Tag Archives: Politics

Saanich-Gulf Islands tops turnout with 75 per cent

Share

From the Vancouver Sun – May 5, 2011

by Chad Skelton

VANCOUVER – The B.C. riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands, which made
history Monday by electing Canada’s first Green MP, is notable for
another reason: It’s the only riding in B.C. where more than
three-quarters of eligible voters cast a ballot.

Overall, 61.1
per cent of eligible voters in B.C. cast a ballot, up slightly from 60.1
per cent in 2008. That mirrored a national uptick in voter turnout to
61.4 per cent from 58.8 per cent in 2008.

Voter turnout rates vary
significantly from riding to riding. Saanich-Gulf Islands had the
highest turnout at 75.2 per cent, followed by Victoria at 68.4 and North
Vancouver at 67.6. Richmond had the worst voter turnout at 50.7 per
cent, followed by Surrey North at 51.9 and Fleetwood-Port Kells at 53.4.
In addition to topping the voterturnout rankings, Saanich-Gulf Islands
also saw one of the biggest jumps in turnout this year, a 4.8-point
increase from 70.4 per cent in 2008 -no doubt partly due to the Green
party’s chances in the riding. The biggest increase in turnout, though,
was in Prince George-Peace River, which saw turnout jump a full five
points to 53.9 on Monday from 48.9 in 2008. Abbotsford, another safe
Conservative seat, saw the biggest drop in voter turnout, falling to
53.9 per cent from 59.5 per cent in 2008. For a detailed graphic showing
voter turnout in each B.C. riding, plus plenty of other interactive
charts and maps, go to vancouversun.com/papertrail.

Read original article

Share

How the Federal Election Reshapes BC’s Political Landscape

Share

It’s been a few days now since our momentous federal election and I’m trying to make some sense of it from the environmentalist standpoint.
 
The good news is, of course, the election of Elizabeth May – even though as one lone voice in parliament she can do little in any formal sense.
 
She can be effective at getting her message out both in question period and “debate” if the media want her to get coverage. They will certainly cover her activities so long as she keeps matters interesting. It’s the old “dog bites man/man bites dog” rule of journalism. As long as Ms. May can give the media interesting stories, her work will be reported.
 
I hope that the Green Party can increase its size and influence but it would take a braver man than I to ever see them for Official Opposition, much less government. We at the Common Sense Canadian will, it goes without saying, offer time and space to Ms. May and any other political parties or candidates who pledge to preserve our environment.
 
It’s an interesting situation re BC’s political scenario. BC doesn’t usually mirror federal political experiences. In fact it’s often the reverse. I was involved in a provincial election where there was a national election as well. I was astonished to see lawn signs supporting me as a Socred provincially and the NDP nationally. Manitoba and Saskatchewan are famous for this sort of vote splitting.
 
Interestingly, there was huge joy both at Tory and NDP post-mortems. Each saw their results as voter support of their party – and it was. What will become of the Liberals is for another day.
 
I suspect that there was great joy in both the BC Liberal and NDP camps. The Liberals will declare that what happens nationally to the Liberals doesn’t affect them, though I must churlishly remind Premier Clark that this wasn’t her view in the campaign. The premier will no doubt see this as a great victory for capitalism – Fraser Institute variety – and be tempted to have an early election to take benefit of the BC voter’s lurch to the right.
 
Except that’s not what happened. The Tories popular vote was up about 2% and the NDP up about 6%. Indeed, on those results the NDP is the one that should be antsy for an election, especially if either/both the Tories and BC First parties gain some traction.
 
The results are, sad to say, good news for those who want more fish farms, more private power, more pipelines and more oil tanker traffic. At least on the surface, for we’ll never really know how British Columbians feel about these issues until they are issues in a provincial election.
 
Unless Premier Clark is that rare politician that wants citizens to be fully informed before going to the polls, she will call a snap election in hopes that British Columbians will not be fully informed on these issues.
 
We mustn’t lose sight of the fact that the environmental catastrophes I mention are not offset by great financial gains – quite the opposite.
 
