Tag Archives: Politics

New Data: BC Better Off Compared with Other Provinces Under NDP in 2000 than Under Liberals in 2010

December 22, 2011Canada, Politics, Western CanadaPoliticsDamien Gillis

Read this report from The Globe and Mail which further undermines the BC Liberals’ claims of economic superiority compared with the NDP of the 1990s.

Premier Christy Clark and the Liberals have often claimed bragging
rights over the NDP on economic issues, saying the province is much
better off today than under the “NDP’s reckless policies” of the 1990s.

But a critical assessment of B.C.’s performance over the past decade
shows that, in comparisons with other provinces, B.C. in 2010 actually
ranked lower than it did 10 years earlier on key economic measures.

The
report was released this week by the B.C. Progress Board, a government
advisory agency that provides the most comprehensive review available on
how the province performs relative to other provinces.

The board
states that British Columbians had above-average growth, a 24-per-cent
increase in income and strong employment growth over the past decade.
British Columbians in 2010 were significantly better off than they were
in 2000, the report stated.

But so were many other Canadians.

B.C.
dropped in rankings among provinces on the economy, personal income and
jobs, but maintained its number one standing on environmental quality
and health outcomes. The province’s ranking on social conditions, as
ninth, remained unchanged, the report stated. (Dec. 22, 2011)

Border Security Deal’s Ugly Twin Carries Major Energy and Environmental Implications for Canada

December 19, 2011Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, WATER, Western CanadaBC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Keystone XL, Oil and gas, Politics, Water and EnergyCommon Sense Canadian

Harper’s government officially announced in recent weeks a new Border Security deal with the US. However, little press space was given to the ugly twin of this deal – the Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) and their “Joint Action Plan”. The RCC was set up to “streamline” regulations in four economic sectors engaged in cross-border trade. These sectors are Food & Agriculture, Transportation, Energy and Environment and Personal Care Products.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the press release for the RCC’s Joint Action Plan. The word “Energy” was dropped from the Energy and Environment sector. That’s right. Never mind that energy, including oil, natural gas and hydroelectricity, is arguably the most important sector of Canada-US trade in today’s constrained energy supply world.

Mounting opposition to pipeline development on both sides of the border make the Energy word a bit loaded politically for Harper and especially Obama right now. (Visions of the protesters surrounding the White House and the BC First Nations announcement of opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline float in my head as I write this). At any rate, it was conveniently dropped. The new Environment-only sector in the Action Plan concerns itself with fairly benign co-operation on air quality standards for emissions from light duty vehicles and trains and levels of particulate matter in air.

To understand what poison pills may await us in the not-talked-about-but-still-there Energy trade sector, a look at the RCC Consultation Report released in February of this year is required.

This document is important in that it contains the complete consultation list of regulatory harmonization items to be considered for implementation. That is the basis of Action Plan items, which is clear from the page 5 Action Plan statement: “Stakeholder input was key in developing this initial Joint Action Plan, which represents a first set of actions and initiatives that will begin the process of developing more closely aligned regulatory systems between the U.S. and Canada.”

And also from the page 9 Statement: “…there were a number of suggested initiatives that were considered but not included in the initial Joint Action Plan. The RCC will continue to examine these suggestions as it develops areas for future work.”

Of the eight suggested initiatives which the government chose to list in the Consultation Report’s Energy and Environment section (Appendix B, page 22) consider the following three:

Streamline permissions for and construction of new cross-border energy infrastructure, e.g.,a single Canada–U.S. regime for permitting oil and gas pipelines.
Ensure common approaches to nuclear liability in the event of litigation arising from nuclear incidents.
Avoid policies that discriminate against particular fuel sources, such as low-carbon fuel standards (for types of crude oil) or renewable electricity standards (for large-scale hydro).

