Tag Archives: featured

Who Killed BC Hydro?

August 2, 2016Hydropower, WATERfeaturedRafe Mair

This is the story of the death of our province’s once greatest institution, BC Hydro. Though the public power utility began its life under Socred Premier WAC Bennett in 1961, the story of its demise starts circa 2001, under the newly-minted Liberal administration of Gordon Campbell.

Today, this once thriving institution is de facto bankrupt, without counting the $8.8-plus billion set aside for Site C Dam (a number surely to double, as we have seen with Newfoundland’s Muskrat Falls) – this catastrophe when customers haven’t required any increase in electricity for more than a decade, while rates increased by 30%.

The envy of the world

Longtime Bc Premier WAC Bennett's dream is dead — Longtime BC Premier WAC Bennett’s dream is dead

When the Liberals came to power in 2001, BC Hydro was a thriving energy company and it is no exaggeration to say the envy of the world. It was set up by WAC Bennett so that cheap power could be delivered to the less developed regions of the province the private sector wouldn’t supply. Bennett held that without cheap transportation and power, the north couldn’t develop, so he converted private companies into BC Rail, the BC Ferry Corporation and BC Hydro.

Since 2001, BC Rail has disappeared and BC Ferries might just as well have. Moreover, BC Hydro’s real debt has increased by 1,170%, from $6 billion in 2005 to $76 billion today.

How did this happen to a profitable company and so quickly?

Public bad, private good

Former BC Premier Gordon Campbell and his Finance Minister Colin Hansen — Gordon Campbell and his Finance Minister Colin Hansen

Clearly, it was deliberate and consistent with the Camp Rightwing and Fraser Institute-inspired view that crown corporations are evil and can’t possibly do anything as well as the private sector. You’re to overlook that this wasn’t part of Campbell’s election platform; in fact, he promised to save the crowns I mentioned, including BC Hydro. This was the first of a long line of Liberal falsehoods that continues to this day, reaching a crescendo with Premier Clark’s ongoing bullshit about Site C.

Let’s see how it happened and you judge whether or not it was deliberate.

In 2002 Campbell propounded his energy policy, part of which said: “The private sector will develop new electricity generation, with BC Hydro restricted to improvements at existing plants.” The other exception was Site C, since it had been in the plans since the ’70s.

The myth of “small hydro”

The private companies were called Independent Power Producers (IPPs) and here’s how then finance minister Colin Hansen described the program:

[quote]… where we can encourage small companies to build small scale hydroelectric projects that are run of the river, and what that means is, instead of having a big reservoir, a big dam that backs water up, and creates a great big lake, these are run of the river, so the river continues to flow at its normal rate but we capture some of the energy in the form of hydroelectric power from this.[emphasis added][/quote]

Construction of a private power project on the Ashlu River (Photo: Range Life) — IPP construction on the Ashlu River (Photo: Range Life)

This was all barnyard droppings – the dams were called weirs but no less dams for that: the rivers, their ecologies, salmon runs and other water life were killed; roads and transmission lines were constructed; the small companies were the likes of General Electric. The contracts, which virtually run forever, pay the companies at least and often much more than double the market price and BC Hydro is required to buy all of their energy whenever produced whether it needs it or not!

A vital fact is that the vast majority of private power can only be generated during the annual Spring run-off, when BC Hydro least needs it as its reservoirs are full to brimming and power demand is at its lowest.

Power we don’t need, at outrageous costs

These huge corporations pay peppercorn rent, but didn’t fancy putting their own money on the line, so the public was forced to carry almost all the financial risks for a wealthy private system. It wasn’t long before every sharp operator wanted in, with the result that a few big guys cashed in and Hydro was stuck with buying power it didn’t need at prices it couldn’t afford.

What happened then?

Norman Farrell, a Hydro watcher for many years and the publisher of In-sights, says:

[quote]… IPP power, (for 2015) costing BC Hydro $1,217 million, could have been acquired from our southern neighbours for $545 million, a $672 million premium for buying power in BC. Ironically, many of the IPPs are foreign owned companies, happily exporting their profits…the fastest growth in the independent power industry has been in last two years, while Premier Clark hurries to get the Site C dam construction beyond what she calls “a point of no return.”[/quote]

Premier Campbell’s rationale was that IPPs would supply California, but didn’t do his homework or he’d have known that California’s renewable portfolio standard doesn’t consider IPPs “green”, so they won’t pay a premium for electricity produced by our IPPs. BC Hydro was forced to take and pay for all this power whether it needed it or not – and it didn’t. Another great business decision!

Self-regulation = No regulation

These huge, rapacious IPPs police themselves with respect to environmental practises, and Surprise! There have been no prosecutions. The environmental consequences have been rightly called a “horror show” by eminent BCIT fish biologist Dr. Marvin Rosenau.

And for all that, the values of IPP generating facilities are not included in BC Hydro assets, although the company is obliged by contracts extending up to 56 years to pay a reported $56.2 billion for the produced power.

Working to save our rivers

In 2008 I was approached by rancher Tom Rankin, who had a ranch on the Ashlu River near Squamish, destroyed by an IPP. Tom, a successful businessman who had formed Save Our Rivers Society, asked me to be spokesperson and I joined Damien Gillis, now publisher of The Common Sense Canadian – which we later co-founded in 2010 – and Joe Foy, chief campaigner for The Wilderness Committee, using Tom’s enormous knowledge reservoir, and we travelled throughout the province in the 2009 election speaking against this calamitous Liberal energy policy.

With help from people like economist Erik Andersen, we would continue for years to explain to people from village to village that their rivers were being destroyed, their Hydro rates were set to soar, and BC Hydro was being driven into bankruptcy. People simply couldn’t believe that any premier or any government would allow this to happen! Well, it did happen and the result was even worse than we had forecast.

The only good news is that through these efforts and the support of thousands of British Columbians awakening to this crisis, we were able to fend off most of the really big projects – General Electric’s $5 Billion/17 river Bute Inlet behemoth, The Upper Pitt River Project, the Glacier/Howser project in the Kootenays, and many others. All that is to say that, no matter how bad things got, they could have been much, much worse.

What is Weaver thinking?

Rafe- Weaver, BC Greens should quit supporting private river power sham — Dr. Andrew Weaver, leader of the BC Green Party

Because politics is what this is all about, you should know that the current Green Party leader, Dr. Andrew Weaver, wrote and spoke in favour of the Liberals’ policy in 2009 (listen here to his robo-call on behalf of the Campbell energy policy) and still supports it to this day – to the astonishment of all who hoped that the Greens might be a solution, not part of the problem.

In fact, prior to his decision in 2009 to support the Campbell Energy Plan and its IPP program, Dr. Weaver didn’t bother to visit the easily accessible Ashlu River project, all but completed, to see for himself what an ecological catastrophe but baldly stated IPP energy to be “clean and green”. Even as recently as this month Dr. Weaver declared to me that IPPs were merely waterwheels!

Here we are in 2016 and BC Hydro would be bankrupt if it were in the private sector. The public is left to pay ever-increasing rates to cover this financial boondoggle (and that’s without the massive additional burden of Site C), scores of rivers ruined, wealthy companies made wealthier with the money going out of British Columbia, all without any change in sight – except for the worse.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul

Ah, but that’s not all this business-oriented government has done for us. You see, BC Hydro is forced to pay an annual dividend to the government so that Finance Minister Mike de Jong’s “budget” looks better. Now – get this – Hydro must pay this dividend even if it loses money hand-over-fist, as it has ever since the Liberals got their greedy little pinkies on the till.

