With another round of international climate negotiations opening this week in Warsaw, Poland, and a new poll finding Canadians wanting leadership on the issue, Stephen Harper and his Conservative government have an opportunity to begin turning the tides on what has been up until now an abysmal failure.
Since taking the helm, Harper and his party have floundered at the United Nations climate events, with the likes of former environment minister John “Bull in a China Shop” Baird ham-handedly relegating our country to perpetual fossil of the day and year awards.
Canada’s fall from grace
As someone who has been working in and around these international climate talks, and other such global negotiations, for many years now I have witnessed first hand Canada’s fall from grace. Our small country (population-wise) has historically hit well above its weight in many international forums, with a reputation for neutrality and expert diplomacy. Now, we are called a “petro-state” and a fly in the ointment at such talks.
Up until Harper, Canada has been a international leader on global efforts to battle environmental issues. Former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was an outspoken global leader on reducing CFC’s and his leadership culminated in the Montreal Accord that saw 191 countries agree to phasing out ozone depleting chemicals.
Under Jean Chretien and the Liberals Canada was one of the first countries to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce global climate change pollution, and that leadership started a domino effect with many countries following our lead. Harper’s lack of performance, and in many cases outright opposition to deal on climate change, is not only being noticed by the international community, it is also starting to be noticed at home.
New poll: Canadians want climate change to be a top issue
A poll out late last week finds that a large majority – almost 60 percent – of Canadians agree that climate change should be a top issue for the Harper government. A whopping 76 percent say that Canada should sign on to a new international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
While I am the first to admit that public opinion polls can fall well short of reality, in this case there is substantial proof at the street-level. Everyday people and not just the media or opinion-makers are wanting Harper to rejuvenate Canada’s international reputation on the issue of climate change.
Canadians to rally for climate this weekend
Look no further than the hundreds of events being planned across the country for a “Defend our Climate, Defend our Communities” day of action being held this coming weekend. Such a show of discontent in the streets and in front of MP’s offices has to have Harper and his minions at least a little worried.
And it is only going to get worse for Harper as more and more extreme weather events pile up week after week on the nightly news. Climate change is no longer a theory. The atmospheric disruption and extreme weather scientists talked about almost 20 years ago when Canada signed on to the Kyoto Protocol is now “the new normal.”
Harper could redeem himself in Warsaw
With these talks starting this week and next in Warsaw, Harper and his new environment minister, Leona Aglukaqq, have an opportunity to redeem themselves. It would be good for our international reputation to do so, not to mention my children’s children who, as it stands today, face a pretty bleak future. And according to public opinion polls, a strong stance on climate by Harper would be good politics.
If there is a definitive plan in place, the government isn’t laying it out yet: Natural Gas Development Minister Rich Coleman says the Liberals’ LNG economic plan, which includes a tax structure developed with industry consultation, should be complete within thee next 30 days. It won’t be introduced to the legislature until next year.
Environment Minister Mary Polak says similar LNG environmental negotiations are underway, of which she indicates the options are limited and is refusing to fully elaborate.
But a process of elimination indicates B.C. will rely heavily on carbon offsets to meet its environmental goals.
Offsets in the offing for BC LNG emissions?
That means even if the actual pollution dumped into the atmosphere increases, rather than declines, B.C. will still be able to say the targets have been met because of the discounts offered by requiring industry to financially support environmentally-friendly initiatives to fight global warming.
Still, even if the offsets enable B.C. to claim it has met its pollution targets — targets trumpeted at the time as being among the most stringent in North America — the emissions levels Canada must report to the United Nations will tell a different story.
“There are only two ways to reduce emissions, you either actually reduce them or you find means of mitigation and many times that’s through offsets,” said Polak.
“We know many B.C. companies are carbon neutral — Harbour Air for example — but it’s not because they have no emissions. It’s because they purchase offsets.”
Full steam ahead with LNG: 5-7 plants targeted
Besides offsets, the government could reach the targets by taking its foot off the pedal on its ambitious LNG development goals.
That’s clearly not going to happen: Clark’s Liberal government says it wants to build the cleanest LNG industry in the world and continues to repeat election-campaign statements that B.C.’s natural gas will scrub clean China’s coal-darkened skies.
The government could back away from the targets committing it to cut greenhouse gas emissions 33 per cent by 2020 — targets created under a different Liberal government, before Clark’s aggressive push towards a liquefied natural gas industry and all the extra emissions it is bound to create.
The government has refused to say it will do that, but it has left the door open.
A government official, on background, says the targets are just that: targets. If they aren’t met, government will simply try harder to meet them next time. Much like balanced budget legislation, the official says, there are no penalties for not meeting the goal.
Environmentalists and noted climate scientists, including Green Party MLA Andrew Weaver and Simon Fraser University’s Mark Jaccard, who both consulted for the Liberals on the climate targets law in 2007, have already repeatedly said the province isn’t going to meet its pollution reduction targets.
