Tag Archives: Politics

Manitoba Premier Selinger launching campaign to save the Wheat Board – article & video

Share

From the Winnipeg Free Press – June 13, 2011

by Staff Writer

Manitoba Premier Greg Selinger is trying to enlist the
public’s support in protesting Ottawa’s plan to eliminate the Canadian
Wheat Board’s monopoly on grain.

The federal Conservative government will introduce legislation this
fall that will effectively end the Winnipeg-based grain-marketing
monopoly by Aug. 1, 2012, Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz announced two
weeks ago, fulfilling a long-time pledge by his party.

The plan has proponents among wheat and barley producers, especially
those closer to the Canada-U.S. border, as well as among industry giants
such as Viterra. Other producers and industry groups oppose the plan.

Selinger launched a campaign to “save the Canadian Wheat Board” in
the lobby of the board’s Main Street headquarters this morning. The
premier was joined by Wheat Board chairman Allen Oberg and Doug Chorney,
president, Keystone Agricultural Producers.

 Mayor Sam Katz, who is attending a conference in Israel, has not commented on the pending loss of the Winnipeg-based entity.

Read original article and watch video

Share

MarketWatch: Regulatory fight in a Canadian oil-sands box

Share

From MarketWatch.com – May 26, 2011

By Bill Mann

PORT TOWNSEND, Wash. (MarketWatch) — A big battle is shaping up over
environmental regulation of Canada’s oil sands, the second-largest oil
deposits in the world. And, surprisingly, it’s Conservatives against
Conservatives.

In this corner, it’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s federal
Conservatives, who just gained a majority government. In that corner,
it’s Alberta’s conservative provincial government, led by hard-nosed,
oil-industry friendly premier Ed Stelmach.

A diplomatic cable recently released by Wikileaks highlights the
problems: It revealed an exchange between then-Canadian Environment
Minister Jim Prentice and U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Jacobsen, in
which the American said he believed Ottawa was being “too slow” about
regulating the expansive oil sands.

The U.S. wants a big part of that “non-terrorist” Alberta oil but it
doesn’t want its chief supplier to look environmentally dirty, for
obvious political reasons. Canada is now the U.S.’ largest oil supplier.

Canada, being a helpful vendor, apparently agrees, so last week, new
Canadian Environment Minister Peter Kent announced that Ottawa will
introduce environmental regulations later this year for the oil-sands
sector designed to reduce greenhouse gases spewed from one of the
country’s most polluting industries.

The water quality at the oil sands — or, as environmentalists call the
bitumen mines, the tar sands — is also very much an issue. A leak that
fouled the water and killed hundreds of waterfowl in the far-north oil
fields two years ago may have spurred the U.S. ambassador’s plea for
Ottawa to toughen up environmental controls.

Part of this new Ottawa vow to assume environmental control over what
the Alberta government insists is a provincially-owned resource may well
be tied in to Harper’s visit this week to the G8 summit in France.
There’s a good chance environmental groups will show up with pictures —
or billboards — of oil-soaked Alberta waterfowl. Harper doesn’t want
Canada to be known on the world stage as the world’s “dirty-oil”
producer. (Although extracting crude from bitumen is indeed, at best, a
dirty, water-and-energy consuming business).

A group of U.S. Senators visited the oil sands last December and said,
not surprisingly, they were satisfied with the environmental protections
in place in Alberta. Ottawa apparently isn’t, despite Alberta’s belated
environmental-protection moves.

Alberta will fight back

Alberta isn’t going to give up in this battle with fellow Conservatives without a fight.

Provincial finance minister Lloyd Snelgrove criticized Ottawa for
regulating a provincial resource, which would add “multiple layers of
government trying to the same thing, [where] nobody wins.”

Snelgrove
told the Calgary Herald

that Stelmach’s Alberta government has been worried for some time
Ottawa would step in and regulate the provincial resource, adding
unnecessary duplication and costs to the multibillion-dollar sector.

