Tag Archives: Politics

City of Terrace Officially Opposes Enbridge

Share

Read this story from the Terrace Standard on the community’s recent city council vote to officially come out against the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines. (Feb 14, 2012)

The city of Terrace now opposes the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project after a 5 – 2 vote during tonight’s Feb. 13 council meeting.

First, council voted to clear its former neutral position, paving the way to decide its stance anew. Then, each council member took a turn expressing their views, concerns, and the implications of a municipal body taking a stance. After,  a majority voted to oppose the project 5 – 2.

Councillors James Cordeiro, who initiated the vote, Stacey Tyers, Marilyn Davies, Bruce Bidgood and Lynne Christiansen voted to oppose the project.

“I believe Terrace is open for business,” said Bidgood during the meeting. “It’s just not for sale at any price.”

Read more: http://www.terracestandard.com/news/139269343.html

 

Share

Cutting Enbridge Deal with Alberta is Bad Advice for Christy Clark

Share

Bob Plecas has an op-ed piece in the Vancouver Sun – they whose recent papers are celebrating their 100th birthday have carried the art of media masturbation to new heights once thought unreachable.
 
I assume that the editor in charge of its op-ed page, being a Fellow of the far right Fraser Institute, chooses his op-ed writers with care and, if part of that mandate is to push the government’s agenda, Fazil Milhar has done well indeed with Mr. Plecas.
 
Mr. Plecas was a deputy minister when I was in government and has written a biography of former premier, Bill Bennett.
 
I always thought he was a bright lad but clearly he is captive of the right as his article clearly demonstrates.
 
In this screed, Plecas is telling Premier Christy how to win the next election. Here is one of his suggestions, indeed his first choice:
 
The Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline. Demand Alberta share in the revenue from the pipeline between the oil (sic) sands and Kitimat as a condition for BC’s support. As proposed Alberta would gain all the benefits while BC takes all the “risks’’ (emphasis mine). Royalty splitting would have BC dedicate its share towards safety, first nations and communities in the North…
 
You will note that Mr. Plecas, as a faithful follower of the right, says the “oil” sands which is Liberal Party’s mantra. Oil sounds so much better than “tar” sands which has the nasty problem of the accurate description.
 
Now, Bob, repeat after me: there is no “risk” to BC from these two pipelines – THEY ARE MATHEMATICAL CERTAINTIES WHICH WILL RE-OCCUR FOR THE LIFETIME OF THE PIPELINES.
 
Bob, your article is simply untrue. Not only will these pipelines burst, you can’t clean up this stuff, called bitumen. Please look at the Enbridge disaster in the Kalamazoo River which happened 18 months ago and has not been cleaned up and never will. And now we learn the company is back at it with a new spill in Michigan this week! The Kalamazoo River is in populated Michigan not the wilds of British Columbia.
 
You casually toss aside First Nations, as if Victoria had some vague responsibility to look after the helpless Indians thus ought to give them a share of the revenue.
 
Bob, you know better than this having been involved in aboriginal affairs as a Deputy Minister.
 
The truth of the matter – better brace yourself (I would take a shot or two of single malt whisky) – is that First Nations make no case for sharing royalties because they oppose the pipelines. They’re no longer clients of the government but have a special place under our constitution as declared by the Supreme Court of Canada. This pipeline is mostly on unceded land the status of which has not yet been determined. Didn’t you know that, Bob?
 
How dare you patronize them!
 
I suppose you’ve done them a favour since your remark clearly shows that you and the government haven’t kept up to date and are wrapped in a time warp of 35 years ago.
 
Bob, I notice you haven’t dealt with the tankers issue. The First Nations on our coast are dead set against tanker traffic and saw what happened after the Exxon Valdez spill.
 
Yes, the tankers may be double hulled. Do you not know that in the past two years there have been four double hulled major spills and these vessels weren’t in dangerous waters as we have on our coast?
 
Bob, how could you be so wrong? Don’t you care for our Great Bear Rainforest? Does it not bother you that these two* pipelines traverse 1,100 km through the Rockies and Coast range only accessible by helicopter. Do you simply not give a damn that 1,000 rivers and streams will be crossed including three essential to wild salmon?
 
