Tag Archives: Politics

Disgraced Gitxsan Treaty Negotiator Rewarded with Appointment to Prince Rupert Port Authority

Share

Read this story from the Vancouver Sun on the controversial paid appointment by the Harper Government of Elmer Derrick – the former Gitxsan treaty negotiator who was fired for cutting an unauthorized deal with Enbridge behind his nation’s back – to the board of the Prince Rupert Port Authority. (April 20, 2012)

The northern B.C. first nation chief who signed a controversial deal to support Enbridge’s $5.5-billion oil pipe-line has been appointed by the federal government to the Prince Rupert Port Authority.

As a director of the board, Gitxsan hereditary chief Elmer Derrick will receive payment, although it is not clear exactly how much.

“It’s a strange appointment. It raises the possibility it’s a quid pro quo for supporting the pipeline,” said NDP Skeena-Bulkley Valley MP Nathan Cullen, whose riding includes a large stretch of the Northern Gateway pipeline route.

Cullen noted that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government is a supporter of the pipeline, meant to open up new markets in Asia for crude from the Alberta oilsands.

When Derrick, who is the chief negotiator with the Gitxsan Treaty Office, announced he had signed a pipe-line ownership deal with Enbridge that would provide $7 million over a 30-year period, it sparked an immediate battle with other leaders in the community who said they don’t sup-port the project.

In the face of the opposition to the deal from dozens of Gitxsan hereditary chiefs, Enbridge pulled out of the ownership agreement.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Chief%2Bfederal%2Bpost%2Braises%2Beyebrows/6490353/story.html

Share
Photo: Darryl Dick/Globe and Mail

NDP Byelection Wins Bad News for Both Liberals and Conservatives; Good for NDP, Environment

Share

The two by-elections are very bad news for the Liberals, not much better for the Tories and excellent news for the NDP.

Let’s start with the last first.
 
The loyal opposition is now in the position where a couple of Liberals crossing the floor can bring the government down. I don’t believe that will happen but it’s a worry for the Liberals. Mostly this confirmed Adrian Dix’s leadership. Any time you have a contested election, the losers and their supporters have a death wish for the winner – more about that in a moment. Dix is firmly in control. The NDP made a brilliant move in saying that while they oppose Enbridge and coastal tanker traffic they promise a local referendum for Kinder Morgan. One of the moves of the Campbell/Clark government was to extinguish the right of local governments to pass judgment on environmentally sensitive projects and the NDP understand that the late US Speaker, Tip O’Neill, was right when he said “all politics is local”.
 
For the John Cummins Conservatives this by-election was a bitter blow, for if the Tories can’t win a by-election – governments usually have trouble with them – in a staunchly “conservative” riding, what chance do they have in a general election. This hardly enhances the opportunity for a new party along the Socred lines since Cummins brings nothing to the table.

For the Liberals, these votes can’t be put down to the usual anti-government pissed off voters. Premier Clark’s leadership was on the line and the Liberals know it.

Going into the by-elections all but one caucus and cabinet minister wanted someone else. She has stumbled from one gaffe to another since she took office. She must go and soon; if she stays, it will be the best news the NDP could get. She’s like Bill Vander Zalm was in 1991 – a loser brought to his knees as much by cabinet and caucus disloyalty as personal stupidity.

When a premier is in trouble he/she must be able to rally the troops – this Ms. Clark is utterly unable to do. She must go, with a temporary leader in place pending a leadership convention, for which time is very short.

Never mind the weeping that a split vote cost them Chilliwack and a turncoat won in Port Coquitlam – the fact is that the government lost two elections which were referenda on the Liberals and their leadership.

There was another winner – big time: the environment. In Chilliwack, the Kinder-Morgan pipeline was a big issue – to my memory, the first time the Environment was a large issue there.

These by-elections did more than alter the make-up of the Legislature; they altered politics in BC – Big Time.

 

 

Share

NDP Wins Both BC Byelections

Share

Read and watch coverage from CBC.ca of the BC NDP’s sweep of two Lower Mainland byelections this week. (April 19, 2012)

Vote-splitting in one riding and a popular candidate in the other gave the B.C. NDP two big byelection victories in former Liberal strongholds.

