Check out this new cartoon from Gerry Hummel. Christy Clark says she isn’t taking a position on the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines – but as we revealed this week, this BC Liberal “neutrality” is a myth. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is quite conspicuously throwing everything but the kitchen sink at opponents of the pipeline, causing the mainstream media to begin questioning his tactics.
“The Development of Nothern Gateway is job one.”
– Christy Clark shorty after becoming Premier
“With respect to northern gateway, let me say our government is pro pipeline,” says the Premier of British Columbia.
Christy Clark made this claim in question period last week. She did so while berating the NDP for opposing the project on the grounds that they are doing so prematurely and without adequate information to make an informed opinion.
This is the definitive moment that marks the turning point in the now long standing myth that the BC liberals are “neutral” or have chosen to take “no position” on the Northern Gateway Pipeline. And it was done with the stunning Liberal hypocrisy we have been forced to endure for too long.
By now anyone following the Joint Review Panel on the Northern Gateway Project is well aware that the process is deeply flawed, politically driven and resembles more of a dog and pony show than anything remotely close to an extensive review of the pertinent environmental and economic issues.
The BC Liberals have proven that they do support pipelines, no matter what the cost, just as the Premier admitted in Question Period. They have done so for a long time and with little if any understanding of the far reaching economic and environmental ramifications. And the only reason they cling to a false front of neutrality is to maintain the now long standing cover up of their complicity in advancing pipeline projects.
The myth that they maintain a neutral stance dominates the mainstream barrage of coverage. This is done in order to provide the political escape hatch this government may require in order to cling to power. It also is done to perpetuate the “mass deception” governments, oil and media have undertaken, according to Robyn Allan former ICBC CEO, who has worked to uncover the misdeeds of government and industry boosters.
The time for the Liberal myth of ‘neutrality’ and so called ‘respect for public processes’ has come to an end. This will happen in large part due to the effort of concerned and informed citizens who, at great risk, have not only fully explored the issues but have also uncovered reams of data supporting their claims including unseemly bilateral agreements, extensive economic analysis and strategic components of the proposals that have been kept from the public. The now retired former CEO of ICBC Robyn Allan outlines some of these major concerns in this presentation and her recent open letter to the Premier.
Most recently Ms. Allan has completed a report entitled “Proposed Pipeline and Tanker Spill Risk for BC.” In this exhaustive report Robyn shines the light on how these pipeline proposals have been designed to “low ball” the pipeline capacity in favour of adding additional capacity in the future. This strategy allows for a 60% increase in the daily flow of diluted bitumen in the case of Enbridge’s proposal and in so doing does an end run on exhaustive environmental assessments that would be required had they originally proposed the full capacity. The following is from her report:
There is no reason to believe that the true environmental risk represented by the Northern Gateway Project is being—or ever will be—adequately addressed. The current JRP process has excluded a significant portion of the project’s actual capacity and its implications for pipeline spill and marine spill, while in the future, there is no statutory obligation to do so. All indications from the Federal government suggests there will be no political will either.
Ms. Allan goes on to demand that BC regain its statutory right to a final decision on the Northern Gateway Project:
The government of British Columbia [needs] to take action and protect BC’s statutory right for final decision for this project by removing Northern Gateway from the Equivalency Agreement with
the NEB.
As a result of the fine work of Ms. Allan and others like her, the national and provincial mainstream media has been forced to cover the duplicitous nature of the Liberal stickhandling of this issue despite having moved mountains to maintain the delicate mythology that the liberals have “not taken a position on the issue.” And the blogosphere has lit up (too many to link to) revealing this documentation that proves the Liberals are not only far from neutral but have taken outstanding measures in order to ensure that the pipeline projects proceed virtually unhindered by issues in the best economic interest of British Columbians and our environment.
People concerned about the future of our Province should view Robyn’s presentation and support her recent request for Cabinet to revoke the nearly two year old Equivalency Agreement which diminishes our ability to influence major projects in our Province. Also take the time to read her most recent report and follow up on her request to bring these issues to the attention of the Premier.
And, while we are at it we should encourage the environment Minister to explain why he delegated his Ministerial powers as outlined in section 27 of the act, onto senior staff which enabled the “Equivalency Agreement”, that forfeits our sovereign ability to properly review, participate and influence not just the Northern Gateway Project but four major proposed infrastructure developments. All of which will alter the very fabric of our Province and set BC on a course to a very bleak future. The relevant act clearly outlines the Minister has the right to enter into these agreements, not staff. It seems this was done in order to avoid political scrutiny while greasing the skids for major projects not necessarily in the best interest of British Columbians.