As of now, Hydro owes $852 million to the government over the next three fiscal years in mandatory annual dividend payments and, not having the money, must borrow the funds. In short, BC Hydro must borrow money — which ratepayers will have to pay back in the future — so that it can meet government’s annual demand for a share of its non-existent profits, transferring the debt from us the taxpayers to us the ratepayers!

The business acumen displayed takes the breath away – along with our money.

Deferring the inevitable

Here’s some more funny math. BC Hydro has been deferring expenses to avoid declaring operating losses. “Money was disbursed but instead of treating payments as expenses, the company treats some of them as ‘temporary’ assets,” explains Norm Farrell. “It is like a dairy farmer buying hay but not counting its cost as an expense, arguing that feeding cows today allows them to grow larger and healthier and perhaps produce more milk in the future. It is trick accounting, allowed because government writes its own accounting rules.”

Another trick is with something called “regulatory assets” which are largely deferrals – expenses Hydro paid but doesn’t want to treat as expenses. Instead, they stay on the balance sheet as deferred costs. As of this year, they stand at a whopping $6.3 billion, up from $861 million 10 years ago and zero 15 years ago, when the Liberals took over from the NDP.

“Someday, these will have to be treated honestly,” says Farrell. “Except, if they did that, instead of showing profits, they would show massive losses and have to end the transfers from BC Hydro to provincial treasury.”

Where are the alternatives?

BC Hydro is often referred to as our “energy” company – I’ve called it that – where in fact it is our “Hydroelectric” energy company. Hydro has been negligent unto disobedient in its failure to assess alternative sources of energy.

BC sitting on enough geothermal to power whole province, say new maps — Steam rising from the Nesjavellir Geothermal Power Station in Iceland (Photo: Gretar Ívarsson / Wikipedia)

For many year, it made the excuse that other energy sources like wind power, tidal, solar and so on were intermittent – there’s no wind power when there’s no wind – and the power couldn’t be stored, so it was useless. That excuse is no more. These alternate sources, with new technology, can spell each other off in an integrated grid, and are starting to be stored through improved battery technologies and can thus relieve the need for hydroelectric power with consequent monetary and environmental savings. Not to mention geothermal, which is, like hydropower, “base-load” (always available). Experts tell us we’re awash in geothermal potential but BC Hydro would rather flood productive farmland with giant, old-school dams and sign rip-off IPP contracts than harness the sustainable and plentiful power beneath our feet.

The difficulty is philosophical and emotional as much as anything. It should be called the BC Energy Corporation and thus remove the impression that hydro is the only power we can get.

The management of BC Hydro is so wired into hydropower that they’re like a carpenter who only owns a hammer, so that everything he sees looks like a nail.

Space doesn’t permit an extensive look at Site C here, a book in itself, but most experts – including no less than the head of the Joint Review Panel into the project – agree that Site C is almost totally unnecessary in any event and, going further, there’s not a scintilla of need if alternative forms of energy were developed.

Our debt to bear

In closing, what must never be forgotten in any assessment of BC Hydro is that it is not only a public company owned by the people of British Columbia, their debts are owed by the people as well. It’s not that we don’t think of that much – we don’t think about it at all. We whistle past the graveyard, assuming that we will never be called upon to pay. We may not ever have to write personal checks but government services will be substantially diminished if BC Hydro turns up its toes to be ravaged by the vultures patiently watching.

When you look at the disgraceful mess the Liberals have made of BC Hydro, you have to seriously ask – how long will it take for the public to realize how Gordon Campbell and Christy have, ahem, screwed them?

Trudeau’s strange non-battle with fossil fuels (and Site C rubber stamp)

July 29, 2016Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedRafe Mair

Justin Trudeau speaks at the Paris climate talks - flanked by Canadian premiers (Province of BC/Flickr) — Justin Trudeau at the Paris climate talks, flanked by Canadian premiers (Province of BC/Flickr)

I am writing today about the Trudeau government’s increasingly bizarre policy on fossil fuels, which essentially amounts wanting to have its cake and eat it too. But first, I must note that the same can be said for the government’s dealings with First Nations and myriad environmental issues surrounding Site C Dam – as yesterday’s quiet approval by DFO of key permits for the project shows. Treaty 8 First Nations are going to federal court in September to challenge a lack of consultation regarding a project with massive implications for their territory and rights.

Justing Trudeau and Jody Wilson-Raybould meet in Hartley Bay on the BC coast in 2014 (Flickr / Justin Trudeau)

Aboriginal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould has publicly acknowledged this project would violate treaty rights, while the Trudeau government made a big deal recently about backing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. And yet, where the rubber meets the road, we have the swift, closed-door approval to damage important fish habitat, with no meaningful consultation of First Nations and local landowners. What are we doing in this day and age destroying any fish habitat at all? Moreover, the latest research shows that big dams are actually destructive to the climate, not “green” or “clean”. It’s getting harder and harder to square Justin’s campaign promises with his actions in government.

Forget Paris

The federal government’s ever-evolving oil and gas policy isn’t much different. I am puzzled by Prime Minister Trudeau’s attitude towards fossil fuels for, not to put too fine a point on it, he simply does not seem to have the courage to follow through on his peerless stage performance in Paris, where he became the darling of the world’s glamour puss fans. I hate to think that the fossil fuel industry, which mostly controls the media, controls him too and has frightened him off course.

Without descending into the world of science, where I admit I am instantly lost, my understanding was that he and Canada would take the lead in fighting climate change and that we would begin to wean ourselves off the extraction, use, transport and export of fossil fuels.

It doesn’t take a highly developed understanding of these issues to know that climate change is mainly caused by fossil fuels in the atmosphere and that despite the customary and convenient ignorance of Premier Christy Clark, LNG would be a terrible offender.

Two steps back with Woodfibre LNG approval

And what does Mr. Trudeau do by way of setting an example?

With indecent haste, no warning and without appropriate environmental assessments, Environment Minister Catherine McKenna approved Woodfibre LNG in Squamish saying that the project underwent “a thorough, science-based environmental assessment that considered public and indigenous input and views.”

Well, not quite, because the project was assessed under the post-C-38 regulations — after the Harper government had gutted traditional safeguards for the environment and transferred the task of environmental review to the provinces which, in this case, had already committed to it!

As Michael Harris of iPolitics put it:

[quote]Under the former regulatory regime, the public process was far more rigorous. Opponents were allowed to express alternate opinions, stakeholders could submit briefs and cross-examine witnesses at the hearings. With Bill C-38, the environmental review process was emasculated, weakening the protection of the public interest. It can hardly be invoked now by the federal government to vindicate this dubious decision.[/quote]

This wasn’t how it was supposed to go, for, on March 1, 2016, on CBC National TV, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said, in reference to developments, “governments grant permits, communities grant permission”.

Then on March 18, 2016, a mere 17 days later, even though every Council in the constituency, including the City of West Vancouver, stood unanimously opposed to the project, the Trudeau government gave the go-ahead to Woodfibre LNG!

As mentioned, one partial, shabby, discredited Environmental Process had been carried out by the Province of BC, after BC had already approved the project, and Trudeau, in the 2015 election, heavily badmouthed the National Energy Board process and procedures and promised radical changes.

A dangerous idea, approved

But that’s not all – there was no proper assessment of the impact of noxious discharges of the plant itself into the atmosphere or the impact of poisonous discharges into Howe Sound and their impact on recently restored salmon and herring runs.

Think that’s all?

Not on your tintype!