The New Democrat’s Gwen O’Mahony, who has run twice unsuccessfully, came up the middle in Chilliwack-Hope with about 41 per cent of the popular vote Thursday night.

Laurie Throness from the Liberals and John Martin of the B.C. Conservative Party shared about 58 per cent, fulfilling Clark’s warning about splitting the “free enterprise” vote.

In Port Moody-Coquitlam, the NDP’s Joe Trasolini captured about 54 per cent of the vote, well ahead of the Liberals’ Dennis Marsden with 30 per cent and the Conservatives’ Christine Clarke with 15 per cent.

A former mayor of Port Moody, Trasolini was seen as the front-runner.

“This is going to send a clear message, the NDP is growing,” said NDP Leader Adrian Dix on Thursday.

Read and watch story: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/04/19/bc-byelections-moody-coquitlam-chilliwack-hope.html?cmp=rss

Share

Nova Scotia Joins Growing List of Regions with a Moratorium on Fracking

Share

Read this article from the Calgary Herald on the decision by the Nova Scotia Provincial Government to put a two year moratorium on natural gas hydraulic fracturing while it gathers more science on the controversial practice. (April 19, 2012)

CALGARY – Companies searching for oil and gas in the Maritimes received conflicting messages this week around the use of hydraulic fracturing to develop the resources.

New Brunswick granted a five-year licence to Calgary-based Windsor Energy to explore and drill for natural gas on Tuesday while Nova Scotia banned fracking until the summer of 2014 to have more time to review the contentious technology.

Energy Minister Charlie Parker said the provincial government wanted to study reviews being drafted by the U.S. Environment Protection Agency and Environment Canada on the effects of fracking.

Parker cited other jurisdictions have been reviewing how fracking could affect water re-sources and earthquakes.

“We think it’s important to get the best possible information that’s out there and make an informed decision after we’ve learned all that,” Parker said.

Critics of the NDP administration suggest the government is freezing discussion about hydraulic fracturing until after the next election.

Public concern has in-creased in the past year about the technology, which pumps massive amounts of waters and chemicals down well bores to crack open reservoirs of so-called tight oil and gas. Protests against frack-ing escalated in areas such as the Maritimes, where little onshore oil-and-gas development has occurred.

Monday’s announcement was a setback for companies such as Elmworth Energy, a subsidiary of Triangle Petroleum Corp., which holds a 10-year lease representing the province’s first shale-gas development project.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Nova+Scotia+issues+year+moratorium+fracking/6481080/story.html

Share

Harper, Oliver Take Control of Pipeline Approval Over Environmental Regulators

Share

Read this story from the Globe and Mail on the Harper Government’s assertion of ultimate control over the approval of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and other major industrial projects. (April 17, 2012)

The federal government is asserting its control over pipelines – including the proposed Northern Gateway oil-sands project – taking from regulators the final word on approvals and limiting the ability of opponents to intervene in environmental assessments.

In proposed legislation unveiled by Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver on Tuesday, the Harper government will clear away regulatory hurdles to the rapid development of Canada’s natural resource bounty.

Ottawa is aiming to reduce the number of projects that undergo federal environmental assessment by exempting smaller developments completely and by handing over many large ones to the provinces. It will also bring in new measures to prevent project opponents from delaying the assessment process by flooding hearings with individuals who face no direct impacts but want to speak against the development.

At a Toronto press conference, Mr. Oliver said the proposed changes are aimed at providing quicker reviews in order to reduce regulatory uncertainty and thereby create more jobs and investment in Canada’s booming resource sector.

“We are at a critical juncture because the global economy is now presenting Canada with an historic opportunity to take full advantage of our immense resources,” he said. “But we must seize the moment. These opportunities won’t last forever.”

Ottawa is aiming to reduce the number of projects that undergo federal environmental assessment by exempting smaller developments completely and by handing over many large ones to the provinces. It will also bring in new measures to prevent project opponents from delaying the assessment process by flooding hearings with individuals who face no direct impacts but want to speak against the development.

At a Toronto press conference, Mr. Oliver said the proposed changes are aimed at providing quicker reviews in order to reduce regulatory uncertainty and thereby create more jobs and investment in Canada’s booming resource sector.

“We are at a critical juncture because the global economy is now presenting Canada with an historic opportunity to take full advantage of our immense resources,” he said. “But we must seize the moment. These opportunities won’t last forever.”

