Tag Archives: Politics

Canada leaves out rise in oilsands pollution from UN climate report

Share

From ipolitics.ca – May 30, 2011

by Mike De Souza

The federal government has acknowledged that it deliberately excluded
data indicating a 20 per cent increase in annual pollution from
Canada’s oilsands industry in 2009 from a recent 567-page report on
climate change that it was required to submit to the United Nations.

The
numbers, uncovered by Postmedia News, were left out of the report, a
national inventory on Canada’s greenhouse gas pollution. It revealed a
six per cent drop in annual emissions for the entire economy from 2008
to 2009, but does not directly show the extent of pollution from the
oilsands production, which is greater than the greenhouse gas emissions
of all the cars driven on Canadian roads.

The data also indicated
that emissions per barrel of oil produced by the sector is increasing,
despite claims made by the industry in an advertising campaign.

“The
oilsands remain Canada’s fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas
pollution, and they’re the subject of a huge amount of attention and
scrutiny in Canada and internationally,” said Clare Demerse, director of
climate change at the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based environmental
research group. “So it’s very disappointing to see Environment Canada
publish a 500-page report that leaves out these critical numbers —
especially when last year’s edition included them.”

Overall,
Environment Canada said that the oilsands industry was responsible for
about 6.5 per cent of Canada’s annual greenhouse gas emissions in 2009,
up from five per cent in 2008. This also indicates a growth in emissions
that is close to about 300 per cent since 1990, which cancel out many
reductions in pollution from other economic sectors.

The report
attributes the six per cent decrease in Canada’s overall emissions to
the economic slowdown, but it also credits efforts by the Ontario
government to reduce production of coal-fired electricity as a
significant factor.

Environment Canada provided the oilsands
numbers in response to questions from Postmedia News about why it had
omitted the information from its report after publishing more detailed
data in previous years. A department spokesman explained that “some” of
the information was still available in the latest report, which still
meets Canada’s reporting obligations under the UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change.

“The information is presented in this way to be
consistent with UNFCCC reporting requirements, which are divided into
broad, international sectors,” wrote Mark Johnson in an email.

He
was not immediately able to answer questions about who made the decision
in government to exclude the numbers from the oilsands or provide a
detailed explanation about changes in emissions.

An industry
spokesman said it favoured more transparency from the government,
suggesting that some of the figures may be misleading because of changes
in methods used to identify and calculate emissions.

“It’s just
too bad you weren’t able to get a hold of (Environment Canada) on this
one, because here I am telling you my understanding of what’s going on,
but really it’s best to hear directly from them,” said Greg Stringham,
vice-president of oilsands and markets at the Canadian Association of
Petroleum Producers. “We report the information to them, and they choose
to pass it on — they must pass it on the UN. But then they choose how
to disclose it and put it out there.”

Although Stringham said that
the industry figures did not show any significant growth in emissions
per barrel of oil produced, the full report noted an intensity increase
of 14.5 per cent from 2008 to 2009, “mainly the result of a new
integrated mining and upgrading facility as well as a new integrated
in-situ bitumen extraction and upgrading facility,” that were not
operating at “peak efficiencies.”

Emissions from a mining
category, which includes oilsands extraction, saw a 371 per cent
increase in greenhouse gas pollution, according to the report. But other
categories showed significant decreases due, in part, to the recession,
but also because of changes in use of fuel and manufacturing
operations.

Environment Canada’s report recognizes that climate
change is occurring, mainly due to an increase in heat-trapping gases in
the atmosphere. The objective of the UNFCCC is to stabilize these
emissions in order to prevent dangerous changes to the climate.

Critics
have suggested the Harper government is deliberately trying to delay
international action to fight climate change, following revelations,
reported last fall by Postmedia News, that it had set up a partnership
with the Alberta government, industry and several federal departments to
fight pollution-reduction policies from other countries that target the
oilsands through lobbying and public relations.

Environment
Minister Peter Kent has said the federal government is committed to
reducing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions and will introduce its plan
to regulate pollution from the oilsands within months. But he has also
acknowledged that existing federal and provincial policies would still
result in an increase in emissions over the next decade.