Fish Farm profits go mainly to Norwegian shareholders, while the private power producers send their ill-gotten gains to large out-of-province and out-of-country shareholders. The big loss is, of course, BC Hydro, which – according the Erik Andersen, an economist specializing in government finances – would, if in the private sector and unable to raise rates with impunity, be bankrupt or in bankruptcy protection.
 
In short, the environmental losses – much including our wild salmon – far from bringing revenue into the province cost us big time.
 
We at the Common Sense Canadian are concerned about a Tory majority and the possibility of it meaning Premier Clark will win a new majority. If British Columbia gives her that majority, they will be accepting the environmental outrages I mentioned above.
 
I don’t believe that British Columbians will buy those environmental catastrophes in a fair fight and we see it as our job to make sure it is fair.
 
We at the Common Sense Canadian pledge that we will have those issues on the table when the next election comes.
 
Thereafter, it’s BC’s choice.
 

Share

Financial Post: Conservative Majority Win Energizes Sector

Share

From the Financial Post – May 3, 2011

by Claudia Cattaneo

Stephen Harper’s big election sweep bodes well for Canada’s energy sector — but that doesn’t mean it will get a free pass.

While the Conservatives are now in a position to make decisions, they
are facing a strong NDP opposition with a big Quebec voice, as well as
continuing input from the large constituency of players with a say in
the energy agenda, from provincial governments to the environmental
movement.

“The worst thing the energy sector can do right now is to assume: ‘We
submit a laundry list and we get it.’ It’s not real,” said a senior
energy industry lobbyist.

“There will still be a lot of opposition influence, so things like
oil sands, climate change, are still issues. People shouldn’t think they
go away.”

Still, some immediate threats to industry expansion are off the table.

Plans to develop new markets for Canada’s oil in Asia are not likely
to be hindered by a ban on oil tanker traffic off northern B.C. coast
any time soon. During the campaign, Mr. Harper said he did not favour
formalizing the ban, which is supported by many British Columbians
worried about possible oil spills and was embraced by opposition
parties.

However, uncertainty over the Asian push remains in areas outside
federal control, such as B.C. First Nations and environmental
organizations opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline proposed by
Enbridge Inc.

Access to Asian market is key to industry growth.

“The current markets for oil and gas produced in B.C. and Alberta are
almost entirely continental, and those markets are in trouble,” Roger
Gibbins, president and CEO of the Canada West Foundation, said in a
statement Tuesday, calling for a full public discussion over whether
local communities should be able to block West Coast access of major
resource projects.

A cap-and-trade system proposed by the NDP and the Liberals is
probably on the back burner now, although other climate change
initiatives will continue to be a priority, with the lead coming from
outside Ottawa — the United States, interest groups, provincial
governments and even industry itself.

Rick George, president and CEO of Suncor Energy Inc., Canada’s
largest oil sands developer, suggested as much Tuesday when said he
expects progress on greenhouse gases to be made on many fronts,
including industry initiatives to reduce impact on air, land and ground.

“We are not the only oil company that feels like that and that are
making big investments in R&D and making a difference,” he said in a
conference call in response to an analyst question about his
expectations on greenhouse gas legislation now that the Conservatives
have a majority.

Ottawa’s support of the oil sands will also continue, but Ontario’s
contribution to the Tory majority will likely bring a more balanced view
of oil and gas development at the cabinet table.

Some Tory moves could even upset the oil patch. The Tories are now in
a position to move forward with the elimination of the Accelerated
Capital Cost Allowance for oil sands investment by 2015, which was
proposed in the budget and is worth $490-million. The Tories also
promised increased monitoring of environmental impacts.

Also, don’t rule out greater scrutiny of foreign takeovers, as more
energy companies court partners to accelerate development of projects,
whether in the oil sands in Alberta or in shale gas in British Columbia.

Now that he can, Mr. Harper may even be persuaded to take on the
development of a Canadian energy strategy, an initiative supported by
many groups, from think tanks to environmental organizations.

The problem is whether Mr. Harper wants to go down a road where
finding common ground and real solutions may be bigger than his newfound
majority.