Furthermore, the Equivalency Agreement was absolutely unnecessary as there already was a long-standing agreement in place that would have allowed for Joint Review Panels to be established in order to prevent duplication. Indeed this was the entire purpose of this long standing, renewable agreement. The Minister should explain why he delegated his power to staff to establish the Equivalency Agreement, under what direction and for what purposes given the fact it was entirely unnecessary in order to “avoid duplication” or “streamline” the already entrenched agreement.
Equivalency Agreements were at one time an administrative tool used exclusively by Alberta to allow for that Province to undertake reviews and avoid duplication by the Federal Government. In recent highly contentious legislation, the use of Equivalency Agreements was forwarded by the Harper government to remove the Federal review components on so called “minor projects” making the Provinces sole arbiters. Given that Taseko’s Fish Lake project was rejected by the Federal process but passed the provincial assessment we gain insight into why Harper made these adjustments.
However, in the case of the Equivalency Agreement in British Columbia the exact opposite is occurring and the Province is being cut out of the process in order “to avoid duplication.” This stands in stark contrast to both the traditional application of these agreements and how they are being currently utilized by this government. Our environment Minister needs to clarify why. Otherwise, it seems that not only are they using it to remove the Province from the equation but they are doing so against the grain of the common application of these agreements, while at the same time ignoring the act which dictates the Minister makes these arrangements, not staff.
We should also be asking our Environment Minister when and where the required public notice for this Equivalency Agreement occurred, because in order for an Equivalency Agreement to be enabled it requires notice and a 60 day time period for input on behalf of stakeholders and interested participants.Furthermore, after the 60 day period is complete, the agreement is supposed to be published by the Minister, or put in the Gazette. None of which occurred.
These striking anomalies just scratch the surface of the evidence that the BC Liberals have had an agenda for many years which involved a multi-faceted approach designed to set the legal and administrative stage for the successful development of exhaustive infrastructure projects in order to export Alberta’s Dirty Dilbit. It was done so by intentionally removing the capacity of British Columbian stakeholders to influence the decision making and outcomes while ensuring we had no significant leverage or capacity to negotiate beneficial economic arrangements.
Its time to end the deception and mythology surrounding the future of British Columbia and the oil and gas agenda and start planning a future that benefits all British Columbians.
Kevin Logan was a Ministerial Assistant to former Premier and Minister of Energy Mines and Northern Development Dan Miller.
Read this story and listen to audio clip from CBC.ca on former Conservative Fisheries Minister Tom Siddon’s outspoken opposition to Stephen Harper’s proposed gutting of the habitat protections of the Fisheries Act in his omnibus Budget Bill. (May 1, 2012)
The former Tory minister responsible for the current Fisheries Act is openly criticizing his successor over proposed changes to the legislation.
Tom Siddon, who was minister of Fisheries and Oceans from 1985 until 1990 for Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives, says he is extremely concerned by the amendments being championed by Keith Ashfield, the current minister.
“The minister of fisheries is the one remaining and most powerful person in Canada to protect this marvelous, historically important resource we have in Canada – our fishery. That’s his job,” he said Tuesday during an interview for CBC Radio’s The Current.
Omnibus Bill C-38, which is before Parliament this week, covers an array of legislation, including changes to the Environmental Assessment Act, the National Pipeline Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Exploration Act. Although the changes to the Fisheries Act are not the only flashpoints, they have hit a nerve with critics.
Read story and listen to audio clip: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/05/01/tom-siddon-fisheries-act-criticism.html
The following letter was originally published on economist and former President and CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Robyn Allan’s blog, robynallan.com.
April 19, 2012
Dear Premier Clark,
Your government has not spoken out for or against the Northern Gateway pipeline proposed by Enbridge Inc., rather preferring to wait until the National Energy Review Board process is complete. I am writing to you today to explain that, unfortunately the current Northern Gateway environmental and public interest process is flawed and as a result the public interest of BC is not protected.
The Federal government, as I am sure you are aware, has publicly endorsed the project, stated it is in the national interest of Canada, and has systematically demonized individuals and groups who oppose the project. This behaviour has made a travesty of the necessary arms length relationship between government and an independent regulatory body.
