting content on Twitter and Facebook is considered election advertising and the answer to that question is clearly NO.
Messages sent or posted for free on social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook
Messages sent by e-mail or through other messaging services (including texts sent through a cellular or mobile network)
Content posted on the third party’s website
Elections Canada does provide a clear scenario that is related to many of the questions I am getting about online election advertising – the following is not considered an election advertising expense:
[quote]During the election, the third party sets up a website to promote a registered party. Even though there are costs to produce and host websites, these are not election advertising expenses.[/quote]
[quote]Election messages communicated over the Internet are election advertising only if they have, or would normally have, a placement cost (and meet all the other requirements for election advertising).[/quote]
Again though, if you’re unsure, consult your friendly neighbourhood elections lawyer. Further down in this post are a few more details on what is considered an eligible advertising expense.
“For the purposes of election advertising, third party means a person or a group other than a candidate, registered party, or electoral district association of a registered party.”
And:
[quote]A third party may incur election advertising expenses totalling $500 or more in relation to a general election or a by-election if the third party is:
an individual who is a Canadian citizen, a permanent resident, or resides in Canada
a corporation, if it carries on business in Canada
a group, if the person responsible for the group is a Canadian citizen, a permanent resident, or resides in Canada[/quote]
“A person or group must register as a third party immediately after incurring election advertising expenses totalling $500 or more.”
And, “Registration cannot take place before the election is called. The person or group must apply for registration by submitting the completed and signed General Form – Third Party to Elections Canada.”
Here is the PDF form you need to fill out and send back to Elections Canada: General Form-Third Party.
[On a personal note, this is a free and easy process to do early in the election cycle and a pain once you get going and want to advertise.]
“A third party must appoint a financial agent before applying for registration. In addition, a third party has to appoint an auditor if it incurs election advertising expenses totalling $5,000 or more.”
And:
[quote]Who can become a financial agent of a third party?
an individual who is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada
Who is not eligible to act as a financial agent?
a candidate or official agent of a candidate
a chief agent or registered agent of a registered party
an election officer or a member of the staff of a returning officer
an individual who is not a Canadian citizen or permanent resident of Canada[/quote]
“The third party must appoint an auditor if it incurs election advertising expenses totalling $5,000 or more. This may become necessary before or after registration.”
And:
[quote]Who can become an auditor of a third party?
a person who is a member in good standing of a corporation, an association or an institute of provincially incorporated professional accountants
a partnership of which every partner is a member in good standing of a corporation, an association or an institute of provincially incorporated professional accountants
provincially incorporated professional accounting designations include: Chartered Professional Accountant (CPA), Chartered Accountant (CA), Certified General Accountant (CGA) or Certified Management Accountant (CMA).
Who is not eligible to be an auditor?
the third party’s financial agent
a person who signed the third party’s application for registration
an election officer
a candidate or official agent of a candidate
the chief agent of a registered party or an eligible party
“Individuals who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada, and businesses or other organizations that operate in Canada, can make contributions to a third party for election advertising purposes.”
[quote]The third party is prohibited from using a contribution made for election advertising purposes if it does not know the name and address of the contributor, or if it is unable to determine to which contributor class the contributor belongs.
The third party cannot use a contribution made for election advertising purposes if the contribution is from:
a person who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada
a corporation or association that does not carry on business in Canada
a trade union that does not hold bargaining rights for employees in Canada
“Election advertising is the transmission to the public by any means during an election period of an advertising message that promotes or opposes a registered party or the election of a candidate, including one that takes a position on an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated.”
[Personal note: I find this definition vague and would recommend you get clarity from a lawyer if you are unsure whether your activities qualify as election advertising]
the transmission to the public of an editorial, a debate, a speech, an interview, a column, a letter, a commentary, or news
the distribution of a book, or the promotion of the sale of a book, for no less than its commercial value, if the book was planned to be made available to the public regardless of whether there was to be an election
the transmission of a document directly by a person or a group to their members, employees or shareholders, as the case may be
the transmission by an individual, on a non-commercial basis on the Internet, of that individual’s personal political views
“The Canada Elections Act requires that a third party identify itself in any election advertising and indicate that it has authorized the advertising. This authorization has to be in or on the message. Failure to do so is an offence.
The following wording is suggested: “Authorized by the <name of the third party>.”
“The third party election advertising expenses limit for a 37-day general election period called between April 1, 2015 and March 31, 2016 is:
$205,800.00 in total
$4,116.00 in total in a given electoral district”
Note though that if the election is called earlier, there is some math to do, because you will be able to spend more money:
“If an election period is longer than 37 days, the election advertising expenses limit at the national and electoral district level increases as follows:
the initial limit is divided by 37
the result is multiplied by (number of days in the election period–37)”
“For contributions over $200 made for election advertising purposes in the period beginning six months before the election was called and ending on election day, the contributor’s name, address and class, and the amount and date of the contribution, have to be reported.”