Although
the report was due in April, during the last election campaign, Canada
was the last country to file its submission. Environment Canada even
filed its submission after earthquake-stricken Japan, and was unable to
explain in detail why its report was late.

Read original article

Share

Rafe’s Books Nominated for Samara Awards

Share

I’m astonished and hugely flattered to learn that a long time
listener and reader of my stuff, Gavin Bamber, has nominated three of my
books for recognition as the top Canadian political books of the past
25 years by Samara. This about Samara and the awards:

25 Influential Books on Politics: Samara will be collecting
nominations from people across the country—and the political spectrum—on
their picks for the 25 most influential political books of the last 25
years. Samara is a charitable organization that studies citizen
engagement with Canadian democracy. Through our projects we hope to
strengthen the health of our democracy and encourage others to do the
same. Samara was created out of a belief in the importance of public
service and public leadership.

Our work focuses on three areas: political leadership; the
participation of citizens in public life; and public affairs journalism.

The books selected are, Canada Is Anyone Listening? (Key Porter), Rants Raves and Recollections (Whitecap),  and Still Ranting (Whitecap).

Mr Bamber says, “Unfortunately I had to narrow it down to only three… but those 3 work great as a trilogy. I worry that as is typical of the “national” scene that a BC writer such as Rafe Mair will be  overlooked, so I figure ‘what the bleep!’ (To quote Rafe!) Please help get Rafe the recognition that I believe he deserves!”

This project’s website is:

http://www.samaracanada.com/Best_Political_Books

The page to endorse me is:

http://www.samaracanada.com/Nominate_Books

Political books from BC writers suffer greatly from being all but
ignored by Indigo/Chapters which site books about as far away from
potential buyers as is possible and discourage local publishers. I’m not
whining just laying it out.

Still Ranting is available through TheCanadian.org for $20 (plus $5 shipping) – all proceeds go to supporting our work at The Common Sense Canadian. To order a copy, click the contact link on the home page and put Still Ranting in the subject line, along with your name, mailing address and email.

Share

Mike Smyth: Flippin’ and floppin’ on the Site C dam

Share

From the Province – May 26, 2011

by Michael Smyth

The proposed Site C dam has moved to an environmental assessment _ and an eye-popping new price tag: $8 billion.

The 1,100-megawatt megaproject would be the long-planned third dam on
the Peace River. B.C. Hydro says it would provide power for over a
century, and generate enough clean electricity to power more than
450,000 homes a year.

The governing Liberals support the project. So what is the opposition NDP’s position?

When it comes to NDP energy critic John Horgan, it’s been like trying to follow a bouncing ball.

Horgan said this week the project is a “boondoggle”, the
environmental review is a “sham” and he’s “not sure” if the electricity
is needed anyway.

However, he said the NDP stil might support the project. Maybe. Maybe not. He’s really not sure.

Par for the the course for Horgan, who has been all over the map on
the project for many years. Here is just a small sampling of his earlier
positions:

“I was a proponent and an advocate for Site C when I worked in
government, talking to the engineers and the forecasters at Hydro.  It
made a lot of sense.” Shaw Cable’s Voice of BC, July 3, 2008.

“The party has historically been opposed to Site C. We continue to be
opposed. We don’t believe we need the power at this time. If this
environmental assessment can demonstrate that there is a minimal
environmental impact, then I think we would perhaps change our
position.” A News, April 19, 2010.

“I supported, as you know, Site C in the 1990s before I’d ever been
to Fort St. John, but since then I’ve had an opportunity to meet the
people in the region; I’ve had an opportunity to go to the valley, to
fly over it and see what the impacts of Site C would be; and I’m not
convinced that that’s the best option today. If I can be persuaded by
science and economics that that’s the case, then I’ll try and argue that
for the people in the region, but as it is right now, let’s get some
answers to those tough questions.” CKNW, January 16, 2011.

“It would be as clean and green as any dam in North America.” The Province, 2007.

“We should pay a premium for renewables so that we can rid ourselves
of technologies like coal, and [this is] why I get excited about the
prospect of large projects like perhaps Site C.” The Province, 2006.

Nothing like taking a strong, clear position and sticking to it, huh?
When it comes to the Site C dam, this guy _ and this party _ have more
positions than a Romanian gymnast.