I can’t believe that you would dissemble – nor can I believe you’re stupid.
 
Unfortunately, Bob, it’s one or the other.
 
*the second pipeline which runs parallel to the one carrying the bitumen, takes the condensate which is mixed with the bitumen so it will flow, back to the Tar Sands

Rafe Mair’s latest book, The Home Stretch, is now available online at www.kobo.com and www.amazon.com at the appallingly low $9.99
 

Share

Harper Tells China He Will Ensure Enrbridge Pipeline is Built

Share

Read this story from Reuters reporting on on Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s recent assurances to the Chinese that the controversial Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline will be built, despite heavy opposition in BC. (Feb 10, 2012)

(Reuters) – Canada’s prime minister on Friday made his strongest comments yet in support of a proposed pipeline from oil-rich Alberta to the Pacific coast, saying his government was committed to ensuring the controversial project went ahead.

Enbridge Inc’s Northern Gateway pipeline, which is strongly opposed by green groups and some aboriginal bands, would allow Canada to send tankers of crude to China and reduce reliance on the U.S. market.

An independent energy regulator — which could in theory reject the project — last month started two years of hearings into the pipeline.

In remarks that appeared to cast some doubt on the regulator’s eventual findings, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said it had become “increasingly clear that it is in Canada’s national interest to diversify our energy markets”.

He continued: “To this end, our government is committed to ensuring that Canada has the infrastructure necessary to move our energy resources to those diversified markets.”

Harper stepped up talk of oil sales to China in the wake of a U.S. decision last month to block TransCanada Corp’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf Coast of the United States.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/10/us-china-canada-oil-idUSTRE8190M620120210

Share
BC Premier Christy Clark and Alberta Premier Alison Redford (Ted Rhodes/Postmedia photo)

Redford Signals Alberta’s Intent to “Clear a Path” for Tar Sands Through BC

Share

I wasn’t surprised at what Alberta Premier Alison Redford recently said, namely:

The Alberta government is looking to clear a path for the oil sands through British Columbia by upping the economic benefits for its western neighbour – including the option of paying to modernize and expand West Coast ports.

Premier Redford’s government stressed Tuesday there were no formal discussions, much less a formal proposal, but some in the Alberta government acknowledge that British Columbians need to see a tangible benefit if they are to bear the risks of an oil pipeline and associated West Coast tanker traffic headed to Asia.

I was only surprised that it took so long for this vague testing of British Columbia opinion – and we must understand that this is all part of proposing bribes to BC to overcome its fast-growing aversion to the Enbridge pipeline.
 
An old golfing pal of mine and I were in the same meeting which was trying to get pros to come to a golf tournament our club was putting on. One of the group suggested some incentives, whereupon John Kelly said, “I stand foursquare against bribery – unless, of course, it gets the job done.”
 
We have just seen the beginning of a bribery process.
 
Premier Redford made her remarks in a speech – premiers are very careful what they say in speeches so one thing is clear: these remarks were not made just for the hell of it or off the cuff. This statement outlined vaguely what is to come.
 
The Harper government is in a pickle. When the PM told the Chinese that their investment in the Tar Sands (NOT the Oil Sands as the flacks want it) was safe, it didn’t seem possible that the people of BC would make a fuss about The Northern Gateway, a two way pipeline from the Tar Sands to Kitimat.
 
In making his commitment, Harper has painted himself into a corner, big time. How do you tell the Chinese that environmentalists, for God’s sake, have scuppered their huge commitment?
 
I’ll tell you what I think has happened:

  1. Harper reminded Premier Photo-Op that she’s in a serious financial bind which Ottawa could be of assistance over, say, the HST money Victoria owes. It would help, Harper probably told his new pal Christy, if you would butt out of this and don’t, in the name of all that’s sacred, talk about tanker traffic in the Inner Passage and good things will happen for you.
  2. Harper then told Premier Redford that Ottawa and Edmonton must prepare an incentive package for BC in order to stop those radical neo-communists from making massive protests and civil disobedience.
  3. Harper urged Redford to put up a trial balloon such as offering money to help building quays to handle the 300 or so tankers out of Kitimat every year.
  4. When the Prime Minister returns from China there will be meetings in Ottawa and Edmonton where we’ll put some meat on the bones of our bribe, er, incentive package for BC.