As is always the case, the public is the last to find out the government’s plans, but it takes only a modicum of common sense to see that Harper’s moving of the Environmental Assessment Process to the National Energy Board from the Ministry of Environment, the subsequently announced streamlining of the Environmental Assessment Process, and the budget cuts to the Ministry Environment resulting in fewer and fewer monitoring facilities and scientists to staff them or to write reports on environmental implications of resource extraction are all related to establishing a “single Canada–U.S. regime” for pipelines and other cross-border infrastructure.

In the wake of both the Fukushima disaster in Japan and the privatization of the Canada’s nuclear industry, the limiting of liability in the wake of nuclear accidents is particularly chilling. One expects that like the US (which, for example, limits liability on the costs of oil spills to a ridiculously low amount in dollar terms), we can expect to see similar regulations in Canada regarding nuclear accidents.

And finally, neither Tar Sands oil nor hydroelectricity will be “discriminated” against in the future by regulations in either country. The term “Large-scale” hydro projects remains undefined in the document. But surely Site C Dam would qualify for non-discrimination and perhaps some of the larger ruin-of-the-river projects.

The RCC documents are all written with the outdated and disproven arguments of increased “customer choice” and “decreased customer cost”, hand-in-hand with public safety and environmental protection enhancement. The public knows none of this is true. But Harper marches on, head down and in step with his corporate buddies, to the beat of the trickle-down economics drum, while global markets implode, citizens arise en masse and peak everything envelopes the world. No wonder he and Obama need to continue to build a police security state to enforce their policies on us.

The other three trade sector action plans and consultation report items will be discussed in future postings. They are equally, if not more, disturbing.

Nelle Maxey is a grandmother who lives in the beautiful Slocan Valley in south-eastern BC. She believes it is her obligation as a citizen to concern herself with the policies and politics of government at the federal, provincial and local level.

Republican’s Attempt to Force Obama into Hurried Decision on Keystone XL May Backfire, Killing Pipeline

December 19, 2011Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Politics, Tar SandsAlberta Tar Sands, Keystone XL, Oil and gas, PoliticsCommon Sense Canadian

Read this blog from the Natural Resources Defense Council, detailing how the forced inclusion by Republicans of a requirement for President Obama to make his decision on the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline in 60 days may very well amount to a Pyrrhic victory, forcing Obama to kill the pipeline altogether.

NRDC responded by calling out the inclusion as nothing but a political ploy. My colleague Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, issued the following statement:

“Special interest riders do not belong in legislation designed to
help the American people. Republicans took the payroll tax-cut extension
bill hostage and delivered a year-end bonus to Big Oil. The president
went along in order to save hard-working Americans from a tax increase
on January 1, 2012. We get that.

“But with the Republicans forcing the president’s hand, he will have
no choice but to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline as not in the
national interest.”

The President said last week that he would not accept the inclusion of the pipeline tacked on to the tax extension legislation.

Yesterday evening, a senior Administration official made it clear the
President intends to stand by his statement. In a Reuters piece
entitled, “Obama backs tax deal but pipeline now in doubt”,
the senior official is quoted saying that Republican insistence means
the pipeline ”almost certainly will not be built” because the President
has made clear that he will not approve the pipeline without time for an
adequate review of the health, safety and environmental risks.

This
view was echoed by Senate Democrats. Senator Schumer, commenting to
Bloomberg News, said that the inclusion of the provision was a “Pyrric victory” for the Republicans because the President won’t be forced into a decision. (Dec. 17, 2011)

Winning the Salmon PR “War”? Emails Reveal Government Scientists Acting Like Flacks

December 18, 2011Canada, Oceans, Politics, Salmon Farming and Aquaculture, Western CanadaAquaculture, cohen commission, Politics, SalmonDamien Gillis

The second of three extra days of hearings at the Cohen Commission into disappearing Fraser River sockeye yielded more surprises – the biggest of which came in the form of a telling internal email strain between DFO and Canadian Food Inspection Agency staff. The emails were sent following a teleconference for media hosted by the two departments, aimed at quelling concerns over the recent discovery of Infectious Salmon Anemia virus in wild BC salmon.