Can’t wait to hear what they come up with next.

Read original article

Share

How the Campbell/Clark Liberals Brought Real Lying into BC Politics

Share

I have been in politics or commenting on them (same thing) back to the days of WAC Bennett. My first published piece was a criticism of Bennett’s position on the failed (thankfully) Victoria Charter.
 
During that time I’ve seen plenty of gilding the lily, massaging of the truth, opinions presented as truth – in fact the things we all do ourselves – yet I’ve seen very little actual lying, deliberate untruths. When we would hear, say, a premier making a statement which the Opposition Leader says is untrue, that was a difference of opinion. I must admit that some opinions come perilously close to falsehoods but it was not until the Campbell government that we saw a government whose basic political strategy has been to lie. Not just puff up a story, slide over the troublesome bits – but outright lie.
 
I make that statement after considerable thought because it’s the worst behaviour possible in government.
 
I’m going to give examples.
 
With the Campbell government, it started early with fish farms and persists to this day. Campbell and his then most unsatisfactory Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fish, John Van Dongen pursued their disastrous policy saying that the science was all with them. This wasn’t a mistake or a bit of government flatulence – it was untrue and the government knew that; in short it was a lie.
 
In two election campaigns Campbell promised he would never privatize BC Rail yet after he won office he did just that and, it must be noted, lied like a dog when he called it a fair process. We lost our railroad and were left with a hugely expensive lawsuit in the bargain.
 
The government, through the mouth of then Finance Minister Hansen, got serious with deliberate untruths with their Energy Policy. These statements are based on a transcript of a youtube video Hansen made during the 2009 provincial election campaign:
 
Colin Hansen: “I think, first of all, that we have to recognize that British Columbia is a net importer of electricity. We seem to think that, with all the tremendous hydro electric generating capacity we have, that we are a huge exporter. Well, we do export some, but we are a net importer…”
 
This is unquestionably and demonstrably FALSE as the records of the National Energy Board and StatsCan prove. The province of BC over the past decade has been more often than not a net exporter electricity.
 
Hansen (cont’d.): “…from Washington State, which largely produces their electricity from dirty coal, and also from Alberta, which uses a lot of natural gas in their electricity production. So I think it’s incumbent on British Columbia to develop its own source of needed electricity. And quite frankly, the independent power projects are the best source of that…”
 
Unquestionably and demonstrably FALSE. Even if we did need more energy, because private river diversion projects produce most of their power during the spring run-off when BC Hydro has plenty of electricity, their energy would be of little if any impact on our energy needs.
 
Hansen (cont’d.): “…where we can encourage small companies…”
 
Unquestionably and demonstrably FALSE – unless Mr. Hansen considers General Electric, Ledcor and the DuPont family small. The companies involved are huge, largely foreign corporations.
 
Hansen (cont’d.): “…to build small scale hydroelectric projects that are run-of-the-river, and what that means is, instead of having a big reservoir, a big dam that backs water up, and creates a great big lake, these are run of the river, so the river continues to flow at its normal [pace] but we capture some of the energy in the form of hydroelectric power from this.”
 
Unquestionably and demonstrably AND EGREGIOUSLY FALSE. All these rivers are dammed and/or diverted, often using long tunnels and pipes and leave only traces of the original river in the river bed throughout the diversion stretch. The sheer scale of some of these projects and all the roads and transmission lines involved gives them an enormous ecological footprint.
 
Hansen (cont’d.): Again, from the perspective of some of the opposition, they would have you believe that every single river in British Columbia is being impacted. In reality, it is .03% of the rivers in British Columbia that could sustain any kind of hydroelectric activity, are being used for these independent power projects.”
 
Unquestionably and demonstrably FALSE. In fact it’s double that amount but this is a numbers game. The fact is over 600 river systems (with over 800 individual diversion applications) and the ecologies they support are at risk.
 
Hansen (cont’d.):  “So, it’s being widely supported by many of the leading environmentalists, because it’s clean and sustainable. It’s also being supported by many of the First Nations communities in the province. So, I think that we have to look behind the scenes on this, and really question who is funding the opposition, and clearly they have their own agenda, and in my view, it’s not a responsible environmental agenda.”
 
