BC’s Glacier National Park has seen decreasing snowpacks in recent years (Sesivany/Jiri Eischmann/Wikipedia)
How long can you go without water? You could probably survive a few weeks without water for cooking. If you stopped washing, the threat to your life might only come from people who can’t stand the smell. But most people won’t live for more than three days without water to drink. It makes sense: our bodies are about 65 per cent water.
With Canada’s abundant glaciers, lakes, rivers and streams, we often take water for granted. (In my home province, we give it away to large corporations that bottle and sell it back to us at exorbitant prices!) We shouldn’t be so complacent. People in California thought they had enough water to fill swimming pools, water gardens and yards, support a fertile agricultural industry and shoot massive volumes into the ground to fracture shale deposits to release the oil they contain. Now, with the state in its fourth year of severe drought, regulators are considering emergency legislation and have imposed restrictions to deal with shortages.
California running dry
Droughts in California and elsewhere are serious warnings about what we could face in Canada and around the world as growing human populations and industry require ever more water, and as climate change wreaks havoc on the Earth’s hydrologic cycle, causing drought in some areas and flooding in others.
World faces 40% water shortfall by 2030
According to a UN report, as water supplies dwindle, demand from manufacturing, thermal electricity generation and domestic uses will increase 55 per cent by 2050. The report, “Water for a Sustainable World”, says that unless we find better ways to manage water, the world could face a 40 per cent shortfall by 2030. About 20 per cent of the world’s aquifers are already overexploited.
Water shortages and unsafe water lead to many problems, including food scarcity and crop failure, increased poverty and disease, ecosystem collapse, problems for industry and increasing conflicts over dwindling supplies.
As individuals, we should do everything possible to conserve water, but avoiding massive shortages of clean water will take concerted action at all levels of society. The UN report concludes:
[quote]The global water crisis is one of governance, much more than of resource availability, and this is where the bulk of the action is required in order to achieve a water secure world.[/quote]
Conservation is the key
Water conservation is the best way to ensure we have enough to go around. Recycling wastewater and reserving clean water for drinking, moving away from water-intensive agricultural practices, reducing water pollution and avoiding industrial activities that use excessive amounts of water are also important. The report states that the growing demand for meat, large homes, motor vehicles, appliances and other energy-consuming devices “involves increased water consumption for both production and use.” And while population is a factor, the report shows the increase in water demand is double the rate of population growth.
At the policy level, better supply and sanitation infrastructure and improved management are essential. Protecting natural assets such as forests and wetlands that purify and store water and reduce flooding will help, especially in light of expected increases in natural disasters as the world continues to warm. Of course, doing all we can to reduce climate change and its consequences is also crucial.
The report also notes the world’s current obsession with economic growth has “come at a significant social and environmental cost,” including greater demands on water resources.
Not just about water
Getting a handle on water management and conservation concerns us all. It’s also about social justice, as the poor feel the brunt of negative impacts from water pollution and shortages.
As the UN report points out, “It is now universally accepted that water is an essential primary natural resource upon which nearly all social and economic activities and ecosystem functions depend.” Water makes life possible. We must never take it for granted.
Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.
Herring gillnet boats outside Kitasu Bay before giving up on this year’s fishery (Tavish Campbell/Pacific Wild)
This is the untold story behind one of the most heated standoffs over fish which the BC coast has ever witnessed – the recent clash between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the Heiltsuk Nation over the central coast herring fishery. After spending the better part of two weeks amid the conflict in Bella Bella and surrounding areas, I feel the convoluted affair – and its complex ecological, cultural and political implications – merits a deeper analysis.
Falling on deaf ears: Heiltsuk leaders plead their case to gillnet fishermen – to no avail (Tavish Campbell/Pacific Wild)
On the surface, the reason the gillnet fleet left the central coast this past week, without the herring it had come for, is simple: There weren’t enough fish to sustain a commercial fishery – which is precisely what the local Heiltsuk Nation and independent scientists had been warning DFO all along. But don’t expect the hapless regulator to admit this obvious fact. Instead, it held onto the idea of a gillnet fishery to the bitter end.
Even after the fleet had pulled up stakes, DFO refused to bow to First Nations’ demands and formally close the fishery in Area 7. Only through emails to reporters much later did they finally acknowledge it was closed.
Caught on tape
A radio transmission from one gillnet captain to his counterparts, recorded by Pacific Wild – a conservation organization that has been documenting the central coast fishery – tells the tale. The conversation occurred on the herring grounds outside of Kitasu Bay, where the gillnetters had been granted an opening by DFO but simply couldn’t justify dropping their nets for a lack of fish. Here’s what the captain told his fellow fishermen:
[quote]It’s starting to cost everybody a bunch of money and if there’s no sizeable body of fish anywhere other than Higgins – I mean if you don’t see anything outside there, it ain’t gonna materialize out of nowhere now. You know, if there’s nothing sizeable then maybe we should all put our heads together and decide whether we want to continue this bullshit or pack it in.[/quote]
And that is precisely what they wound up doing soon thereafter (East Higgins – in the Heiltsuk’s declared Area 7 no-go zone would not prove to have the herring necessary for a fishery, despite remaining on the table, according to DFO, right to the end of this saga). But the boats did not leave because DFO told them to – this is an important distinction. As this transmission reflects, they left because there was simply no point carrying on.
> Listen to gilllnet fisherman’s communication – April 1, 2015:
Seiners clear out fishery
Industry voices may counter that there were fish in a few places kept off-limits by DFO and First Nations, but that’s an unfair criticism. For a several week period, all of Area 8 and virtually all of areas 6 and 7 – with a few tiny exemptions ultimately made for traditional Heiltsuk and Kistasoo/Xaixais food fish spots, such as Kitasu Bay – were open for fishing. It is a sad commentary on the state of the herring fishery that its success hinges on a single bay.
The fact of the matter is the seine fleet that took approximately 680 tonnes in an unannounced fishery in Spiller Channel essentially hoovered up what few viable fish there were (herring need to be of a certain size – roughly 20-plus centimetres in length – in order for the roe to be worthwhile). Even the seiners couldn’t achieve their own quota. In the wake of that fishery, nothing was left for the gillnetters, not to mention the Heiltsuk’s traditional fishery, which will likely suffer too.
For years, the Heiltsuk, backed by independent scientists, had been warning DFO about the lack of abundant stocks – to no avail. And when the department opened the sneak fishery in Spiller on March 22, it set off a bitter conflict that led the Heiltsuk to occupy the fisheries office near Bella Bella one week later.