”It’s certainly our goal,” says Coleman without committing to actually doing it.
“There may be some challenges around that,” he says in an interview shortly after returning from Asia where he toured an LNG plant in Malaysia and met with executives from Petronas, the Malaysian energy company planning a $36 billion LNG investment near Prince Rupert.
[quote]We’re going to have the highest environmental standards that there are and we’re going to have the cleanest industry that there is in the world as well.[/quote]
Carbon capture in its infancy
A third option to require the industry to explore other emission reduction techniques that could involve storing carbon emissions underground is appealing, but the technology is in its infancy and no one expects B.C. can rely on it in the short-term.
“You could potentially require certain technologies be employed,” says Polak. “You could require certain purchase of offsets, but all of that is subject to negotiations, discussions, in much the same way as having the discussions now with taxation policy.”
So that leaves offsets as the most likely way to allow British Columbia to meet or at least reach for its emission goals.
The challenge is not small.
Report: BC LNG would emit 3x more carbon than plants in other countries
A recent report by Clean Energy Canada, an affiliate of Tides Canada, warned that without B.C. government policy leadership, LNG produced in B.C. could emit more than three-times the carbon produced at other plants around the world.
The B.C. government has not stated publicly what it expects its greenhouse gas emissions to be from the proposed LNG plants. But Clean Energy Canada examined a similar LNG plant under construction in Australia and concluded that B.C. LNG facilities can expect to emit about one tonne of carbon pollution for every tonne of LNG produced.
Clean Energy Canada estimates that will work out to 36 million tonnes of carbon pollution for the initially-proposed three LNG plants in the Kitimat area.
Gas still cleaner than coal?
Prof. James Tansey is a business professor at the University of B.C. who is also the chief executive officer and founder of Vancouver-based Offsetters, a global carbon-management company that helps organizations and individuals understand, reduce and offset their climate impact.
Tansey says the carbon pollution debate in B.C. is focused on legitimate concerns about increased provincial emissions.
But like the government, he notes a global move towards natural gas ultimately reduces GHG emissions worldwide.
Tansey says natural gas is a cleaner energy than oil and coal and has the potential to reduce GHG emissions by 27 per cent (read a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report which argues the contrary).
He says he expects the government to introduce regulations that will require the natural gas companies to purchase the offsets as a cost of doing business in B.C.
Offsets can’t erase real pollution figures
“The companies will have to do it,” said Tansey. “People don’t like offsets in general, but it’s really the only way to say those millions of tonnes of extra emissions from running the LNG facilities can be addressed. If you don’t do that, then they’re going to appear as a black mark on the carbon accounts of the province.”
Offsets may allow B.C. to meet its targets or at least approach them while still reaping the economic benefits of LNG development.
But the actual pollution numbers — without adjustments due to offsets — must be reported to provincial, federal and international climate-change monitoring agencies.
Without LNG, BC making climate progress
Environment Canada’s national inventory submission last April to the United Nations Framework convention on climate change measured a decline of almost six per cent in B.C.’s GHG emissions since 2007, when the province passed its targets law.
The inventory measured B.C.’s carbon dioxide emissions at 59.1 million tonnes in 2011 — the most recent numbers — down from 62.6 million tonnes in 2007. The target for 2020 is about 20.6 million tonnes.
The Environment Canada report stated Canada’s total GHG emissions for 2011 were measured at 702 million tonnes, while Alberta’s GHG emissions were 242 million tonnes.
LNG would ramp up BC’s carbon emissions
Matt Horne, a climate change expert with the Pembina Institute, said he’s certain B.C.’s LNG dreams will increase the province’s GHG emissions well beyond Environment Canada’s most current totals.
“I don’t know where they are going to go with the targets,” he said.
“I haven’t seen any credible projections of how the province is going to meet those targets in particular around the idea of three to five LNG plants being developed. You can’t square that circle.”
Public interest group IntegrityBC is calling for the resignation of Liberal Agriculture Minister Pat Pimm, following the revelation that he and Fort St. John Mayor Lori Ackerman meddled in an Agricultural Land Commission hearing into removing a piece of farmland from the ALR.
The Globe and Mail’s Mark Hume reported on Saturday that Peace River North MLA Pimm was rebuked by the Commission for advocating for an application which it ultimately rejected in August. In the same ruling, the Commission criticized Pimm and Ackerman’s political interference in the arm’s-length review process. Said the ALC:
[quote]In our respectful view, those representations were not appropriate. They could create the impression for both the Commission and the public that these officials were attempting to politically influence the Commission.[/quote]
Pimm weighed in on an application by Terry McLeod to build a rodeo ground and campsite atop “high agricultural value” Class 2 soils on his 70.66-hectare farm.