Misleading at best and you should judge the matter with these facts in mind:

  1. Some of the key opponents (apart from the NDP), have been  the Wilderness Committee, Save Our Rivers Society, and now our organization, The Common Sense Canadian. Speaking for The Common Sense Canadian, it  has no institutional funding (corporations, Labour or otherwise).
  2. Who is or is not an environmentalist is a matter of choice but here are the ecologists, biologists and academics upon whom we rely: Dr. William E. Rees, Dr. John Calvert, Dr. Craig Orr, Dr. Michael Byers, Dr. Marvin Rosenau, Dr. Gordon F. Hartman, Dr. Marvin Shaffer, Dr. Elaine Golds, Dr. Michael M’Gonigle, Rex Weyler, Wendy Holm and Otto Langer.

We have, then, an Energy Policy based on a tissue of lies – not mistakes.

Perhaps the biggest lie of all is that BC Hydro is in good shape when our independent economist, Erik Andersen – a conservative-minded fellow with decades of experience working for the federal government and the transportation industry, I might add – says that if BC Hydro were in the private sector it would be headed for bankruptcy. The only reason it’s not is its ability to soak its customers – me and thee – with increasingly higher power bills to keep itself afloat.

In the election of 2009 Hansen and Campbell stated clearly that the budget of the past April was a statement of the true financial situation. Then, with the election safely behind them, they admitted that the budget was way out of whack but they didn’t know it until, conveniently, the election was over.

I’ve been there and I can tell you that the Finance Minister knew the province was in financial doo doo. For Hansen and Campbell to say that they didn’t have the evidence of falling tax revenues – the sales tax and stumpage are reliable barometers of the truth – is like a man standing across the road from a burning building with people jumping out windows saying he didn’t notice a thing because he was busy reading his paper.
 
The same scenario prevailed with the HST as Campbell and Hansen announced the HST after the election saying that it “wasn’t even on the radar screen” during the campaign, whereas it transpired that Hansen had received a detailed analysis from his ministry long before the election, which told him the HST would be a big mistake. Again, Hansen was apparently reading his newspaper across from the burning building.
 
There we have it – the government now led my Premier Clark won three elections by lying to the people.
 
The Common Sense Canadian will be doing a great deal in the days to come on Site “C” and we will, I assure you, be exposing interesting facts on the need (or lack thereof) for this mega-project; the costs, and what it means for the environment.
 
The plain facts are that the Campbell/Clark government has lied and thus fooled us in three elections.
 
If they do it again, we will get what we deserve and future generations will inherit the consequences of our shame.

Share

DFO gets a new minister and – SURPRISE! – he’s from the East Coast…again

Share

From DFO’s Website:

The
Honourable Keith Ashfield
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway

Fredericton (New Brunswick)

Keith Ashfield was first elected to the House of Commons in 2008
and re-elected in 2011. In October 2008, he was appointed Minister of
State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency). In January 2010, he was
appointed Minister of National Revenue, Minister of the Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway.

Prior to his election, Mr. Ashfield served in the New
Brunswick Legislative Assembly. From 1999 to 2003, he served as Deputy
Speaker of the Legislature and as provincial Minister of Natural
Resources from 2003 to 2006.

Prior to entering politics, Mr. Ashfield was active in local,
provincial and national school trustee associations. He has also held
senior positions in local companies, and has owned and operated his
own businesses.

Mr. Ashfield studied business administration at the University of New Brunswick.

He resides in Lincoln, New Brunswick. He is married to Judy and they have two children.

Read original post

Share

Electoral Reform: An Unfinished Conversation

Share

The recent federal election has once again reignited debate about the need to reform our voting system and a “National Day of Action for Electoral Reform” has been called for May 14.
 
The current first part the post (FPTP) system creates majority governments despite the fact the majority of voters do not vote for the winning party, and it denies seats to political parties that gain significant popular support at the ballot box.
 
In this past federal election, the Conservatives won 54% of the seats in Parliament with the support of less than 40% of voters (only 26% of the registered voters). The 60% majority of Canadians who did not want a Conservative government are left with only the hope that Prime Minister Harper will honour their vote by incorporating some of the Opposition’s ideas into his agenda.
 