By internationally accepted standards, as determined by world renowned Sandia Laboratories and set by the industry organization itself, The Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO), Howe Sound and its channels are far too narrow for LNG tankers, creating a very serious safety risk. The Trudeau government has refused to take this seriously.

In fact, the Prime Minister, far from weaning us off them, is committed to more pipelines, more oil, more coal and more LNG.

You may be thinking that there’s a wee bit of hypocrisy here. Well, you ain’t heard nothing yet.

Lip service

Liberal MP Pamela Goldsmith-Jones (Flickr/CreativeMornings Vancouver/Matthew Smith)

Our Liberal MP, Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, who told us during the election that she opposed WLNG, now finds herself Parliamentary Secretary to Stephane Dion, the Foreign Minister, thus on the cusp of Cabinet. I wouldn’t suggest for a moment that this converted Pam to an LNG enthusiast but she now supports WLNG.

Now, you ready for this? Pam has arranged for public hearings for her constituents not on the merits of WLNG – that is strictly off limits and not to be mentioned – but to help us all understand climate change and tell us what we can do about it, such as buy solar panels and that sort of thing.

I hardly need to remind you, I’m sure, that the best way to avoid Climate Change would be to tube WLNG and forego any other LNG production and export. That’s where the biggest increase to our carbon footprint would come from (Petronas’s Lelu Island plant alone would boost BC’s entire carbon footprint by 8.5%). So here we have the Trudeau government and MP coming to tell us how to find solutions to climate change, which they are causing and plan to cause more of, and could end with the stroke of a pen!

Saskatchewan spill worst yet

Let me close with pipelines.

Pipelines, as we know, carry noxious fossil fuels through our wild forests and salmon-spawning rivers to narrow passages on our pristine coast, from where they are tankered to faraway places. The Industry, supported by the media and Prime Minister, pooh pooh their unfortunate propensity to burst with disastrous results and irreparable damage. At this moment, when Trudeau is patiently waiting to approve two major pipelines, there has been a major fracture in Northern Saskatchewan threatening, amongst other things, major domestic water supply. We’re told this spill is worse than that into the Kalamazoo River 6 years ago, the worst modern spill, which Enbridge plays down almost as if it never happened even though it’s not been cleaned up yet and likely never will be.

You would think that Mr. Trudeau, based upon his flowery words in Paris would be deeply concerned but, au contraire, he can’t wait to get on with them.

The “Tidewater” myth

Interestingly enough, J. David Hughes, a retired senior geologist for the Geological Survey of Canada and author of the report “Can Canada Expand Oil and Gas Production, Build Pipelines and Keep its Climate Commitments?” makes a strong case that the pipelines planned are going to the wrong place. He states the following:

[quote]The widely recited rhetoric that new pipelines must be built to oceans — or “tidewater” — to capture a significant price premium by selling on international markets is likewise not supported by the facts.

Although oil is a globally priced commodity, between 2011 and 2014 the international price (“Brent”) was considerably higher than the North American price (“WTI”). In September 2011 the differential reached $25.26 per barrel. However, the average differential in the six months ending May 2016 was 88 cents per barrel and recently Brent has been trading below WTI.

Not only has the international price advantage evaporated, but Canada’s primary oil export, Western Canada Select, sells at a discount to WTI. That’s because it is a lower grade heavy oil and will sell at a discount whether sold internationally or to North American markets.

Thus the premium that fuelled the rhetoric on the need for new pipelines to “tidewater” has disappeared and is unlikely to return.

Developing a climate plan to meet Canada’s Paris Agreement commitments is a challenging but achievable task for the federal government. Doing so while meeting Alberta’s and BC’s oil and gas production growth aspirations, however, will be virtually impossible.

The oil and gas industry is certainly not going away any time soon, but if Canada is serious about meeting its climate commitments it is time for the prime minister and premiers to do the math and stop telling us we can have it all.[/quote]

This is a bit of the history of the actions of prime minister Justin Trudeau since he did his dog and pony show in Paris and wowed us all with his commitment to the environment and, particularly, in reducing climate change, which has the potential to do no less than destroy the world.

Somehow I don’t think my prime minister has been telling the truth and I’ve lost faith in his commitment to do what he promises. Can anyone help me understand why I feel this way?

Rafe: Lessons Canada should but won’t learn from Brexit

July 15, 2016International, PoliticsfeaturedRafe Mair

Everybody seems to have a theory about Brexit and I am no exception.

Britain was never in Europe entirely. It is a long torturous history from the beginning of the Common Market to now but it goes back much further than that. I don’t suppose it’s too big a stretch to say that the original invasions of Great Britain from Europe were all part of an effort to bring the islands together with the mainland.

Over the years the British, despite the occasional common monarchy, thoroughly mistrusted the French more than that they saw economic advantages in any union. Oddly enough, Britain’s only enduring alliance with Europe is with Portugal, going back to 1386.

Churchill’s ‘New Europe’

Winston Churchill surveys the damage after a German bombing raid — Winston Churchill surveys damage after German bombing raid

It was after two massive wars in the 20th century that spawned the idea of peace through economic arrangements and there are many who credit Churchill as the author, arising out of his famous speech in Zürich in 1948 where he called for a united states of Europe.

Not for the only time in his career he was badly “non” quoted because after he spoke of united states of Europe, he said these words:

Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America, and I trust Soviet Russia – for then indeed all would be well – must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine.

Churchill long nurtured the notion of the English speaking world and saw not only the political connections as important but also free trade arrangements which had been augmented over the years. He certainly saw no reason to sacrifice those arrangements to the uncertainty of a European market full of countries Britain had mostly been at war with and few of which it had strong trade relations with.

A common market

From the outset, the Labour and Conservative Parties were each divided on this issue and the divisions in some cases ran very deep. For the average Briton, the overriding feature was the avoidance of yet another bloodbath and the coming together of France and Germany, originally in a Coal/Steel Pact, went a long way toward solving the problem.

The notion originally sold to Brits was a “common market” not a political union. In fact the political operation was pretty loose with an unelected executive in one city and a toothless parliament in another. The executive wielded most of the power and was unaccountable to the public.

Politicizing the union

As matters progressed, the European centrists eased into a not terribly subtle process of politicizing the union without saying so. The history of this starts with one Jacques Delors.

However much Britain may have accepted membership in what was to become the EU, there were everyday irritations which probably need not have taken place. One might find, for example, that the garden hose they had to buy didn’t fit the British faucet and things of that nature. These piss-offs didn’t kill the EU but they certainly did nothing to inspire affection.

Jacques Delors became the President of the European Commission in January 1985, laying the groundwork for single market within the European Community, which came into effect on 1 January 1993. There was no public vote to ratify this new arrangement.

Thatcher and co. push back

In the autumn of 1988, Delors addressed the British Trade Union Congress, announcing that EC would force the UK to bring in pro-labour legislation. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher responded with her famous “Bruges Speech” on September 20, 1988, where she said that she had “not rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain only to see them reimposed by a Brussels superstate”.

The fat was in the fire. Whereas, as recently as the early 1980s, much of the Labour Party had opposed the EC, while the Conservatives had favoured joining, after 1988 it was to be the Conservatives who were divided, with Thatcher and her supporters opposed to further European integration.

Delors bore the brunt of British Euroscepticism. This was best exemplified by The Sun’s headline on November 1, 1990 reading, “Up Yours Delors” in response to his attempts to promote further European integration and a single currency for the EC, and labelling Delors “the Froggie Common Market chief”.