The revelation of Pimm’s interference comes on the heels of another recent story by Hume, which unleashed a wave of controversy over a leaked Liberal memo in which Pat Pimm calls for the gutting of the ALC’s powers to clear the way for oil and gas development.
In a press release on the lastest controversy related to Pimm, Integrity BC calls for the Minister’s resignation, pointing to a similar incident which forced federal Conservative Minister John Duncan to step down from Cabinet earlier this year. Duncan was found to have intervened in a Tax Court hearing on behalf of a constituent in 2011.
“This is politics 101,” says IntegrityBC executive director Dermod Travis.
[quote]Ministers don’t interfere in the work of judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals and – if they do – they resign.[/quote]
Travis told the Georgia Straight today that he’s “flabbergasted” the NDP Opposition hasn’t yet echoed his call for the Minister’s resignation.
IntegrityBC has also launched an online petition calling for the Liberal Government to halt the gutting of the ALR contemplated in Pimm’s recently-leaked memo. The petition has garnered over a thousand signatures in just a few days.
On November 7, the Parti Québécois government at long last introduced a Bill on the La Charte des valeurs (Charter of values) to the National Assembly, but under a new, very long name: La Charte affirmant les valeurs de laïcité et de neutralité religieuse de l’État ainsi que d’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes et encadrant les demandes d’accommodements (The Charter affirming laic values,the neutrality of the state as well as equality between men and women and a framework for requests for accommodation). For the purpose of simplicity, from here on the Bill will be referred to as La Charte.
The purpose of this article is to provide background information or the context for La Charte. Most of the information contained in this article is common knowledge for francophone Québec but rarely available in English and, as such, virtually unknown to English Canada. This leads to many misunderstandings, often referred to as the two solitudes.
La Charte des valeurs appeals to variety of very different groups
Contrary to what many in English Canada may think, the debate in Québec about La Charte represents a cocktail of factors.
One of the main components of the cocktail has to do with the Québec dark years known as “la grande noirceur” – the years during which the Québec francophone community lived under draconian Catholic Church rule, when music and films were censored, women who had sexual relations prior marriage were sent into the streets, and abducted children born outside marriage were put in Church orphanages.
One might say that these dark years are now looked upon by the majority of Québécois as being as reprehensible as residential schools are for members of Canada’s First Nations.
Accordingly, the sentiment to separate religion from the state is several notches stronger in Québec than in the rest of Canada.
Add to this cocktail the fact that, for women, these dark years included women being labelled as inferior in a male-controlled world. Consequently, many in the feminist movement want to make sure that religious symbols of inferiorization, worn on one’s body or otherwise, are banned from the public sector.
Yet another component of the cocktail is the 1936-1039 and 1944-1959 reign of Premier Maurice Duplessis, who had a pact with the Catholic Church to control the people. Under the pact, the Church would run the Catholic schools, the hospitals and civil society in general, as long as it kept the people docile under the Duplessis economic development formula, entailing cheap labour and union/communist-busting features. In honour of this pact, in 1936 Premier Duplessis had a crucifix placed over the Speaker’s chair in the National Assembly.
Pauline Marois follows Harper model of targeting markets
Pauline Marois, like Stephen Harper, wants to be in full control and consequently detests being stuck in a minority government position. But because her first year in power has been one of a seemingly endless series of incoherent improvisations, she has lost control of public opinion. In that sense, her government is not all that different than the Charest Liberal government that preceded the PQ.
While she had promised she would eliminate the health tax during her election campaign, her first budget included a health tax of $200 for those earning $42,000 to $100,000. Another election promise entailed addressing the absurdly low royalties and taxes paid by Quebec’s mining industry, but once in power, she backed down to the industry lobby.
She had promised to migrate Quebec to a green economy, but, so far, she seems okay with the two pipeline proposals to transport tar sands oil into – and crossing through – Quebec, and is not ruling out exploiting potential local oil reserves.
All this has added up to widespread dissatisfaction with the Marois government and poor prospects for pursuing a majority government. This is where La Charte comes in.
Marois’ game plan
In early Fall 2013, Pauline Marois introduced the Charte, figuring it could position the PQ for a majority government by creating a perceived crisis among Québécois to the effect that Québec had an epidemic of new religious immigrants who were imposing their values on the majority population.
The game plan entailed calling an election for December 2013, while La Charte was a hot topic, and cutting into the homogenous outlying regions’ right wing nationalist vote – designed to foster a migration of the Coalition pour l’avenir du Québec (CAQ) vote over to the PQ. That made “political sense” in that CAQ support is declining.
The plan also counted on the feminist movement. Accordingly, as did Harper when he placed “correct thinking” people on the Board of Rights and Democracy, Marois appointed four new “correct thinking” members to the Conseil du statut de la femme (Council on the Status of Women). But it backfired when the president of the Conseil, Julie Miville-Dechêne, publicly denounced this political interference. The reality is that the woman’s movement in Québec is divided on the issue.