“The federal government has sat on the sidelines for years and years and
years. Now they see their little golden goose is under attack and they
want to be the voice for Canada on the world stage and we respect that,”
Snelgrove told the Calgary Herald.

The Wikileaks cable, little-reported in U.S. media, which is a bit
surprising, considering its importance to the U.S. energy future, also
revealed that the Obama administration inquired about a possible
moratorium on new oil sands development as global criticism mounted over
the second-largest proven oil reserves in the world.

A San Francisco-based environmental group has run anti-oil sands
billboards and newspaper ads in Canada, the U.S. and in Europe, urging
tourists not to come to Alberta. Stelmach, who recently announced he’ll
be leaving office soon, replied angrily, buying billboards and print ads
of his own saying Alberta is addressing environmental concerns.

Read full article

Share

Coleman, Palmer on Hydro: Ignoring the $50 Billion Elephant in Room

Share

This will be harsh, I warn you. In preparation I urge you to read Dr. Marvin Shaffer’s (SFU) article in the Vancouver Sun last Monday.
 
My position today is that the Vancouver Sun’s lead columnist, whom I once greatly admired, Vaughn Palmer, has abandoned his journalistic duty; while Energy Minister Rich Coleman, whom I had come to regard as a man of integrity based upon his work for homeless, is a political hack unworthy of his “Honourable”.
 
I do not say these things lightly and ask you to be the judge.
 
The subject is BC Hydro and its proposed rate hikes, which Coleman has vowed to examine closely and Mr. Palmer has spent his last two columns on.
 
Here is one of the salient facts that stands out in Dr Shaffer’s presentation:
 
“The fact that the electricity BC Hydro is being forced to buy is costing more than double what the electricity is worth, now and in the foreseeable future, does not seem to matter. The legislation is absolute. BC Hydro must acquire this extra electricity supply whatever its impact on costs and rates” (it’s also power created, for the most part, when BC Hydro doesn’t need it. – RM)
 
Dr. Shaffer is a man whose credentials and honesty are above reproach – to say that he is highly respected goes without saying. Great credit to the Sun’s editors for printing his op-ed.
 
This madness had escaped the notice, evidently, of the Minister and Palmer. Is that because the amount is small?
 
The amount, today and climbing, is approximately $50 Billion dollars – which sum is carefully concealed – but because of an earlier statement by Coleman has been verified and is also verified by Erik Andersen, a highly respected (non-political, I hastily add) economist who specializes in assessing public finances.
 
Vaughn Palmer and Rich Coleman are “investigating the rate increases BC Hydro claims it needs” by overlooking $50 Billion.
 
How much is $50 Billion?
 
It is 50,000 million dollars. If you live in Kamloops or Kelowna every one of your neighbours has $500,000 in the bank!
 
This amount is owed by BC Hydro to private power corporations, paid as it presently stands, at over $1 billion (1000 million) a year and rising, for energy they don’t need – at twice or more its value. And Mr. Coleman and Palmer slough it off! Don’t even mention it!
 
And who do you think is going to pay this?
 
Three guesses and the first two don’t count!
 
This is, in effect, what we’re all doing as ratepayers – subsidizing huge corporations like General Electric to destroy our rivers for power we can’t, for the most part use, for which we must pay twice or more what its worth.
 
The net effect of this is that BC Hydro is no longer able to pay its annual handsome dividend to our government. BC Hydro, were it in the private sector and unable to pass its losses onto the public, would now be headed for bankruptcy protection. Did you get that? The only way BC Hydro can avoid bankruptcy is this: soak British Columbians with higher and higher rates!
 
The dots are easy to connect – because of government policy we pay General Electric, Ledcor and other similarly small “mom-and-pop operators” to make power that BC Hydro must (under the take-or-pay contracts) pay for when they don’t need it, or export it at a huge loss – all the while destroying our rivers and the ecosystems they support.
 