Resource-rich western provinces greeted the proposed changes warmly, saying they are eager to take over environmental assessments. Mr. Oliver said Ottawa will only transfer authority for project reviews to provinces that have similar standards as the federal government.

Provinces in central and Atlantic Canada were more cautious, wanting to know more details before drawing conclusions.

Environmental groups and some aboriginal leaders said the government is sacrificing environmental protection for development, and is intent on railroading all opposition to its vision of rapid development of oil sands and other resources.

Read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/legislation-curbs-ability-of-green-groups-to-intervene-in-review-process/article2405411/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=Politics&utm_content=2405411

 

Share

David Suzuki Was Wrong…But at Least He Gets it Now

Share

It’s indeed an overworked accolade but Dr. David Suzuki is a great man. In the Environmental world he is in that pantheon of heroes that include the likes of Rachel Carson, Jane Goodall, Thor Heyerdahl and Jacques Cousteau. Dr. Suzuki is a scientist but is better known as the man who brought the environment into the living rooms of the world, explaining things in ways we all could understand.

In years when it was unfashionable to be an environmentalist in Canada he, with the likes of Colleen McCrory, Mark Angelo, Joe Foy, Betty Krawczyk and so many others, slowly but surely got the public’s attention. Dr. Suzuki’s impact is incalculable.
 
But great people make mistakes and usually they are great mistakes, bringing unforeseen consequences that should have been foreseen. Perhaps that’s because people are reluctant to challenge those held in such high esteem.
 
Dr. Suzuki not only hasn’t suffered fools gladly, he doesn’t suffer those who disagree with him. This caused great harm for those who believe that the Campbell/Clark government has done irreparable harm to BC’s environment. I’m one of those people.

I felt so strongly on this subject that I campaigned long and hard for the NDP in the May ’09 election. In that election Dr. Suzuki and the crass opportunist, Tzeporah Berman, supported the private development of rivers.
 
Dr. Suzuki now admits that he was wrong to think that private enterprise and environmentalists could work together to obtain the best of both worlds. In my opinion, Dr. Suzuki failed to understand that corporations don’t give a rat’s ass about the environment and only act responsibly when they’re forced to. As a former Environment Minister I could have told him that. Indeed, a corporation’s mandate is to make money for shareholders and for management and the directors to piss away profits on environmental concerns is actually a breach of the trust placed in them.
 
Dr. Suzuki made his commitment to capital/environmental cooperation in good faith but that doesn’t alter the fact that he wreaked great harm on the environment he has laboured so long and hard to protect.
 
Those of us active in trying to save rivers were in shocked disbelief when we learned of his position. In fact I was so shocked that in a public meeting I referred to him as a “pseudo-environmentalist”, a remark instantly passed on to him – but much as I admire David, I wasn’t sorry for the outburst.
 
How can I say that his position helped the Liberals win a close election?
 
Because I was there. I campaigned all around the province for the NDP and saw first hand what people thought. If David Suzuki thought that damming of our rivers to produce power was OK, well then it must be – those who disagree must be just shrill tree huggers.
 
The impact wasn’t, perhaps, so great in the Lower Mainland and Southern Vancouver Island but it was substantial in rural BC where many races were very close. As I spoke in rural ridings, Suzuki’s words provided an invisible critic of what I was saying.
 
I applaud Dr. Suzuki leaving his Foundation so that their neutral status required for them, as a charitable society, to get public funds, isn’t compromised. (As an aside, I wonder if the Fraser Institute has such a status or is bias OK for the far right?)
 
David Suzuki must make amends. He must look at the serious issues of fish farms, destruction of farmland, ruination of rivers for electricity we don’t need produced for the bank vaults of larger corporations, pipelines and huge tankers taking Tar Sands gunk through our precious environment and down our coast and out of Vancouver Harbour.
 
He doesn’t owe a damned thing to me or any other who has disagreed with his 2009 stance.
 
He does, however, owe a hell of a lot to his province and to the next generation and those to come.