November’s Montreal municipal elections
During this same period, all four of the main candidates for Mayor of Montreal for the November 3, 2013 elections came out against the Charte.
On election day, Denis Coderre, former federal Liberal Cabinet minister – the very in-the-box, unimaginative candidate for mayor with a sparse and vague platform (he actually thinks more parking spaces downtown is a solution to Montreal’s infamous congestion problems) – became the city’s new mayor with 32% of the vote. On La Charte, Coderre had said in one of the election debates that he would contest it in the courts if it included the ban on religious symbols in the public sector.
For common Sense Canadian readers in BC, it may be also interesting to note that innovative, visionary candidate for mayor, Richard Bergeron of Projet Montréal, often referred to Vancouver as a model for urban densification and a green city. He came in second with 25.6%.
New voices against La Charte
Concurrent with the municipal election campaigning, others condemning the Charte elements pertaining to the wearing of religious symbols were Quebec’s hospitals’ association, universities, a teachers’ union, a private daycare centres’ association and many more.
Adding his voice to this opposition, the president of La Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (human rights and youth rights commission), Jacques Frémont, went public to say La Charte would not pass the test of either the Quebec Charter of Rights or the Canadian Charter of Rights in the event of a legal challenge. Either the PQ would have to modify the proposed Charte or revert to the “Notwithstanding clause.”
In effect, it has become very clear that it would be impossible to apply La Charte in the Montreal Statistics Canada census area, which attracts 87% of Québec immigrants and which represents over 45% of the population of Québec.
But all these obstacles did not deter the PQ.
Rather, the factor that changed Pauline Marois’ mind about going into a December 2013 election with the highly emotional Charte as a wedge issue, was the polls, which did not reflect the support she hoped for. As a result, as of October 27, the December 2013 election hype has been called off.
Swinging Further to the Right
Cultivating the right nationalist vote for La Charte is not, unfortunately, an isolated incident.
Shortly after coming into power, the Marois government appointed Pierre Karl Péladeau – controlling shareholder of Quebecor and Sun Media, well-known for his support of right wing causes – to sit on the Board of Hydro-Québec. Péladeau has since attended at least two Marois Cabinet meetings.
His spouse, Julie Snyder, host of the popular Star Académie (Québec equivalent to American Idol), is one of the members of the Janette movement, a women’s movement in support of La Charte. Julie Snyder is also involved in the development of a television production presenting a favourable portrait of Marois, to be aired on TVA, a TV network owned by Péladeau’s media empire.
Which brings us back to what Pauline Marois said when she became the leader of the PQ. At the time, she said she would modernize social democracy. She never explained what she meant, but after a year in power, it is becoming clearer as to what she had in mind – going after the right wing nationalist vote to put sovereignty over the top. Fortunately for Canada, the game plan is not working. But absolutely nothing can deter Pauline Marois. On November 7, she introduced La Charte to the Quebec National Assembly.
La Charte goes to the National Assembly
Pauline Marois knows that her Bill on La Charte will not get passed as proposed under the minority government at the National Assembly. But like Harper with his obsessions, Marois continues to insist that her Charte will unite Québécois, once again hoping that – eventually, that is – by the time the minority government is dissolved, she will be able to count on gaining new support among the right wing nationalists in Quebec’s outlying regions.
One might conclude that Pauline Marois is engaged in what Einstein referred to as insanity: “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Alberta cattle rancher Howard Hawkwood (photo courtesy of Green Planet Monitor)
Alberta cattle rancher Howard Hawkwood has a beef with the local fracking industry. He’s convinced the controversial technique for gas extraction is responsible for killing off 18 of his cows and large swaths of his property near Airdrie, Alberta.
An online radio program released today contains some shocking allegations of impacts of fracking on the ranch Hawkwood runs with his wife Nielle, a half hour drive northwest of Calgary. Nielle has recently lost some of her hair and the Hawkwoods have seen 10 percent of their cattle herd die from a mysterious illness they believe is connected to fracking and related radiation.
Howard describes their experience to program host David Kattenberg of the Green Planet Monitor – including1-2 acres of dead patches on their farm, which tests reveal contain alarming levels of radioactivity. (Listen to the full program here – Howard’s interview begins at the 19 min mark)
“Towards calving season, we noticed some cows weren’t doing that great…Then all the sudden these cows started to crash – they would go down and they wouldn’t get up,” Hawkwood explains. “We did blood testing on these cows and we found out the sodium and the chlorides were out of balance, so I asked the veterinarian, ‘So, what do we do?’. And the vet did some research and we don’t know. We don’t know how to handle this.”
Hawkwood goes on to describe the series of dead patches that have sprung up after fracking activities began near his ranch.