I don’t impugn the motives of Mr. Palmer or the strange silence from the pen of Mike Smyth – I simply don’t know how and why they would not do the same kind of work on the Liberal government as Palmer did with NDP premier Glen Clark and his fast ferries.
 
The motives of Mr. Coleman can be easily stated: he’s a politician prepared to say anything – or remain silent on anything – to avoid confessing government error.
 
I issue this warning to Christy Clark: the chickens are coming home to roost and soon. It’s now too late to avoid this in time for a snap election.
 
Premier W.A.C. Bennett created BC Hydro so that British Columbians could use their massive hydro power to compete for industry and until Gordon Campbell came along it worked brilliantly. Now it’s in tatters with BC Hydro pleading with the public to fill its begging bowl.
 
Our government, lying through its teeth*, has not only destroyed our rivers and their ecologies, it has subsidized large corporations to fleece us, destroy one of the world’s finest power companies while paying them billions of our dollars as a bonus!
 
Surely the very least we must conclude is that Palmer is not worth reading and this government is unfit to govern.
 
*Please watch this 2 min video of Colin Hansen spewing falsehood upon falsehood, in his presentation as then Finance Minister of the Liberal government’s Energy Policy.
 
 
 

Share

Les Leyne: Clark, Dix choose industry-enviro sides

Share

From the Times-Colonist – June 7, 2011

by Les Leyne

When it comes to the big wedge issue – the resource sector versus the
environment – the gulf between the Liberals and the New Democrats seems
to be growing.

The Liberals are usually pro-development and the
NDP usually tilts environment-first. With new leaders on both sides, it
looks as if that split is going to get more obvious.

There’s usually a middle ground on economy versus environment arguments. Both leaders are headed away from it.

Premier
Christy Clark spoke to the Canada West Foundation three weeks ago and
made it clear where the resource sector fits in with her “family first”
agenda.

It’s first and foremost.

Addressing 200 people at a
foundation dinner in Vancouver, she said: “It is easy for people to be
against things. Easy for people to say: ‘You know, we should just cut
down fewer trees in B.C. We should just have fewer mines. Maybe we
shouldn’t have all this oil and gas development …. Maybe we shouldn’t
be disturbing the Earth.’

“It’s pretty easy to say that when you don’t understand the connections between that economic opportunity and your family.

“I
see the premier’s job very much as helping people make that connection.
Because public support for economic development is crucial if we want
to make sure it keeps happening, and our economy keeps growing.”

Clark
has already walked the proindustry walk. The first thing she brought up
at her initial meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper was the
Prosperity mine in the Chilcotin, which passed a provincial
environmental review but flunked the federal one.

She wants the new version of the mine approved and told Harper that.

NDP
leader Adrian Dix, whose party raised some resource-industry caution
flags during the legislative session, objected to that stand during a
debate with Clark last week. He said she favoured destroying a lake and
bypassing the First Nation that’s involved.

The difference extends
to other issues. Clark hasn’t committed to the proposed Enbridge
pipeline, pending the environmental review. But it’s not hard to imagine
the Liberals supporting it. She’s left herself lots of room to support
tanker movement on the coast, a related issue.

Dix was pleased to
read one of her old quotes to her: “We’ve got tankers going up and down
the St. Lawrence, for heaven’s sake. I don’t know why we’d ban them
necessarily off the west coast.”

Clark took pains to point out the
much-discussed moratorium is “solely directed at tankers that are
transiting the B.C. coast and not oil tankers that are sailing to or
from B.C. ports.”

There’s also a split of sorts on natural gas
drilling. Dix questions the hydraulic fracturing technique now used in
unconventional wells.

Clark told the Vancouver dinner: “Every
heart operation in this province is paid for by oil and gas out of the
northeast …. Boy, you want a health care system, you better be damn
happy we’re getting oil and gas out of the northeast, because that’s
what’s paying for it.”

It’s clear Clark will back resource industries over the environment in all but the most extreme circumstances.

And Dix told his party shortly after winning the leadership that a strong environmental policy is critical in the next campaign.