Read original article

Share
Fish Lake - which Premier Christy Clark would see destroyed for a mine

Batten Down the Hatches! Time to Focus on Saving BC

Share

BC is a special place – so much so, its specialness requires no justification to those of us fortunate enough to have been born here, nor to those who’ve had the good sense to flee other parts of Canada and the world to make this their home. But BC’s uniqueness extends beyond its breathtaking geographical features, its iconic fish and wildlife, and its rich cultural diversity. We’re not Quebec – but we’re every bit as distinct  on this side of the Rockies from the rest of the country. I’m a proud Canadian – but I’m also a dyed-in-the-wool fourth generation British Columbian and I care very deeply about this particular province, as I know do many of my fellow British Columbians.

And so, in the aftermath of a federal election which granted Stephen Harper his fabled majority, it is crucial that we British Columbians now turn our attention to British Columbia. Our last defence of the environment and public interest here lies with our next provincial election.

In a country as large as ours, with a federalist system in which provinces hold a significant share of constitutional, budgetary, and governing responsibilities, the relative impact of a government on the lives of its people increases the closer to home it gets. The lion’s share of our daily services is provided by municipalities and regional districts; while most of our health care, education, and major resource decisions are made by the Province. I don’t point this out to downplay the importance of federal politics in shaping our society, but to remind BC voters that an even more momentous decision awaits us in the coming months or years (depending on Ms. Clark’s fancy), when we return to the polls to decide the future of BC.

It’s difficult for any concerned environmentalist here not to cringe when contemplating what Stephen Harper will now attempt to do to this province of ours – with regards to oil pipelines and tankers, natural gas fracking, fish farms, federal support for private power, etc. – but that’s nothing compared with the prospect of a renewed mandate for a BC Liberal government, which is even further right wing than Harper & co.

If you don’t believe that, look to Taseko Mines’ proposal to destroy Fish Lake in the Chilcotin region for a gold and copper mine. The application sailed right through BC’s paltry environmental assessment process, only to be halted in Ottawa by the Harper government.

Not even they could overlook the mountain of evidence from DFO and myriad scientific, conservationist, and indigenous interveners that suggested the ecological trade-offs were simply too great. The company had told the BC Liberal government it just had to destroy the lake, or the mine wouldn’t be economically viable – which the Liberals accepted without question. The company maintained this position until the very day after the feds rejected its plan, at which point – lo and behold! – it suddenly realized it could build the mine, make a healthy profit, and keep the lake! I believe that’s what Charlie Sheen calls WINNING!

But who was there, just one day before this extraordinary admission from Taseko Mines, to suggest that as premier she would impose on the prime minister to reverse his environment ministry’s decision and allow the company’s original lake-destroying plan? Christy Clark, who it now appears – and I never thought I’d find myself saying this – may be even further right than Gordon Campbell (making her a full two shuffles to the right of Harper)!!

Not only does this incident illustrate how stark, raving anti-environment, anti-public, and anti-First Nations the Clark administration is (it was the Tsilhqot’in people who led the fight to save their lake and territory from the mine), but it pokes a hole in the Liberals’ perceived economic competence – which the NDP needs to be able to undermine if they are to form government this time around. The BC Liberals allowed themselves to be fooled by a mining company, claiming it needed to destroy the lake, when it didn’t. The only difference was an extra $300 million in pure-profit dividends to shareholders, for cutting corners at the environment’s expense.

It’s the same story with private power in BC – another prime example of the financial folly of this government, made all the more comical by their sudden head scratching as to how on earth rates for Hydro consumers can be going through the roof after 10 years of prudent economic stewardship by their government. How could it be? We must strike a task force to get to the bottom of this! Of course, it has nothing to do with the $50 Billion of unnecessary, environmentally damaging private river power contracts we’ve signed at 2-3 times the market rate! (Note to Task Force: let’s be sure to leave that stone unturned).

So to those fiscally conservative folks in BC who went with Stephen Harper, I suggest we need to hedge our bets and install a progressive provincial government. With the combination of the 75-80% of citizens opposed to oil tanker traffic on our coast, backing up the the strong, unified First Nations opposition to Enbridge, plus the international attention building on the issue and a government on side in Victoria, I like our chances for protecting our coast from a catastrophic oil spill. But that provincial representation is essential in this equation. With both the feds and province walking in lockstep – or trying to outdo each other on who cares least for the environment – for the next four years, we’ll be in trouble.