[quote]These are the dead spots in the field, where my cows have urinated. This all showed up last spring…We’ve actually taken soil samples of the dead spot and a sample from a foot and a half away and we’ve got high levels of radon, barium, uranium, strontium, and magnesium is extremely high.[/quote]
“This spot here has never changed,” Hawkwood explains. “It’s been here since June. It’s dead. And I estimate that on my entire ranch I’ve maybe lost 1-2 acres of land due to this. Really, nothing grows…Nothing will germinate in that soil.”
“And you think this has got to do with the fracking?” asks the show’s host.
“Oh, I think so. Definitely. Because the cows have been drinking out of my well water, and the chemicals or whatever’s in there – we don’t know what’s in there, they won’t tell us – and it’s killed this.”
Radioactive fracking in Pennsylvania
This is not the first time hydraulic fracturing has been tied to radiation. Just last month, a study published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology found radioactive water connected fracking operations in Pennsylvania. According to a Bloomberg story on the subject:
[quote]Naturally occurring radiation brought to the surface by gas drillers has been detected in a Pennsylvania creek that flows into the Allegheny River, illustrating the risks of wastewater disposal from the boom in hydraulic fracturing.[/quote]
Speak no evil
Mr. Hawkwood believes many other ranchers are experiencing similar issues, but are afraid to speak out – some because of non-disclosure agreements they’ve signed with the industry.
[quote]The other ranchers are experiencing the same thing but they don’t want to come forward, because they don’t want to create a problem. Or they have oil and gas on their property and they’ve had to sign non-disclosure agreements. One fellow told me that if he does a cow problem, he phones them and he’s got a cheque in the mail – as long as he doesn’t speak up.[/quote]
Hawkwood appears to be the exception to the rule. He’s reached his boiling point of late and has some strong words for government regulators he feels are letting down families like his.
Something has got to change
After showing host Kattenberg a 4-year-old cow who died the previous night, Hawkwood declares, “I am totally – maybe I shouldn’t say this – pissed off with our government.” Hawkwood continues:
[quote]Governments are supposed to protect us…and when this cow dies, and the number of cows I’ve lost and hear about other farmers and ranchers who’ve had the same experience and the same problem…now, if this keeps up and it’s going to create more problems, we’re not even going to have a cattle herd. It is a real nightmare in this province and in this country…and something has to change.[/quote]
ALR co-founder Harold Steves on his family farm in Steveston, BC (Damien Gillis)
VANCOUVER – A leaked cabinet document that proposes significant changes to British Columbia’s Agricultural Land Reserve — millions of hectares of cherished farmland that have been largely protected from development for decades — prompted swift denials Thursday from the provincial government and left proponents of the program with uneasy questions about its future.
The Globe and Mail published a story based on cabinet documents that reportedly outline a proposal from Agriculture Minister Pat Pimm to “modernize” the Agricultural Land Commission, the Crown agency that manages the land reserve.
Gas before food
Among other things, the proposal would see the Agricultural Land Commission cease to be an independent agency, instead coming under the control of the Agriculture Ministry, while handing “primary authority” to authorize industrial activity on agricultural land to the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission, the newspaper reported.
The documents were prepared as part of a so-called “core review” of government operations, launched earlier this year in a bid to trim the provincial budget, and the cabinet minister in charge of that review responded Thursday by ruling out many of the most controversial aspects of the leaked proposal.
Minister downplays concerns
Bill Bennett, who is also the minister of energy and mines, said the Globe and Mail story was based on an “older document” that has since been rejected. He said the government has ruled out shifting the commission’s duties to the agriculture minister or handing over more decision-making authority to the oil and gas regulator. Said Bennett in an interview:
[quote]We certainly have no plans to bring the commission inside government or tamper with the independence of the commission, and we have no plans to undermine the central principle of the reserve, which is the protection of good quality farmland.[/quote]
Bennett noted the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission has had the power to approve certain applications on land within the Agricultural Land Reserve for nearly a decade through a document known as a “delegation agreement,” which was last updated earlier this year.
“If there were changes made (to the agreement), they would be quite minor; we’re not looking at anything close to what the reporter described in his article.”
Bennett downplayed the significance of Pimm’s proposal, suggesting it was little more than one of many ideas he and his Liberal government colleagues have considered as part of the core review process.
However, Bennett’s comments did little to assure supporters of the land reserve, which was created in the mid-1970s by the NDP government of the day amid concerns that the province’s farmland was rapidly disappearing.
40-year-old ALR fiercely defended
The reserve is made up of 4.7 million hectares of land throughout the province on which agriculture is given top priority. Strict controls are placed on non-agricultural uses and under what circumstances land can be taken out of the reserve.
The Agricultural Land Reserve is one of the most fiercely defended institutions in the province, with advocates routinely raising concerns that private businesses — whether through property development or oil and gas projects — have been able to whittle away at protected farmland.