As the days passed, a pattern emerged: DFO assured media they were in “discussions” with the Heiltsuk, but conference call after conference call failed to yield a solution. DFO would not bend and close Area 7.
The “Doctrine of Priority”
Herring spawning (Tavish Campbell/Pacific Wild)
Now, a word about the complex world of herring fisheries. There are multiple types of herring fisheries on the central coast, each with different implications for conservation and informed by a landmark Supreme Court case called the Gladstone Decision of 1996. What that case essentially found is that the Heiltsuk had been engaged in their own commercial herring fishery since before contact and therefore maintain those rights today. It also established a “doctrine of priority” which laid out the order in which fish should be allocated by DFO.
The first priority is conservation, followed by the aboriginal right to food, social and ceremonial fish (FSC), then an aboriginal commercial fishery, and finally, after all those needs have been satisfied – and only if the stocks are healthy enough to justify it – a non-aboriginal commercial fishery.
DFO ignores the courts
Those who would seek to racialize the issue do so out of ignorance. To suggest that the Heiltsuk occupation of the DFO office and vow to stop the gillnet fishery “by any means necessary” is somehow lawless behaviour is inherently hypocritical. The Heiltsuk position is in fact entirely in line with the laws and jurisprudence of Canada – it is DFO which disrespected these institutions.
The Gladstone Decision is very clear about the allocation of fishing rights. The Heiltsuk, based on the historical record and the Constitution Act have first dibs. That’s not a value judgment – it’s a fact. In applying wrong-headed forecasting models to the fishery and ignoring Heiltsuk rights, DFO pitted aboriginal and non-aboriginal fishermen against each other, then stood back and did nothing to rectify the mess of their own making.
A different kettle of fish
Heiltsuk fisherman Jordan Wilson pulls in some unique spawn on hemlock roe (Ian McAllister/Pacific Wild)
There’s also a big difference between the commercial seine and gillnet fisheries and the traditional way the Heiltsuk do their food and commercial fisheries. The non-aboriginal commercial fishery is a “kill fishery”. The target in all cases is the precious roe – not so much the fish itself, which is used for pet food, bait or fish farm feed. Both seiners and gillnets scoop up the whole herring just for the roe. At one time this held immense value in Japanese fish markets for sushi. But today, prices are a fraction of what they once were, as the market is sitting on a huge backlog of frozen roe.
By contrast, the Heiltsuk employ a technique called spawn on kelp (SOK) for their FSC and commercial fisheries. Heiltsuk fishermen and families attach kelp to long lines and buoys and set them amidst the herring spawn. Some of the billions of eggs lain by the small fish deposit on the kelp and are then harvested. Another more boutique method involves tying hemlock boughs off the shoreline into the water, where herring roe also collects (my personal favourite, with the added bouquet of the forest).
The big difference is that with the SOK fishery, the herring aren’t killed, and swim free to spawn another day – making this a more sustainable fishery amidst depleted stocks.
DFO’s fuzzy math
Retired DFO herring scientist Dr. Ron Tanasichuk
In a typical healthy year, central coast First Nations would be allocated around 1750 tonnes of herring, with the non-aboriginal commercial fishery receiving something on the same order. But if there aren’t enough fish, then the commercial fishery is supposed to be closed and the Heiltsuk may even see their own allocation pared back for conservation purposes. According to retired DFO herring scientist Dr. Ron Tanasichuk, that’s precisely what should have happened this year.
Tanasichuk explained to me how DFO arbitrarily doubles its herring counts from the previous season, resulting in the over-allocation of fish:
[quote]The forecasting methodology that DFO uses now for central coast herring is actually quite flawed…DFO’s forecasts are likely twice as much as they should be.[/quote]
Numbers set in stone
The Heiltsuk presented Dr. Tanasichuk’s alternate calculations to DFO in a last-ditch meeting with Regional Director General Sue Farlinger this past Tuesday, but to no avail. Another problem with the department’s forecasting is that it’s set in stone once determined in September for the following year’s fishery. There is no mechanism by which to adapt allocations based on in-season soundings and observations from the actual fishery as it’s happening. Typical bureaucratic nonsense.
Dr. Tanisichuk’s alternate modelling predicted just over 14,000 tonnes of herring on the central coast this year (10% of which are available for a fishery) – about half of DFO’s forecasting. And guess what? Based on averaging out in-season soundings, he appears to have been right on the money. But this meant nothing to DFO.
Better call Ottawa
Farlinger flew out to Bella Bella on March 30 for emergency meetings following the Heiltsuk seizure of the DFO office. By most accounts, she did her level best to advance their concerns, securing agreements with the Heiltsuk to improved stock assessments and cultural training for local officers. But as for the big issue over closing Area 7, Farlinger maintained she did not have the authority to make a decision – which only compounded Heiltsuk frustrations with the federal government.
“It is my intention to avoid at all costs a fishery in Area 7,” Farlinger told a gathering of upset Heiltsuk members outside the occupied fisheries office. Yet, she added:
[quote]I’m not in a position to unilaterally say, ‘No fishery will happen in Area 7.'[/quote]
Instead, she told the community that she spent hours on the phone to her higher-ups in Ottawa, who plainly wouldn’t budge.
And it shouldn’t. Herring are the building block of life on the BC coast. They need time to rebuild.
DFO should learn from this year’s herring fishery fiasco, start listening to scientists and working with the Heiltsuk to ensure a sustainable fishery for the future of herring and the ecosystems and coastal communities that depend on them.
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave…when first we practice to deceive.”
― Sir Walter Scott
One Stewart Muir is the executive director of Resource Works, an elite organization formed to tout Woodfibre LNG. Muir was once the business editor and deputy managing editor of the Vancouver Sun, thus the quote from Sir Walter Scott seems manifestly appropriate.
Muir is responsible for a work of fiction called A Citizen’s Guide to LNG, which I dealt with in two recent columns when I asked some pointed questions about the deceptive, indeed untrue, statements and inferences contained therein. Instead of getting a response, Resource Works, under Muir’s signature, delivered an ad hominem attack on those who are fighting Woodfibre, as follows:
[quote]…the anti-resource movement has executed a textbook campaign to create public fear based on false information and wild exaggeration about what it means to export natural gas from BC.