In the next year or so, we’re going to see just what British Columbians are made of as we get money thrown at us – serious money – in exchange for the right to ruin our great and very rare wilderness.
 
That this or something like it will happen is sure. We just don’t know when and how much.
 
For me and The Common Sense Canadian, there isn’t enough money in the world, much less in the country, that would compel us to sacrifice a square millimetre of our natural heritage and environment to a pipeline.
 
I close with this: Prime Minister Harper, if he doesn’t back off, is asking for, to use his words, “consequences” – serious consequences.
 
In the words of First Nations leader Gerald Amos, this so-called Northern Gateway project is “not going to happen.”
 
Rafe Mair’s latest book, The Home Stretch is now available online at www.kobo.com and www.amazon.com at the appallingly low $9.99

Share

Harper, Enbridge Jet to China on Heels of Massive Prince Rupert Protest

Share

This from the CBC:

Canadian oil and business executives are well-represented in the delegation travelling to China with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, with oil exports expected to be high on the government’s agenda.

A delegation assigned to Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver includes eight mining or oil and gas companies.

That list of companies includes none other than Enbridge, Inc.

The prime minister and his government are asking for a show down and my experience this past weekend in Prince Rupert indicates that the Enbridge deal, about which more in a moment, is going to spawn a First Nations and supporters v. industry and government fight compared to which all other showdowns will seem like minor incidents.

First, let’s look at the Enbridge deal from the point of view of First Nations both in their territory over which the pipeline travels and those on the coast where the consequent tanker traffic will go.

Enbridge, one of the largest pipeline companies in the world, has an utterly appalling safety record. In fact since 1998 they have had 811 “accidents”. They now tell us that with that record, mostly in easy geographical situations, they can take on the hugely difficult route to Kitimat “accident free” (or that they have a “plan” to deal adequately with spills if they occur).

The pipeline they propose, and Harper and Co. support, is about 1100km from the Alberta Tar Sands to Kitimat over and through both The Rockies, The Coast Range and over 1000 rivers and streams, including critical sources of three major salmon runs. To put this in perspective, in July of 2010 Enbridge had an “accident” which spilled over a million gallons of crude oil near the Kalamazoo River which is near Marshall in Michigan, a populated area.

Two notes from that: the cleanup continues and most observers say it will never be completed and this spill is, unlike the Rockies/Coast Range, easy to access with machinery. And another note: the spill was crude oil, which is bad enough, while the Enbridge pipeline would carry bitumen going west and condensate (the stuff they mix with bitumen) east – bitumen is far more viscous than crude oil.

The last points are very important for that there will be a spill from the Enbridge Northern Gateway line is not a risk but a mathematical certainty, and will happen in places only accessible by helicopter and the damage will be permanent no matter what the company does.

We have then 1100 km of venomous gunk of which there will be spills in wild areas inaccessible except by helicopter, which spills threaten precious wildlife and fish, which spills will be there forever. And let’s be clear on this – these spills will happen again and again.

Mr. Harper and his government, dirty hand in dirty hand with Enbridge and the Chinese giant Sinopec, are bound and determined to impose this on the people of British Columbia.

What of our fellow citizens, First Nations? They come into this awful business in two ways – those whose lands have not been ceded and those who live, as they have for centuries on the coast. At this point there are 131 nations absolutely opposed to Enbridge stepping one millimeter into BC.

Enbridge and the two governments are convinced that these First Nations can and will be bought off. And this point must be considered.

Damien Gillis and I were at the huge First Nations rally in Prince Rupert this past weekend and we can both say with confidence that this will not happen – certainly not amongst those represented there. We were both at the historic “Save the Fraser Declaration” press conference last December and saw the resolve in the faces of these leaders.

I saw the resolve when I spoke to 500 on Saturday night as I received a hearty standing ovation. I spoke with them afterwards and I can tell Mr. Harper and his resident toady, Resources Minister Joe Oliver, that they have badly and dangerously misread the situation.