Those fears have persisted despite the provincial government’s repeated insistence it has no plans to gut the reserve. Earlier this year, the government added $4 million to the Agricultural Land Commission’s budget over the next three years.
Father of the ALR weighs in
Harold Steves, who as an NDP member of the legislature in the 1970s is credited as one of the land reserve’s co-founders, said he’s convinced the Liberal government is searching for ways to weaken the reserve and the commission that protects it.
“I’m not confident at all,” said Steves, who is now a city councillor in Richmond, south of Vancouver.
[quote]Whether they’ve ruled these two particular proposals out, I would bet there’s another one some place, and we’ll just see them coming one after another.[/quote]
Steves warned any attempt to tamper with the land reserve would be fraught with political danger.
“If they called an election on this issue, they wouldn’t get a seat,” he said.
NDP fires back
The Opposition New Democrats were quick to seize on the leaked cabinet documents, holding them up as proof the Liberals are bent on destroying the land reserve in favour of big business.
NDP Leader Adrian Dix said the Agricultural Land Commission has done a good job protecting the land reserve, and he accused the Liberals of “attacking the independence” of the agency.
“It’s extraordinary — it’s really a betrayal of what the Liberals have said,” Dix said in an interview.
[quote]In secret, they’re talking about undermining it. It doesn’t make sense, it’s not needed, it’s not clear what problem they’re trying to solve, and it would be a victory of private interests over the public interest.[/quote]
Cattlemen’s beef with slaughtering ALR
Industry groups such as the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association and the B.C. Agriculture Council said they were concerned about the leaked cabinet proposal, but they acknowledged they still need to see more details about what changes, if any, the government is actually considering before coming to any conclusions.
They also expressed frustration their members haven’t been consulted about the future of the commission.
Rhonda Driediger, the chair of the agriculture council, said the government needs to come up with a detailed vision for the province’s agriculture industry before making any substantial changes to how the land reserve is managed.
“The Liberals have not really given us a long-term plan for agriculture,” said Driediger.
“If we had a long-term agriculture strategy, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.”
Chiefs of the Tsimshian First Nation speak out against Enrbidge at a 2012 Prince Rupert rally
You would have thought that they would have had the decency to wait until the Joint Review Panel had made its report before the two western-most premiers made a deal on the pipelines. Of course there was no need to because the federal government that prizes “process” so much has already made it clear it wasn’t going to pay any to attention the panel unless it supports pipelines.
I wonder what my MP, Conservative John Weston thinks of this considering how he’s been so vocal about “process”, it being his constant buzzword for environmental matters. Will he stand up in the House and condemn his government and the provincial governments for cocking a snook at the “process” he praised as for the reason for gutting the protection of fish habitat?
There is no sense getting worked up about Christy Clark and Alison Redford’s pact – yet. I suspect all environmentalists will condemn this cynical bit of business, where BC trades its environment for pipelines. I can assure you that The Common Sense Canadian will do so and will keep it up as long as necessary.
What is more important now is support for First Nations as they formulate their battle plan and thereafter.
One can never be sure of steadfastness until it is seen in action. Reading between the lines, one would have to conclude that Enbridge, Kinder Morgan and the senior governments are satisfied that they can get over this hurdle. From my meetings with leaders and working the room at conventions, I don’t believe this. First Nations leaders are politicians too and must answer to their voters. Whether those voters can – pardon the bluntness – be bought off or not remains to be seen.
If First Nations – particularly the coastal nations who have been unshakable in their resolve – maintain their position hitherto, it will obviously do very little good to the governments and corporations who have to ship their grisly product once they get it to the coast.
I’m too damned old to be shocked or surprised at what a government or company will do for a vote or some money.
I don’t know what my colleagues in the environmental movement will do – I suspect we will know soon.
For me, this creaky crock will fight these pipelines and tankers as long as he has the breath to do so.
Public hearings into the controversial, $8 Billion Site C Dam are set to commence next month, as the Joint Review Panel for the project indicated today that proponent BC Hydro has filled in some key gaps identified in its proposal.
The process will kick off on December 9 in Fort St. John and is scheduled to wrap up by the end of January, with a final recommendation on the project expected mid-year.
“The need for the project is there certainly in the long term, it’s long-term planning. It, in fact, may be needed sooner, particularly from a capacity perspective,” Hydro spokesperson Dave Conway told media, citing a growth in demand to supply liquefied natural gas (LNG), mining and other industrial sectors.
Conway also referenced anticipated growth in population and use of electronic devices in defence of the need for a new dam.
But there are some serious holes in Hydro’s story.