In a message dated November 9, 2011, Joseph Beres, an inspection manager at the CFIA, wrote to colleague Dr. Con Kiley and other senior DFO and CFIA staff who had appeared on the conference call:

Con,

It is clear that we are turning the PR tide to our favour – and this is because of the very successful performance of our spokes[people] at the Tech Briefing yesterday – you, Stephen, Peter and Paul were a terrific team, indeed. Congratulations! One battle is won, now we have to nail the surveillance piece, and we will win the war also.

Cheers, Joe.

In the same strain, Dr. Kiley replies, “Concentrate on the headlines, that’s often all that people read or remember. Both the ‘Top Stories’ and the ‘Related Pieces’.” (emphasis added)

And it appears Dr. Kiley really knows of what he speaks. That conference call and a subsequent one several weeks later – at least temporarily – removed some of the pressure from his department, as many media outlets in Canada and around the world ran with their talking points.

Commission Counsel Brock Martland asked another CFIA representative on the stand Friday, Dr. Kim Klotins, Acting National Manager for Disease Control Contingency Planning, what she thought Mr. Beres was thinking went he sent the above email. After much stammering, she replied, “We may get a little bit exuberant internally, but…I really can’t speak to what he was thinking during this.”

Mr. Martland questioned the “adversarial” attitude displayed in the emails, suggesting it smacks more of hockey players than scientists in pursuit of truth.

Further testimony heard by the Inquiry on Friday and throughout the previous day’s session demonstrate the tactics these officials were using to knowingly cover up the discovery of ISAv in BC. Earlier that morning, the Inquiry heard from Dr. Fred Kibenge, director of the Animal Veterinary College at the University of PEI – one of only two approved testing labs for the ISA virus sanctioned by the world animal health organization. Dr. Kibenge related the enormous political pressure he faced after confirming ISAv in two wild salmon from BC.

Under questioning from the conservation coalition’s counsel Karen Campbell, Dr. Kibenge described an inspection his lab faced by the CFIA soon after discovering the positive test results. “The inspection was meant to be about understanding my processes so they could improve their own practices, but once the inspection began I got the sense that it was about obtaining information, because the first thing they asked me about when they did the inspection was the samples.” Dr. Kibenge added, “I quickly realized that the purpose of the site visit…was actually in my view, to confirm a hypothesis that had already been presented in the media.”

On the stand beside Dr. Kibenge was Dr. Nellie Gage, who heads up the Moncton-based lab that found contradictory results upon which the CFIA seized to publicly invalidate Dr. Kibenge’s findings. The Inquiry learned that far from confirmed “negative” tests for ISAv in these wild fish, Dr. Gagne’s lab had also turned up a weak positive, which it discounted based on its inability to repeat the result. Yet, rather than call the tests “inconclusive” as they were, the CFIA described them as “negative”, which was plainly not the case.

To that end, Alexandra Morton’s counsel Greg McDade asked Dr. Gagne, “Did you ever speak out to your communications people, suggesting that DFO was misleading people based on your inconclusive results?” Gagne admitted, “No, I have not.” McDade also put to Gagne a media statement from the BC Salmon Farmers’ Association in which head lobbyist Mary-Ellen Walling declared unequivocally that Gagne’s “negative” findings proved Dr. Kibenge had been wrong and that ISA was confirmed not to be in BC. A weary-sounding Gage produced a few chuckles in the gallery when she retorted, “Do you know how many things are wrong that have been published up until know? That’s really just a drop in the bucket.” (emphasis added)

Dr. Kibenge explained he was concerned when he later learned that the Moncton lab had been consulted ahead of time as to what issues to look for at his lab. “Did CFIA consult you in a similar way about possible issues with the Moncton lab?” Campbell inquired. “No, they did not,” replied Kibenge.

Counsel for the aboriginal aquaculture coalition later asked Dr. Kibenge whether he feels there have been threats to him professionally and financially as a result of the criticism leveled at him and his lab over these ISAv tests. Dr. Kibenge responded, “This has been so public that my reputation and everything else has been questioned, so yes, you could say that.”