In the 1996 BC election, the NDP won government despite the fact the BC Liberals got the majority of votes, causing the BC Liberals to become advocates for electoral reform.
 
In 2001, the NDP were reduced to 2 seats in the Legislature, despite still obtaining 22% of the vote.  With a proportional voting system, the 2001 election would have resulted in the NDP winning 17 seats and the Green Party 9 seats.
 
Enter the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform – a result, really, of both parties having experienced the distorted outcomes of the FPTP system in back-to-back elections. The Assembly recommended that BC adopt a Single Transferable Vote (STV) system which would allow voters to rank multiple candidates on election day (a preferential ballot), require successful candidates to get over 50% to win a seat, and ensure everyone’s vote counted.
 
The 2005 and 2009 BC Referendums on STV were unsuccessful – however, in 2005 British Columbians clearly signalled they wanted a change in their voting system.
 
Recently, both the BC NDP and the BC Liberals used a preferential ballot during their leadership contests. The Liberals even used a weighting system to balance the rural/urban vote and required their members to select a minimum of two candidates in order for their ballot to be accepted.
 
If you believe all British Columbians should be allowed to mark preferential ballots, that we need to finish the conversation the Citizens’ Assembly started, please get engaged in this week’s day of action for electoral reform.

Bob Simpson is the Independent MLA for Cariboo-North – http://www.bobsimpsonmla.ca/

Share

Rafe on Christy’s Narrow Win, Looking Forward to General Election

Share

What, if anything, do we read into Premier Christy Clark’s narrow win in the by-election?
 
In one sense it can be said that the only important thing is that she won, but that isn’t so. Of significance is the low turnout. The only example I can give is ancient history, namely 1981 in Kamloops, arising out of me resigning my seat to go into radio. The general consensus was that Claude Richmond of the Socreds wouldn’t be able to beat Howard Dack. As I was in radio doing political matters I didn’t campaign for Richmond.
 
Claude Richmond won a handsome victory with a good turnout (incidentally, the last time prior to yesterday that the ruling party won a provincial by-election). No one could deny that this was a vote supporting the government. Premier Clark’s election by such a small margin does indicate a message to the government. How strong or important that message will be assessed by the usual suspects, of course.
 
The next piece in the jigsaw puzzle will come from the HST referendum which will largely be a referendum on the government.
 
There’s another event, actually non-event which gets into the mix, namely the celebration of Campbell’s “great” decade of leadership. The excuse for not doing so when Ms. Clark became leader was that it would detract from her moment of victory. For a party whose policy depends upon a steady stream of lies, this comes as no surprise. One would have thought Ms. Clark would be delighted to have the premier on stage with her in her great moment.
 
The truth is obvious: Clark wanted as little association as possible with badly damaged goods. The very last thing she wanted was general circulation of pictures with Campbell giving her smiling hugs and kisses.
 
You will remember that on that night we were told Mr. Campbell’s night would be at the forthcoming Liberal Convention and that the reason he wasn’t there was that he was out of the country.
 
Well, it turns out that gathering directorships is time consuming because – Lo! And behold! – he will still be gathering at Convention time. Again, one doesn’t have to be a mensa member to realize that Gordon Campbell is about as welcome at Liberal shindigs as a cow at a Christening.
 
Premier Clark will be much occupied with calling a snap election to “get a mandate” from the people. This is an odd concept for the parliamentary system where we don’t elect leaders but Members of the Legislature from whose party comes a leader. This is more than just lip service to the system but goes to its very core.
 
If, perish the thought, back in 2003 Gordon Campbell had suffered a heart attack instead of going to jail for drunk driving, the caucus would have selected a new leader and the government would have carried on. In fact, if anyone should have called an election for a new leader it would have been after Campbell had done his time in durance vile.

As one who would like to see the back of these bastards sooner than later, an early election will be just fine. Two more years is just more time for voters to forget about BC Rail, Basi-Virk and wholesale corruption, a fabricated budget and the HST disgrace – so let’s vote before our traditional amnesia sets in.

Premier Clark wants us to see her on her own record and I say let’s do
just that and remember the BC Rail scandal and remember that she was in
the midst of it and said not a word about it when an “independent”
journalist.
 