As long as there was some sense that the Joint Review Panel (JRP) was independent and had the authority to reject the proposal regardless of the political pressure imposed by the Prime Minister’s Office, a semblance of due process was maintained. That necessary condition was violated when Federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver unveiled proposed legislation on April 17, 2012.
The Federal Government now intends to further weaken environmental protection and favour large oil companies operating, primarily, in Alberta. This has betrayed any remaining trust in federal energy decisions as they relate to the province of British Columbia.
With the overhaul of the environmental assessment rules and process, and making final decision on oil pipelines—such as the Enbridge Northern Gateway and proposed Kinder Morgan projects—a Federal cabinet prerogative, there is no confidence that the Government of Canada will make decisions that will be in the best public interest of the residents of this province.
A major change in policy in the midst of nation breaking events such as Northern Gateway or Kinder Morgan requires deliberate action on the part of your Office to protect the public interest trust and rights of BC residents and First Nations.
Certainly when the NEB process for Northern Gateway commenced in June 2010, the BC government thought the JRP would be objective and have the power to recommend a binding decision which would reflect the public interest of British Columbians and Canadians. I can imagine that the safety and efficiency inherent in one independent review body—which the NEB was believed to be at the time—and the belief that our public interest would be protected were reasons why the Liberal government of BC under the leadership of Gordon Campbell, felt it acceptable to sign away our right to conduct an environmental assessment under B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Act.
During my review of the Enbridge economic documents as part of their Application to the NEB, I wondered why there was no real or meaningful review of their case by various ministries of the BC government. The deliberate intent in the Enbridge documents to increase the price of oil for Canadian consumers and businesses, and the lack of concern over the impact our petro-currency has on forestry, agriculture, tourism and manufacturing, appeared to be glaring examples of an economic case intent on presenting only the benefits to the oil industry without due consideration to the economic costs for the rest of us. The development of a strategy to export raw crude to Asia at the cost of value added jobs and control over environmental standards also seemed worthy of provincial comment.
I felt surely, there should be professional economists, paid by taxpayers, that would stand up and present a fair picture of the macroeconomic impact rapid resource expansion and export has on the economy of British Columbia, not to mention the threat to the environment and First Nations rights. That is when I discovered that BC had signed away the right to actively assess the project. I then understood that not only have you, as Premier, elected to remain silent on the issue, but our provincial departments have effectively been muzzled as well.
I draw to your attention the Environmental Assessment Equivalency Agreement signed between the NEB and BC’s Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) on June 21st, 2010. I have attached a link to the agreement for your ease of recall.
Essentially the agreement states that the EAO will accept the NEB’s environmental assessment for four proposed projects, including the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, which would otherwise have to be reviewed under BC’s Environmental Assessment Act. The NEB’s review would be treated as an equivalent assessment.
If the province of BC had not signed away its right to the NEB, under the terms of the legislation the EAO would have had to undertake a review. According to the EAO, it is a “neutral agency that manages the review of proposed major projects in British Columbia, as required by the Environmental Assessment Act. The environmental assessment process provides for the thorough, timely and integrated assessment of the potential environmental, economic, social, heritage, and health effects that may occur during the lifecycle of these projects, and provides for meaningful participation by First Nations, proponents, the public, local governments, and provincial agencies.”
We have the power within BC to undertake meaningful environmental assessment within provincial jurisdiction, but signed it away. However, not all is lost. Clause 6 of the Environmental Assessment Equivalency Agreement states: ”Either Party may terminate this Agreement upon giving 30 days written notice to terminate the other Party”.
May I recommend that the Government of British Columbia inform the Government of Canada that the province is now exercising its right with 30 days notice in order that it may undertake a proper environmental assessment under the terms of the provincial Environmental Assessment Act, for the Enbridge project, and it will not entertain signing such an agreement for the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline.
This action will ensure that the public interest of the people of BC will be protected and will not be severely curtailed by the actions of the Government of Canada favouring primarily Alberta’s oil producers.
Sincerely,
Original Signed by Robyn Allan
Robyn Allan
cc. Dr. Terry Lake, Minister of the Environment
Mr. Adrian Dix, Leader of the Opposition
Mr. Rob Fleming, Environment Critic
Mr. John Cummins, Conservative Leader
Mr. John van Dongen, Conservative MLA
Mr. Bob Simpson, Independent MLA
Ms. Vicki Huntington, Independent MLA
Read this story from the Globe and Mail on the Harper Government’s assertion of ultimate control over the approval of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and other major industrial projects. (April 17, 2012)
The federal government is asserting its control over pipelines – including the proposed Northern Gateway oil-sands project – taking from regulators the final word on approvals and limiting the ability of opponents to intervene in environmental assessments.