Those who are constrained by professional codes of behaviour have looked on in dismay as deliberately misleading statements have met with public credulity.[/quote]
What vacuous, flatulent, pomposity this is! Perhaps since Resource Works has so much money to spend, they’ll put out another screed outlining the professional code of behaviour that binds editors of newspapers. This shouldn’t be too expensive – a couple of hazy words of mumbo jumbo ought to suffice.
Science manipulated to paint false picture of safety
I am going to return to the questions I raised in past columns, but first let me bring readers some news they will find impossible to believe!
[quote]They (Resource Works) concede that if tankers go too close to the shore, there could be a problem. However, they assure us there is no problem because they spoke to Dr. Mike Hightower, of Sandia Laboratories in New Mexico, a world acknowledged expert on the subject, who’s developed a protocol accepted by US authorities for the distances ships must maintain between themselves and the shore.
Resource Works has produced a number of videos…In all of them the interviewer is an attractive young lady named Meena Mann…In one of them…Dr. Hightower appears to talk to Ms. Mann about LNG and tankers, and you would likely conclude that there is very little danger, if any, posed by LNG tankers in Howe Sound.[/quote]
Here is what Sandia has reported, based upon Dr. Hightower’s work:
[quote]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.[/quote]
Thanks to Dr. Eoin Finn and Cmdr. Roger Sweeny (RCN Ret.), we learned that, contrary to the misrepresentation by Resource Works, Dr. Hightower’s formula in fact made Howe Sound totally inappropriate as a route for LNG tankers.
Woodfibre changes course with tanker route
Graphic: Dr. Eoin Finn
Well, folks, upon learning that their booster friends had been flat caught out, on orders from the president, Woodfibre LNG panicked and held an emergency meeting on March 21 to examine the sudden, awkward tanker route question raised here in The Common Sense Canadian.
Now I pause here to observe that Mair’s Axiom I – namely, “You make a serious mistake assuming people in charge know what the hell they are doing” – is amply demonstrated by what ensued. Out of the blue, Woodfibre’s brass hastily called a Saturday emergency meeting to find a new route, after months and months of selling their proposed tanker traffic route as absolutely safe!
On a map, Gelotti (Woodfibre LNG President) showed two possible tanker routes. Route (A) (the current planned route) would go from the Woodfibre plant straight down the east sides of Gambier and Bowen and then into the Salish Sea. On Route (B) tankers could travel through the passage between Gambier Island and Howe Sound Pulp and Paper, pass the Langdale terminal, go by the north end of Keats up the east side of Keats (between Keats and Bowen) and then into the Salish Sea.
If the tankers travel on route (A), the tankers intersect with three ferry routes: Langdale-Horseshoe Bay, Horseshoe Bay-Bowen Island and Horseshoe Bay-Departure Bay. On route (B), they intersect with the Langdale ferry and the Vancouver Island one.
Fortunately, we have the resources to deal with astonishing flip flops and we turned Woodfibre’s “back of the envelope” “Plan B” over to Commander Sweeny (Certificate of Service as Master Foreign Going, Qualified Master Home Trade, Commander, Royal Canadian Navy (Ret.), 3rd Generation BC Coaster and longtime owner of Mickey Island in West Howe Sound). He was nothing if not straight to the point:
THIS IS ASTOUNDING, if not laughable! Anthony Gelotti plainly knows NOTHING about Howe Sound.
Take a look at Thornborough Channel down the West side of Gambier: getting into it around the north side of Anvil is tricky enough; thereafter many tight turns, and, south of Port Mellon, the channel is scarcely more than 1500 m wide on average,…ie tanker could never be more than max 800 m from shore, so 3500 m minimum safety circle would overlap just about everybody. And then, of course, East and south around Keats and into Barfleur heading Westwards (or Collingwood Southbound) to the Gulf, each of which narrow to 1500m, in one or more places ,so the Pasley Island group gets fully covered either way. Only a certified numbskull would suggest option B.
In fact, route B would not interfere with Departure Bay ferry traffic.
No Ferry schedule disruptions? Just a howling crowd of really, REALLY annoyed Langdale passengers!
A steering failure almost anywhere in Thornborough Channel could mean collision with granite cliff.
Gelotti’s dangerously simplistic pronouncements and the Fortis expansion plans terrify me.
Mr Muir, the public waits with bated breath for your reaction.
Now some questions to Mr. Muir, who claims he’s bound by professional codes of behaviour.
Screen capture of alleged interview by Meena Mann (left) with Dr. Mike Hightower (right), which appears to have been doctored
What about the alleged interview by Meena Mann of Dr. Michael Hightower, which I dealt with on March 15?
When Dr. Eoin Finn, a former KPMG partner and chemistry PhD, took the time to phone Dr. Hightower because the interview didn’t look quite right, it transpired that it wasn’t conducted by Meena Mann at all but by a male!
Were the questions changed when Ms. Mann did her fake interview? Were Dr. Hightower’s answers altered? This sort of shabby journalism is bound to raise doubts like this. What we do know is that contrary to Resource Works’ misrepresentation that Woodfibre’s LNG tanker traffic route (before Plan B, of course) was safe in Howe Sound, given the facts presented by Dr. Finn, Dr. Hightower came to exactly the opposite conclusion.
Clearly, Resource Works is guilty of grossly inappropriate journalistic behaviour. Even if Miss Mann asked precisely the same questions the real interviewer did, there are different inflections in the voice, no doubt, and her body language during the interview was, to say the least, descriptive of her feelings. What say you, Mr. Muir?
Judge misrepresented
Then, the most egregiously inappropriate journalistic behaviour of all – Resources Works altered and misstated the words of a Supreme Court judge to make themselves look good. Here’s what I said on March 15, to which I and Common Sense Canadian readers would appreciate an answer: ”
[quote]Resource Works, in reporting the judgment in the Wilderness Committee and Sierra Club v. Encana, quoting from page 47 of A Citizen’s Guide To LNG: Sea To Sky Country Edition – states:
“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.'”
This is bullshit! In fact, she did no such thing, as a reading of the judgment makes abundantly clear. She deliberately confined her decision to the interpretation of Section 8 only, stating plainly that she wasn’t going to deal with government or industry policy. The narrow issue was whether or not section 8 of the Water Act,which allows gas companies to get an endless number of water approvals back-to-back, was valid.
Only a practitioner of the black arts of Public Relations could read into Madam Justice Fitzpatrick’s judgment that she said “that the regulatory processes in place, and industry compliance with them, are sound and well managed”, or “when it comes to the regulation of industries water usage, British Columbia is in good shape”. She simply did not say this![/quote]
And Muir accuses us of “deliberately misleading statements”!