I say to Premier Clark: I believe that the sooner the public can pass judgment on you and your record, the better.

Share

Cohen Inquiry: Fishy Commission Blackout

Share

From the North Shore News – May 11, 2011

by Elizabeth James

“The Cohen Commission is a public inquiry, not a
matter of security. Yet the more the commission delves into why the
Fraser sockeye are in trouble, the more the federal government tries to
suppress the proceedings.”

Alexandra Morton, Biologist, April 30

Two
days before Canadians elected the federal Conservative Party to the
majority it coveted, biologist Alexandra Morton sounded an alarm about
the perils of giving the Conservatives outright control of the House of
Commons.

The timing was unfortunate because voters were in no
mood to elect a fourth minority government in less than seven years, so
the alarm stood little chance of affecting the eventual seat count.

That does not lessen the significance of the warning.

As British Columbians should have learned, when any party governs with a large majority it pays to monitor its activities.

So
given that Morton’s concerns go to the issue of the public’s right to
know, eyeing the progress of the prime minister’s Commission of Inquiry
into the decline of sockeye salmon in the Fraser River would be a good
place to start.

Led by the Hon. Bruce Cohen, a justice of the
Supreme Court of British Columbia, the inquiry has been underway for
more than a year.

As a long-time researcher and advocate for the
preservation of wild salmon stocks, Morton was granted standing as a
person with a “substantial and direct interest in the subject matter of
the inquiry.”

No matter her standing, Morton is prohibited from
releasing any information about the proceedings — even though she
believes withholding the information poses a risk to wild salmon.

The
terms of reference set out in the order-in-council that established
the inquiry, require the commissioner to, “. . . follow established
security procedures, including the requirements of the Policy on
Government Security, with respect to persons engaged under Section 11
of the Inquiries Act and the handling of information at all stages of
the inquiry.”

Those legal constraints caused Morton to write in
her email of April 30: “To access the commission’s database of
documents provided by participants, including the salmon farming
disease records, I was required to sign an undertaking that I would not
disclose those documents until they became part of the public record
as an exhibit. I believed that was reasonable in respect to the
database.”

But Morton balked when commission counsel expanded the
blackout to include its ruling on her application to be released from
her undertaking “on a limited basis” to allow her to relay information
she believed was “urgent and required by law to the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA) in respect to a very significant risk to wild
salmon.”

I can only echo Morton’s concerns by asking: What do salmon disease records have to do with government security?

I
am likely to be drenched in legalese answers to that question but will
go even further: How can the terms of reference for an inquiry into
the decline of fish in the Fraser River be allowed to trump the
legislated requirements of Health Canada, the CFIA and the B.C.
Ministry of Health?

Because, taken
together, the regulations of those agencies require that they be
notified immediately of any disease outbreaks or imminent threat to
safety of the food we eat and the water we drink.

The findings of the Cohen Commission are not due to be concluded and made public until spring or summer of 2012.

Following
the logic of the commission’s terms of reference, if a similar inquiry
were to be held on, say, the decline of tuna stocks, or on farming
methods for cattle or chickens, would we be expected to wait a year or
more to discover we were being exposed to hazardous levels of mercury,
or to mad cow disease or avian influenza?

My bottom line is
this: If retailers are allowed to sell farmed salmon then, as a
consumer, I have a fundamental right to know what I am putting in my
mouth.

The precedent for that right is seen everywhere on food
safety labels that provide lists of ingredients and warnings that read,
“This product may contain. . . .”

Yet Morton can only say, “No comment”?

I
don’t care if some government official — elected, informed, or
otherwise — has decided high levels of sea lice pose me no harm, or
that the diseases for which farmed Atlantic salmon have been or are
being treated with unnamed substances cannot be transmitted to human
beings.

Nor do I accept the commission’s equivalent of “No comment; it’s before the courts.”

Fish play a significant role in my regular diet.

So
apart from my desire to support efforts to preserve a miraculous part
of British Columbia’s wild heritage, I have a right to know what I’m
eating — now, not later.