And:
[quote]For reporting purposes, the Canada Elections Act identifies the following classes of contributors:
individuals
businesses
commercial organizations
governments
trade unions
corporations without share capital other than trade unions
unincorporated organizations or associations other than trade unions[/quote]
There are three deadlines you need to know about and you can go to the section on reporting here, in general though they are (summed up in my own words):
when you think you’re going to spend more than $500 you need to register right away
if any of the info on your original registration changes then you need to submit a new form right away
within four months after election day you need to submit a final Third Party Election Advertising Report
Here’s all the contact information you need for Elections Canada and also below (because I am just so darn helpful) is another link to the PDF document you need to fill out if you’re going to register as a third party in the 2015 Canadian federal election:
Key Resource Works members (clockwise from top left): Teck’s Doug Horswill, ex-Vancouver Sun editor Stewart Muir, former A-G Geoff Plant, and Lyn Anglin of Geoscience BC
Desperate people do desperate things.
Today I want to talk about Resource Works, the shillsfor Woodfibre LNG, proposed for Squamish at the head of Howe Sound – BC’s beautiful and southernmost fjord.
I’m part of a large group opposed to this plant. Let me, however, make this abundantly clear: Our opposition, contrary to what you may read and hear in the media, has nothing to do with NIMBYism. Our concern is LNG tanker traffic which, if allowed in Howe Sound, would be in direct contravention of minimum exclusion zone requirements and other safety operating criteria as generally recognized worldwide and by the law in the United States.
Pushing the limit
Courtesy of Eoin Finn
These danger zones have been superimposed on the chart of Howe Sound to the right (click on the chart to see in greater detail).
Resource Works presents itself as independent and only desirous of establishing a fair dialogue. This rubbish demonstrates their credibility deficit which will become clear.
For, if you read their Mission Statement, you’ll see a petition next to it under the title “BC NEEDS LNG”, asking you to sign. There is no need to elaborate – this outfit has made no secret of the fact that it supports the WLNG plant fully and opposes our group.
On that last point, they allege that our organization of homeowners and residents, which raises its meagre funds through fundraisers in local community halls, is well-funded while they, in fact, have the entire business community the British Columbia behind them. We’re not complaining – those odds are perfect as far as we are concerned.
Making it up as they go
To the meat of the matter – Resource Works lies, cheats and dissembles without batting an eyelash. I don’t accuse any particular person, however obviously somebody in Resource Works is making these things up and doing these unethical and, indeed, unlawful things. My case…so far.
A few weeks ago, in an article here unchallenged by Resource Works, I demonstrated that they had faked a TV interview with an American expert on tanker traffic, Dr. Michael Hightower of Sandia Laboritories in New Mexico, and had him saying precisely the opposite of what he had in fact concluded. At least Resource Works were embarrassed enough to quickly withdraw that from their propaganda when they were caught out but the fact remains that this was done and proved to be done – something you wouldn’t think even stocks and bonds salesmen would do.
At the same time, in a report found on their website, Resource Works quoted a judge as extolling the virtues of BC laws relative to Natural Gas, whereas Justice Fitzpatrick had said nothing of the sort and had gone out of her way to say that she was not commenting upon this matter. A glance at the judgment, which is easily available, will demonstrate that.
Forging ahead
A composite of Resource Works’ “Partner” page, showing two groups who didn’t authorize their names and logos to be used
Now we have a new wrinkle and let me tell you how I discovered it.
I could not believe my eyes! I have a strong relationship with that foundation, having received their highest honour, the Bruce Hutchison Lifetime Achievement Award. Moreover, Jack Webster arranged for me to go into radio in the first place back in 1980 and was my mentor. There is no way on God’s earth that Jack would have taken sides in a dispute like this, let alone on the side of big industry, against the “little people” he always went to bat for.
I immediately wrote to the Foundation expressing my dismay that it would get in the midst of a controversy in our community, only to find out by return mail that they knew nothing about it!
Resource Works, without any discussion, much less permission from the Webster Foundation, included them as a partner and forged* their logo on top of the statement!
The Webster Foundation, which prides itself on independence and support of journalism without political or other affiliation, was horrified at what had happened and demanded that their name be removed forthwith.
I then wrote three or four other Partners and within the hour got a reply from the head of the nationally well-known Macdonald-Laurier Institute, stating bluntly that they had never heard of their being a Partner of Resource Works! This was news, and not welcome news to them! Moreover, they avoid controversies of this sort like the plague.
Apparently, one of their experts had given Resource Works some paid advice somewhere along the line from which Resource Works concluded that made Macdonald-Laurier a Partner! Again they forged* the Macdonald-Laurier Institute’s logo on their Mission Statement. (I’m waiting for three other replies, two of them very small outfits but one of the BC Institute of Technology and I would be surprised indeed if the same results were not forthcoming.)