Tough questions face Resource Works
Stewart Muir (Resource Works)
By the way, Mr. Muir, who is your public relations company?
Where do you get your funding, which must be considerable?
Do you get any funding from Woodfibre LNG?
Do you get any funding, directly or indirectly, from either senior government?
Do you have tax exemption status?
Having asked those questions, it’s only fair to tell you that the enormous and growing opposition to Woodfibre LNG in the Howe Sound community is funded by individuals only. In fact, we’re having a fundraiser on April 1 at Gleneagles Golf Club at 6 o’clock and we would love to see you and your open chequebook there.
Mr. Muir, you should know that we Howe Sounders and allies are resolved to win this fight and will use all the weapons at our disposal. You, your client company, and your captive governments can only keep the public under your heel for so long.
Harry Belafonte said it best: “Don’t turn your back on the masses, mon”.
Heiltsuk Nation members confront DFO officers at Denny Island coast guard station (Pacific Wild)
Updated 7 PM
Tensions continue to escalate on the waters of the Great Bear Rainforest over a highly controversial herring fishery, as members of the Heiltsuk Nation are now occupying the local DFO office in opposition to a planned gillnet opening.
A group of Heiltsuk youth, elders and chiefs paddled and boated this afternoon from Bella Bella to the coast guard station on nearby Denny Island – headquarters of DFO’s central coast operations – to deliver an eviction notice reminding local representatives that Area 7 is a no-go zone for a commercial herring fishery this year.
The delegation stripped DFO of a ceremonial paddle which had been given to local officers before in good faith. “You cannot have that,” youth leader Saul Brown told DFO representatives, “because you’re not here in a good way anymore.”
“You’re not conducting yourselves in a way that is sustainable for our future generations, so this is our children and youth saying, ‘We’re going to take that paddle back.'”
Following the demonstration, a conference call between Tribal Council leaders and DFO Regional Director General Sue Farlinger failed to yield a diplomatic solution to the ongoing conflict.
As of 6 PM, Heiltsuk Chief Councillor Marilyn Slett and Kelly Brown, Director of the Heiltsuk Integrated Resource Management Dept. had joined the occupation of DFO’s offices, where they plan to stay through the night.
DFO inciting physical confrontation: Brown
“DFO has forced us into a collision course with industry,” Chair of the Heiltsuk Economic Development Corporation Frank Brown explained over the phone from the occupied DFO office.
[quote]If they allow gillnets into Area 7, they’re basically condoning a physical confrontation.[/quote]
Heiltsuk youth leader Saul Brown takes back a ceremonial paddle from DFO officers (Colin Jones/facebook)
Today’s conflict follows a week of high tensions between the First Nation and DFO over the controversial herring fishery. Last Sunday, DFO angered the Heiltsuk by opening a seine fishery amid depleted herring stocks in Area 7 without informing them.
A Thursday press release from the nation vowed to stop a gillnet fishery “by any means necessary” after DFO refused to close the door to a subsequent gillnet fishery during talks with Heiltsuk leaders in Vancouver Wednesday.
The Heiltsuk have declared Area 7 a no-go zone to a commercial herring fishery due to concerns over the health of local stocks and allegations of flawed science by veteran scientists – including retired DFO herring specialist Dr. Ron Tanasichuk, who notes:
[quote]The forecasting methodology that DFO uses now for central coast herring is actually quite flawed…DFO’s forecasts are likely twice as much as they should be.[/quote]
With DFO digging in its heels, a gillnet opening could come within the next day, in which ase, “We will escalate from occupying the station to being out on the herring grounds,” said Frank Brown.
“We’ve done everything we can. We have to hold strong.”
Update: As of 6:30 PM, DFO is stating that a gillnet opening would likely take place to the north in Kitasu Bay, the territory of the Kitasoo/Xaixais Nation – who have also closed their territory and Area 6 to the fishery and stand in solidarity with their Heiltsuk neighbours.
Lawyer Rob Botterell represents First Nations and landowners in the Peace Valley region
The following is an open letter sent by lawyer Rob Botterell to the BC LNG Alliance, key BC Liberal ministers, and Treaty 8 First Nations. Site C Dam is being looked to as a possible source for the additional power required for proposed LNG plants on the BC coast.
Dear Respected First Nations, LNG Industry and BC Government Leaders:
In my capacity as a lawyer who has represented First Nations for many years, I am writing to you about the relationship between the planned Site C dam and the proposed new LNG export industry.
Premier Christy Clark announced the approval of the Site C dam on December 16th, 2014, but the dam lacks First Nations’ support and the social licence necessary to proceed. Currently, seven strong court challenges from First Nations and non-First Nations are underway. Construction of Site C is delayed at least until summer 2015.
True reconciliation of First Nations, LNG Sector and BC government interests requires full respect for, and accommodation of, First Nations’ constitutionally protected treaty rights, title and interests. The Site C dam would adversely impact First Nations’ treaty rights, title and interests in a massive and irreversible way. This devastating impact is completely unnecessary when cost competitive, renewable and non-renewable energy alternatives to Site C exist.
Contrary to the Premier’s statements, these energy alternatives would also provide combined short, medium and long term economic benefits to First Nations’ governments, contractors and community members that far outweigh any economic benefits from Site C.
For those First Nations who are engaged in impact and benefit agreement (lBA) negotiations with LNG sector companies or the province, I respectfully urge you to insist on IBA provisions that require the use of electrical power sources other than Site C by those LNG sector companies.
For those LNG Sector companies and BC government ministries involved in such discussions, I urge you to respect the legitimate interests of BC First Nations and agree to incorporate such provisions in IBAs.
An energy future that respects First Nations’ treaty rights, title and interests in the Peace River Valley is long overdue.
Rafe Mair trusts Mayor Gregor Robertson (pictured) with our transportation future a tad more than the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation – despite big misgivings about transit management to date (Vision Vancouver/Twitter)
I am a lifetime contrarian. Whatever I’m supposed to do, I rebel against. I have not changed much in my dotage.
But I’m going to vote “Yes” in the Transit Plebiscite, notwithstanding the fact that I have grave concerns about the Translink and the city councils offering their ideas about how to spend the money.
There are several reasons that I came to this conclusion.
Look at who’s leading the “No” side
To begin with, I always like to see who is lined up on each side of an argument so that I can judge a little better what the issues really are. There are a great many people who have expressed simple annoyance, deep annoyance in fact, at the way Translink has been run. I have a lot of sympathy with that but in a moment I will tell you why that is not my major consideration.