In proposed legislation unveiled by Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver on Tuesday, the Harper government will clear away regulatory hurdles to the rapid development of Canada’s natural resource bounty.
Ottawa is aiming to reduce the number of projects that undergo federal environmental assessment by exempting smaller developments completely and by handing over many large ones to the provinces. It will also bring in new measures to prevent project opponents from delaying the assessment process by flooding hearings with individuals who face no direct impacts but want to speak against the development.
At a Toronto press conference, Mr. Oliver said the proposed changes are aimed at providing quicker reviews in order to reduce regulatory uncertainty and thereby create more jobs and investment in Canada’s booming resource sector.
“We are at a critical juncture because the global economy is now presenting Canada with an historic opportunity to take full advantage of our immense resources,” he said. “But we must seize the moment. These opportunities won’t last forever.”
Ottawa is aiming to reduce the number of projects that undergo federal environmental assessment by exempting smaller developments completely and by handing over many large ones to the provinces. It will also bring in new measures to prevent project opponents from delaying the assessment process by flooding hearings with individuals who face no direct impacts but want to speak against the development.
At a Toronto press conference, Mr. Oliver said the proposed changes are aimed at providing quicker reviews in order to reduce regulatory uncertainty and thereby create more jobs and investment in Canada’s booming resource sector.
“We are at a critical juncture because the global economy is now presenting Canada with an historic opportunity to take full advantage of our immense resources,” he said. “But we must seize the moment. These opportunities won’t last forever.”
Resource-rich western provinces greeted the proposed changes warmly, saying they are eager to take over environmental assessments. Mr. Oliver said Ottawa will only transfer authority for project reviews to provinces that have similar standards as the federal government.
Provinces in central and Atlantic Canada were more cautious, wanting to know more details before drawing conclusions.
Environmental groups and some aboriginal leaders said the government is sacrificing environmental protection for development, and is intent on railroading all opposition to its vision of rapid development of oil sands and other resources.
Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, a $5.5 billion project that is intended to move the crude from Alberta’s tar sands to BC’s West Coast for shipment by supertankers to Asia and other parts of the world, is providing illuminating insights into the gulf of differences separating proponents and opponents. Perhaps this is most clearly expressed by Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, whose recently released letter (January, 2012) accused “environmental and other radical groups” of attempting to “hijack our regulatory system” to achieve “their radical ideological agenda.”
His accusation may be true. But his terminology is reversed. The so-called “radicals” are really “conservatives” while those in government and industry favouring the pipeline are the “radicals”.
Those attempting to halt the pipeline and slow development of the tar sands are trying to restrain the ideological mania for resource extraction that is ripping across the provinces and country these days. Their objective is not only to protect the natural environment that is the fundamental source of our wealth, but to conserve our non-renewable oil and gas — not to mention the minerals, trees, water, fish and other resources that identify Canada’s natural riches — for a more cautious and careful future use. They are keen to remind Canada’s government that the country has no national energy policy and, therefore, no way of anticipating the effect of present extraction on future energy security, economic opportunity and social impacts. To the opponents of the Northern Gateway pipeline, today’s wholesale extraction and export of raw resources poses innumerable environmental threats but also robs tomorrow of possibilities. This is hardly the position of “radicals”.
With a perspective that is longer than the next election cycle, the 4,300 people who are registered as speakers during the proceedings of the “regulatory system” — most of them will be opposing it — are using the only avenue available to them to indicate their concern for a project that will inevitably cause an oil spill in pristine rivers and valleys, not to mention an ocean coast that is noted world-wide for its marine bounty and wild beauty. If this concern is a “radical ideological agenda”, then their critics must surely be possessed of a reckless irresponsibility that is truly menacing.
Unfolding events suggest that this may be the case. The same established thinking that wants to build the Northern Gateway pipeline has recently engineered the near-collapse of the world’s entire financial system. It is also busily dismantling the fundamental ecological structures that allow for a diversity of life on Earth. The traumatic effect of massive greenhouse gas emissions on climate and weather should give any thoughtful person nightmares. And the eventual consequences of ocean acidification has implications for the planet that are obscene and dire — a similarly acidic ocean once caused 95 percent of marine and terrestrial species to disappear from existence. Anyone who is aware of these prospects and is not taking immediate and drastic remedial measures must be deemed “radical”, if not irresponsible and ideologically dangerous.