McDade followed up on this theme of political pressure on Dr. Kibenge when he asked, “If you had found a negative you would not have submitted to that pressure, right?” Kibenge’s answer: “Yes.” McDade continued, “Why such pressure because of a simple scientific finding?” to which Kibenge replied, “It’s a problem when the science is above any question, as was the case here.”

Dr. Kibenge intimated in his testimony that he understood why the Harper government was reacting this way, given the amount of money at stake with threats to the aquaculture industry from his findings. He was also sure to acknowledge the support of his college and university, suggesting that made it easier to deal with these attacks on his lab and professional integrity.

More emails released during Friday’s hearing revealed the lengths to which senior CFIA and DFO staff went to clamp down on Dr. Kibenge’s work. One note from Dr. Klotins to Dr. Kiley stated, “Dr. Kibenge did test the fish submitted by A. Morton. I believe we must check those samples for integrity. I’m thinking we should also advise all laboratories in Canada to not test any more samples of wild finfish for ISAv from the Pacific Ocean (Canada and US). K.” (emphasis added)

When pressed by McDade, Klotins downplayed the email, suggesting no further action came of it.

Commission Counsel Brock Martland posed a similar question to senior DFO manager Stephen Stephen, who took the stand in the afternoon. This time it was in reference to his alleged attempts to shut down the research into ISAv being conducted on the Pacific Coast by Dr. Kristi Miller. “Did you suggest Dr. Miller shouldn’t continue her ISAv research?” Martland inquired. Stephen answered, “I did suggest that until CFIA completes their investigation we should defer further testing.” Martland asked Stephen, “Was Kristi Miller’s discovery of ISAv a ‘game-changer’?” Stephen replied, “I don’t think it’s a game-changer at all,” followed by more of the party line about conducting further tests before jumping to any conclusions.

The day ended with yet another example of DFO covering up ISAv science. This time it involved an unpublished 2004 paper by Dr. Fred Kibenge’s wife, Molly Kibenge, which made headlines when it was leaked to media a few weeks ago. Dr. Jones headed up the lab where Kibenge was a post-doctoral student at the time of the paper and it was his decision not to publish it. Moreover, Jones also didn’t see fit to disclose the document to the Commission, even though he was legally required to – especially given its significance relative to these special hearings into ISAv.

Martland asked Jones, “Why didn’t you produce these documents to the Commission earlier? Didn’t you understand this was going to be an issue?” “No, I didn’t understand that,” replied Jones. “The concern that we had with Molly’s work was that we were not able to reproduce her findings. At the time it was just confusing and didn’t seem to have meaning…It was essentially a negative result.”

Essentially. Just not actually.

The Cohen Commission resumes Monday for one final day of special hearings into ISAv – when it is expected Jones, Stephen and others will face more tough questions on the cover-up of science related to the potentially deadly virus.

ISA Virus Researcher Faced Political Pressure Due to Positive Test Results

December 16, 2011Canada, Oceans, Politics, Salmon Farming and Aquaculture, Western Canadacohen commission, Politics, SalmonCommon Sense Canadian

Read this report form The Winnipeg Free Press on the revelation at the Cohen Commission into disappearing sockeye by ISAv expert Dr. Fred Kibenge that he faced political pressure due to his positive test results suggesting ISAv exists in wild BC salmon.

VANCOUVER – A scientist who found signs of a potentially lethal fish
virus in B.C. salmon has told a federal commission he’s come under
government pressure for work he considers “above question.”

The results of Fred Kibenge, who runs a lab in P.E.I., were
widely publicized in October after he detected infectious salmon
anaemia in two of 48 sockeye smolts.