The coastal nations know that they must help their eastern brethren in order to help themselves. In the words of spokesman and much admired Gerald Amos of the Haisla Nation,“It isn’t going to happen.”

What’s the matter with our governments? Don’t they understand that there is no way you can settle or compromise this issue? You can’t have half a pipeline or smaller boats!

Premier Christy Clark is a big player in this game because she can put a ban on tankers. The fact is that Gordon Campbell sent a note to Ottawa some years ago saying that his government had no issue with tanker traffic and Premier Photo-Op no doubt thinks that takes her government off the hook. Think again, lady.

Prophets of doom are often, like all messengers, blamed when their prophecies come to pass. I’ll run that risk and tell you fairly that I don’t believe that First Nations can be bribed and that the governments and Enbridge are provoking them and thousands of supporters, growing every day, to resort to violence.

People all around this province, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, are sending the governments, China and Enbridge a very solemn message: Don’t do it.

For in your words, Mr Harper, “there will be consequences.”

Share
Image: Angus Reid Public Opinion

BC NDP Widens Lead in Latest Angus Reid Opinion Poll – In-depth Analysis

Share

New Poll results: NDP up to 42% while Liberals drop to 28%, Conservatives flat at 19%, Greens flat at 10%

It is clear now from four consecutive opinion polls that BC politics has entered a new phase, and that partisan support has shifted into a radically different paradigm.

The main change happened late last year when about 12 per cent of decided voters departed from the BC Liberal Party and joined the newly-revived BC Conservative Party (not necessarily all by membership of course); meanwhile support for the BC NDP was up only slightly and for the BC Green Party was down slightly.

Now the latest opinion poll from Angus Reid Public Opinion shows that that new paradigm has held and even increased in the last three months, most notably with a widening gap between the NDP, now up 2 to 42%, and the Liberals, down 3 to only 28%, which in an election held now would produce a large majority for the NDP; but also important is that support for the Conservatives went sideways, up only 1 to 19%, and for the Green Party was up 2 to only 10%.

That new paradigm of plunging Liberals, rising Conservatives and steady New Democrats first appeared in an Angus Reid poll last November and then was highlighted in two polls by Forum Research, one in December and another last month, and now they have been confirmed by the always-reliable Angus Reid firm, which surveyed 800 of its online panelists Jan. 27 to 29 and claims a variability of 3.5%.

That pattern – which shows up well in a colored graph contained in the report, which you can download here – suggests more than a few voters have lost hope that BC Liberal Party Premier Christy Clark will make major changes from the style and substance of her predecessor Gordon Campbell, who she replaced last March, and they instead have turned to the Conservatives, who jumped from about 5% to about 20% soon after former Member of Parliament John Cummins became their leader.

Clark has lost her edge, pollster notes

“The governing party is now losing a quarter of its 2009 electors in 2009 to the BC Conservatives, and Clark has lost her edge on issues like crime and the economy,” said Mario Canseco, the polling firm’s Vancouver vice-president, noting it’s the first time the Liberals have been below 30 per cent since Campbell announced his resignation in November 2010.

The Liberals’ support recovered to about 43% during the party’s leadership campaign but once Clark took over in March 2011 the support drifted down to 31% last fall and now has gone further down to 28% – apparently because Clark wasn’t moving fast enough to repair problems left by her predecessor, notably to extricate BC from Campbell’s (tainted) Harmonized Sales Tax deal with Ottawa but also dealing with many other troubled areas.

A stats table shows that the Clark Liberals are now holding on to only 60% of their 2009 voters, with 27% having gone to the Conservatives and another 10% to the NDP, while the NDP is holding 88% of its voters and only 5% have gone to the Conservatives and only 2% to the Liberals. [Maybe those two NewDems were attracted to the Liberals by that sterling stallion MLA Kash Heed once he was “exonerated” from the illegalities in the Vancouver-Fraserview campaign??]

Keith Baldrey of most-watched GlobalBC-TV described that as “a very deep dark hole” for the Liberals but he and other pundits tend to agree that there is still lots of time for such things to change again before the May 14, 2013 provincial election, such as maybe some floor-crossings by disgruntled Liberal backbenchers or moves by other MLAs (the Legislature resumes sitting on Feb. 14) and/or calls to replace Clark with someone stronger or better-liked, though right now really no one else stands out who would be better.