————————————————————————————————————————

Have you thought about whether or not there’s a soul? What about near death experiences? Should the Book of Revelation scare the pants off us? Find out what other religions and experts say with my new book The Home Stretch available online for your computer, kindle, kobo or iPad for the miserly sum of $9.99

Share
Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver has labelled opponents of Enbridge's proposed Norther Gateway Pipeline

Enbridge Pipeline: Radicals and Conservatives

Share

Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, a $5.5 billion project that is intended to move the crude from Alberta’s tar sands to BC’s West Coast for shipment by supertankers to Asia and other parts of the world, is providing illuminating insights into the gulf of differences separating proponents and opponents. Perhaps this is most clearly expressed by Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, whose recently released letter (January, 2012) accused “environmental and other radical groups” of attempting to “hijack our regulatory system” to achieve “their radical ideological agenda.”

His accusation may be true. But his terminology is reversed. The so-called “radicals” are really “conservatives” while those in government and industry favouring the pipeline are the “radicals”.

Those attempting to halt the pipeline and slow development of the tar sands are trying to restrain the ideological mania for resource extraction that is ripping across the provinces and country these days. Their objective is not only to protect the natural environment that is the fundamental source of our wealth, but to conserve our non-renewable oil and gas — not to mention the minerals, trees, water, fish and other resources that identify Canada’s natural riches — for a more cautious and careful future use. They are keen to remind Canada’s government that the country has no national energy policy and, therefore, no way of anticipating the effect of present extraction on future energy security, economic opportunity and social impacts. To the opponents of the Northern Gateway pipeline, today’s wholesale extraction and export of raw resources poses innumerable environmental threats but also robs tomorrow of possibilities. This is hardly the position of “radicals”.

With a perspective that is longer than the next election cycle, the 4,300 people who are registered as speakers during the proceedings of the “regulatory system” — most of them will be opposing it — are using the only avenue available to them to indicate their concern for a project that will inevitably cause an oil spill in pristine rivers and valleys, not to mention an ocean coast that is noted world-wide for its marine bounty and wild beauty. If this concern is a “radical ideological agenda”, then their critics must surely be possessed of a reckless irresponsibility that is truly menacing.

Unfolding events suggest that this may be the case. The same established thinking that wants to build the Northern Gateway pipeline has recently engineered the near-collapse of the world’s entire financial system. It is also busily dismantling the fundamental ecological structures that allow for a diversity of life on Earth. The traumatic effect of massive greenhouse gas emissions on climate and weather should give any thoughtful person nightmares. And the eventual consequences of ocean acidification has implications for the planet that are obscene and dire — a similarly acidic ocean once caused 95 percent of marine and terrestrial species to disappear from existence. Anyone who is aware of these prospects and is not taking immediate and drastic remedial measures must be deemed “radical”, if not irresponsible and ideologically dangerous.

Some informed economists question the wisdom of unrestrained resource extraction. Without long-term planning and the accompanying processing infrastructure that benefits a country’s entire economy and society, the end result of an export policy of raw resources will be, as one economist aptly phrased it, an impoverished country “with a lot of holes in the ground” — not exactly a promising prospect.

Such a prospect is worrying an increasing number of people these days. They perceive a hyper-active system of excessive production and consumption that is functioning beyond sustainability and headed for a crash. Some of these worried people are economists, politicians and philosophers. Others are bankers and industrialists. Even those who don’t have the sophistication to articulate their apprehension can sense trouble. And they are becoming increasingly cynical. The Occupy Movement wants financial reform and a re-evaluation of our entire economic system. And the environmental community, in all its many forms, wants the destruction of nature to stop while viable remnants of it still exist. They are “conservative” in the sense that they want to “preserve” the ecosystems that sustain us, hardly the “radicals” of Joe Oliver’s designation.

The real “radicals”, it might be argued, are those with an ideological compulsion to pillage the planet — to drill and mine, to frack and pump, to build and extract, to cut and burn, to take and level with an obsessive abandon that history will deem pathological. An ideology that holds nothing sacred but money and profit is doomed to fail. “The catch with a growth economy,” as the film The Great Squeeze points out, “is that there is no stopping point.” It continues to grow until it self-destructs.

This explains why the Northern Gateway pipeline project has become so important. It is now iconic, a symbol to its opponents of a system out of control, of an ideology on a destructive rampage, blindly undeterred by fatal risks to a primal wilderness and a treasured coast of virgin rainforest. The system is not even deterred by a living planet besieged with life-destroying gases. If such an economy is not stopped here, where will it be stopped?