He told a special hearing for the inquiry studying the
collapse of the Fraser River salmon run that since then, he’s faced
difficult questioning from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. (Dec. 16, 2011)

Serious Finacial Costs and Trade Implications for Canada from Abandoning Kyoto

December 16, 2011Canada, Climate Change, Politics, Western Canadaclimate change, PoliticsCommon Sense Canadian

Read this article from The Globe and Mail on the very real risk of serious economic impacts to Canada stemming from the Harper Government’s decision to abandon its treaty commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

There’s politics in climate change and money at stake in talks. Moral arguments aside, the politics will matter.

Canada’s
Kyoto withdrawal was an unusually big news story for a country that
gets little mention, playing as a big deal in international media. It
was a top Web-hit story for the BBC. Reporters kept asking U.S. climate
negotiator Todd Stern about Canada. Canada’s emissions story jumped to
the masses. It could be the new seal hunt. Japan and Russia won’t meet
Kyoto targets either, but Canada withdrew and got headlines.

There was also pointed criticism from countries such as China and France, and many more…

…It’s not just that the oil sands are a fast-growing source of
emissions. Canada is 30 per cent over Kyoto targets, and the oil sands
are just part. Canada is the eighth-largest greenhouse-gas emitter.
China is largest, but per person its emissions are one-third of
Canada’s. Ottawa has no regulation plan for big emitters. Canada can’t
combat the story that the oil sands make us dirty.

One day,
politics will bring cost. A 2009 U.S. bill to apply tariffs on goods for
countries that fail to meet climate standards passed the House but died
in the Senate. Mr. Levi expects Europeans or others to revive the idea.

Mr. Leach said: “I think you’re going see countries looking to apply blame by punishment.” (December 15, 2011)

Harper Government Laying Off Another 400 Staff at DFO

December 15, 2011Canada, Fisheries, PoliticsPolitics, SalmonCommon Sense Canadian

Read this report from the Ottawa Citizen on another round of massive lay-offs at Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

About 400 Fisheries and Oceans employees across Canada are to receive
letters from managers today informing them their jobs will be affected
as the department rolls out reductions from last year’s strategic
review.

The written notices are going to employees who work in the
seven regions where the department operates. More than 200 of those
receiving notices are biologists and other scientists and the vast
majority work outside the capital in areas of ocean management, fish
habitat management, hydrography and aquaculture. Another 39 positions
are being cut from the Coast Guard following a re-organization…

…Gary Corbett, president of the Professional Institute of the Public
Service of Canada, said he’s disappointed that the timing comes so close
to Christmas, but fears these cuts are just the beginning.

“The
cuts are going to be followed shortly by more cuts after the budget.
Tell me how a science-based department survives with a cut of a couple
of hundred scientists. How can the department continue to do what it is
supposed to do? It has to give somewhere. You can’t keep cutting,
cutting, cutting.” (Dec. 12, 2011)

Why the BC Liberals Can’t Save Our Environment – Or Their Own Party in 2013

December 12, 2011Canada, Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, WATER, Western CanadaBC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Salmon, Water and EnergyRafe Mair

I see that Premier Photo–Op has appointed George Abbott, Education Minister, to work on revamping the Liberal Party to get it out of the ditch prior to the May 2013 election.

Good luck, George – you’ll need it.

My latter day concerns have been about environmental issues, something I don’t believe the Liberals can do, or even want to do anything about. The government would go a long way down the path of reconstruction if Premier Clark did four things: put a moratorium on fish farms along with a program of getting them on land; put a permanent stop to any new so-called “run of river” projects; announce the end of Taseko’s Fish Lake project; announce that no oil tankers will ply BC waters.

The trouble with the first three is the Campbell/Clark government doesn’t have the political courage to do them and, moreover, doing so would cost the party substantial political donations – a telling point with this bunch to whom election funds always trump honesty and honour..

The fourth one is tricky. The provincial government probably doesn’t have the authority to do anything about the pipelines but it sure as hell does over tankers – and without tankers there will be no pipelines. The Campbell/Clark lack of courage is because of its stupidity with the HST and it’s now so deep in debt to the feds they dare not oppose them. Yes, folks, the HST has us in thrall to Ottawa, something that in my time has never happened. In plain language the feds hold Premier Clark in a blackmail position – if BC is to be shown any mercy over the HST cock-up it must permit the Fish Lake project to proceed, make no noise on the Enbridge pipeline project and approve oil tanker traffic on the coast.