Vancouver Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer also was damning, noting Clark “has failed to deliver a fresh start” and failed on certain other promises she made during her leadership bid, such as connecting more with young voters.

“The Liberals are misreading the mood of the public,” added SFU’s Doug McArthur on CKNW’s Simi Sara Show, noting they need to and probably will make some changes and work harder to develop a more positive forward-looking vision.

Meanwhile, a closer look at some of the poll’s breakouts shows that NDP leader Adrian Dix was wise to downplay the significance of this poll even though it shows him for the first time as best choice for Premier (26% to 22% but with a massive 40% undecided), his approval rating climbed to the top too (45% to Clark’s 40%) and his “momentum score” (net change in approval) was up a healthy 6 points while Clark’s crashed 24 points.

Clark still tops Dix on the economy

That prudence by Dix was appropriate because a breakout in the report shows Clark still leads Dix as the leader best-suited to deal with the two most important policy areas, the economy and federal/provincial relations, which another table shows are by far the most important issues in the minds of voters: Economy is at 27% and Health Care at 21% and all the rest such as leadership, poverty, tax relief and crime are well below 10% and fed-prov is not even mentioned – but note that Health Care qualifies as a federal-provincial issue IF you assume that federal-provincial negotiations are critical to the future funding of health care, which is a fair supposition given that that was virtually the only agenda item considered when the Canadian Premiers convened last month in Victoria following Ottawa’s unilateral move to fundamentally change the health care funding formula in years ahead.

On the economy Clark tops Dix by 24% to 23% and on federal-provincial relations she leads by 27% to 21% (perhaps reflecting how she hosted Prime Minister Stephen Harper at her son’s hockey game recently) while on Health Care Dix leads by 33% to 20% which probably reflects that the NDP gets a lot of support from health and social service workers who were hammered by the Campbell Liberals.

In other words, the crux of BC’s partisan politics remains the same as always: how best to manage the economy so that the people can afford top-notch health care. That is the issue on which Campbell dominated the NDP for a decade, and it is still the case for Clark.  Though Dix is helped by having been seen to have been an excellent official critic of Health for his caucus, he still obviously has some work to do on the business and investment climate, job creation, Crown corporations, taxes, finances and related issues – perhaps especially how job creation could be linked to environmental protection and delivery of more new social services for an aging population [with a new style of care facilities needed to reduce costs and caseloads in hospitals].

[And by the way, though it wasn’t mentioned in the survey, Dix has also been doing a better job of running his caucus, which is subtly evident in the way several critics and MLAs have recently sounded more confident when they stepped forward to comment on issues in their policy areas, which suggests they’ve been given more freedom than under former leader Carole James.]

Stats suggest Liberal attack ads backfired

Probably one of the more important or at least interesting findings in the poll is that the attack ads the Liberal Party ran against Dix, labelling him as risky Dix and pointing people to a “risky Dix” website, failed to turn around his momentum and actually may have even helped raise his profile and further help him by triggering a few sympathy votes, perhaps especially among women, an amazing 47% of whom now support the NDP compared to only 24% for the female-led Liberals. Among men it is 37% NDP, 32% Liberals and no aberrations for the others.

In other words, women voters are flocking to the NDP now even after the party ousted its female leader!

On the age breakout there are only a few standout statistics, such as young voters showing Liberal support low at 23% and Green support high at 19%, and plus-55 voters (i.e. “seniors”) showing NDP 40% (a bit below what it should be), Liberals 31% (their best age segment) and Conservatives 22% (probably the core of that party).

The Household Income breakout is interesting and entertaining too because the NDP is dominant in all three categories, low, middle and high! On incomes below $50,000 it’s NDP 47 to Liberals 24, from that to $100,000 it is NDP 39 and Liberals 32, and on $100,000-plus it is NDP 43 to Liberals 30 and the other parties not notable.

In other words, even people in the top income bracket now prefer the NDP!