So let’s not be suckers for the old myth of BC Liberal economic superiority. Let’s look critically at their staggering deficits and debt increases. Let’s acknowledge the NDP delivered better job growth throughout their decade in power (believe it – it’s a fact). Let’s admit that the Liberals have a ridiculous BC Place Stadium roof, a billion-dollar convention centre boondoggle, and wildly over-budget highway spending to the NDP’s fast ferries. Let’s agree that, regardless, jobs and economic growth can’t come at the expense of our environment and the public interest. Let’s survey the the political landscape, take stock of Harper’s victory and what that bodes for BC – and be smart about our future.

We may have several months or several years – or anything in between – but a provincial election is coming in BC and there’s a hell of a lot more riding on it for us British Columbians and our treasured environment than the federal one we (or half of us anyway) just voted in.

It’s time to batten down the hatches and save BC!

Share

The Tyee: Harper Let Loose – Political Panel Round-up

Share

From TheTyee.ca – May 3, 2011

by Tyee Staff & Contributors

HURRAY! TO THE LIFEBOATS!
Colleen Kimmett

“It’s like winning bingo on the Titanic,”
said my fellow election viewer Mitch Anderson, referring to Elizabeth
May’s win and Jack Layton’s minority in the wake of a Harper majority
this evening.

Watching the election results roll in with a
handful of others in Anderson’s apartment in East Vancouver felt indeed
like a historic event, even Titanic in the realm of Canadian politics.
The Bloc Quebecois is virtually dissolved, its leader resigned, and the
Liberal party is, as Peter Mansbridge put it, “near destruction.”

What it signifies for the future of Canada
is less certain. While some in the room tried to look on the bright side
— this election is a historic first for both the New Democratic and
Green parties — other were worried that, like the fated ship, their
Canada is sinking into a deep, dark place. Especially the artists, women
and homosexuals.

Jack Layton has a big job ahead of him, but
I think he could unite progressives in this country to defeat the
Conservatives in the next election. Working with his new Quebecois
cabinet will be a challenge, but perhaps the bigger challenge will be
breaking through to those who don’t identify with either French or
English speaking Canada. A victorious Conservative MP Jason Kenney told
the CBC’s Terry Milewski that internal party polling showed the new
Canadian vote, especially in the Greater Toronto Area, was a hugely
important to the Conservatives’ win.

I am an optimist. When there is a growing
chorus for change there will be equal push for things to remain
constant. I predict the next four years will be a polarizing, but
interesting period in Canadian politics.

Colleen Kimmett writes about food and environment for The Tyee and others.

HARPER CAN REALLY DO THE SPLITS
Charles Campbell

The biggest loser this election night is
not Michael Ignatieff or his Liberal party. It is the Canadian
electorate. As British Columbians should know rather well, the biggest
determinant in the outcome of many Canadian elections is which side of
the political spectrum splits its vote. In all but one of the last six
elections, the Conservative or Reform/Conservative vote has fallen
within two points of 38 per cent. The only true majority tonight is the
60 per cent of Canadians who didn’t get a government they supported at
the ballot box.

What happened to make this so? Of course it
began with that loveless marriage eight years ago of the two parties to
the right. Quebec yet again revealed its uncanny ability to vote with
one collective mind. Prime Minister Stephen Harper showed remarkable
skill in framing issues his way. The Liberals received the final payback
for decades of arrogance and, as Jack Layton so resonantly put it
during the English debate, sense of entitlement. Finally, the difference
in tone of the NDP and Liberal campaign ads revealed that Canadians are
more easily swayed by comedy than scare tactics.

And while the prognosticators and heir
apparent Bob Rae try and sort out the Liberals’ future, the rest of us
can now go home for four whole years, thankful we don’t have to face an
election we don’t want. Right?

Charles Campbell is a Tyee contributing editor.