I need hardly say that the English, especially, are super sentimental and place a lot of stock in their institutions. I happened to be there when the switch was made to decimal coinage and the controversy exists to this day, especially as to the names of the new coins.

When there was first a threat to the pound – and it was a real one – and then to the Royal family, probably not so real, the backs of many English were up. My thought when prime minister Cameron announced the referendum was that the “toffs” and others would not deal with the real issues on voters minds. This referendum wasn’t being held in the clubs of Pall Mall or on the verandah at Lords but in the public houses all over the land. Dealing just with England, where the majority for Brexit sprang, what were the issues of that time?

Freedom of Movement

Certainly the breakdown in relations between Germany and France, with Germany one more time becoming the dominant nation in Europe, was very disturbing. This went right to the guts of the matter for wasn’t this new relationship the basis of peace forevermore?

There was also rising resentment at further loss of sovereignty to the EU, the question of the pound lingered and the English particularly did not want to give up their pound for the Euro, however irrational or economically inconvenient that stubbornness might prove.

But the elephant in the room was the Freedom of Movement principle, in operation since the creation of the European Economic Community and primarily designed to support the economies of EU countries by providing a mobile work force. Never wildly popular, the massive refugee situation made this into a problem that not all the “liberals” in the UK could explain away.

I don’t mean to suggest that there weren’t many more issues than these because of course there were but the folks holding a glass of good old English bitter saw their security threatened, more and more loss of sovereignty and Britishness, and hordes of unwelcome tawny Muslims swamping their “scepter’d isle”.

That’s the great weakness of popular democracy – the guy in the pub gets to vote too and might just not agree with his betters.

Canada not big on democracy

Canada has never cared for democracy much. It certainly wasn’t what the Fathers of Confederation had in mind when they made sure that the elite wouldn’t have the last say with the Senate. It seemed such a good idea to ensure that regions with smaller populations would have some clout at the centre but good ideas can be carried too far if left to work like they’re supposed to.

The solution was to make sure that Ontario and Quebec always ran things, that only the wealthy were eligible and then, just to make absolutely sure, the Senators for each province were appointed by the Federal government. All serious attempts to change this anomaly have been strangled at birth.

Voters surprise PMs

There have been referenda, notably on Conscription in 1942 and the Charlottetown Accord referendum in 1992.

Neither worked out quite like those in charge wanted.

Mackenzie King’s vote on conscription managed to further aggravate French-English relations, which have not fully recovered yet. The Charlottetown Accord was, in my opinion, a huge success for the people but shattered Prime Minister Mulroney’s political career, that of his successor, and, for some years, his political party. There has been no appetite amongst the chattering classes for any more referenda.

On the other hand, In would argue that Charlottetown whetted the appetite of the public for a direct whack at the PM from time to time, but this notion has been ignored by the elite, even though there has been an ever increasing grumble amongst the people that they’re not satisfied with the present system of governance.

Tree-huggers go from villain to hero

Don’t stretch from this that government by “initiative” is just around the corner. What’s happened is a slow but steady build up of resentment against the institutions and people set in authority. The establishment, political and economic, has chosen to pretend it’s not there. Yet, whereas not too long ago environmentalism was seen as a left-wing issue exclusively, if anything, they’ve been left behind in the struggle to preserve what we have rather than destroy. This isn’t a matter of changing fashions but a combination of issues amounting to a true renaissance.

Kinder Morgan may win in court, but it's quickly losing social licence — Citizens protest Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion outside BC Supreme Court (Photo: AJ Klein/facebook)

People began to see that there was more to life than a new bridge or a bigger skyscraper. They watched inexhaustible supplies being rapidly exhausted. It became clear that both industry and government, and often unions as well, were not only being economical with the truth but lying through their teeth. What was absolutely essential wasn’t essential at all, unless making a bunch of money was the object.

Oceans and lakes and wild animals took on a new meaning. Tree huggers, once condemned by the decent sort of person, found themselves supported by the majority who, unlike the developer and the government, could see limits to the number of valleys and trees to be exploited. When oceans no longer teemed with sea life but plastic bottles and toilet paper, alarms slowly but steadily spread and continue to this day. This brings us, in a strange way, to Brexit.

Justin can’t have his cake and eat it too

Glamour doesn’t last anymore and the public simply won’t accept Justin Trudeau, the hero of the environment, in Paris and Justin Trudeau the man frantically trying to build more LNG plants, pipelines and expand use of fossil fuels. There was a time when that sort of hypocrisy was expected, but times have changed and Mr. Trudeau and leaders like him all over the world are waiting for another large shoe to drop.

How is it possible, ordinary folks ask, we have the world’s worst polluter, the tar sands, yet after all the lofty pledges at Paris, are moving to develop them as quickly as possible. How is it possible to square that circle?

Of course the Liberal party has found that you can do this if you’re not bothered by hypocrisy. They never have been. A very good example occurred in my area of Howe Sound where the Trudeau government had scarcely taken over before they approved Woodfibre LNG in Squamish, on a shocking environmental assessment, then held a seminar through their local MP to teach us why Climate Change was bad and how to avoid it!

Collision course

The public is no longer fooled and, as the warnings of Science increase exponentially, combined with an unwillingness to accept a word as told by developer or government, the collision comes closer.

As with the EU, the elite find it best not to listen, or think they hear things they don’t. It came as a huge shock to London to learn how so many Brits were angry at issues thought to be dead. The “higher purpose persons”, in the late Denny Boyd’s marvellous phrase, assumed that issues most important to them led everyone else’s list too.

The obvious solution is not to hold referenda where Jack’s as good as his Master, but rely upon “good old parliament” to go through democratic motions and make sure that, as always, the Golden Rule applies and that those who have the gold rule.

But what if this silly notion of real democracy prevails and Trudeau, like David Cameron, finds he must consult the public directly.

One thing is sure – the elite won’t have any idea of what the public is really thinking, the pollsters will ask all the wrong questions, and the “rabble” will rise.

Brexit really did happen, was not confined to Britain and is a very long way indeed from being a spent force.

Deadly Norwegian disease found in BC’s farmed salmon is a game-changer

July 5, 2016Oceans, Salmon Farming and AquaculturefeaturedRay Grigg

The discovery of Heart and Skeletal Muscle Inflammation (HSMI) in BC’s farmed salmon has been couched in cautious and evasive terms by the industry and government. HSMI “might” have been found. It’s “yet another piece in the complex puzzle of salmon health on the Pacific Coast,” noted the former Minister of Fisheries, Hunter Tootoo.

Jeremy Dunn, executive director of the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association, also downplayed the significance of the announcement:

[quote]The findings announced by the SSHI [Strategic Salmon Health Initiative] regarding a potential diagnosis of Heart and Skeletal Muscle Inflammation in fish from one Atlantic salmon farm in B.C. are important. However, there is no consensus amongst the scientific community about the finding as the fish sampled in this farm showed no clinical signs of the disease.[/quote]

But the finding of HSMI is extremely significant. Understanding why requires some additional information.

Virus causes disease

HSMI is related to piscine reovirus (PRV) as HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) is related to AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome). Salmon don’t get HSMI unless they have PRV. Just as HIV is asymptomatic, PRV is also asymptomatic — which explains why it is not technically called a “disease”. In its early stages, HSMI may also exhibit no “clinical signs of disease”. But it can be fatal.

HSMI is the symptomatic stage of PRV. As the degree of PRV infection increases, heart muscles are damaged, organs are impaired and muscles are compromised. Eventually fish are so debilitated by a weakened heart, malfunctioning organs and inflamed muscles that they are unable to swim.