I will say this: I think that going into this plebiscite, Premier Clark ought to have got together with the various mayors and come up with a better way to administer transit in Greater Vancouver. But she didn’t and we must make our decision based on what is, not what we wish it was.
Looking at those who are leading the “No” vote, I see the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the Fraser Institute – the former much more prominent, in the person of Jordan Bateman. This rings a lot of bells for me because these organizations have never seen a public institution that they didn’t want to see smashed to pieces and help in the process. They have a constitutional dislike of everything that is not run by the private sector.
As for the Fraser Institute, my eyes were opened a few years ago when I interviewed a man named Dr. Walter Block, a “fellow” of that organization, who believed in consensual slavery. If a single mom with children, unable to bear the expense, wanted to become a wealthy man’s slave, by consent, she should be free to do so!
Now I don’t for a moment suggest that that is the general view of right-wingers but Block was a “fellow”, his views are the logical extension of unrestrained libertarianism, and it’s places like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the Fraser Institute where far right libertarians park themselves and erect their soapboxes.
I think it is fair to say that both of these organizations represent the far right wing in our community and don’t represent real people with real problems.
Voting “No” won’t solve our problems
Let’s get back to the question of management of Transit.
There is one fact that jumps out of all of this when you think about it. This isn’t the normal case where the “No” side says, “Let’s throw the rascals out and throw us in so that we can do a better job”. There is no such alternative mechanism ready to step in if the vote is no – we simply go into a state of limbo, fumble about, presumably try to work out a better governing arrangement, tackle the various issues piecemeal without any central direction and eventually work ourselves back to the position where we must have another plebiscite!
Being on the “No” side when you have no responsibility to do anything if you win, is pretty damn easy. It’s all very well just to say that things have been badly managed, but unless you have somebody to step in with a better idea, you’re simply protesting without a plan.
A streetcar I desire
Most of all I recognize that if the “No” votes wins we’ll be in the transit wilderness for years to come. That really doesn’t affect me personally as I am old and I live in Lions Bay, which is extremely well-served and stands to gain or lose very little in this exercise.
On the other hand, I am a native Vancouverite and have lived here most of my life. I go back to the days of the streetcar – I wish we could in fact go back to those days. I’ve seen my City grow from about a quarter of a million when I was a boy to 2,000,000-plus today. I’ve been through the debate which saw us reject freeways for better transit without coming up with the transit.
I’ve used public transit systems all over the world and I’ve never seen one where people didn’t bitch about it. It goes with the territory.
A lot of work to be done
A “Yes” vote scarcely guarantees that all will be peachy from here on. What it does guarantee is that there will be a plan, money to fulfill it, pursued by people who are very close to the voters, namely mayors and counsels.
No doubt there are better ways somewhere but given our history and situation in Greater Vancouver, this is the best we can expect and is certainly better than the chaos that will result from a “No” vote.
So the old contrarian is asking his fellow citizens to overlook the fact that they’re not pleased with the system as they see it but know that the best way to deal with that is not to ignore it and hope, as Mr. Micawber did, that “something will turn up”.
Boaters raise the alarm over plans to re-industrialize Howe Sound (Future of Howe Sound Society)
Howe Sound needs the help of all British Columbians and it needs it now. The proposed Woodfibre LNG plant in Squamish has got some very powerful allies.
Both governments support it. That means that there’s no point in citizens seeking help from their MP or MLA, who in fact are the vanguard of the enemy forces.
Industry group spews hot air in LNG PR
Industry is of course in favour and their stalking horse is a bunch called Resource Works which I exposed here last week as a group quite prepared to completely distort the words of a Supreme Court judge, to have phoney baloney TV interviews, and to twist adverse findings by a scientist and make them appear as if they actually favour tanker traffic in Howe Sound!
We also have the Vancouver Sun and Province almost deliriously in favour of Woodfibre LNG, having just printed four consecutive articles in rapturous support including a blowjob by former premier Mike Harcourt who states that Woodfibre is “engaged in a rigorous and independent environmental review”. Can you believe that naiveté from a former premier! On any reasonable interpretation of the Peter Principle, Mikey achieved his “level of incompetence” when he was an alderman in Vancouver.
[quote]The most compelling reason to be concerned about relying on this golden goose (LNG) is the fact that the markets we are told will buy all we can supply may not materialize as we think, and even if they do, the price they are prepared to pay for our product may be well below what is anticipated.[/quote]
That was Gordon Wilson the fiscal skeptic talking but there is more. Here’s what Wilson the environmentalist had to say:
[quote]Expanded LNG production also comes with a significant environmental cost.
The impact of an expanded hydrocarbon economy will certainly speed up global warming and cause us to build a dependency on a revenue stream that originates form processes that are poisoning our atmosphere.[/quote]
Then, shortly after his newfound heroine won the May 13, 2013 election, Wilson, stout opponent of LNG, received his pay-off through a job with the government at $12,500 per month to support LNG!
This contract has since been renewed and continues.
‘Jewel of Lower Mainland’ on the mend
When I say Howe Sound needs all of our help, I am talking about the entire province of British Columbia.
Howe Sound is the jewel of the Lower Mainland and it belongs to all British Columbians. It is our most southerly fjord and is breathtakingly beautiful. It has recovered from the horrible abuse we have heaped on it with the pulp mills and, of course, the old Britannia mine. The salmon runs are returning; the herring are back; the whales are back; the flora on the ocean bed has returned. We have recently discovered that Halkett Bay contains the rare and very fragile “Glass Sponge”.
It is indeed a glorious rebirth we are witnessing and we are about to put it all at severe risk.
I’m only going to speak of one of those risks today, which is in no way intended to minimize the others. Let me just talk about LNG tanker traffic.
LNG tanker safety issues
Industry and their handmaidens, the two senior governments, deny that there can ever be a problem with tankers which, of course, is nonsense and defies the simple laws of probability by which we are all governed. Just as the flipped coin must turn up heads sometime, there will be an accident with the odds increasing with the traffic. The damage will be horrific.
There are standards that have been devised by scientists who have studied this matter.
Because I want to give every benefit of the doubt to the LNG industry, let’s deal with the standard set by Dr. Mike Hightower, a world-renowned expert on LNG tanker operations at Sandia International Laboratories. It is considered by most environmentalists as far too “conservative”. Some world-recognized LNG hazard experts, such as Dr. Jerry Havens (University of Arkansas; former Coast Guard LNG vapour hazard researcher), indicate that three miles or more is a more realistic Hazard Zone distance.