WE MAY RUE THE BLOC COLLAPSE
Rafe Mair

There are a great many enormous questions
to be asked and answered. It would be foolish to think that Quebec
separatism has ended and indeed I would argue that the extent of the BQ
loss was bad news. While they were in Ottawa in some numbers, separatism
could be handled by dealing with the BQ across the floor. Now it is
leaderless even though their twin, the PQ, seems poised to win Quebec
provincially. It is as I said in a speech some years ago: “If there were
not a Bloc Quebecois we would have to invent one.”

 Separatism will be
different in Quebec. Although Stephen Harper has representation,
sovereignists will be looking at Jack Layton to express their ambitions
and he won’t do so. Prime Minister Harper will use the public purse as
best he can as is traditional, but I foresee a great deal of ferment
ahead.

Separatism has always been a political
force in Quebec and, like poison ivy, its venom waxes and wanes with the
moment. The target of the next incarnation of separatism will be what
Jacques inelegantly called the “ethnics.” This has been going on but the
pressure will increase once the Bloc and PQ sort out, in a blood bath,
who will lead what and where. They can count and know that separation
needs these “ethnics.”

British Columbia will be an interesting study. I
think many British Columbians, much like Albertans, have shrunk from
voting NDP because they were seen as a party of labour leaders,
professors and what my father would call “parlor pinks.” Layton, now at
least officially leading the “government in waiting,” has the
opportunity to gain for the NDP the traditional slightly leftish voter
who once voted Liberal or Red Tory.

Former Socred minister Rafe Mair’s column runs every other Monday in The Tyee.

Read full article

Share

Not a Good Night for BC’s Environment

Share

It was not, over all, a great night for environmentalists in BC with the very notable exception of the election of Elizabeth May as the first Green Party MP in our history. She will find that she has taken on the responsibility of being one of BC’s main spokespeople on environmental matters and The Common Sense Canadian looks forward to working with May and, of course, those other MPs who feel as we do about the environment and related issues. I make no apologies for not calling the election correctly – if I did that I would spend half my lifetime apologizing!
      
As the old saying has it, if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. So it is with us who have taken environmental issues on as a lifetime issue. It’s not that we don’t see, understand and have passion for other issues – rather that we see the environment as being urgent. If we get it wrong over the next few years – and the BC government and the Harper government have got it wrong – then the damage is forever. You simply cannot restore wild salmon runs or erase the damage of a catastrophic oil spill. On the economic side of the environment issue, if you lose your public power to private interests as we seem determined to do, it’s gone forever.
 
It must be stressed that we are not opposed to change where it is demonstrated to be in the public interest. We’re not Luddites out to destroy the “cotton ‘gin’” although any study of that time makes one very understanding of those who saw their livelihoods vanish to an unmanned factory that used to employ them. But – and this must be stressed – the environmental destroyers with their fish farms and private river monstrosities are not destroying jobs that exist – they are pleading the employment they bring as justification for their schemes. After short term construction jobs are over, the only jobs are as caretakers.
 
It’s not as if these huge companies bring us something we can’t do for ourselves – quite the opposite. Our wild salmon have sustained communities for generations and, in the case of First Nations, for eons. These fish farm companies use our resources to make fortunes for foreign shareholders.
Consider this: Fish farmers tell us that they can’t go to self contained methods because it’s too expensive.
 
Why is it too expensive?
 
Because they don’t have to pay for their farm now because we the people and the environment bear all the expense.
 
This is the same with private power companies – not only do they not make a sou for our province, not only do they not make power we can make ourselves for much cheaper, not only do they destroy our rivers, they do it at our expense. We pay their overhead!
 
This it is with bringing Tar Sands in pipelines across our province then down our coastline in tankers – we pay their overhead by taking all the risk!
 
The point I’m forcing is that it isn’t just a “green” issue but an economic one. We British Columbians pay all the overhead of fish farms, private power projects, pipelines and tanker traffic! And there’s nothing in it for us!

But don’t let me deceive you. If we were making bundles out of these deals I would oppose them with every effort I could summon. I would do so because it’s plain wrong. These fish, rivers, ecologies are like trust funds. They don’t belong to us.
 