The language in Joe Oliver’s letter is ideological and challenging. But he has his terms reversed. The “radicals are the “conservatives” and the “conservatives” are the “radicals”.

Share

Local Governments to Fight Kinder Morgan Over Oil Pipeline, Tanker Expansion Plans

Share

Read this story form the Globe and Mail on BC’s coastal mayors and councilors preparing to fight Kinder Morgan’s plans to triple their bitumen pipeline from the Alberta Tar Sands to Vancouver. (April 14, 2012)

Local governments on B.C.’s west coast are girding for a fight with energy giant Kinder Morgan over its $5-billion pipeline expansion plans to move more Alberta oil to the Vancouver Harbour for transport overseas.

A phalanx of mayors is vowing to fight the project, including coastal communities far from the pipeline but exposed to increased oil tanker traffic.

“This is not a comfortable position for Kinder Morgan, they’ll be relying on the federal government to override local government,” said Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan. “This may be the hill the Conservatives die on. The response from the public in British Columbia is, not only is this a potential danger to us, but there’s nothing in it for us.”

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson challenged B.C. Premier Christy Clark to take a stand on the plans, saying city residents – including her own Vancouver-Point Grey constituents – won’t support risking an oil spill.

“I will fiercely oppose the expansion of oil tankers in Vancouver’s harbour and the pipeline that feeds them,” he said in an interview. “The Premier should weigh in and I hope it is on the side of our local economies. It’s hard to imagine an oil spill on Kits Beach and Stanley Park – the impact it would have for generations.”

Ms. Clark did not return calls Friday. The Premier has balked at taking a position on a better-known pipeline proposal, the contentious Northern Gateway project.

That project is a key part of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s goal to take Canadian resources to Asian markets, but the B.C. government has yet to come out for or against it despite its “Canada starts here” marketing strategy.

The Gateway project is currently the subject of a national review, but the southern pipeline project is further ahead because Kinder Morgan already has a right of way for its relatively small pipeline – called Trans Mountain – from Edmonton to the Vancouver suburb of Burnaby.

On Thursday, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP, a Houston energy and pipeline company, announced it has enough customers lined up to begin the official regulatory review process of its plan, which would put another pipeline on the route, nearly tripling the current capacity and bringing an oil tanker a day into Burrard Inlet.

On Friday, at a meeting of Metro Vancouver mayors, talks began on forming a united front, Mr. Corrigan said. “This is something that is going to gain momentum as the mayors put their resources together to respond.”

Mr. Corrigan predicted it will also put the BC Liberal government in a tough position as it struggles to keep federal Conservatives on side. “They are going to be expected by the Conservative government to welcome access for Alberta oil. Their relationship with the federal government is going to be severely tested,” he said.

Read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politics/bc-mayors-steel-themselves-for-fight-against-kinder-morgan-pipeline/article2402403/

Share

Budget 2012: At Least the War on the Environment is Going Well

Share

Until this year, the purpose of the annual Canadian federal budget was to project government revenues, lay out spending priorities and forecast economic conditions for the upcoming year. Reading Budget 2012, announced last week by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, it soon becomes clear that this government has no intention of being encumbered by pedestrian fiscal objectives. The Harper government has instead opted to present what is first and foremost a policy document – one that brazenly asserts the government’s ideological agenda for the coming three years.

If the overriding economic policy goal of this government was not apparent previously, with the release of Budget 2012, there can no longer be any doubt. The Harper gang has dispensed with even the pretense of meeting its basic environmental fiduciary responsibilities in favour of the almost totally unimpeded exploitation of Canadian resources. As Green Party leader Elizabeth May told me this week, the government is effectively telling the Canadian people that they plan “to eviscerate existing laws. This isn’t really a fiscal statement. They’ve used the budget as an instrument of massive overhaul of environmental law and policy and the overriding directive is oil and gas at all costs – the environment be damned.”

Should you happen to belong to the unlucky (and clearly misguided) lot with the audacity to be concerned about the proposed Enbridge and Kinder Morgan pipelines, this is not a budget for you. In fact, perhaps the best we can say about Budget 2012 is, as Rafe Mair put it, at least “we now have it in writing what the bastards are up to!”