They botched the carbon tax introduction two years ago by opposing it, and have a lot of making up to do with green voters.

This time around, they’re going to be as green as green can be.

“Clark
is essentially opposed to environmental assessment; we’re in favour,”
Dix told his party. “She favours the Enbridge pipeline; we’re opposed.
She favours offshore oil and gas: We’re opposed to it.”

Whether that’s a winning game plan or not, it’s the one he’s going to execute.

Just
So You Know: Three weeks ago at the Liberal convention, Clark hinted at
a “bold new plan” that will attract investment and send a signal that
B.C. is open for business.

The Vancouver speech provided a few
more details. It looks as if it was over-hyped. It’s just about focusing
the government’s economic development programs – which have been housed
in 10 different ministries – on areas with the most obvious payoff.

Read original article

Share

Public Eye: Clark used chartered plane from CN Chair McLean’s company

Share

From Public Eye Online – June 8, 2011

by Sean Holman

When Christy Clark was running for the provincial Liberal leadership, she did so using a chartered plane from one of businessman David McLean‘s
companies, Public Eye has exclusively learned. A spokesperson for the
premier has confirmed the use of that plane was recorded as a $23,035
in-kind donation from Blackcomb Aviation LP, which is part of the McLean Group of Companies. Mr. McLean is chair of the group, as well as Canadian National Railway Co. – which was the successful bidder to operate British Columbia Railway Co.

That contribution shows up in Ms. Clark’s Elections British Columbia
leadership campaign filings, which were released last month. But it
wasn’t included as part of the voluntary financial disclosure statement
she released on February 22, even though $18,799 worth of Blackcomb’s
billings are listed as having been made before that date.

The premier’s spokesperson said that’s because only cash
contributions were included in the voluntary statement. In-kind
donations were tallied at the end of the campaign, which wrapped up on
February 26.

Read original article

Share

NDP bill seeks to protect, enhance at-risk species

Share

From the Vancouver Sun – June 2, 2011

by Larry Pynn

NDP environment critic Rob Fleming introduced a private member’s bill
Wednesday in Victoria that seeks to protect and recover threatened and
endangered wildlife in the province.

The Species at Risk
Protection Act would identify species at risk, protect them and their
habitats, promote their recovery and promote stewardship activities that
assist with protection.

Decisions on species at risk would be
made on the basis of the best available scientific information,
including information obtained from community and aboriginal knowledge.

Lack
of “full scientific certainty” would not be used to stall action in the
threat of “significant reduction or loss of biological diversity,” the
bill states.

The bill also would establish a special independent
committee of at least three experts to assess species at risk. Fleming,
MLA for Victoria-Swan Lake, called on Premier Christy Clark to do what
her predecessor, Gordon Campbell, would not and support specific
legislation to save endangered species, especially given the growing
threat of climate change to critical ecosystems.

“I really hope she takes the opportunity to prove she’s different,” he said.

“She
now heads a government that for 10 years has done nothing to protect
species at risk, even with all the knowledge at its fingertips.”

During
the recent Liberal leadership campaign, The Vancouver Sun asked Clark
for her position on key environmental issues, including species at risk,
but she declined to respond. Environment Minister Terry Lake was not
available Wednesday to comment on the bill.

Faisal Moola, science
director for the David Suzuki Foundation, applauded the bill, saying
that in the absence of such legislation in B.C., as well as in Alberta,
flora and fauna continue to decline.

“According to the B.C.
government’s Conservation Data Centre, 1,900 plants and animals are now
declining or at risk of disappearing from the province,” Moola said.

B.C.
continues to rely on outdated wildlife and resource management laws,
such as the Wildlife Act and Forest and Range Practices Act, he added.

Read original article

Share
Photo courtesy of Water Watch Mission-Abbotsford

Mission and Abbotsford’s Public-Private Water War

Share

The proposal to privatize the water services in my community seemed to hit us from behind – it was negotiated for over a year in secret and sprung on us without warning. This $300 million project, that would inevitably give control of our water to a foreign consortium, was not something Abbotsford or Mission residents asked for, but part of an agenda being pushed by the federal government and certain corporate individuals on Council. 