BC’s electrical consumption flat
First off, despite considerable growth in population and electronic devices over the past decade, BC’s electrical consumption has remained pretty well flat. According to Stats BC, the province was a net exporter of 5,800 Gigawatt hours (GWhrs) of power last year – an excess of more than 10% of our actual demand. That figure is trending upward, as BC is awash in private power, while at the same time doing well with conservation.
Thirty years ago, when Site C was first proposed, British Columbians were threatened with brown-outs if the dam wasn’t constructed. Needless to say, this scary scenario never came close to materializing.
LNG a whole different animal
That said, the idea of powering the enormously energy-intensive, proposed LNG industry does introduce massive new electrical demands for the province. But this notion is fraught with a litany of problems, such as:
The dam isn’t expected to be completed until 2022-2023 at the earliest – which is too late for proposed LNG plants to depend on.
BC’s taxpayers and ratepayers need to ask themselves whether they want to spend $8 billion (likely far more, given the typical cost overruns of dams in general, not to mention this government’s routine mismanagement of capital projects) on a dam to provide subsidized power to the oil and gas industry. Site C will only compound already skyrocketing power bills for consumers.
The dam carries considerable environmental and food security trade-offs as it would flood close to 60,000 acres of wildlife habitat and prime farmland in the beautiful Peace River Valley. This at a time when the government is allegedly set to dismantle the Agricultural Land Commission to remove pesky farmland as an obstacle to oil and gas development.
Local First Nations, environmental groups and landowners are supported by organizations beyond the region too, such as the Vancouver-based Wilderness Committee.
Says the organization’s National Campaign Director Joe Foy on today’s announcement:
[quote]There’s 100 kilometres of river valley — a huge amount of farmland — that would be flooded. I don’t know if the people in the south have locked on that yet. While that river is still running, we’ve got some fight in us.[/quote]
The real question
Site C is often justified in terms of powering 450,000 homes, which is an unfair characterization, since BC looks to be a net exporter of power for years to come. When the government or crown corporation acknowledges that Site C is really about powering industry, at least they’re being more honest with the public. But in a day and age when we produce just 40% of our own food in BC, when power bills are going through the roof, when we’re running sizeable deficits and racking up debt for future generations, the question is this:
[quote]Should taxpayers shell out billions to destroy a massive amount of quality agricultural and forest land – all to provide highy-subsidized power to the oil and gas industry?[/quote]
This is the question that needs to be front and centre at these public hearings beginning next month.
Dana Maslovat of Southlands the Facts near the contentious Southlands property in Delta, BC
Canada’s most contentious piece of farmland is back on the chopping block as the Corporation of Delta held another in a long line of public hearings into the Southlands property in recent weeks. Debate over the property in the early ’80s yielded the longest public hearing in Canadian history.
On the table today is a revised plan to develop the 500-acre parcel in Boundary Bay for 950 homes. Council closed debate after 5 days of hearings, throughout which 233 people spoke in opposition to the application and 163 in favour.
Of the 2,348 pieces of written correspondence received to date, 1,477 were opposed, with just 871 in favour. Council is set to reconvene Friday to decide on formally closing the hearing process. According to the Delta Optimist, “A special meeting will then commence to consider further action.” Council can vote the project down or decide to refer it to Metro Vancouver, who would also need to remove the property from its regional Green Zone for construction to proceed.
Erosion of democracy
It’s been more than three decades since the Southlands (a.k.a. Spetifore Farm) was removed from the Agricultural Land Reserve by the Socred Government – against the Commission’s advice – prompted by a group of Socred insiders seeking to develop it. Ever since, a battle has raged in the community over various plans to build atop this fertile piece of land.
Builders dismiss its agricultural potential, but soil reports tell a different story. A 217 acre portion of the property was farmed for 40 years and some of it is farmed today – 80 acres for potatoes and barley, plus a popular community garden called Earthwise (see video below).
More than the potential erosion of good, food-producing land, perhaps the biggest issue with the Southlands has been the erosion of local democracy. No development proposal in Canada has faced a longer, more steady, more intense wall of community opposition than the Southlands.
Citizens have lined up at one hearing after another, filled out questionnaires, responded to polls, always with the same message, by a considerable majority – reflected again in the numbers for this latest round of public feedback. They want the property maintained for agricultural use and wildlife habitat.
“Yet again the community has indicated their staunch opposition to this development plan,” says Dana Maslovat of Southlands the Facts, following the recent outpouring of community opposition to the project.
[quote]In the last four years, citizens have been asked again and again if they would support development on the Southlands and each time the answer has remained a resolute “NO!”…It has left the community doubting that this Council and Mayor ever intended to conduct a fair and transparent assessment. [/quote]
The municipality spent several years developing a core planning document to guide development – the Tsawwassen Area Plan – which doesn’t support the development of the Southlands. Yet, two years ago, the owner sought to override that plan for its development. I produced this short documentary on the subject at the time:
Back in 2011, the Municipality of Delta was considering an appeal from owner the Century Group to change the zoning from agricultural to residential (though the property was removed from the ALR years ago, it has retained its municipal agricultural designation). When hundreds of citizens turned out to oppose the move through multiple nights of hearings, the development stalled again.