Read original article

Share

Bottling that Magic Salt Spring Formula for Future Elections

Share

I had the pleasure to speak alongside salmon biologist Alexandra Morton to a packed house at the Fulford Hall on Salt Spring Island this past weekend. There, I was introduced to one of my childhood musical mainstays, Raffi, who was in the crowd – before the show was kicked off with a performance by BC music legends Bill Henderson (of the band Chilliwack) and veteran folk singer Valdi. Knowing some of the list of other musical greats who make the island their home (think Randy Bachman), I suggested they consider trademarking it as “Music Capital of Canada” – which wouldn’t be a stretch at all.

They could also just as legitimately lay claim to “Democratic Capital of Canada”. After all, it was these folks who led the country by a mile in voter turnout in the recent federal election – sending the first ever Green MP to Ottawa in the process.

Upon his sizeable loss to Elizabeth May (almost 11% in the final tally), veteran Saanich-Gulf Islands Conservative MP and former cabinet minister Gary Lunn lamented that he only lost because May had 2,000 volunteers working for her. How unfair of her! Clearly, she didn’t get the memo that she was supposed to wage her electoral battle with money alone and thereby lose to her well-funded Conservative opponent. Next thing you know, right after killing per-vote party subsidies, Stephen Harper will pass legislation declaring volunteerism illegal.

Enjoying my breakfast the following morning at the Harbour House Hotel – which derives much of its produce from an organic farm that’s part of the operation – I leafed through a copy of last week’s local paper, the Driftwood. On the cover was a picture that told the whole story. It was a shot from inside a pub on the island, where many of May’s supporters had gathered to watch the election results – taken at the moment her victory was declared. The crowd is staring up at a television monitor out of the shot – every one of them beaming with pure joy. 

This was the moment the pundits said was impossible – the moment they had worked so hard for – and there it was, unfolding before their very eyes.

It was refreshing to enter this strange land, somehow immune to the doldrums much of the rest of the country is mired in following the election of a Conservative majority government by just 24% of eligible voters. Not that these folks aren’t deeply concerned about the direction our country appears to be headed – it’s just that they know they got something right here. They are the silver lining in this whole situation. What interests me is how they did it and how we can learn from what they achieved – because contained in that success is the code for changing at least part of what’s wrong with our politics these days.

Granted, we can’t get to the root of the problem without electoral reform, and the prospect of that – short of a significant nationwide movement over the next four years – is slim indeed. But the other major democratic deficit we face is voter engagement and turnout. While that has a lot to do with voters’ disenchantment with the system itself, there’s more to it than that – proved by this particular result, as by the Orange Wave of the NDP.

So what is it that really worked here in the Saanich-Gulf Islands riding? Sure, it’s the 75% voter turnout – compared with the second place riding of Victoria with just 68% and a national average of 61%. But that didn’t just magically happen. It has to do with the army of volunteers the May campaign mobilized – 2,000 of them altogether. A full 700 came from Salt Spring, which represents a relatively small population share of the riding. A number of these folks who were at our show described to me how they would routinely take the ferry over to Vancouver Island and go door-knocking in the more populous neighbourhoods of Saanich – one community inspiring another in the riding to get on board. And it worked.

I also think you have to acknowledge the intelligence and sincere charisma and energy of May – a compelling leader who also worked her butt off for this richly deserved success. This last point speaks to the need for strong progressive candidates the public can believe in and rally around, which is far too seldom the case. And yet, these people are out there – we just need to get more of them running for office. 

What’s also interesting to me is that Saanich-Gulf Islands is hardly Vancouver-East; it’s a well-to-do riding that elected right wing Lunn (under Reform, Alliance, and Conservative banners) in five consecutive federal contests. But they somehow seem able to balance economic and environmental concerns here in a way few communities can. They run successful, sustainable local businesses and they get that it doesn’t have to be a choice between jobs and the environment – that both can complement each other if done in a thoughtful way. I learned it’s the only place in the province with a regional government system – the Islands Trust – with a mandate to “preserve and protect the area and its environment for the benefit of residents and the province.”  So they have some other lessons to teach us as well.

There may well be many unique characteristics to this place, but what happened here doesn’t have to be an anomaly – provided we can replicate that formula around the province and across the country. And we will need to do that in BC – potentially very soon – to supplant this Campbell/Clark government that is undoubtedly a far greater direct threat to the environment and public interest in our province than Harper and co.