HSMI is now the third largest cause of mortality for salmon farming in Norway. But this is the industry’s problem. The real environmental concern is the spread of PRV and HSMI to wild salmon.

A BC-raised farmed Atlantic salmon with signs of HSMI (Alexandra Morton)

Virus can spread quickly

PRV is extremely infectious. First identified in Norway in 1999, it spread quickly to 417 farms, and in 2010 was identified by Norwegian scientists as the cause of HSMI. On July 9, 2010, the scientific journal, PLOS One, published “Heart and Skeletal Muscle Inflammation of Farmed Salmon is Associated with Infection with Novel Reovirus” (Gustavo Palacios, W. Ian Lipkin, et al.), linking HSMI with this “novel” piscine reovirus. PRV eventually spread to BC, probably by infected eggs imported to salmon farms from Norway.

As early as 2008 reports from BC’s veterinarian pathology lab showed “congestion and hemorrhage in the stratum compactum of the heart” in farmed salmon, symptoms consistent with HSMI. Estimates are that most farmed salmon in BC now have PRV — not a serious problem if their fish don’t die of HSMI.

Wild salmon at risk

But the situation is very different for wild salmon. The PRV imported from Norway is now thought to be spreading to BC’s wild fish. As early as 2011, Dr. Kristi Miller found PRV in Fraser River sockeye. A year later, 13 of 15 Cultus Lake cutthroat trout were found with PRV. Norwegian scientists are of the opinion that HSMI may never be discovered in wild salmon because the fish would be too debilitated by the disease to survive predators and the challenging conditions of oceans and rivers.

The combination of PRV’s ubiquitous presence in salmon farms, its extreme virulence, and the fatal symptoms of HSMI could have devastating consequences for wild salmon populations.

Cost-cutting trumps safety at Woodfibre LNG

July 4, 2016Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedCommon Sense Canadian

The aging "LNG Taurus" off of South Africa in 2013 ( Photo: Anton Bergstrom ) — The aging “LNG Taurus” off of South Africa in 2013 (Photo: Anton Bergstrom)

Written by Eoin Finn

In a recent post in the Squamish Chief and other media, Woodfibre LNG’s VP Byng Giraud said he must “cut costs to make the business profitable”. The company website states that safety will come about through “Use of appropriate materials and compliance with industry and safety best practices” and “Proper engineering design of all onshore and floating facilities”.

Many wondered what the tradeoffs would be between safety and cost. Now comes word from the influential shipping magazine TradeWinds last month that Woodfibre plans “to use two elderly LNG carriers as floating storage units (FSUs)…Two LNG carriers, the 126,300 m3 LNG Capricorn (built 1978) and LNG Taurus (built 1979), which were purchased by Singapore-based Nova Shipping & Logistics last year, have been widely rumoured to be earmarked for conversion into FSUs for the Woodfibre project. Both ships are currently laid up in Southeast Asia”.

Past “best before” date

LNG Capricorn (Photo: Frasquito/FleetMon)

You may well ask: What can possibly go wrong with using two “elderly” 285m.-long, bolted-together vessels holding 120,000 tonnes of flammable fracked gas in the waters of Northern Howe Sound? The answer is … plenty! Consider that:

These ships are old! At almost 40 years old, they are among the oldest 5% of the world’s 420+ LNG carriers and 3.5 times older than the fleet’s average age. Putting that in human terms, these ships are nearing 150 years old. If installed for the 25-year life of the plant, by 2045 they would be by far the oldest active LNG vessels ever;

An LNG plant near populated areas is no place for aging rust-buckets, acquired for eight cents on the dollar, that are well beyond their 20-year design lifetime. This lifetime takes into account the stress, metal fatigue and tank damage these ships endure from pounding waves (100 million of them over 20 years of voyages), sloshing cargoes, electrolytic thinning of the hull’s steel and rusting of key pumps and valves essential to keeping the vessel operating safely;

If a spill were to happen – an accident or a terrorist attack on these “sitting ducks” – these tankers have no secondary containment. Like Chernobyl’s reactors and Lac Megantic’s rail-cars.

LNG novice takes unprecedented chances

Woodfibre’s configuration would be a first. There’s not a single instance worldwide of an LNG liquefaction plant using floating LNG storage. Woodfibre and its parent have never built or operated an LNG facility anywhere. Ever.

Japan, the world’s leading importer of LNG, knows a thing or two about disasters, and insists on putting LNG storage tanks on land, buried up to their domes, so a spill can’t go anywhere untoward. Woodfibre’s on-the-water storage scheme violates that hard-learned safety precaution and Canada’s CSA safety standard of having tanks spaced at least a tank diameter apart;

SIGTTO (the LNG industry’s association) recommends that LNG facilities have tugs available 24/7 to help LNG tankers maneuver quickly away from the loading jetty should the need arise (due to spills, fires, forest fires, winds over 25 knots). As these two bolted-together tankers will have no engines or crew aboard, accomplishing this simple safety step will be difficult, if not impossible. What tug (or hypothetical fire-boat) would be brave enough to approach and try to tow away a pair of burning, engineless LNG tankers? Where would they take them – to Squamish, Britannia, Anvil Island…where??

Both vessels have been in accidents

Transferring LNG from these FSUs to the transiting LNG tanker will have the three tankers lined up broadside to one another at the jetty (yes – the same place where, in 1955, the entire jetty suddenly slumped into the depths of Howe Sound, taking an onsite warehouse with it). This will require the delicate act of transferring the -162⁰C LNG, via an inflexible metal bellows, between ships moving vertically and laterally relative to each other in the waves. In the often-windy conditions of Howe Sound. All while balancing the amount of LNG taken from each storage tanker so as not to stress the bolts strapping them together. Ship-to-ship LNG transfer was not invented when these tankers were built and has only recently been tested, in one trial, under perfect conditions;

Both of these vessels have been in accidents. The LNG Taurus suffered severe hull damage in a grounding off Japan in 1980, while the LNG Capricorn had a fire in its #5 insulated tank and hard-whacked a pier while docking. In the Taurus incident, the Captain so feared the catastrophic rupture of the ship’s LNG tanks that he took his own life on the spot. His ghost is rumoured to haunt the Taurus!

Putting a price on safety

Given this apparent sacrifice of public safety on the altar of cost reduction, it is cold comfort to contemplate the words of Woodfibre LNG’s Vice-President Byng Giraud – then (2013) VP of Imperial Metals’ Mount Polley Mine – who said “There needs to be a public realization that the costs imposed on industry to remove extreme risks—reducing a risk from one in 1,000 to one in 10,000—comes with a price.”

Indeed it does. Just ask the victims of disasters in Likely, BC, Lac-Mégantic, Fort McMurray, Halifax, Westray and Grassy Narrows.

Eoin Finn is a retired KPMG partner and a seasonal resident of Bowyer Island in Howe Sound. He holds an MBA in International Business and a Ph.D. in physical chemistry.

South Australia blazes trail for renewable energy

June 30, 2016Energy and Resources, RenewablesfeaturedDr. David Suzuki

South Australia blazes trail for renewable energy — Australian solar farm (Flickr cc license/BAS)

First-time visitors to Australia are often drawn to the big city attractions of Sydney and Melbourne or the fabulous beaches of Queensland’s Gold Coast. I’ve always had a soft spot for Adelaide in South Australia, a city built more on a human scale, where downtown can be easily navigated on bike, foot or tram. For me, Adelaide’s greatest attraction is a huge market right in the city’s centre.