To understand my experience and learn how to respond I turned to water documentaries such as FLOW (For Love Of Water) – a documentary about the privatization of drinking water – and saw that this is the typical modus operandi of P3 (public-private partnership) proponents. The film addresses the problems that have occurred in Europe with regard to water systems that are privately operated. However, most of the film is about P3s in the developing world in Africa and South America. I was surprised to find myself relating to the experiences of water consumers in those countries or villages. Even though I consider myself to be a strong, assertive woman, I wept at the similarity of what had happened to them and to what was now happening to my community of Abbotsford, B.C., Canada. I was amazed at the parallels between the fifth largest city in B.C. and communities in the developing world.

A number of concerned citizens of both Abbotsford and Mission have begun exhaustive research on the impacts of public-private water systems on consumers and communities. Water, is after all THE essential to all life.  What became evident at the outset was that a very small percentage of water systems in Canada are the design, build, finance, operate model that the elected representatives of Abbotsford and Mission and their consultant Deloitte & Touche had opted to pursue. In B.C. and Canada the vast majority of local governments opt to have water systems operated publicly. Usually the private sector is limited to the design/build activities of water systems.

The need for more water was not a fact that Council members in both Abbotsford and Mission were unaware of. Two very extensive consultant reports were released in 2006 and 2009 that made it very clear that in order to approve more residential, commercial and industrial development much more water was needed. The estimated cost of the 2006 Water Master Plan was just under $197 million and in 2010 it was $198 million. Both Water Master Plans used costs related to Stave Lake as the source for additional water. A 2009 report prepared by Polis which recommended conservation as a way to have a sustainable water system and save up to 70% was released by the Abbotsford-Mission Water and Sewer Commission. See that report here.

Just months after the 2010 Water Master Plan was released the cost has gone up to $300 million, according to a Deloitte & Touche “business case” commissioned by the city. In addition, the cost to operate the public-private water system Stave Lake section would be $1+ million more per year over the proposed 25 year contract. Apparently, significant cost increases are quite common when P3 design/build and finance/operate “business cases” are submitted to senior governments for funding assistance. Historically, the assistance has been as much as 60% of the capital costs. The public-private “business case” for the Abbotsford/Mission water upgrade was submitted to PPP Canada Inc. – a relatively new crown corporation created by the Harper Conservative government in 2007. According to information available from the Government of Canada, PPP Canada Inc. will “grow” the P3 market in Canada; manage a $2 billion+ P3 Fund, providing up to 25% of municipal and provincial P3 costs; review and assess proposals for P3s seeking federal contributions using a new “P3 screen”; provide advice and expertise for P3 matters; and target municipal and small projects in particular.

Local governments have proclaimed that they have no choice but to opt for a public–private water system if they want to access federal funding (now lowered to 25%). With the P3 cat out of the bag a group of concerned water consumers from both Mission and Abbotsford met and formed Water Watch Mission-Abbotsford. News of this was met with a full page ad in the local media in Abbotsford and Mission, quoting Abbotsford Mayor George Peary erroneously accusing CUPE (the union that represents civic workers) of misleading the public about the impact of P3s. Then Deloitte & Touche was contracted and directed to not even consider anything other than the design/build and finance/operate option. Their recommendation  was finally debated in public on Apr. 4, 2011. Abbotsford Council and staff refused to answer any questions. They looked like deer in the headlights according to one observer. 

A large contingent of the public expressed such strong opposition to the P3 option that Council voted to delay the vote and (finally) address the numerous concerns voiced at the meeting. On the same evening with both Council and staff available to respond to concerns from the public, Mission Council decided to respect the concerns of its citizens and take the bull by the horns and voted the P3 water scheme down. This caused yet another very disrespectful public comment from Mayor Peary who humiliated residents by stating that the tail (Mission) would not be allowed to wag the dog (Abbotsford). Most of the water Abbotsford currently taps – from Norrish Creek – is not in Abbotsford but in Mission, as is Stave Lake.