Some informed economists question the wisdom of unrestrained resource extraction. Without long-term planning and the accompanying processing infrastructure that benefits a country’s entire economy and society, the end result of an export policy of raw resources will be, as one economist aptly phrased it, an impoverished country “with a lot of holes in the ground” — not exactly a promising prospect.
Such a prospect is worrying an increasing number of people these days. They perceive a hyper-active system of excessive production and consumption that is functioning beyond sustainability and headed for a crash. Some of these worried people are economists, politicians and philosophers. Others are bankers and industrialists. Even those who don’t have the sophistication to articulate their apprehension can sense trouble. And they are becoming increasingly cynical. The Occupy Movement wants financial reform and a re-evaluation of our entire economic system. And the environmental community, in all its many forms, wants the destruction of nature to stop while viable remnants of it still exist. They are “conservative” in the sense that they want to “preserve” the ecosystems that sustain us, hardly the “radicals” of Joe Oliver’s designation.
The real “radicals”, it might be argued, are those with an ideological compulsion to pillage the planet — to drill and mine, to frack and pump, to build and extract, to cut and burn, to take and level with an obsessive abandon that history will deem pathological. An ideology that holds nothing sacred but money and profit is doomed to fail. “The catch with a growth economy,” as the film The Great Squeeze points out, “is that there is no stopping point.” It continues to grow until it self-destructs.
This explains why the Northern Gateway pipeline project has become so important. It is now iconic, a symbol to its opponents of a system out of control, of an ideology on a destructive rampage, blindly undeterred by fatal risks to a primal wilderness and a treasured coast of virgin rainforest. The system is not even deterred by a living planet besieged with life-destroying gases. If such an economy is not stopped here, where will it be stopped?
The language in Joe Oliver’s letter is ideological and challenging. But he has his terms reversed. The “radicals are the “conservatives” and the “conservatives” are the “radicals”.
Until this year, the purpose of the annual Canadian federal budget was to project government revenues, lay out spending priorities and forecast economic conditions for the upcoming year. Reading Budget 2012, announced last week by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, it soon becomes clear that this government has no intention of being encumbered by pedestrian fiscal objectives. The Harper government has instead opted to present what is first and foremost a policy document – one that brazenly asserts the government’s ideological agenda for the coming three years.
If the overriding economic policy goal of this government was not apparent previously, with the release of Budget 2012, there can no longer be any doubt. The Harper gang has dispensed with even the pretense of meeting its basic environmental fiduciary responsibilities in favour of the almost totally unimpeded exploitation of Canadian resources. As Green Party leader Elizabeth May told me this week, the government is effectively telling the Canadian people that they plan “to eviscerate existing laws. This isn’t really a fiscal statement. They’ve used the budget as an instrument of massive overhaul of environmental law and policy and the overriding directive is oil and gas at all costs – the environment be damned.”
Should you happen to belong to the unlucky (and clearly misguided) lot with the audacity to be concerned about the proposed Enbridge and Kinder Morgan pipelines, this is not a budget for you. In fact, perhaps the best we can say about Budget 2012 is, as Rafe Mair put it, at least “we now have it in writing what the bastards are up to!”
Just how bad is it? Well, don’t take my word for it. Last week on CBC, the respected columnist Chantale Hebert of the Toronto Star, hardly an eco-zealot, said this was the most anti-environment budget she had seen in her 20 years covering Parliament Hill. Even the very moderate, if not conservative, editorial board of the Globe and Mail singled out the environmental provisions in the Budget saying “The Conservatives are continuing their dishonourable attack meant to intimidate environmental groups, in a budget item that stands out for adding a needless new cost.”
Steven Guilbeault of the NGO Équiterre said that the budget “seems to have been written for, and even by, big oil interests…the Harper government is gutting the environmental protections that Canadians have depended on for decades to safeguard our families and nature from pollution, toxic contamination and other environmental problems.” And true to form, reaction from oil and gas companies, mining and pipeline companies has been predictably jubilant.