Australian hot springs (Flickr cc license/Geo Thermal)

When I first visited Adelaide in 1993, I met Mike Rann, a young, charismatic aboriginal affairs minister in South Australia’s Labor government. His party lost the election that year, but Rann later became party leader and then state premier in a minority government in 2002. I met him again in 2003 when he outlined ambitious plans to address climate change by aggressively moving South Australia into renewable energy. Wind and solar were the obvious opportunities, but he was also enthusiastic about “hot rocks”, superheated pockets that could create steam to drive turbines for electricity.

Suzuki Forest

Rann proudly introduced me to the Youth Conservation Corps. Young people in this program are trained to restore land overgrazed by sheep or cattle, plant trees and make wildlife inventories. Rann surprised me by dedicating 45 hectares of reforestation land as Suzuki Forest.

I met young people working on “my” forest who enthusiastically told me about the number and variety of birds they’d seen that day, described plant species and talked about how many trees they had planted. Many were street kids, inspired by the chance to learn about nature and conservation and proud to be re-greening the area. I was impressed by their passion and eagerness. They believed in what they were doing and it provided a small income to get them off the streets.

My Adelaide visit that year ended at the World of Music and Dance festival, or WOMAD, a marvelous annual event where I heard the late Richie Havens sing his famous song “Freedom”. To top it off, I met Uncle Lewis O’Brien, a Kaurna elder who honoured me with the name Kaurna Mayu (mountain of a man).

I kept in touch with Mike Rann over the years. He was re-elected with majority governments in 2006 and 2010, then resigned in 2011. Last March, I returned as a guest of WOMADelaide. Although Rann was in Italy where he is now Australia’s ambassador, his wife Sasha welcomed me back. Again, the festival was a wonderful gathering of local and visiting musicians and dancers (including two groups from Canada), and to my delight, Uncle Lewis is alive and welcomed us to his country.

40% of electricity from solar, wind

Australia's Sundrop Solar Farm (Flickr cc license/UCL Engineering) — Australia’s Sundrop Solar Farm (Flickr cc license/UCL Engineering)

In Adelaide, I met Ian Hunter, South Australia’s environment minister, who boasted of his state’s tremendous progress in renewable energy. South Australia gets 40 per cent of its electricity from solar and wind and hopes to reach 50 to 60 per cent within a few years. The area is blessed with abundant sunlight, but few jurisdictions have committed to solar as aggressively and successfully as South Australia. From my hotel room, I looked down on a factory roof covered in rows of solar panels, which are now mounted on one of every four houses.

I also returned to Suzuki Forest. I was delighted and amazed at the variety and size of plants and trees, and the birds that now flourish among them. Perhaps my forest has been protected by neighbouring Schwarzenegger Forest!

Competing pressures

Despite the impressive work in South Australia, most of the country is caught between the terrible reality of climate change — droughts, massive fires and dying reefs — and continued pressure to serve the economy by relying on fossil fuels, including recently approving the world’s largest coal mine.

Australia’s centre-right Liberal government under Prime Minister Tony Abbott gutted the previous government’s actions on climate change, disbanding the Climate Commission headed by world-renowned climate expert Tim Flannery in 2013 and cancelling Australia’s modest carbon price in 2014. Fortunately, the public started funding Flannery’s work, and the commission was reborn as the independent Climate Council. Abbott was booted by his own party after a short reign.

Nevertheless, the country — like much of the world — is in the throes of deciding whether to act seriously to reduce the threat of climate change. South Australia shows that many opportunities exist to do so.

David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation.

Heiltsuk Nation: Trudeau should respect court and end Enbridge pipeline

June 30, 2016Energy and Resources, First Nations, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedDamien Gillis

DFO uses stealth to open herring fishery despite First Nations ban — Heiltsuk Hereditary Chief Harvey Humchitt in 2012 (Damien Gillis)

The Heiltsuk First Nation, whose traditional territory encompasses much of BC’s Central Coast, is ecstatic at the news of the Federal Court of Appeals overturning the approval of Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline. “This decision marks a huge step in the right direction,” said Chief Councillor Marilyn Slett.

“From the moment this project was proposed, Heiltsuk leadership had a powerful mandate from our people to fight for the sake of our future generations. And we have fought hard. To say our community is thrilled is an understatement.”

The court’s decision stated, “We find that Canada offered only a brief, hurried and inadequate opportunity…to exchange and discuss information and to dialogue.”

[quote]It would have taken Canada little time and little organizational effort to engage in meaningful dialogue on these and other subjects of prime importance to Aboriginal peoples. But this did not happen.[/quote]

The decision, signed by two of three justices on the Appeal Court, casts serious doubt on the future of the embattled project. The ruling comes in response to a challenge brought on behalf of seven BC First Nations, including the Heiltsuk.

Consultation standard not met

The judges found the federal government did not meet the minimum standard of “reasonable efforts to inform and consult” First Nations.

[quote]The inadequacies — more than just a handful and more than mere imperfections — left entire subjects of central interest to the affected First Nations, sometimes subjects affecting their subsistence and well-being, entirely ignored,” the ruling says.

Many impacts of the project — some identified in the Report of the Joint Review Panel, some not — were left undisclosed, undiscussed and unconsidered.[/quote]

A brief celebration, then back to work

The Heiltsuk will be hosting a celebratory rally in Bella Bella on June 30, but they’re not stopping for long to savour a hard-won legal victory – instead turning their attention to Trudeau government’s next steps on the file, noting:

[quote]Now all eyes are on Trudeau. It’s time to end this project once and for all, to implement a tanker ban that safeguards our precious coast, and to meaningfully model a relationship with Indigenous peoples that respects our sovereignty and our title and rights.[/quote]

In a statement released by the community’s leaders, they indicate, “The Heiltsuk Nation is committed to working alongside [Prime Minister Trudeau] to ensure the coast is protected for the generations to come.”

Video of contentious Enbridge NEB hearing in Bella Bella in 2012:

Engineers: Tanker risks from Kinder Morgan expansion being ignored

June 30, 2016Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCommon Sense Canadian

Engineers- Tanker risks from Kinder Morgan expansion being ignored — An oil tanker passing beneath the Second Narrows and rail bridges in Burrard Inlet

The following is an op-ed by Brian Gunn of the group Concerned Professional Engineers.

Kinder Morgan’s proposed project to increase their transport of Diluted Bitumen from the Eastern Burrard Inlet to the Pacific Ocean offer risks that are many times higher than those accepted for other major infrastructure projects.

As Concerned Professional Engineers (CPE) we feel this is not acceptable. We believe that a proper analysis of risk needs to be made to ascertain whether risks proposed by Kinder Morgan are acceptable and anything less than that is gross negligence on the part of decision makers.

Kinder Morgan predicts 10% risk of major spill

First, what is risk? The dictionary defines it as a situation involving exposure to danger or exposing someone or something valued to danger, harm or the possibility of financial loss. When it comes to building infrastructure like homes, bridges, buildings and highways, various levels of government have established building codes. These are set parameters for how structures must be built so they meet a tolerable risk.

Kinder Morgan predicts a 10 percent risk of a major oil spill, greater than 8,250 cubic meters during the 50 year operating life of the project. They have not made available the computational tools they used to make that risk analysis. As well, the Port Authority of Vancouver refused a recommendation to clear the Vancouver harbour when the oil tankers would be moving through it. On top of this, the risks and consequences of a tanker hitting the Second Narrows Bridges have not been evaluated, despite our requests to the National Energy Board (NEB). Together these variables increase the risk of the project.