Speaking for Damien and myself, The Common Sense Canadian, far from being set back by a Tory government, are challenged – and we love challenges. We see a number of MPs in a position to fight and well motivated for the battle ahead.

People vote in elections for many things. It is our challenge to see that when we have the next provincial election, saving our fish, our rivers, our public power, our wilderness and our coastline are front and centre issues.
 
 
 
 

Share

Rafe on the Eve of our Federal Election

Share

I write this on Saturday with less than two days to go before we vote. As might be expected from a paper whose editorial chief is a fellow of the Fraser Institute, the ill named Vancouver Sun, want a Tory majority. So does the Globe and Mail and I can hardly wait to see the Province’s opinion. I will not be taking their advice.
 
Elections ought to be about issues (a bit of profundity for you!) and not about Political Parties. One blog I read urges us not to vote “strategically” but stay loyal to our party so as to prevent an extension of the calamities of a minority government.
 
Let’s deal with that for a bit. What’s so bad about minority governments? Most western countries have them and they seem to be doing OK.
 
The main argument is that “nothing gets done” and that the parliament is full of catcalling and rude jibes.
 
Let me pose this proposition: Thank God Harper has been confined to leader of a minority government! Can you imagine what the bastards would have done had they be able to do as they pleased?
 
The noisy lack of discipline in the Commons shouldn’t bother us because it’s better to do it there with words rather than with sticks and stones on the street. For the most part this sort of behaviour speaks to the frustration of MPs who, because of our “first past the post” system, have virtually nothing to do with how the country is run.
 
Imagine yourself an MP in opposition and the majority brings in a budget that you see as evil. Of course your side has the Rules laying out privileges of “debate”, meaning a few in your party will be allowed to bitch loud and clear in a fight against the preordained government victory. The same applies to legislation – your side has a limited power to rail against it and when that time’s up, the government votes the bill into law.
 
Suppose that you’re an MP and the same bad buggers are in office but as a minority. The Finance Minister can no longer say, if just under his breath, “like it or lump it”. You and all other MPs suddenly have the whip hand. No longer can a minister bring in legislation on the “like it or lump it” basis.

Now there are practical limitations on the power of the minority to stop or at least slow down the government – no party wants a sudden untimely election on fiscal grounds if nothing else. But this applies to the government too.

What does happen is consultation amongst the parties. Surely that’s a very good thing, not evil as the tightly owned, government loving media would have us believe.
 
Minority governments can be coalitions yet still, the coalition will readily split if the larger party tries to ram it up the nearest bodily orifice.
 
Let’s talk about issues. For as long as I can remember (a long time I must admit) the issues have been healthcare, unemployment, social services, law and order and such matters. Every election brings those to office who sound like they are the ones to deal with these matters; they never do it and the next election is fought on the same grounds with the same speeches and the same results.
 
To my admittedly biased eye there are two issues before us that can and should be dealt with – Energy and its twin, the Environment. What makes these issues so critical is that unlike the other issues above, something can be done and the failure to do anything will have immediate and devastating impacts – and the damage is forever.
 
We in BC are expected to lie down like lambs and let the big international wolves “mine” the bitumen in the Tar Sands and send it across this province and put it in huge tankers who will take it through the most treacherous waters in the world. These actions are said to be almost “risk free”.
 
In fact a never-ending risk is not a risk any more but a certainty waiting to happen. Worse than that, the bitumen is hugely destructive and all but impossible to control as we saw last year with Enbridge’s spill into the Kalamazoo River and with the Exxon Valdez. Enbridge has an appalling record and wants approval to transport their bitumen across over 1000 km of our land, traversing more than 1000 rivers and streams then down our hugely dangerous coast in supertankers.
 
The Conservatives, through the mouth of the Prime Minister, have made it clear that they don’t understand the nature of our coast, comparing it to the East Coast and the Great Lakes. Under a Tory government, the pipeline and shipping will take place without hindrance – indeed likely with government assistance.
 
Harper has already shown his contempt for our native salmon by making a substantial grant of taxpayer money to Plutonic Power, which is General Electric in drag and having a half wit as a Fisheries Minister who attends Farm Fishery conference encouraging them to do even more damage to our wild salmon.
 