I have to wonder if the former Attorney General Bud Smith knows anything about this? What about former AG Geoff Plant? How about former Premier Dan Miller? What about the BC Business Council and their well known President and CEO, Greg D’Avignon? They’re helping finance this bunch – does Mr D’Avignon know about these shenanigans?
What about premier Christy Clark who has, or at least at the time of its inception, had close personal relations with the management of Resource Works?
Our group fully expects that WLNG will make its case as strongly as possible and we understand the right of Resource Works to support them with all of the resources at their command.
What we don’t expect is that we will have to face constant falsehoods, dissembling, and, indeed, chicanery in building a list of partners.
How can we trust them?
Surely what this does is call into question their entire campaign! For, if Resource Works can’t be honest in their basic presentation of themselves and of what they are doing, how can we trust a word they ever say?
This is the sort of distortion we have come to expect. In fact it is the constant mantra of Byng Giraud, WLNG Vice-President. The statistics they use relate to tanker traffic on the high seas, not in harbours, fjords and rivers! One only has to read GCaptain each day to see how many large tankers, including LNG tankers, are colliding, running aground, and hitting things in waters similar to the Fraser River and Howe Sound almost on a daily basis. The Bosphorus, not unlike Howe Sound, is a particular problem.
While we’re concerned that the tanker traffic be safe everywhere, our principal concern is with Howe Sound, the Fraser River and with many others includingVancouver Harbour, the Salish Sea, the Straits of Juan De Fuca and the BC coast in general. Statistically, there must be accidents – we don’t want them to happen in these waters, bringing inevitable tragedies.
*The Criminal Code of Canada defines Forgery as:
(2) Making a false document includes
(a) altering a genuine document in any material part;
(b) making a material addition to a genuine document or adding to it a false date, attestation, seal or other thing that is material; or
(c) making a material alteration in a genuine document by erasure, obliteration, removal or in any other way.
This issue (C – 51) has legs. Anytime a government proposes legislation that will adversely affect citizens’ rights, it better be done quickly – it’s not the kind of issue you want the public to think about. This is what’s happening, much abetted by Justin Trudeau’s amazing lack of backbone and political inexperience. His support of C-51 showed that he doesn’t understand the fickleness of the crowds’ first reaction, as demonstrated on the eve of WWI, when huge crowds in European capitals were delirious with joy. A little time and unpleasantness can change a massively favourable public opinion into quite the opposite.
The Liberals have, in my view, all but killed their chances with their support of C-51. To compromise on a bill on citizens’ rights carries with it a pretty strong inference of weakness. He has done very little, if anything, since to change that impression. An interesting sidebar issue comes from the Tory campaign, where they’ve been portraying Trudeau as “too young”. They may be right but what they’re also telling people, “if you think it’s time for a change, as many Canadians do, why the answer is Mr. Mulcair.” Be careful what you ask for.
Mulcair continues to surprise
Tom Mulcair is building momentum
The NDP and Tom Mulcair continue to do much better than traditional prognosticators would have thought, for a number of reasons. Mulcair has done a very good job, stick-handling out of issues such as once having been a Liberal and is now seen asattractive, if not quite yet charismatic.
Mulcair has been helped by the NDP in Alberta who, to the surprise of many, have made it look perfectly natural for an NDP government in the bluest of all provinces. Premier Notley has not only proved that the world doesn’t end if the Tories are out in Alberta but shown a deft political hand at dealing with problems that any new government would have in Alberta, particularly one of the left. There has not been an obvious surge of stagecoaches with panicked refugees flocking into British Columbia and, indeed, after the usual flurry of predicted catastrophe, the business community are mollified, if not satisfied.
Quebec the Wildcard
Politicians hate uncertainties and one has sprung up for Mulcair in Quebec with the return of Gilles Duceppe as the Bloc Quebecois leader. The separatists have always had a spot at Quebec’s political table and it’s difficult to assess just how much influence Duceppe will have, remembering that BQ lost it’s power to the NDP.Inaddition to usual politics, there is a “revenge” factor here.
The Green party has not maintained the upswing they were on last spring. Elizabeth May has remained very popular, still drawing huge crowds. I don’t believe her little private cocktail party at the Ottawa press banquet left any problems, although who knows about that sort of thing.
What did happen is that the Greens finally ran into some opposition over territory they felt that they had successfully staked out. This was largely because Mr.Mulcair, having moved his party much to the centre, became able to make his pitch for environmental matters and things of that nature which hitherto was seen as the private preserve of the Greens.
Tories still in it
In summary, the Tories are slightly improved mostly because of the slippage of the Liberals. The Liberals have lost considerable ground, mostly picked up by the NDP. The NDP, usually a flash in the pan at best in federal elections, is a very real prospect and has the advantage of a leader gaining in popularity just as most are losing theirs.
The Greens remain the Greens. I thought a couple of months ago that they were rolling towards a big-time upset, but events have caused me to pull back at least for the moment.