Even accepting Kinder Morgan’s computer generated risk assessment, the Trans Mountain Expansion poses a far higher risk than what is acceptable for buildings and bridges.

Double standard

Building codes demand that the risk of an earthquake occurring, causing probable collapse of a structure, be no more than two percent over a 50 year period. Kinder Morgan’s numbers are five times higher (10 percent over a 50 period). In other words, the acceptable risk for an oil spill is not up to the same standard as it is for earthquakes.

A much smaller vessel than an Aframax tanker collides with the rail bridge in 1979

New bridges like the Port Mann bridge must meet the Canadian Bridge code guidelines that the probability of collapse be no more than 0.5 percent over a 50 year operating life. This is in recognition of the fact that if a ship collides with a bridge it could cause catastrophic damage to the bridge or even collapse.

Historically, there have been a number of collisions with the railway bridge at the Second Narrows, when hit by vessels of a much smaller scale (weight, height and width) than that of an Aframax tanker. In two cases, the bridge has been completely knocked out of service and had to be rebuilt. Damage to the Second Narrows Highway bridge can result in economic catastrophe because it is a main artery of transportation in Vancouver.

Is it acceptable to risk collision with any bridges in the Burrard Inlet? Is the consequence of an oil spill in the city of Vancouver, a place seen by the world as both green and vibrant, acceptable? Our answer is ‘no’.

Brian Gunn

Spokesperson for CPE

Under Liberal govt, BC is drowning in hidden debt

June 28, 2016Politics, Western CanadafeaturedRafe Mair

I always read the comments to this journal, the Tyee, Norm Farrell’s In-Sights and others and I often add comments of my own. What I’ve been interested to learn is what possible defence Liberal supporters can make for this wretched government we’ve had since 2001.

It might be argued that these comments are mostly from left wingers. I have no idea about that but I must say that if I were in politics and defending the government, these are the kind of places where I would do it because this is where those critical readers are. A better explanation for the lack of a defence of the Clark government in these papers is that there is none!

In reading comments I came up with the following one in the Tyee last week, which was the only one I could find where there was any kind of a defence one really felt compelled to deal with:

[quote]Fact is, right now, BC is highly successful given solid policies of the Christy Clark BC Liberals government. Best economy of ANY government in Canada; Lowest unemployment rate; balanced funding for healthcare and education and other programs.

BC is doing really well.[/quote]

The myth of “balanced” budgets

Let’s deal with the latter point first – “balanced funding for healthcare and education and other programs.” I am going to assume that the writer means “balanced budget”.

Many far more expert than I have written on the fraud that is implicit in the words “balanced budget” as they relate to this Government in particular. Obviously, the writer believes that “balanced budgets”, Liberal style, have provided funding for healthcare and education. Indeed, a proper balanced budget does demonstrate the true state of fiscal affairs throughout the government and may point to that conclusion.

These Liberal “balanced budgets” do no such thing and aren’t even close to being balanced.

It’s the old maxim “garbage in, garbage out”. If you only include the good things, or perhaps it’s better put the other way – if you leave out the bad bits, then you’re going to be able to look as if you balanced it.

Hydro drowning in private power debt

One of the fiscal catastrophes of this government is BC Hydro, which now owes $76 billion due to their pork barrelling policies in giving the making of power to their friends, Independent Power Producers (or IPPs) in the private sector, on a highly contemptible and scarcely subtle sweetheart deal. Below is the record in graphic form of what the Campbell/Clark government has forced BC Hydro to pay IPPs, their high donating supporters, for private power (in 2016 dollars).

Graphic courtesy of Norm Farrell — Graphic courtesy of Norman Farrell/In-Sights

In 2015 – get this now – BC Hydro paid these generous donors to the Liberal Party, $672 million more than market value for their power! As you pay your higher hydro rates, remember the money is going to these bastards! This money is owed by you, hence by the government, yet it doesn’t show up in their budget! Poof, it’s gonzo!

This is like you taking your mortgage payments or your bank loan or car loan out of your own personal budget and patting yourself on the back for great fiscal acumen.

Well, try that on your banker and see what he says about your balanced budget.

The premier, brash as brass, and the finance minister, looking embarrassed, tell everyone that the budget is balanced so all is well with the world. The fact is we are in terrible financial shape and the government is lying through its teeth.

True debt has skyrocketed under Liberals

Here are the real statistics as as the Liberals claim to be delivering “balanced” budgets while the province’s financial obligations increased $72 billion in the last six years, more than the provincial debt in the BC’s first 135 years. Liberal claims of balanced budget rely on accounting fashioned to mislead voters. It results in absurd situations such as: keeping BC Hydro’s huge debts off the government’s books while including “dividends” from BC Hydro to the government as revenue, although the utility has to borrow the money shifted into provincial accounts; and dividing expenditures into ordinary (operating) and extraordinary (capital) expense, while counting only the former as a budgetary expense.

Below is the real picture, in 2016 dollars.

Graphic courtesy of Norman Farrell/In-Sights

BC is certainly amongst the lowest in unemployment in Canada and that is obviously a good thing. It’s just not as great as we would like to believe.

In many ways, to compare BC to other parts of Canada with far different economies makes as much sense as comparing it to South American countries. Unless the issues in other provinces are relatively the same, it’s comparing apples and oranges. There are similarities, of course, such as the value of the Canadian dollar, but here again, that affects different regions in different ways.

Probably the main reason B.C. is doing so much better comparatively than the rest of Canada is because its economy isn’t as vulnerable to changes in the price of oil. Plummeting oil prices have led to drastic job losses in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and parts of Atlantic Canada. In other words, comparisons are odious and produce a misleading picture which makes BC look better than it is.

More to life than employment numbers

The Liberals can’t claim credit for something that is beyond their control and is merely a comparison with other, very different economies. For the individual, life is not only the job but what that employment brings with it. The desired result is not just having a job but having security with it. Will the job bring the opportunity to own a home? How long, if ever, will it take to be able to afford that home? Will I be able to afford transportation to and from that job? What are the schools like? Is there a bad crime situation? Is the government in sound shape, sufficient to provide the social amenities today’s society has come to expect?

BC Premier Christy Clark touring Petronas' operations in Malaysia (BC Govt / Flickr CC licence) — BC Premier Christy Clark touring Petronas’ operations in Malaysia (BC Govt / Flickr CC licence)

We hardly need reminding of the housing situation and how until we got into an election year, Premier Clark acted as if there was nothing to worry about. She has dithered, taking her laissez-faire advice from rich condo builders, until this has become a full-blown crisis she is unable to deal with.

At the very same time that Christy Clark is losing money in government and in BC Hydro and taking useless trips to China and Singapore, she would have you believe that education, health, welfare, mental illness, services to children in need, services to women in need, shelter for the less well-off are in superb shape – combined with a superior education system which is fully funded. As the Duke of Wellington said to the man who greeted him with “Mr. Robinson, I believe”, “If you believe that, you’ll believe anything”.

Not a pretty picture

The fact is the government is a fiscal mess. Its largest asset, BC Hydro, is technically bankrupt, facing an $9+ billion bill for Site C. The Liberals have a dismal record in their Health Ministry and a worse one in Children and Families, an Education Ministry in disarray, a disgraceful history of neglect of the mentally ill and on the sad saga goes.

I’m afraid to tell my friends, if any, on the Liberal party side that they have no argument and, in my barrister days, I would have been delighted to take a jury trial against them as defendants.