Alexandra has been quoted in a number of papers recently as feeling pretty down after this recent election (who can blame her) – so a trip to Salt Spring was just what the doctor ordered. Even on a short visit, a little of that positive energy rubbed off on both of us.

Now we just need it to rub off on the whole country.

Share

Point Grey By-election: How quickly Christy Clark has forgotten her radio host roots

Share

From the Globe & Mail – May 8, 2011

by Gary Mason

Not that long ago, Christy Clark the radio host would have had a field day with Christy Clark the politician.

Before
Ms. Clark became B.C. Premier in February, she often delighted in
putting politicians on the hot seat during her afternoon time slot. Her
inquisitions were often so hard-hitting, listeners felt sorry for the
poor elected official on the other side of the microphone.

Were she still sitting in her host’s chair today, it’s difficult to
imagine Ms. Clark accepting now-Premier Clark’s excuse that’s she’s “too
busy running the province” to participate in an all-candidates debate
in the by-election in which she is running.

Ms. Clark has done a
number of commendable things in the short time she has been Premier. Her
populist instincts, no doubt honed during her time in radio, are
exceptional. And she has surrounded herself with a team of advisers that
has demonstrated an undeniable adeptness in pushing the right buttons.

But
the Premier’s decision not to enter at least one all-candidates debate
does not reflect well on her. In fact, it’s a position that demonstrates
a fair amount of contempt for the Point Grey voter.

No space in
her schedule for a two-hour debate? Really? But she does have time to
throw on an apron and pretend to be a waitress for a couple of hours?
This, we’re told, so the Premier could “spend a bit of time walking in
someone else’s shoes.”

Please.

It was a cynical and crass
publicity stunt designed to draw attention to the government’s decision
to raise the minimum wage – a move for which Ms. Clark deserves full
credit. It should have happened a long time ago under the Liberals. She
didn’t need to sully a good public policy decision with a blindingly
transparent, carefully orchestrated photo-op purely intended to accrue
positive publicity.

The Premier has no more appreciation now of
the life of a person living on minimum wage than she did before she and
her political strategists decided it might be good for her numbers if
she served coffee for a couple of hours in a diner. Ms. Clark makes
nearly $200,000 a year, plus benefits most people can only dream of.
Spend a year on minimum wage, Premier, and your fact-finding mission
might not look quite as patronizing.

But back to the debate.

By
now, Christy Clark the radio host would have asked Premier Clark what
she is afraid of? Why she is refusing to put her candidacy up to the
scrutiny of an all-candidates debate? Especially given that the Premier
campaigned during the Liberal leadership race on a promise to be more
open and transparent. What does she have to lose?

The answer is more than the other guys.

That
is why Ms. Clark is not debating; because she has more to lose than
anyone else in the debate, especially NDP candidate David Eby. She would
inevitably be asked questions that would be uncomfortable. (About her
connections to the BC Rail scandal, perhaps.) Plus, a debate would only
serve to give Mr. Eby publicity that he is having trouble generating on
his own. So why give him that platform?

The answer is because it’s
the right thing to do. When you run in an election, you are expected to
field questions from your opponents. It is a crucial test of your
candidacy. It is practically a fundamental tenet of our democratic
system. You don’t say you don’t have time because you’re the Premier. If
you can’t find two hours in your schedule to attend an all-candidates
meeting, how do you expect to represent the riding once you’re elected?

I think those are all questions Ms. Clark would have asked during her radio days.

To
this point, the Premier has received little grief from her former
colleagues in the media for the stand she’s taken. So she’s probably not
concerned about the issue hurting her chances of winning.

She has
mostly been spending her time being out front of a number of popular
and populist announcements that we’re likely to see plenty more of in
the coming months. Her recent decision to cancel parking fees in parks,
while not a huge deal, was smart. As was her edict to cancel
controversial rate hikes being planned by BC Hydro.

There is almost certainly an election coming this fall, so it should be all good news, all the time until then.

At
this point, it’s uncertain in whose shoes the Premier intends to walk
next – as she’s promised. Maybe she’ll slip out of her power suit and
high heels to become a homeless person for an hour.

And then afterward she can meet her friends at the Four Seasons for dinner and tell them all about it.

Read original article

Share