Mr. Ignatieff is opposed to the pipeline and tanker traffic as is Mr. Layton (as is the Green Party, of course).
 
You and I are told by the newspapers that we should vote for Mr. Harper, but why?
 
Fiscal expertise?
 
Harper didn’t create our banking system which kept the country from the fate of so many others – he inherited it. At the same time the Harper Government racked up the largest deficit in history.
 
Foreign Affairs where he cost Canada a seat on the UN Security Council?
 
Health and other social issues? Surely not even the Vancouver and their bosom buddy, the right wing think tank, the Fraser Institute which has screamed for even greater cuts in social programs. They haven’t the slightest concern about saving our environment from huge corporate predators who don’t give a fiddler’s fart for our salmon, our rivers or our home-owned BC Hydro.
 
I won’t tell you who I’ll vote for but it sure as hell won’t be the Conservatives.

Share

Elizabeth May calls for end to open net-cage fish farms on B.C. coast

Share

From the Vancouver Sun – April 29, 2011

by Postmedia News

SIDNEY, B.C. — Green Party leader Elizabeth May called Friday for an
end to open net-cage fish farms in order to protect wild salmon off the
British Columbia coast.

“After I am elected to Parliament
on Monday, the Green party will be positioned to push louder than ever
before for a rapid phase-out of open-ocean net-cage fish farms and to
ensure that this aquaculture industry does not continue to harm wild
salmon populations through sea lice, viruses and pollution,” May said at
a news conference in Sidney.

May said there are many
problems associated with open net-cage fish farming, including transfer
of diseases and parasites to wild salmon, the use of wild fish as feed
for farmed fish, the dispersal of tonnes of solid waste and nutrients
into the surrounding waters and the problematic use of antibiotics in
farmed fish.

Read original article

Share
Nobel Prize-winning economist John Kenneth Galbraith - who frowned on

The Right Wing Myth of Trickle-Down Economics

Share

My colleague Rafe is fond of citing a line from Canadian-born Nobel Prize-winning economist John Kenneth Galbraith in response to the theory of trickle-down economics:

“If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.”

Galbraith clearly didn’t believe in trickle-down economics – and unless you are the horse in this metaphor, neither should you.

Yet, as voters prepare to cast their ballots in a federal election, and provincial campaigning revs up in BC, the time-worn myth of trickle-down economics is being roundly deployed by right wing parties at both the provincial and federal levels.

The orange wave washing unexpectedly over the federal political landscape has forced Stephen Harper to adjust his carefully planned and tightly scripted anti-Liberal-led coalition message. The Conservative campaign’s predictable reflex has been to question the economic qualifications of the NDP. Among the primary arrows in Harper’s quiver is the trickle-down theory. Jack Layton wants to roll back corporate taxes to 2008 levels of 19.5 %, as opposed to the 16.5% they’re at now. Compared with the 15% to which Harper wants to further drop the rate, that’s a difference of up to $9 Billion a year to our federal tax coffers (this while we rack up a $50 Billion deficit under the stewardship of our fiscally prudent Conservative governors). Layton plans to spend that money on hospitals, education, and job creation for the middle class – not what Bay Street had in mind.

Of course, the Conservatives argue a 19.5% corporate tax rate would render Canada hopelessly uncompetitive in the global marketplace. Never mind the fact the United States’ corporate tax rates range as high as 35%, while Britain’s sits currently at 28%. Go figure. But Harper says taking that money away from corporations will mean less money infused into our economy. Which is where we come to the horses and sparrows.

The myth is that those extra profits will be recirculated into society through investment in plant and equipment, research and development, and expanded operations, yielding new jobs and pumping capital into the economy. But only if it doesn’t get gobbled up by increased dividends to largely foreign shareholders first. Which is mostly what really happens.

Take Exxon Mobil, for example – a major player in Canada’s Tar Sands and beneficiary of big federal and provincial subsidies. The company just posted a $10.7 BILLION QUARTERLY PROFIT – up 69% from last year. And they’re not alone – ginormous profits abound for the oil and gas industry, as for Canadian banks. And yet somehow they – ahead of every other demographic and sector in our country – deserve a tax break and other financial inducements, just to keep up the onerous burden of making billions of dollars in Canada.