This, dear readers, is one reason Gordon Campbell was eager to clear out and one of the reasons Prime Minister Harper gave him that plum job in London.

Those are not the only problems Mr. Abbott has. The underlying malaise that the C/C government must deal with is that they have done a lousy fiscal job. While painting themselves as the fiscally sound party, they have kept the story of NDP fiscal sins front and centre, for wasn’t it they who bollixed up our economy?

The answer is no. The NDP look like Ebenezer Scrooge compared to the government of wastrels we’ve been governed by for the last 10 ½ years. It started right after the May 2001 election when Campbell gave away more than a billion dollars in taxes on the well off.

From that point until now, the Campbell/Clark government has more than tripled the real provincial debt, putting the province in hock for as far as the eye can see.

Because of the lousy media we have, it wasn’t much noticed that when the Liberals came down with their unbelievable 2009 election budget – which was over a billion dollars short of reality – that it was phoney as Hell and that the Liberals knew it throughout. This came out when, after the election was safely behind them, the government said that it was all the fault of the Recession. To accept this bullshit would mean that the Liberals didn’t notice the Stock Market crash in 2007/08, nor the recession that followed! They also had to ignore the information that the Finance Ministry had that tax revenues were dropping.

In short, the Liberal government either was so stupid as to not notice a market crash, a huge dose of criminality on Wall Street, or the severe Recession that followed – or they deliberately lied.

Then there was the HST that one need not mention.

In short, the Liberal Party’s renowned fiscal prudence is a crock of crap. And it’s worse – the government ought have foreseen the fiscal problems even before it hit the fan – reading numbers and foreseeing trouble is what Finance Ministries are all about.

To Mr Abbott – while you’re reorganizing your party, looking to the future as politicians always say, I must warn you that you will be looking to the past as well as you will be asked questions. There are, even in your own party, a great many British Columbians who want answers, no matter how awkward it might be to give them.

Pipelines and Battle Lines Drawn by Harper Government

December 9, 2011Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Tar Sands, Western CanadaAlberta Tar Sands, BC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Enbridge, KinderMorgan, Oil and gas, PoliticsRafe Mair

The paths, inexorably to a meeting point to violence, can only be changed by the senior governments, especially the feds. The cause of these paths are three: 1. the proposed Enbridge oil pipelines to Kitimat, carrying bitumen (sludge from the Tar Sands) mixed with gas (condensate), with one line running the condensate to the Tar Sands; 2. the Kinder Morgan line bringing the Tar Sands (and if the company has its way, much more of them) to Vancouver Harbour; 3. the tanker companies that would ship this gunk from Kitimat, down through the dangerous Inner Passage to China or the US – and those taking it through the dangerous 2nd Narrows into the Salish Sea, again bound for Asia or America.

Before going further, these projects are not only opposed by First Nations – polls show 80% of British Columbians oppose the tanker traffic and, of course, the pipelines are useless unless the gunk can be shipped.

The matter came to a head when President Obama refused to pass the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to Houston. Instantly, federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced that the BC lines must therefore be put on the “fast track”, overlooking, one supposes deliberately, the mandate of the National Energy Board to hold hearings (whose completion time was extended this week by a full year, due in part to the enormous number of citizens and organizations who’ve registered to speak at these hearings). In fact, Flaherty confirmed suspicions that the Federal Government regards this process as a nuisance to be done then ignored.

Over the past few years First Nations have made it clear that this – in former Coastal First Nations’ President Gerald Amos’ words – “is not going to happen”.

Let’s look at the position of First Nations today.

This from an article I did here on December 4. This is saying a hell of a lot but the coverage of the events I’ll deal with were marked by one of the lousiest examples of media mis-reporting I can remember.