But that’s not the end of the matter. They have also turned out to be a corrupt government from top to bottom, starting with the premier. Her airline expenses are totally unacceptable. The fact she uses, at your expense, a permanent television cameraman for her photo-ops tells the story when you think about it. Her method of selling herself to the highest bidder in collecting money for the Liberal party is outrageous and invites insidious comparisons, scarcely respectful of her office.

LNG takes the cake

God knows I could go on but I close by reminding everyone of the ongoing LNG fiasco. Warned by the experts years ago there would be no market, this spinner of fanciful tales has piled on one empty promise after another. She’s 0 for 22 in the LNG plants promised, has ignored all environmental concerns, used patently biased Environmental Assessment processes, not even bothered with one when she didn’t feel like it, made a firm deal with a jungle-burning, tax-evading bully-boy owner of Woodfibre LNG proposed for Squamish, and continues her fanciful, First Class, tax paid sales junkets to non-existing markets and, in spite of even worsening market conditions, plans even more.

The only possible excuse for Christy Clark’s catastrophic leadership is that lack of education and experience has left her having no idea of what she should do.

And as Porkypine observed, “Pogo, the confidence of ignorance has not died out.”

Rafe: Clark getting free ride from media, Horgan just dropping ball

June 14, 2016Media, Politics, Western CanadafeaturedRafe Mair

Christy Clark (Province of BC/Flickr and John Horgan (BCNDP/Flickr)

Before I start today’s piece, a quick report on the two columns I did recently on the Canadian government, starting with the ravages of “responsible government”, moving to suggested cures.

I received substantial feedback from across the country but not one word from an MP, MLA or an ex, questioning what I said about the effect of “responsible government”.

What to do?

Two things – raise hell with the Ministry of Education and teachers and make sure that our youngsters are taught what really happens with “responsible government”, and, secondly, test the bona fides of Democracy Watch, and its Founder and Coordinator, Duff Conacher, which claims to advocate for democratic reform, government accountability and corporate responsibility issues.

******************************************************************

I’ve been critical of John Horgan, leader of the official opposition, because I don’t think he understands his job and hasn’t been performing it. There are so many issues that care must be taken not to lose one’s way in the morass of meanderings the Clark government has taken us on.

One of the major issues, if not the major issue, is BC Hydro and a former NDP leader, Adrian Dix, is finally doing the kind of job that proper opposition requires. He has the facts and is persistent at getting the arguments out everywhere possible.

Media quit doing its job

That leads me to a problem Mr. Horgan has and it started with the Campbell election in 2001 – the print and electronic media collapsed. Certainly in my time and in the NDP years, they took the position that government pronouncements were probably bullshit. When the opposition cross-examined ministers on policy and legislation, it was reported and reported accurately – although we in government always thought it was overblown in favour of the opposition. It was the major source of opposition information.

The principal BC newspapers, the Vancouver Sun and Province are owned by Postmedia and they have a written deal with the oil industry which I call, and I think fairly, a mutual masturbation agreement. If anyone wants a copy, I will be pleased to provide it.

When you think about it, that’s a free pass for Christy and Co. to do whatever they please. There is no serious criticism of Clark’s ongoing multi-screwup of the LNG issue because Postmedia is an ally of the oil industry. Furthermore, The Province is a partner with Resource Works, promoting the proposed Woodfibre LNG plant.

Proposed pipelines don’t get any serious static from local newspapers and when it comes to increasing production and export of petroleum products, Postmedia is in favour. Once newspapers start supporting a government to that extent, it goes right through the entire government record.

Private power fiasco

Let’s quickly look again at an issue I’ve been raising now for quite a few years. It is commonly agreed by independent experts that Gordon Campbell’s Energy Policy of 2002, continued by Clark, has not only been an environmental disaster but also a huge economic burden on what once was one of the finest energy companies in the world, BC Hydro. Campbell gave large, often foreign corporations the exclusive right to generate new electricity and BC Hydro is forced to take that power whether they need it or nor, at the time it’s offered and at a highly inflated price.

Wouldn’t you have thought that Vaughn Palmer, the slayer of premiers, would have been right there demanding to know why private corporations got this favoured deal and were making a bundle at the expense of the taxpayer who owns BC Hydro? That question has never been asked by anybody from the Vancouver Sun or the Province to this day. Why not?!

Hydro’s exploding debt

Here’s what economist Erik Andersen has to say:

[quote]So here is the Government’s and BC Hydro’s brilliance. The customers of BC Hydro have not needed any additional electricity for more than a decade yet, all the while, customer rates increased by 30% and the debt to run the crown corporation has been increased by 1,170%, from $6 billion in 2005 to $70 billion in 2015.[/quote]

No one in the media has demanded to know why?

Return on investment

Now, don’t for a moment think the companies haven’t been grateful, even before they got their leases. The record, always available to Postmedia, shows that from July 1, 2008 to September 30, 2010 – when B.C. Hydro was making its decisions – 14 proponents donated $268,461 to the Liberals. One donated $1,000 to the NDP. Ten of the 14 were successful.

Their before and after donations are interesting.

For the 10 successful proponents, their donations doubled from $112,801 (January 2005 to June 2008) to $229,471.

After the deals were done, they settled back again. Seven donated $112,345 to the Liberals (2010 to 2014).

It’s now 2016, less than a year from an election, and this has to be dug out by Mr. Dix rather than already be common knowledge through newspapers doing their job. That’s no little matter!

A different Vaughan Palmer

Mainstream Media Ignoring Real Story on BC Hydro Debt, Skyrocketing Power Bills — The Sun’s Vaughn Palmer (Weekday on KUOW)

It was instructive to see Mr. Horgan going after the premier for her strange gift of $150,000 to the Haida Gwaii school board when native schools are the responsibility of the federal government, with the curious involvement of the Premier’s relatives. Instead of it being reported by Palmer as an exposure of strange government happenings, he criticized Mr. Horgan for the way he questioned the premier!

Whatever the reason, Mr. Palmer used to get deeply into issues like this and now barely touches the tangential issues. If you doubt what I said, just ask former Premier Glen Clark.

There are also no radio talk show hosts today with a mandate to hold the government’s feet to the fire. The one or two who dare try must be cautious and anything but persistent.

This is a very important issue because in days gone by, the talk shows and the interplay with the audience were integral to informing voters as to goings-on in the government. Ministers and the premier came on the shows or their absence was noted with derision both by the host and the audience. Ministers learned that that was part of their job, that when you occasionally got the crap kicked out of you, that went with the territory. That’s no more.

The conclusion is pretty obvious – in days gone by the public had from newspapers and radio a good idea of what the issues were and what both the government and the opposition had to say about them.

Now, in Mr. Horgan’s time, he and his party must do it without any help from the media whatsoever – at least none of any consequence – a substantial advantage to the premier going in to the 2017 election.

Horgan made big mistakes

But the NDP can’t lay all their woes at the media’s feet. There are far more matters that they have left untouched, going back to the very beginning, and that’s Mr. Horgan’s responsibility. Horgan’s job – which he’s never really understood – is to oppose, whether or not the press is doing their job.

He made the catastrophic mistake of supporting LNG in all its manifestations, meaning the NDP abandoned issues like fracking, conversion of gas into liquid, transportation of LNG, environmental damage, the nature of ownership, the market situation and more, all without a question much less criticism from the Official Opposition – sheer political madness!

That does not alter the fact that the voting public has been left short of that source of information which media have always provided.

They deliberately don’t do their job because the government is their pal, unlike Mr. Horgan.