Clark’s decline due mainly to lack of changes

Why has the Liberal support suffered such a fall-off?  The problem really goes back to the Campbell Liberals’ grossly-tainted election win in May 2009 after which Campbell became a virtual despot trying ever-more-extreme schemes to hide and suppress the reality that he had badly botched the management of many many important areas all around the public sector and furthermore that in order to win the 2009 election and thereby keep hiding the scandals he had to lie about the government’s finances, cheat to win some seats in the election and then impose the harmonized sales tax to try cover up how he had cooked the financial books.

The full gist of that is only now beginning to be grasped by the electorate, and few in the mainstream media have yet articulated that let alone have critics in other parties dared say it even when they enjoy the protection of Parliamentary privilege, but anyway the polls show that that view of Campbell’s terrible record is now a key entrenched fact of public opinion, aided greatly by the petition and referendum victory against the HST.

Some of the other Angus Reid break-out tables provide interesting and useful insights into why Clark’s ratings dropped, such as who and where Clark has been losing, but they don’t offer much hope of a turnaround anytime soon with her disapproval at 49% and approval at 40% with a not-sure of only 11%.

Regarding how views of Clark had changed in the last three months, 36% said they had worsened while only 12% said they had improved, only 42 per cent stayed the same and only 10 per cent were not sure – which has to be one of the worst quarterly drops for a Premier in BC polling history.

Dix climbed despite attack ads

By comparison Dix’s score fell by 16%, which probably reflected some effects of the Liberal attack ads; Green Party leader Jane Sterk worsened by 15% (probably reflecting her decision to not run candidates in two pending byelections); and Conservative leader Cummins declined only 7% while having a huge “not sure” score of 34%.

Looking at Dix’s scores, he had the top approval at 45%, a substantial disapproval at 36%, he worsened among 16% but improved with 22% and stayed the same with 49% and had a “not sure” of only 13%, which would seem to be a fairly healthy maturation for a new leader of a left-leaning party and much better than for the other three leaders but still not enough yet to ensure a win for him in the next election.

In the regional breakdown there are only a few stats that stand out, such as the NDP’s dominance on Vancouver island at 51%, their solid lead in the North and their competitiveness in the Interior – and no weakness anywhere. (That Island finding should be of some interest to the Forum researchers who claimed that Dix had a problem of low recognition there.)

Read the full Angus Reid report here.

John Twigg is an independent journalist based in West Vancouver and a former long-time member of the Victoria Press Gallery. He can be reached at john@johntwigg.com.

Share

Enbridge, Harper and Consequences for Speaking Out

Share

Did Prime Minister Harper threaten Tides Canada with “consequences” if they didn’t stop funding supporting campaigns – specifically that of ForestEthics – against the Enbridge Pipeline project?
 
ForestEthics says so, which is enough to have all Canadians, no matter what their stance on this issue or others, demand the Prime Minister make it clear that all Canadians, subject to the Criminal Code of Canada, have a constitutional right to say what they please on all issues, big and small – without consequences.
 
I have had experience with this. Back in 1992, when the Mulroney government was shoving the Charlottetown Accord at us, I was one of a very few people in the media that was opposed and said so with a passion.
 
One day my “mole” in the Conservative caucus – and at the same time a national media person – told me that Mulroney was going to retaliate against me by having me face a tax audit. I went on the air the following morning and reported this on the hope that this would discourage such a threat. Whether it worked or not I cannot say – I can say that no such audit was ordered.
 
The information I was given may not have been accurate but the sources were such that I felt very vulnerable.
 
(Before going on let me say that in those days I was making a lot of money from different places and had one of Canada’s best tax accountants, Russ Wilson, handling my affairs, as he still does. As with anyone making that kind of money there are always “grey” areas so that a tax audit could simply stop you cold in whatever you were doing until their audit was over. Ask any small business person what that kind of interruption can do…These days, an old man, I make very little money, have no pensions other than OAP and CPP, and we travel on our kids’ inheritance, so I’m not much of a legitimate target.)
 
I raise this issue because there is no end of ways a government can hassle you with “consequences” but this is a very effective one.
 