Just how bad is it? Well, don’t take my word for it. Last week on CBC, the respected columnist Chantale Hebert of the Toronto Star, hardly an eco-zealot, said this was the most anti-environment budget she had seen in her 20 years covering Parliament Hill. Even the very moderate, if not conservative, editorial board of the Globe and Mail singled out the environmental provisions in the Budget saying “The Conservatives are continuing their dishonourable attack meant to intimidate environmental groups, in a budget item that stands out for adding a needless new cost.”

Steven Guilbeault of the NGO Équiterre said that the budget “seems to have been written for, and even by, big oil interests…the Harper government is gutting the environmental protections that Canadians have depended on for decades to safeguard our families and nature from pollution, toxic contamination and other environmental problems.” And true to form, reaction from oil and gas companies, mining and pipeline companies has been predictably jubilant.

So just what does the Harper government plan to do? First, in what appears to be a return to the glory days of McCarthyism, the Harper gang plans to launch an $8 million campaign at Revenue Canada to investigate and crack down on environmental groups that the government deems are engaged in activities that are too political, including the extent to which these groups are funded by foreign sources.

There is no new funding for climate change programs. In fact the words climate change are mentioned only twice in passing in the entire 498 page budget plan.
 
The Conservatives will eliminate the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, which was a panel of business and environmental leaders who made policy recommendations on a variety of sustainability issues. A widely respected, non-partisan agency, the Roundtable was founded by the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney in 1988. Its reports of late, however, had annoyed the government as they were mildly critical of their plans to achieve its stated objective of reducing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. The result? The Harper government has  killed them.
 
Environment Canada’s budget is being cut again, this time by 6%, along with grants for scientific research in universities.The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (or CEAA) is in line for a 40 per cent cut. Touting a ‘one project, one review’ principle, CEAA will be overhauled with federal responsibilities being downloaded on provinces; newly imposed timelines, and a limiting of the scope of reviews. Joint panel environmental reviews are to be limited to 24 months, National Energy Board hearings to 18 months and standard environmental assessments to one year. All this will be imposed retroactively, thereby impacting reviews, such as Northern Gateway, that are currently underway. The changes could jeopardize the capacity of people to participate in reviews and it further undermines the ultimate goal of reviews in ensuring environmental protection is a priority in all projects.
 
The budget does not renew funding for the popular EcoENERGY energy efficiency program. Minimal tax support will be given to ‘clean energy’ and energy efficiency, but only to the tune of $2 million – a tiny drop in the bucket in a multi-billion dollar budget.
 
Finally, some changes are planned for subsidies to the oil and gas industry on Canada’s East coast but tar sands subsidies remain untouched. Currently, $1.38 billion a year is allocated to energy development through subsidies.
 
Although not specifically mentioned in the Budget plan, the government is also widely suspected to be planning to gut key conservation provisions of Canada’s Fisheries Act, the nation’s most significant and oldest piece of environmental legislation. The Aboriginal People’s Television Network has also learned that that the Harper Conservatives are changing Canada’s mining regulations so that prospecting companies could soon have free-reign on reserve lands.

So what to make of all this? If the stakes weren’t so high, we may otherwise see this Budget as an unfortunate aberration, a government that clearly has an axe to grind or some kind of vendetta against environmental groups. Yet it’s important to appreciate the significance of what the Harper gang is trying to accomplish: namely, to clear the way for resource development projects that will not easily be undone. The environmental legacy of this government will be felt for a long time to come if they are permitted to implement their agenda unimpeded.

A prestigious conference was held last week, at which some of the world’s leading scientists and academics called for the official designation of a new earth epoch: the Anthropocene. Addressing the ‘Planet under Pressure’ gathering in London, England, scientists said that one species has left an indelible mark through climate change, dwindling fish stocks, continued deforestation, rapid species decline, and human population growth. Anthony Giddens, the British political scientist known for his holistic view of societies, described the Anthopocene as a “runaway world” in which we have unleashed processes more powerful than our attempts to control them.

It is against this dismal backdrop that our federal politicians have unleashed the anti-environmental provisions of Budget 2012 upon the Canadian people. I’ve recently been seeing a bumper sticker that captures quite nicely the priorities of our current federal government: “At least the war on the environment is going well.”