So just what does the Harper government plan to do? First, in what appears to be a return to the glory days of McCarthyism, the Harper gang plans to launch an $8 million campaign at Revenue Canada to investigate and crack down on environmental groups that the government deems are engaged in activities that are too political, including the extent to which these groups are funded by foreign sources.
There is no new funding for climate change programs. In fact the words climate change are mentioned only twice in passing in the entire 498 page budget plan.
The Conservatives will eliminate the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, which was a panel of business and environmental leaders who made policy recommendations on a variety of sustainability issues. A widely respected, non-partisan agency, the Roundtable was founded by the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney in 1988. Its reports of late, however, had annoyed the government as they were mildly critical of their plans to achieve its stated objective of reducing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. The result? The Harper government has killed them.
Environment Canada’s budget is being cut again, this time by 6%, along with grants for scientific research in universities.The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (or CEAA) is in line for a 40 per cent cut. Touting a ‘one project, one review’ principle, CEAA will be overhauled with federal responsibilities being downloaded on provinces; newly imposed timelines, and a limiting of the scope of reviews. Joint panel environmental reviews are to be limited to 24 months, National Energy Board hearings to 18 months and standard environmental assessments to one year. All this will be imposed retroactively, thereby impacting reviews, such as Northern Gateway, that are currently underway. The changes could jeopardize the capacity of people to participate in reviews and it further undermines the ultimate goal of reviews in ensuring environmental protection is a priority in all projects.
The budget does not renew funding for the popular EcoENERGY energy efficiency program. Minimal tax support will be given to ‘clean energy’ and energy efficiency, but only to the tune of $2 million – a tiny drop in the bucket in a multi-billion dollar budget.
Finally, some changes are planned for subsidies to the oil and gas industry on Canada’s East coast but tar sands subsidies remain untouched. Currently, $1.38 billion a year is allocated to energy development through subsidies.
Although not specifically mentioned in the Budget plan, the government is also widely suspected to be planning to gut key conservation provisions of Canada’s Fisheries Act, the nation’s most significant and oldest piece of environmental legislation. The Aboriginal People’s Television Network has also learned that that the Harper Conservatives are changing Canada’s mining regulations so that prospecting companies could soon have free-reign on reserve lands.
So what to make of all this? If the stakes weren’t so high, we may otherwise see this Budget as an unfortunate aberration, a government that clearly has an axe to grind or some kind of vendetta against environmental groups. Yet it’s important to appreciate the significance of what the Harper gang is trying to accomplish: namely, to clear the way for resource development projects that will not easily be undone. The environmental legacy of this government will be felt for a long time to come if they are permitted to implement their agenda unimpeded.
A prestigious conference was held last week, at which some of the world’s leading scientists and academics called for the official designation of a new earth epoch: the Anthropocene. Addressing the ‘Planet under Pressure’ gathering in London, England, scientists said that one species has left an indelible mark through climate change, dwindling fish stocks, continued deforestation, rapid species decline, and human population growth. Anthony Giddens, the British political scientist known for his holistic view of societies, described the Anthopocene as a “runaway world” in which we have unleashed processes more powerful than our attempts to control them.
It is against this dismal backdrop that our federal politicians have unleashed the anti-environmental provisions of Budget 2012 upon the Canadian people. I’ve recently been seeing a bumper sticker that captures quite nicely the priorities of our current federal government: “At least the war on the environment is going well.”
The Heiltsuk First Nation learned late Monday that scheduled National Energy Board hearings on the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline will resume Tuesday in Bella Bella, following their cancellation Monday in the wake of a peaceful demonstration to which the Joint Review Panel overreacted. Heiltsuk Chief Marilyn Slett is, however, concerned that the panel will not be adding extra hearing days to make up for Monday’s lost testimony time. Meanwhile, students from the community embarked on a hunger strike to protest proposed oil supertankers which threaten their traditional marine food resources.
I think the Harper budget is a plus for the environment.
It comes in a way from a roundabout look at things.
The government will take habitat protection out of the Fisheries Act and will put developments on a “fast track”.
Why is this good news?
Because we now have it in writing what the bastards are up to!
It really all comes down to the Environmental Assessment hearings that are used to give the government the right to do what they intended to do all along. What they’re supposed to do, of course, is make us all feel as if we’ve had input which, of course, we haven’t and never will have.
It goes to the root of the matter. I daresay that 90%+ of those attending those meetings want to have a say as to whether the project is a wise one that the public can support on its merits; instead, it’s only to hear what we have to say on various environmental aspects. The reality is, no matter what this committee says, the government will do as it pleases.