…Damien Gillis and I attended a press conference last Thursday called by First Nations who would be impacted by scheduled pipelines and tankers to outline their “Save the Fraser Declaration” – a document that leaves no doubt about their unified opposition to these proposals. In all, 131 nations have now signed on.

Moreover, this declaration almost certainly will be signed in the near future by the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation, who face the proposed expansion of Kinder Morgan’s pipeline from the Alberta Tar Sands to their traditional territory on Burrard Inlet. The Tsleil-Waututh first came out against the company’s plans – which could see up to 300 super tankers loaded with Alberta bitumen plying the waters of Vancouver – in a press release last month…

This hugely important event received a brief column in the Business Section of The Vancouver Sun while the following day’s front page story – with a banner headline – told how Elmer Derrick, one of 60-plus hereditary chiefs of the Gitxsan Nation, had made a deal with Enbridge.

So typical for this sad excuse for a newspaper – bury the big story about an agreement that 131 Chiefs make and pounce with glee on the one who dissents.

Reaction from the Gitxsan was quick with opposition to refuse to recognize the agreement, saying that Derrick was not speaking for them – as this video taken at an emergency community meeting just days after the announcement of the deal demonstrates.

Enbridge fired back that they were comfortable with the deal with Derrick and had many other Nations on side and that they would proceed with signing with them and others.

In jumped Joe Oliver, federal Natural Resources Minister, as reported by the Sun: “[Oliver] said the project, if approved by the National Energy Board, shouldn’t be
held hostage by aboriginal and environmental groups threatening to
create a human ‘wall’ to prevent construction.” The minister continued, “Look, this is a country that lives by the Rule of Law and I would hope that that would be the standard going forward…we can’t let unlawful people oppose lawful development.”

I, apparently, came to Mr. Oliver’s mind – and to remove all doubt, sir, I will indeed be part of that human “wall” and perhaps I should tell you why.

I hardly need any publicity in this my native and much-beloved province. At any age, but especially at 80, I’ve no wish to expose myself to the health hazard posed by prison, but I can’t stand idle while the very essence of this land will be desecrated to satisfy greed without the consent of its people.

Interesting approach. I would have thought he would have said, “When the National Energy Board makes its report and if it supports Enbridge, we hope that the company can get approval from the First Nations involved.”

The scene now shifts back to Mr Derrick. Just yesterday – after going into hiding for five days from the media that had given him so much press – he had an op-ed piece in, where else, The Vancouver Sun, which, apparently, has become a great fan of his. In it Mr. Derrick extols the virtuousness of his involvement with Enbridge and who is in and speaks for the Gitxsan and why. Interesting story but not a single solitary syllable about the environment – nor about the recent controversy of his own making, or even his alleged firing from his job as a treaty negotiator by the community he purportedly represents!

Now I don’t wish to intrude on Gitxsan politics but wouldn’t the rank and file expect their leader, who has made them $7 million for something to be received sometime, would discuss the many questions being raised by 131 of his colleagues and neighbours – men and women of many tribes – all opposed to Enbridge?

Enter the Lawyer. For any decent dispute you need lots of them. Name of Nigel Bankes from the University of Calgary. I can’t tell you what got him cranked up…was it Mr. Derrick? The Conservative government? Enbridge? The Vancouver Sun? Or did he just wake up one morning and decide to unburden himself of his long commitment to the principle that parliaments can do whatever they want?

His contribution consists in telling us that Enbridge does not need to get permission for its pipelines from “every first nation over (the pipelines) it passes…at the end of the day there isn’t a first nations veto.”

He does concede, according to the Sun, that “governments do have an obligation to consult with nations…and must demonstrate they have ‘integrated the result of consultations in the project’s design.’”

The government, Enbridge and Mr. Derrick seem to be saying that the rank and file First Nations, through their leaders, do not have the right to use the international words for GO AWAY to Enbridge, because in the government reposes the law of the land, which, after a little pas de deux to entertain the masses, it can do as it pleases!