Maslovat and his allies are frustrated that tax dollars are being used to provide the developer with what seems like an unlimited number of chances to re-submit its application. “It’s the citizens who are paying for this process, time and time again,” Maslovat told me.
Ministry of Agriculture staff critical of plan
The developer has since downgraded its proposal from 1,900 to 950 homes, with a 172 hectares set aside for farmland and public space. Century Group boss Sean Hodgins defends the new application, claiming, “The plan is different, in that it was configured more to the south and now it’s more to the east in response to the soil quality.” The developer’s plan incorporates a “Community-based farming model”, which purports to educate the public about farming by locating small plots near the development.
But Ministry of Agriculture staff are skeptical, outlining their concerns in a letter to mayor and council. They note a report by the developer “does not contain enough details regarding soils, suitable crops, and drainage and irrigation improvements needed at the site.” Moreover, the ministry staff don’t buy the argument that keeping a portion of the property for farming will be a net benefit in terms of promoting agricultural values.
Alternatives to development
The development’s detractors have suggested many alternatives – including creating a land trust to buy the Century Group out at fair market value and convert the land to wildlife refuge and community farming plots not surrounded by development. Naturally, this would require some creative thinking and the support of the municipality and possibly other levels of government, such as was the case with nearby Burns Bog.
There’s no reason this notion should be seen as pie-in-the-sky. The Century Group already made back more money than it ever spent on the property – which it picked up for a fire sale price when the former owner defaulted on its loan – by selling a portion of the original parcel to Metro Vancouver for the popular Boundary Bay Regional Park. The park offers both recreational values and an important sanctuary for birds.
Sitting in the middle of the Pacific Flyway – a major migratory pathway for 5 million birds – both the park and remaining farmland are critical wildlife habitat. Left undeveloped, the Southlands could continue providing habitat while feeding the community through agricultural production.
The Earthwise Garden and Farm offers a glimpse at a real community farming model that could take root in a bigger way on the property, but without the need to develop part of it.
The bottom line is this: if it didn’t make sense to develop the Southlands thirty years ago, then today, with BC producing just 40% of its own food (down almost half from where it was when the Southlands spat began), then it surely doesn’t make sense today.
And the citizens of Delta shouldn’t have to mobilize to make this argument every few years, just because the developer and the municipality feel like it.
The decision is now in the hands of mayor and council. Let’s hope they choose wisely – and definitively.
Quebec’s Chaudière River (photo courtesy of Greenpeace Quebec)
Sediment from the Chaudière River, near the site of the Lac-Mégantic train derailment four months ago, shows high levels of contaminants according to testing done by Greenpeace Quebec and the Société pour vaincre la pollution (SVP). Despite months of cleanup operations sediments collected from the river show higher-than-acceptable levels of several chemicals, including cancer-causing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Quebec Environment Minister Yves-François Blanchet said the department continues to monitor the safety of the water, reports the Montreal Gazette, and will take into consideration the two groups’ test results.
In late September Quebec’s environment department lifted a drinking-water ban for several downstream communities who rely on the Chaudière River for water.
Lac-Mégantic water sample (photo: Greenpeace Quebec)
“Sampling has not stopped, analyses have not stopped, the teams are still on the ground,” Blanchet said in the National Assembly Wednesday. He added “information is still publicly available on the Environment Ministry’s website, such that we know that there is no immediate threat.”
27 times acceptable pollution levels
Both Greenpeace Quebec and SVP say pollutant levels in samples taken 4.7km downstream of the lake are 27 times higher than accepted levels.
The Lac-Mégantic derailment resulted in the release of an estimated 5.9 million litres of oil that burned or spilled into the town’s lake and the Chaudière river.
Recently Quebec environment updated those oil spill figures from a previously estimated 5.6 million litres.
The precise amount of oil released into the lake and river is still under question. The environment department estimates around 100,000 litres of oil contaminated the river although Greenpeace’s Patrick Bonin questioned that amount given the high level of contamination present in their samples. Researchers could both see and smell oil in river at the time of testing.
According to Bonin this is the second round of testing the groups have undertaken. Results in both instances were sent to the environment department.
Government pressured to release its own test results
The groups are calling on Quebec to release the details of its water sampling to the public, including what methods are in use and all results.
“In my view, the evidence points to a fundamentally flawed regulatory system, cost-cutting corporate behaviour that jeopardized public safety and the environment, and responsibility extending to the highest levels of corporate management and government policy making,” wrote author Bruce Campbell, the centre’s executive director.
Shipments of oil by rail have increased by 28,000 percent since 2009.