As if they would pack up and go elsewhere were we to suddenly wise up and tweak the rules ever so slightly in the favour of the 99.99% of the public that doesn’t sit on the board of an oil company or earn half a million dollars a year on Bay Street. We have the oil, the gold, the copper, the electricity, the water, the trees they need to make these enormous profits. If we’re smart about how we manage our public resources, they’re not going anywhere. It’s called leverage. We have a lot of it – we just don’t use it because our corporate-aligned leaders don’t want us to.

The Trouble With Billionaires is a terrific recent book by Canadian authors Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks – probably the best-constructed indictment of this way of thinking. In it they illustrate just how severe the gap between rich and poor has become in recent decades – levels of wealth concentration never before seen. It left me pondering whether it was even physically possible for, say, Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle Software – worth an estimated $40 Billion personally – to spend his money faster than it accrued interest.

Imagine how many visits to Tiffany’s and the Rolls-Royce dealership, how much caviar and champagne it would take every day to spend even a fraction of that wealth. According to McQuaig and Brooks (adjusting upward for the extra $13 Billion Ellison has amassed since they published their book last year), he would need to spend about half a million dollars per hour just to get through the interest on his principal! And yet Mr. Ellison felt justified in suing several municipalities and school boards in Northern California where he owns a stately ranch, successfully recouping 3 million dollars in property taxes. How many teachers lost their jobs to pay for Mr. Ellison’s tax break? And how does one man owning and holding that much wealth help the economy – your and my economy?

Make no mistake, the same tricks will be used in BC against the NDP. Obscure the economic realities – like the fact the NDP delivered 3% job growth in BC over its decade in power through the 90’s compared to closer to 2% for the Liberals during their tenure. The Tyee’s Will McMartin has done a far better job than the NDP’s own PR people on comparing and contrasting the two parties’ real economic track records – countering the Liberal myth of their own economic superiority (trumpeted only too readily by the mainstream media in BC).

And of course, newly-minted NDP leader Adrian Dix is being framed as a hard-left “Stalinist” (the Province actually referred to him this way), especially as he talks of raising corporate taxes and getting tougher with environmental regulation. 

But the bottom line is the right – and I mean the neo-liberal Milton Friedman/Fraser Institute Right to which the BC Liberals and to some extent the federal Conservatives belong – has done such a good job of inculcating this myth into the North American psyche that it can still prove an incredibly powerful tool. When honed to the extent the BC Liberals have been able to do in BC, it works without requiring a shred of supporting evidence. It’s accepted on faith – pure, unadulterated dogma.

And if it remains that way, both trickle-down economics and the parties who purvey this philosophy to the exclusive benefit of their corporate pals will keep filling their pockets – while we sparrows go hungry.

Share

NDP trail Tories by just three points, new poll finds

Share

From the National Post – April 27, 2011

by Kathryn Blaze Carlson

Conservative leader Stephen Harper no longer enjoys a comfortable
lead ahead of the surging NDP, as a new poll shows the left-leaning
party swelling to within just a few points of the reigning Tories.

According to the latest Forum Research poll, Jack Layton’s party
enjoys the support of 31% of those surveyed — only three points behind
the governing Conservatives, who fell to 34% from the 36% support the
party gleaned as of April 21. The Liberals, having been reduced to third
place in a slew of recent polls, dwindled to 22% in this latest survey,
while the Bloc Quebecois remained unchanged at 6%.

If these numbers are reflected on polling day, the NDP could grow
from 37 to 108 seats in the House of Commons, forming the official
opposition in a Parliament that would host 137 Tory MPs, 60 Liberals,
and just 3 Bloc representatives. The poll, based on a telephone survey
of 3,150 randomly selected eligible voters across the country, was
conducted on Tuesday.

“With the NDP continuing to gain steam from coast to coast, and both the
Liberal and Conservative party support lagging, the key question now is
whether the NDP have the ground troops to deliver their vote on
election day,” Lorne Bozinoff, president of Forum Research, said in a
press release.

Read full article

Share