Many hoped that would be the end of the P3 as both Abbotsford’s Water and Sewer Commission Report on the matter and the “business case” required both Councils to agree to the P3 water scheme. But as far as Mayor Peary was concerned it was still “full steam ahead”. When Abbotsford Council voted on April 18, 2011 on a quickly revised Deloitte & Touche “business case” – which “reduced” the cost to $284 million – to proceed with the P3 water scheme, one Councillor even expressed disgust at being bribed with our own money while we endanger our “gentleman’s agreement” with Mission, our longstanding working partner. However, during the recent federal election campaign Abbotsford Conservative incumbent candidate Ed Fast said that the P3 water scheme is not compulsory in order to obtain federal funds.

The voters of Abbotsford will now be asked to approve the P3 water project in a referendum in November 2011, including a long-term 25 year private contract to finance and operate the water system and the borrowing well over $50 million. The City of Abbotsford is launching a massive communications plan to convince the electorate to vote in favour of this privatization of their water services. However, public opposition to the idea is mounting, along with the logistical problem Abbotsford faces in accessing water located in Mission for which they need right-of-way access. In May Mission Council unanimously refused to consider a request by Abbotsford to grant access to Mission’s roads for the P3 project.

Abbotsford’s Mayor Peary is not making any friends by damning his neighbours in the media, chastising Mission Council and residents for their decision to keep their water system in public hands, and threatening to move forward with the project regardless of the will of Mission residents. There really is no room for bullying and egos when planning how to deliver water for life, not profit, to the public.

Lynn Perrin is the Abbotsford Spokesperson for Water Watch Mission-Abbotsford.

To learn more about the battle over Mission and Abbotsford’s water and how you can help:

Web / Facebook / Youtube / Contact: waterwatchma@live.ca

Share

Rafe on Being Old, Fixed Elections and Christy Clark’s Mandate

Share

I received an email recently saying I was too old and should begone – not his precise words but that was the gist of what he said. And I suppose that requires an answer.
 
I am old and will be 80 on New Years Eve; there it is – make of it what you will.
 
Having confessed, perhaps my correspondent would say whether his criticism goes to my antiquity or the message I bring. That will always be your issue and I accept your verdict. OK, let’s get down to business.
 
Gordon Campbell brought in a fixed term for elections to avoid election by ambush. It just wasn’t right that governments could pick the most propitious time (for them). Fairness was the test. Now Premier Clark, who was in cabinet when this decision was made, is prepared to forget all about this and will go to the people soon, probably this fall.
 
She will ask for a mandate and it’s critical that we know just what that mandate actually will be, not the one she claims.
Here are some of the issues she and Liberals will avoid like the plague in hopes voters will ignore them too.

  • The private Energy Policy will continue
  • Large corporations will continue to desecrate our rivers and the ecology they support
  • BC Hydro will continue to be forced to buy the private power under a “take or pay” clause meaning it must either use it at a much higher cost than they can make it for themselves or export it at a huge loss
  • BC Hydro, now technically bankrupt (their raising of rates is all that keeps them afloat), will be broken up and the most valuable parts sold off
  • New private schemes will be approved and new construction will begin
  • Site C Dam will be built to supply shale gas, coal mining and the Tar Sands – flooding 11,000 acres of vital farmland in the process
  • New fish farms will be licensed and there will be no effort to make the existing ones to go to closed-containment
  • The Prosperity Mine (Fish Lake) will go ahead
  • The two Enbridge pipelines from the Tar Sands to Kitimat will be approved.
  • The Kinder Morgan pipeline to Burnaby will be hugely expanded and the company will construct a “spur” also to go to Kitimat
  • Huge tankers will ply our waters using the most treacherous coast line in the world
  • Massive oil spills on land and sea will become a certainty
  • Desecration of the Agricultural Land Reserve will continue

The obvious plan is to push ahead on so many fronts that opposition will be badly divided.
 