Share

Christy Clark Must Go

Share

Of course Christy Clark must resign. It’s not going to get better as time passes.
 
I would be the last to say that the entire problem is of her doing – she was handed a poisoned chalice by Gordon Campbell who is the ultimate Teflon man; he pays nothing for going to jail and when he left in a cloud, far from paying a price, he gets showered with honours.
 
BC Hydro is the unlanced boil, an issue that has lots of legs. But now, according to Alex Tsakumis, the intrepid blogger with a box cart full of contacts, has the Premier in the mess too.
 
The question is timing and how – it must be soon, for when the Conservatives win Chilliwack all in the caucus will have sharp knives ready for the moment she turns her back.
 
Why do I see backstabbing here?
 
Because that’s what it is.
 
From the moment she was selected leader of the Liberals, I predicted that Ms. Clark would fail, for two reasons: I didn’t think she had the necessary tools of leadership, but, of more importance, she had a caucus and cabinet that had a death wish for her. Leaders can survive enemies within but not if it’s everybody. She had no colleagues she could rely upon to help to avoid trouble or to get out of it when it happened.
 
I frankly don’t think she was up to the job but she was given no real opportunity to prove me wrong.
 
What now?
 
A Conservative friend (yes there are such things) suggested that the Liberals bring in proportional representation which would mean the right, being the Liberals in their present incarnation and the Conservatives would have a chance to form a coalition.
 
I don’t know if it was tongue in cheek but there are many reasons this is a bad idea that wouldn’t float – Liberal and Conservative members wouldn’t stand for it. Neither would the public who would see it just as it would be – an insult to the people since they would have no say in the matter.
 
I believe that in general, the caucus as a whole should select the party leader.
 
Not democratic?
 
How democratic are the electronic games that are played under the current system? The caucus knows whom they can and will support and whom they cannot.
 
The best example I can think of was the political assassination of Margaret Thatcher in 1990. In the British Tory system there‘s a leadership review process and in 1990 it was invoked. In a little over a week the process was concluded with John Major getting the support of more MPs than anyone else. He won the next election.
 
Now it must always be remembered that no matter how the process works it’s not “new pitcher, new strikes”. The incoming leader will have to deal with the mess that’s left over as will any successor to Christy Clark.
 
The backroom boys always think that a leadership convention, complete with electronic voting, will provide a leader who will have momentum to carry on and win. They use Bill Vander Zalm as an example. In fact, it’s an example of my point – while Vander Zalm was loved by the people (not for long, as it transpired) he went into the nominating convention with only one member of caucus supporting him, Jack Davis, who had been convicted of fraudulently converting 1st Class tickets into Economy and pocketing the difference. He was forced out of Cabinet by Premier Bill Bennett never to darken the cabinet room again. He saw that with Vander Zalm he might get back in – and he did. The important point is that all of the other ministers who had served with Vander Zalm opposed his nomination and he had not been long in his new job before the knives were unsheathed.
 
On cannot overly blame his colleagues, for Vander Zalm was stubborn, unrelenting in opinions and a one man band.
 
I believe that the Liberals will lose in 2013 regardless of who is leader. But the object is not winning but holding the party together. The longer Ms. Clark stays, the greater the risk of an implosion as the Socreds did in 1991.
 
Premier Clark must wait until the by-elections are over – otherwise she would be seen as abandoning her candidates.
 
After these elections I believe Ms. Clark must stand down and the leader should be selected by either the cabinet (as the Socreds did in 1991) or by the entire caucus as is the Conservative policy in the UK.
 
I suspect that the backroom boys will disagree and want a full blown leadership convention. If they do it they run the risk of having the same result that put Ms. Clark in the premier’s office.
 
The one thing the electronic election does not do is see first hand the candidates going through a process. The traditional convention was exciting to watch and because of that the winner did have momentum.
 
In all events, no amount of promising huge exports here, big developments there will do. The public sees through that kind of death bed flim flam.
 
Christy Clark must go – and soon.

———————————-
 
Have you thought about whether or not there’s a soul? What about near death experiences? Should the Book of Revelation scare the pants off us? Find out what other religions and experts say with my new book The Home Stretch available online, www.kindle.com or www.amazon.com  for your computer, kindle, kobo or iPad – for the miserly sum of $9.99
 

Share