The “consequences” Tides Canada would pay, as I understand, would be taking away their charitable tax status, and by extension, their ability to support other environmental organizations and their own affiliate groups like ForestEthics. In the environmental field there are a number of very competent active and effective groups who have such an exemption, without which they simply couldn’t function.
 
The government doesn’t have to take away the exemption – all they have to do is threaten to do so, “or else”.
 
Let me be clear: I do not say that this will become Mr Harper’s way of shutting us all up. I have no evidence to support such an allegation other than the Tides/ForestEthics matter.
 
What I do say is that this sort of tactic has been used before – in the Richard Nixon days it was common.
 
What I also say is that the pipelines/tankers issue is shaping up to be a huge fight with the Harper Government, the oil and tanker businesses and most of the business community lined up against ordinary citizens and distinctly unwealthy environmental groups and spokespeople.
 
We who stand resolutely against the ruination of our environment also have the mainstream media against us. It’s a daunting task yet what I read and hear every day is support from ordinary, decent British Columbians who are undaunted by this huge array of corporate and government power.
 
The collision between Mr. Harper and the people of British Columbia is being made more certain by every assurance the PM gives to companies and governments that the gunk from the Tar Sands will be available to them. Every utterance from him and his Resources Minister Joe Oliver makes it clear that environmental hearings are nothing more than a nuisance and should be cast aside so we “can get on with it”.
 
I have left the biggest issue to the last: First Nations. The federal government has many financial arrangements with First Nations. Will there be “consequences” for the 131 Chiefs who oppose the pipeline/tanker plan from the heart; from the depths of their long heritage?
 
We are en route to a very serious collision and the purpose of this article is twofold: warn the public about how governments in the past have fought issues and demand from Prime Minister Harper that he state clearly and unequivocally that dissent on this or any other issue will not come “with consequences” from him and/or the federal government.
 
If we cannot have that assurance, look for serious consequences for people who put their environment, their treasures, the very soul of this province ahead of ruining it by people outside our province, who don’t give a fiddler’s fart for our feelings about our land and rivers and flora.
 
We are listening, listening very hard Mr Harper, for your clear unequivocal statement that we can oppose your plans without “consequences”.

Share

Vancouver Sun on City’s Firing of Planning Director Brent Toderian

Share

Read this story from Jeff Lee of The Vancouver Sun on the firing of the City of Vancouver’s director of planning, Brent Toderian. (Jan 31, 2012)

This morning Frances Bula, the former Vancouver Sun reporter who now freelances for The Globe and Mail, used anonymous sources to break the story of Toderian’s firing.

Council has since ratified Toderian’s termination, and everyone from Mayor Gregor Robertson and Ballem on down are being nice in how they describe what can only be described as a major change, both for Toderian and for the city. (See Ballem’s internal memo and the public statement below.)

Toderian told me in a telephone conversation that he was surprised by his firing and that it was done “without cause”. That precludes a wrongful dismissal suit, but it also preserves his much-valued integrity because his termination comes down to a difference of opinion, rather than a messy split. It has cost the city plenty: at least one year’s salary at more than $200,000.

As can be expected, people have weighed in on all sides about what caused his departure and what it means in the long term.

Toderian is brash, hard-nosed and ambitious. That style created among some developers, architects and community groups. But that Type-A personality was also in direct conflict with at least one other similar personality, that of Ballem, who has consolidated decision-making under her reign.

Read more: http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/01/31/brent-toderian-fired-as-vancouvers-director-of-planning/

Share

“Adversaries” and “Allies” of Tar Sands Named in Harper Government Strategy Documents

Share

Read this report from CBC.ca on federal government documents recently obtained by Greenpeace that show the Harper Government listing off “allies” and “adversaries” to the Tar Sands. (Jan. 31, 2012)

The federal government considers the media, the biodiesel industry and environmental and aboriginal groups “adversaries” in its attempt to advocate for Alberta’s oilsands, according to documents obtained under access to information legislation.

Energy companies, the National Energy Board, Environment Canada, business and industry associations, meanwhile, are listed as “allies” in a public relations plan called the “Pan-European Oil Sands Advocacy Strategy.” It is dated March 2011.