The voting public ought to be forewarned and understand that no matter what Premier Clark says is the mandate she wishes, the forgoing is the mandate she will get.
 
Can she be stopped?
 
Of course she can by simple “X’ on a ballot on a piece of paper.
 
This old fart is going to help leaders like Alexandra Morton, Rex Weyler, Joe Foy, Gwen Barlee, Erik Andersen, Donna Passmore, First Nations and so many others with whatever strength he can muster to carry the fight to the people.
 
This is what we all must understand – those proud to call themselves environmentalists are not some wild eyed anarchists or loony left-wingers. This is how we’ll be portrayed because the government has no answers except ad hominem attacks. These are not issues of left or right but right or wrong.
 
Let me end on the “old man theme”.
 
The numbers speak for themselves and I can’t change them. I can only ask you to judge these issues on their merits not on birthdays.

Share

The Need for Civil Disobedience Throughout History…and in BC Today

Share

I favour civil disobedience if it’s done responsibly and for good reasons.
 
Civil disobedience was practiced by Jesus; more recently Henry David Thoreau, the 19th Century American philosopher, is seen as father of the modern art of flouting authority. Thoreau had a strong impact on Mohandas Gandhi, who led protests first against South Africa’s laws against Indians (Gandhi lived there between 1893 and 1914) and later effectively against colonial powers in India. Gandhi and Martin Luther King are seen as 20th Century leaders in this field but one must include the entire civil rights movement and especially that in the Southern US in the 50s and 60s.
 
One must also remember the many acts of civil disobedience in BC in recent decades, especially those against killing old growth forests and the good that’s come of them.
 
Precise principles are hard to make but here are a couple from my own research and thoughts.
 
The cause must be “just” – not an easy word to define at the best of times – and has these elements:

  • It is clearly a debatable issue in our society.
  • There is a clear philosophical underpinning such as civil rights, immorality, an intrinsically evil law or policy.
  • The public has been deprived of a fair hearing.
  • There is no reasonable alternative.
  • It is non-violent, which is a better word than peaceful.

The other side of the coin is the need of members of society to obey laws and only change them through the Legislature or Parliament. This “law and order” theme is the song of the “establishment” through whom unjust policy and law is manna from heaven and works substantially in their favour.
 
Until this day, slavery in economic chains of those who were freed from formal slavery is justified as “the law” but contains within itself my basis truth – this issue alone tells us how long it takes to get equality before the law and the impotence of decent people who simply want that for everyone. Unions and civil rights leaders have fought for basic justice for many years with every step painful and blocked by those who complain that they are outlaws – overlooking, conveniently, whose interests those laws support and how they came to be passed.
 
An interesting example is that of Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, a British banker and politician who was, in 1857, refused his seat in Parliament because, as a Jew, he could not (so the established MPs decided) take the Christian oath. Catholics were similarly rejected. Disraeli’s father had him baptized in the Church of England to avoid this problem.
 
Would anyone see these laws as supportable just because a parliament passed them?
 
Another famous case was Gandhi’s protest in 1930 in order to help free India from British control. He proposed and led a non-violent march in clear defiance of a Salt Tax which essentially made it illegal to sell or produce salt, allowing a complete British monopoly.  Since salt is necessary in everyone’s daily diet, everyone in India was affected. The Salt Tax made it illegal for workers to freely collect their own salt from the coasts of India, making them buy salt they couldn’t really afford. This protest set Gandhi and the Congress Party on the pathway to Indian independence.
 
Could anyone seriously claim that this law, being passed by a colonial power, must be obeyed?
 
British Columbians today face huge assaults on their environment from those who control our legislatures. Let me deal with just two – pipelines and tankers, and private power producers (IPPS). In each case the environmental damage is monumental.
 