Here are the dimensions of Howe Sound, including the aforementioned recommendations of Dr. Hightower, from an expert on the subject, Commander Roger Sweeny, Certificate of Service as Master Foreign Going, Qualified Master Home Trade, Commander, Royal Canadian Navy (Ret.), 3rd Generation BC Coaster and longtime owner of Mickey Island in West Howe Sound:
[quote]NARROW PASSAGES
The upper reaches of Howe Sound are about 2700 m wide. The outbound channel narrows to 1600m east of Anvil Island. Thereafter, ships proceeding down Queen Charlotte Channel east of Bowen Island are restricted between Bowen and Bowyer Island (2400m), Bowen and West Vancouver (2050m), and at Passage Island (2450m), or, if down Collingwood Channel west of Bowen, between Bowen and Gambier Island (1900m), Keats Island(2100m), Ragged Island (1500m), Mickey Island(1600m), and Worlcombe Island (1700m).
Dr Hightower, a world renowned expert on LNG tanker operations at Sandia International Laboratories, has defined for the US Department of Energy three hazard zones of 500m, 1600m (1 mile) and 3500m surrounding LNG tankers. The largest zone represents the minimum safe separation between tanker and people. Other LNG hazard experts have indicated that 4800m (3miles) or more is a more realistic hazard separation distance. In this context it is worth remembering that the heat stored in a 50,000 tonne cargo of LNG is equivalent to several dozen Hiroshima bombs.
Clearly the minimum 3500m civilian hazard zone extends at least 2 km beyond each side of all these restricted passages. Virtually the entire Sea to Sky highway from Britannia to Lighthouse Park, Anvil, southeast Gambier, Bowyer, eastern Keats, Bowen, and all islands of the Pasley group fall within the zone. Furthermore, from Britannia to Porteau Cove, Bowyer, White Cliff, both coasts of Bowen and eastern Pasley group are also within the much more dangerous 1600m zone.
Howe Sound is no place for LNG tankers![/quote]
It is against this evidence, bearing in mind that it is “conservative”, that the two senior governments are prepared to proceed and have so indicated on every possible occasion. The public be damned.
What is sickeningly fascinating is that neither governments nor Resource Works make any effort to refute this evidence. In fact, they don’t deal with it. And that is of course a time-honoured political trick. Never admit that you’re wrong, never deal with the argument, simply attack on another front.
MLA takes money from Woodfibre
I have watched with interest and care the two politicians representing my constituency, West Vancouver, Sunshine Coast, and Sea to Sky Country.
Both of them have avoided, like the plague, getting public input in any meaningful way. John Weston has gone so far as to assault the West Vancouver Council for its official disapproval of the Woodfibre LNG plant.
All one need know about Jordan Sturdy, the Liberal MLA, is that his fundraiser was at the exclusive Capilano Golf Club of all places and was sponsored by Woodfibre LNG!
Our governmental system requires elected lickspittles and we have a couple of dandies!
The people of this constituency are politically abandoned. Clearly both the provincial Liberals and the federal Tories are prepared to write off the constituency which, when you think about it, really puts the onus on the rest of the province.
Time to ratchet up pressure
The only way political pressure can be brought to bear on the BC Premier and the Prime Minister, both of whom are in the pockets of industry, is to have that pressure applied in constituencies all over the province.
I have no doubt that the residents of our constituency will go as far as civil disobedience and that this will be necessary sooner or later. I believe that the good people of Burnaby in their fight against Kinder Morgan have inspired a lot of people in this area and that the fear of standing up to authority has all but disappeared.
The fact remains, however, that the LNG issue is province-wide. It’s rather reminds me of Churchill’s statement “everyone feeds the crocodile in the hopes that the crocodile will eat him last”.
The message from this is clear – British Columbians cannot afford to sit back and let others do all the fighting for an issue that belongs to all of us.
“This action shows blatant disrespect of aboriginal rights by DFO and industry,” said Chief Councillor Marilyn Slett.
[quote]DFO provided inconsistent and misleading communications throughout the day and did not attempt meaningful consultation.[/quote]
The nation is also suggesting that DFO employed deceptive tactics to launch the fishery, waiting until commercial seine boats had their nets in the water before officially alerting the Heiltsuk by email that this year’s fishery – in the highly contested Area 7 – was going ahead.
Stocks not ready for commercial fishery
The Heiltsuk contend that low herring stocks do not justify a commerical fishery. “We must put conservation first. We have voluntarily suspended our community-owned commercial gillnet herring licenses for this season to allow stocks to rebuild, but DFO and industry are unwilling to follow suit,” said Kelly Brown, Director of the Heiltsuk Integrated Resource Management Department. Hereditary Chief Harvey Humchitt believes more time is needed for herring to rebound from a recent crash before reopening a commercial fishery. “We experienced the collapse of the herring twice over the past fifty years. These collapses are attributed to Western science,” noted Humchitt. “The herring are now beginning to recover.”
Their concerns are echoed by retired DFO herring specialist Ron Tanasichuk, who concurs that DFO is using flawed modelling to estimate the health of herring stocks. “With their current methods, DFO is essentially inflating estimates of herring on the Central Coast by double,” says Tanasichuk.
Constitutional issue
The nation’s right to a unique spawn on kelp (SOK) fishery – which doesn’t involve catching herring, but rather collecting roe lain on kelp – was cemented in the Gladstone Supreme Court decision.
“The Heiltsuk Nation views this opening as an unjustifiable infringement upon our right to our SOK fishery, a right which was won in the Supreme Court of Canada case R. v. Gladstone,” stated William Gladstone, chief negotiator of the Gladstone Reconciliation.
[quote]We cannot risk another collapse. Our future generations depend upon this resource for food, social and ceremonial purposes, as well as employment and spiritual and cultural wellness.[/quote]
The United Fishermen and Allied Workers’ Union is backing the Heiltsuk position, advising gillnet fishers not to fish the Central Coast.
RCMP boats have been stationed in the area since last week, in anticipation of tensions over the DFO opening. “Heiltsuk boats are on the water to protest as the Nation works toward achieving a peaceful resolution to the situation,” said a press release from the nation early this morning. “We may have lost this battle, but the war is far from over,” said Gladstone.