I hate to disappoint Messrs Derrick, Oliver, Bankes (sounds like a good name for a law firm) but many First Nations and their lawyers hold a contrary view and say that section 35 does in fact give them a veto.

Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 provides constitutional protection to the aboriginal and treaty rights of aboriginal peoples in Canada. The rights Section 35 has been found to protect are fishing, logging, hunting, the right to aboriginal title and the right to enforcement of treaties. There remains a debate over whether the right to aboriginal self-government is included within section 35. Since 1995 the Government of Canada has had a policy recognizing the inherent right of self-government under section 35.

The leaders in the aboriginal community that I have spoken to make it clear that if rights in Section 35 grant them powers as indicated, clearly they must have full rights to protect them. They go further and say that their law prevails on all matters save where their title and rights might have been ceded – and they haven’t been, where the proposed Enbridge pipeline and tanker routes are concerned.

My question as a lawyer of long ago – if the government and Enbridge say they have the right to do as they please, why not just do it? If Mr. Bankes is right that there is no right of First Nations to stop them, why doesn’t Enbridge hold some hearings with the First Nations, say that they have consulted, then get on with it?

This isn’t a smart alec question at all, for if all Enbridge need do in Bankes’ opinion is integrate the results of consultation in the project’s design, a first year law student would be all that’s needed to gussy their design up to suit.

I close with a serious warning to the government and Enbridge: You are proceeding down a one-way path to disaster. Enbridge doesn’t care for the environment – look at their record. Look at what they did in 2010 in the Kalamazoo River! Oil spills are simply a cost of business which is, happily, a tax credit.

Aboriginal peoples say that they stand upon the Rule of Law, which they say includes their own law as guaranteed under Section 35 of the Constitution Act. They make the sensible argument that to have rights over fishing, logging, hunting, the right to aboriginal title and the right to enforce treaties, those words must mean that they can legislate to protect them – otherwise the words mean nothing.

Mr. Oliver – you’re being a damned fool and a dangerous one and when the violence comes, as it will, it will be on your head and that of your government. I’m not inciting violence – on the contrary, it is because I so abhor violence I plead with your government to come to its senses.

Don’t say you weren’t warned!

Chiefs Threaten Oil Pipeline Blockade in 3 Provinces Over Attawapiskat

December 7, 2011Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, PoliticsAttawapiskat, Oil and gas, PoliticsDamien Gillis

Read this story from APTN on the escalating tensions over the crisis at Attawapiskat, culminating yesterday in calls from aboriginal leaders for an oil pipeline blockade to get the Harper Government’s attention.

“OTTAWA–Some Manitoba chiefs called for “action”
against existing oil pipelines on a day of heated words at a special
chiefs assembly in Ottawa that heard from embattled Attawapiskat Chief
Theresa Spence and saw an impromptu march to the doors of Parliament
Hill that ended with police intervention.

Terry Nelson, who is no longer officially chief of Roseau River, told
the assembled chiefs that the only way to escape from Attawapiskat-like
situations was to seize a portion of the resource wealth flowing from
their lands.

Nelson, who was given the microphone by Waywayseecappo First Nation
Chief Murray Clearsky, said there were plans to launch actions against
existing oil pipelines in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, along with
several U.S. states.

He said the only way First Nations can deal with the nagging funding
problems plaguing their communities was to seize a share of the
resources flowing from their territories.

“The chiefs in Manitoba have been listening and they hear very
clearly we have to take action,” said Nelson. “In June, we are going to
have continuous, ongoing demonstration action on the pipelines, from
Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, northern Minnesota, Wisconsin, North
and South Dakota, to sit on those pipelines until this government comes
to their goddamn senses.” (Dec. 6, 2011)

Read full article: http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/12/07/chiefs-rally-around-attawapiskat-as-call-issued-for-oil-pipeline-blockade-in-three-provinces/

The Common Sense Canadian

Critical discussion of key issues shaping our economy and environment.