With pipelines and tankers, huge irremediable environmental catastrophes are not just a risk but a mathematical certainty with immense and lasting consequences.
 
IPPs are destroying – not just impacting – our rivers.
 
What chance to protest has been given the citizen? When did the citizen have the opportunity to affect IPPs politically? Their MLAs and MPs are not bound to the public’s interests but the party line from which they dare not deviate.
 
These same questions pertain to pipelines and huge oil tankers.
 
The answer is that worse than having no hearings at all are the phony hearings which permit no discussions of the merits (if any) of these proposals.
 
The argument is made that our legislators speak for us – the very argument used by the establishment to sustain slavery, keep black children out of “white schools”, outlaw labour unions because they were a conspiracy to interfere with employers’ right to set wages and working conditions, keep Jews from Parliament, to deny women the right to vote, to allow restaurants to keep Blacks out, and on it goes…
 
It’s interesting how the law deals with these matters today:

  • First, legislators on the government side pass laws dramatically helpful to those whose money gets them elected.
  • Second, they give away that which they hold in trust for us, to these corporations to desecrate for their own very profitable use.
  • Third, people protest by getting in the way of the contractors’ relentless, uncaring and lawful abuse of our environment.
     
  • Fourth, the corporation goes to Court and gets an injunction against the
    protesters. (These hearings give no opportunity for the public to deal
    with the “merits” of the project.)
  • Fifth, the protests continue.
  • Sixth, turning a civil act into a crime, the corporation seeks and gets an order to imprison these “criminals” – not for breaking any law, but for “contempt of court”. 

Before this year is out I think we’ll have protests where decent, contributing citizens, wanting no more than to pass the province they love to future generations without the scars of private power development or spilled oil. They will go to jail for as long as it takes them to admit their “error”, as in other times, with similar legal machinery (Galileo confessed his “error” when he said that earth went around the sun instead of the other way around).
 
That’s right, these “criminals”, our friends and neighbours are sent to jail forever unless they recant and apologize.
 
It is thus democracy is practiced in our fair land.

Share

Stopping Debate – Again!

Share

Under the current government, the BC Legislature seems to have become a necessary evil to be used sparingly or otherwise avoided.

In the Liberals first term, Premier Campbell introduced a sweeping set of democratic reforms that were supposed to elevate the role of individual MLAs, revitalize committees, and improve the function of the Legislature.

A budget transparency act, fixed session dates, fixed election dates, “free” votes within the governing party, promises to use legislative committees more, and open Cabinet meetings, were all hailed as a “new era” in democratic government in BC.

Slowly but surely, each of these promises has been broken or made a mockery of by the actions of the government.

So, here we are in 2011 with two new leaders, a ton of government Bills and budget estimates yet to be debated, and the government House Leader announced, once again, that debate will be unilaterally time limited.

To be fair, however, more debate time would not resolve the real problem we have in this Legislature. The sad fact is that both sides use every opportunity to politicize debate purely for electioneering purposes. Simply adding more time will not ensure there’ll be any more quality to the debate.

The seven and a half hours of “debate” on the HST Motion is a classic example of this. This wasn’t “debate,” it was pure political rhetoric by MLAs from both parties in advance of a possible election this fall.

The real solution to this matter lies in the government sticking to the fixed sessional dates for both fall and spring sessions, with the focus on the budget in the spring and legislation in the fall. However, legislation and budget debate should also be moved to permanent standing committees rather debate in the Chamber.

BC is one of the few jurisdictions that use “sessional” select standing committees that are formed and dissolved each session during a Parliament. Standing Committees are formed at the beginning of each Parliament after an election and continue to work even when the Legislature isn’t sitting. These Committees can be structured so they can call witnesses, question senior bureaucrats, and de-politicize both budget and legislation debate.

I’ve put forward and Amendment to the Standing Orders calling for BC to change to permanent standing committees — that’s really the best way to introduce more quality to the debate.
 
And, hopefully, that quality will lead to better overall governance.
 

Share