Many people think of Canada as a landscape of forests, mountains, water and ice, but the Canadian experience is fast becoming focused on glass and concrete. Our 2011 census revealed that 81 per cent of us now live in cities. And despite taking up less land space, our environmental impact continues to grow. As the UN notes, cities cover only two per cent of the world’s land area but produce 60 per cent of CO2 emissions — including a significant proportion from urban transportation, as people commute to school and work on increasingly crowded roads and transit networks.
Transit drives healthy cities
Changing the way we move through cities is a critical step in reducing carbon emissions. The most direct way to accomplish this is to provide urbanites with reliable alternatives to automobile travel. By investing in walkways, cycling networks and efficient public transportation — including rapid rail and bus systems — cities can promote healthy lifestyles while protecting the environment. A two-car household that replaces one vehicle with alternative transportation can cut its annual emissions by 10 per cent.
Building balanced transportation systems and improving transit reduces reliance on private vehicles, cuts traffic congestion and leads to better public health by keeping pollutants linked to asthma and cardiovascular disease out of the air. It can also help curb North America’s obesity epidemic, which is leading to diseases like diabetes and sending health care costs skyrocketing.
Cut the cars, cut the fat
Recent research on the relationship between health and transit use in Metro Vancouver by University of British Columbia urban planning and public health professor Lawrence Frank and two health authorities reveals that residents of areas with above average public transportation use are 26 per cent less likely to be obese and 49 per cent more likely to walk for at least 30 minutes a day than people living in low transit use areas.
Plebiscite puts transit support to test
Vancouver is a good case study for the future of Canadian urban public transit. Metro residents are voting on a plebiscite to fund regional transit and transportation expansion with a 0.5 per cent provincial sales tax increase. Many groups in the region — including business, labour, environmental, health and student — are setting aside political differences and joining the Better Transit and Transportation Coalition to support it.
Cities left to solve transit problems
With only eight cents of every tax dollar going to Canadian municipalities, cities across the country are looking for ways to fund infrastructure maintenance and improvements. Canada is also the only major industrialized country without a national transit funding strategy. Provincial governments, such as Ontario’s, have had some success in securing funding for transit improvements, but across the country the issue is largely in the hands of local leaders.
Although Metro Vancouver’s transit ridership has increased dramatically in recent years, road congestion is still a problem, costing the regional economy up to $1.2 billion per year. To combat similar issues, cities around the world, including London, Milan and Stockholm, have introduced congestion charges for drivers who use city streets during peak hours, funnelling monies raised to into transit improvements. By comparison, a Vancouver sales tax increase would spread the cost out to include transit users, cyclists, walkers and visitors.
Denver Seattle failed before passing transit referenda
North American cities often have a more difficult time than European municipalities convincing residents to support transit funding. Denver, Colorado, has had two transit funding referendums, one that failed and a more recent one that passed. In 2014, Seattle residents took part in two votes, agreeing to a 0.1 per cent sales tax increase and a $60 vehicle levy to improve transit only after bus service faced severe cuts following a “No” vote on transit funding earlier in the year.
Metro vote raises important questions
Canadians aren’t often invited to directly participate in policy-making. The vote in Metro Vancouver is the first of its kind nationally and will likely set off a heated debate about how transportation funding is discussed in this country. While the outcome remains uncertain, one thing is clear: People with realistic transit options have a daily choice to support or degrade the environment. When faced with that choice, history has shown more people opt to leave their cars in the garage. We need to think seriously about how we keep our cities moving into the future.
Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Climate and Clean Energy Communications and Research Specialist Steve Kux.
Clockwise from top left: Teck’s Doug Horswill, Stewart Muir, former A-G Geoff Plant, and Lyn Anglin
It’s an axiom of debate that if you don’t like the argument you’re in, find one that you’re more comfortable with. Barristers use this technique before juries all the time and that’s precisely the technique that Resource Works, a well-heeled pro-LNG group, is using to bamboozle the public of British Columbia.
Knowing many of the supporters personally, and most of them by reputation, I don’t believe any of them actually wrote this rubbish – it has all the earmarks of a large PR firm.
This is what they say about themselves:
[quote]Resource Works recognizes the demand of British Columbians for economic growth and environmental sustainability, and aims to break the ice in the controversial resource debate. In 2014, Resource Works organized community conversations in 8 municipalities in the Lower Mainland, involving more than 120 participants consist of local government, businesses, NGOs and citizens. Moderate, rational discussions are a necessary first-step towards BC’s sustainable future. (Emphasis mine)[/quote]
Here are some of the players:
Stewart Muir, the Executive Director and a former big wig with the Vancouver Sun, “is married to Athana Mentzelopoulos, deputy minister of jobs, tourism and skills training,” according to the Tyee’s Donald Gutstein, who wrote about Resource Works upon their launch last summer. “Before that, [Mentzelopoulos] was in charge of Premier Christy Clark’s ‘priority’ files,” says Gutstein. “She’s so close to Clark she was bridesmaid at Clark’s wedding.”
Geoff Plant was attorney general under Gordon Campbell and in 2012 was tapped by Clark to be the province’s chief legal strategist for the Northern Gateway Pipeline Joint Review Panel proceedings.
Board chair Doug Horswill was BC’s deputy minister of energy, mines and petroleum resources until moving to BC mining giant Teck Resources, where he now serves as senior VP.
Advisory Council Chair Lyn Anglin is the former president and CEO of Geoscience BC, a provincially-funded organization tasked with attracting mining, oil and gas investment to the province.
Greg D’Avignon, according to the Resource Works website, “is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Business Council of British Columbia, a 250-member organization which represents the provinces leading businesses in every sector of the provincial economy and more than one-quarter of all jobs in the province. Established in 1966, the Business Council is the foremost policy and business advocacy organization in the province.”
Philippa P. Wilshaw“is an Audit Partner in KPMG’s Greater Vancouver Area (GVA) Energy and Natural Resources and Industrial Markets practice. She has 20 years of experience with KPMG and started her career with KPMG UK in 1993. She joined the Toronto office in 2003 and moved to Vancouver in 2005.”
As to who is funding the research, Resource Works did volunteer the information that seed funding came from the B.C. Business Council, but has not disclosed other sources of funding.
What about fracking?
An Encana drill rig in northeast BC’s Horn River shale gas play
It’s interesting that A Citizen’s Guide To LNG: Sea To Sky Country Edition doesn’t touch the issue of “fracking” until page 46 and then only in two brief paragraphs. It mentions that there is a US documentary on the subject but says that they, Resource Works, don’t think there’s any evidence of problems with “fracking” in BC. If that doesn’t convince you, I ask you, what will?