The documents were obtained by Greenpeace Canada and Climate Action Network and released to the media on Thursday. The groups say Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government is working hand-in-hand with the oil industry to silence critics.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/26/pol-oilsands-campaign.html?cmp=rss

 

Share
When will BC NDP Leader Adrian Dix take a firm stand on Enbridge and Kinder Morgan?

Time for Dix to Take a Stand on Pipelines and Tankers

Share

This is an open letter to NDP leader Adrian Dix and his Energy Critic, John Horgan.
 
It’s time, gentlemen, to pee or get off the pot.
 
The issues of the proposed Enbridge pipelines and tanker traffic on our coast demand your immediate statement of policy.
 
In order that there be no misunderstandings, here are the facts, gentlemen – not assertions or opinions but plain simple to understand facts:

  1. A spill from both pipelines and tankers is a dead certainty.
  2. There is no way these spills can be cleaned up.
  3. The record of Enbridge is appalling.
  4. First Nations, be they on the coast or along the proposed pipeline right of way are opposed – 131 of them.
  5. Neither the federal government nor Enbridge have considered the real possibility of terrorism or vandalism.

The pipelines, one to take the bitumen to Kitimat and the other to take gas condensate back, traverse arguably the last untouched rain forest on earth. It’s certainly as rugged and remote from civilization as anywhere else.
 
Unlike other pipelines Enbridge has built, the route for the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline crosses the rugged, mountainous terrain of the Northern Rockies and the Coast Mountains of British Columbia. Enbridge has no experience in this sort of terrain – most likely because no other government has been so stupid and uncaring as to give them or anyone else a right-of-way. The pipeline would cross some 1,000 streams and rivers, including sensitive salmon spawning habitat in the upper Fraser, Skeena, and Kitimat watersheds. Five important salmon rivers that would be impacted are the Stuart River, Morice River, Copper River, Kitimat River and Salmon River.

Surely you must be shocked to know that this pipeline is to be constructed by Enbridge which, since 1998, has had 811 “accidents”. The bottom line is, gentlemen, that this project would, beyond any doubt, have spills in terrain inaccessible except by helicopter, which spills would have a disastrous and permanent impact on our beautiful province.

There is nothing Enbridge can do after a spill – they can’t get there. Certainly no heavy equipment could be taken there and, even if it could, the damage will be permanent.

A useful step would be to look at the situation in the Kalamazoo River where Enbridge had a leak in July 2010 which has not been cleaned yet and never will be – the damage is forever. (You will note that Kalamazoo, Michigan is not deep inside rugged mountains.)
 
Let’s look at tankers on the coast.
 
Again, a spill is a mathematical certainty, certified as such by Environment Canada, scarcely full of radicals. Double hulling will help diminish the number of spills but they still are a certainty. In the past two years 4 double hulls have sunk.
 
Just as a luxury cruise ship can run aground in broad daylight under sunny skies and kill 29 people, a tanker will spill. And the consequences will be horrible.
 
Then there is the Kinder Morgan line into Vancouver. I’m not in a position to compare the old Trans -Mountain line with the proposed Enbridge line nor compare the consequences of a leak. What I can say is that there will be leaks – as there were earlier this week near Abbotsford and in Burnaby before that – and the spill will be permanent. With a tanker accident in Burrard Inlet and the Strait of Juan De Fuca, surely you can visualize the calamity that would mean to the Gulf Islands and southern coast of Vancouver Island and to the North Arm of Burrard Inlet and Vancouver Harbour itself.
 
Again, gentlemen, we are not talking risks but certainties.
 
Mr. Dix, Mr. Horgan, what more do you need for you to speak out in firm commitment from you and the NDP condemning the proposed Enbridge pipeline, the tanker traffic out of Kitimat, the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline and tanker traffic through and out of Vancouver?
 
I wish to speak plainly. There are many who think that the Common Sense Canadian supports the NDP.
 
We do not – we stand for a political commitment against the catastrophes I have described. That commitment cannot fairly be inferred from snippets of criticism, but only by you, Mr. Dix, declaring your firm opposition to these certain pipeline/tanker disasters.
 
If you don’t take a firm stand, what is to differentiate your position from that of Premier Clark?
 
 

Share