It’s “fracking” – which would supply the majority of gas for LNG – however, that causes the atmospheric damage, damage to our water, and health risks to the population. Moreover, as Andrew Nikiforuk has reported to us, the weakening of the ground around the fracking area has caused serious earthquake problems in Holland. Increased seismic activity has been connected to fracking in BC and throughout the US as well. Resource Works does admit that there could be earthquake problems but that they have always been very minor. Doesn’t that make you feel better?
Because Woodfibre says so
Let’s look at the specific claims made on behalf of the proposed Woodfibre LNG plant, near Squamish. What’s fascinating about these few pages is that the information is constantly based upon what Woodfibre LNG has told them! Their word is accepted on every major issue uncritically. Woodfibre LNG is wonderful because Woodfibre LNG tells us so! There is a paucity of scientific evidence or indeed anything from people who might have another point of view.
There’s no mention that Sukanto Tanoto, the owner of Woodfibre’s holding company, a convicted big-time tax evader with a shameful environmental record.
Dangerous cargo
Courtesy of Dr. Eoin Finn
Let’s look at transportation of LNG by tanker through Howe Sound. I do that not just because it’s of enormous concern to everybody who lives along the proposed route, but because Resource Works dwells upon the issue. They concede that if tankers go too close to the shore, there could be a problem. However, they assure us there is no problem because they spoke to Dr. Mike Hightower, of Sandia Laboratories in New Mexico, a world acknowledged expert on the subject, who’s developed a protocol accepted by US authorities for the distances ships must maintain between themselves and the shore.
Resource Works has produced a number of videos which they make available to the public in order to sell the benefits of LNG. In all of them the interviewer is an attractive young lady named Meena Mann. It is in one of them, featured on the Vancouver Province website, where Dr. Hightower appears to talk to Ms. Mann about LNG and tankers and you would likely conclude that there is very little danger, if any, posed by LNG tankers in Howe Sound.
Here is what Sandia has reported, based upon Dr Hightower’s work:
[quote]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.[/quote]
What the video does not tell you is that Dr. Hightower had not addressed his attention to Howe Sound, and when local resident Dr. Eoin Finn did so, Dr. Hightower concurred that Bowen Island and parts of West Vancouver are very much at risk – within the 1-mile radius – as are parts of the Sea-to-Sky Highway and Lions Bay/Bowyer Island. In other words, If one accepts Dr. Hightower’s formula, as Resource Works clearly does, there is no way any LNG tankers would be permitted to proceed from Squamish to the ocean.
Interview doctored?
Now the plot thickens.
Dr. Eoin Finn, a former KPMG partner and chemistry PhD, took the time to phone Dr. Hightower because the interview didn’t look quite right. Well, it wasn’t right because it wasn’t conducted by Meena Mann at all but by a male!
Alleged interview by Meena Mann (left) with Dr. Mike Hightower (right), which appears to have been doctored
Dr. Hightower was not prepared to say that he had been misrepresented other than the fact that it was a man who interviewed him but he was dubious about Resource Works’ characterization of his “burn back to the source” description. The vapour cloud is much more complex than a simple burn-back, and people exposed to the flame would stand a high likelihood of being severely burned by the high temperatures of the flame. Indoors, not so much, but he expected that the flame would suck up much of the oxygen in the air, so asphyxiation would be a serious problem in the area of the vapour cloud.
Was the question changed when Ms. Mann did her fake interview? Was Dr. Hightower’s answer altered? I don’t know but this sort of shabby deception is bound to raise doubts like this. What we do know is that far from supporting Resource Works’ assertion that LNG tanker traffic is safe in Howe Sound, given the facts, Dr. Hightower comes to exactly the opposite conclusion.
Resource Works is guilty of a hugely deceptive practice. Even if Miss Mann asked precisely the same questions the real interviewer did, there are different inflections in the voice no doubt and her body language during the interview was, to say the least, descriptive of her feelings. If this is an example of the integrity of Resource Works, they are not entitled to any credibility whatsoever.
Watering down the truth
In fact it is much worse than this. Resource Works has simply not told the truth and they ought to publicly apologize. Here’s the evidence:
A case was brought in 2013 against Encana and the province by the Wilderness Committee and Sierra Club. The issue was whether or not section 8 of the Water Act, which allows back-to-back short-term permits, was valid. That was the sole issue; the judge made it clear that she wasn’t deciding on the government’s overall water policy, or the ” fracking” question, but whether back-to-back short term water leases under The Water Act were valid – bear that in mind.
[quote]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.”[/quote]
In fact, she did no such thing as a reading of the judgment makes abundantly clear. She confined her decision to the interpretation of Section 8 only. The issue was whether or not section 8 of the Water Act, which allows gas companies to get an endless number of water approvals back-to-back, was lawful.
Only a practitioner of the black arts of Public Relations could read into Madam Justice Fitzpatrick’s judgment that she said “that the regulatory processes in place, and industry compliance with them, are sound and well managed”, or “when it comes to the regulation of industries water usage, British Columbia is in good shape.'”
She simply did not say this!
The fact that the petitioners, the Wilderness Committee and the Sierra Club, had made an appropriate application was reflected in the fact that no costs were awarded against them, even though they had lost the case.
Surely, one’s entitled to conclude that this sort of disassembling, distortion, and outright misrepresentation colours all of the presentations of this outfit.
Who’s writing this stuff?
Ex-Premier Dan Miller of Resource Works’ Advisory Board
Resource Works would have us believe that they are an independent group, concerned only with the public weal, and really quite independent on the issue of LNG, only wanting to enhance reasonable debate.
Quite obviously this is utter nonsense. They are obviously flacks for the LNG industry and pretty obviously for the Christy Clark government as well.
Are they paid flacks? I don’t know, which is why it would be most interesting if they disclosed how they are funded – how much and by whom? This operation – the dozens of slick videos, the reports, the website – could not be done cheaply. Where did the money come from? Are there public funds involved?
The question for those involved, who include a former premier and two former attorneys-general of the province, is this: your integrity is at stake here – do you really want your reputations used to back up these statements?
Postscript: A Citizen’s Guide To LNG: Sea To Sky Country Edition, a booklet of 58 pages, was written, so it states, by the Executive Director, Stewart Muir and Barinder Rasode who is – get this for delicious irony – “Director of Social Responsibility for Resource Works” – don’t you love it?