Now, as we digest that, we realize that the project is going ahead and always was going ahead and that the meetings are shams – expensive shams.
This all goes back to the Kemano II of the mid 80s where the long and the short of it was that Alcan wanted to take even more water out of the Nechako River through which critical sockeye runs pass on their way to the Stuart system to spawn.
The issues were beyond debate. DFO scientists, two years before the deal was struck, did a careful study by several of their best scientists who said NO WAY! It was a long, thorough effort that never saw the light of day until one of the scientists, by then retired, leaked a copy to me in about 1993, long after the deal had been made. In short both governments, including the Feds that ordered it, kept the report secret.
Not only did the federal government sit on the report, they passed an order-in-council removing the need of an Environmental Assessment. I rake over these old coals because this was the start of the politicization of the Environment and Fisheries departments which continues to this day. (A good example is the obligation to both monitor fish farms and shill for them at the same time).
Until now, the Harper government has let us believe that the current the hearings are a vehicle to get public opinion on projects. With this latest enunciation of policy, the environmental assessment process is taking too long, say the governments, thus must be shortened! It takes the breath away for it simply states we don’t give a good goddamn what the commissions report – we’re going ahead anyway!
We always thought as much but here it is a matter of government policy – first the approval, then environmental assessment, which is only for show.
Here is where it’s good news. We have an admission that fish habitat no longer matters and approval in principle means government support the entire way.
We now know this and can govern ourselves accordingly.
We know that the Enbridge pipelines and tanker traffic down our coast and through the Port of Vancouver are done deals and the only delays are those which would come anyway as Enbridge gets ready.
What then do we do?
We gird up our loins and get ready to fight.
We do this now because it’s time – and our cause is just.
I’ll say in a moment what we should do but first let’s review the problems:
The proposed Enbridge pipeline would traverse 1,100 km of BC through the Rockies, Coast Range and Great Bear Rainforest, some of the most rugged and untouched wilderness in the world with unbelievable wild life.
It would cross over 1,000 rivers and streams, several vital for large salmon runs.
The company, Enbridge, has a shocking record for spills and leaks, 811 since 1998. They have demonstrated that the bitumen from the Tar Sands is all but impossible to clean up as their spill in the populated state of Michigan into the Kalamazoo River clearly demonstrates.
The company and government talk about thousands of jobs and billions of dollars – it’s all bullshit. All but low paying jobs would go to crews from out of province – specialized labour forces. The money goes to Alberta and the Feds.
But ask yourself this: even if there was billions of dollars and millions of jobs – would you trade our heritage for this?
It gets down to this: the territory the pipelines go through, where spills will occur, means that even attempts to clean up a spill would be useless.
There is no point having a pipeline unless there is tanker traffic, estimated to be 200-300 tankers per year. Here is an article from long time fisherman John Brajcich, whose family have been commercial fishermen on BC’s north and central coast – where oil super tankers would pass – for some eighty years. Mr. Brajcich writes:
As a fisherman who has worked his whole life on the coast of BC, I have many concerns about oil tankers leaving Kitamaat (proper spelling double “a” and it means ‘people of the snow’).
All of the discussions, I have heard, have been about concerns regarding pipeline ruptures and what can happen on the land route. My concern is what will happen if there is a loaded oil tanker heading to sea and it hits a reef or shore or breaks up causing another Exxon Valdez event/catastrophe.
Our family has a long history in the area. My father started fishing there in the 30’s and in 1949, at the age of 13, I went out on his seine boat. In 1957 I became a Captain of a seiner and I fished the area for over 50 years, usually from 5 -20 weeks per year. At present my son operates our family’s seiner and continues to fish this area. Our combined family’s presence in this area is over 80 years.
I have been hired by Fisheries and Oceans Canada to participate in stock assessments for salmon and herring. In 1968 we were hired by Shell Oil Company to assist in the positioning of Sedco’s drill rig in Hecate Straits.
We have spent so much time in Fisheries and Oceans Canada designated area 6 that lifelong friends – the late Alan Hall of Kitamaat and Johnny Clifton of Hartley Bay – were made. I have seen the waterfall at Butedale frozen solid, bone dry and running so hard you could not tie up your boat.
With our family’s 80 plus years of fishing in the Whale Channel area we have firsthand knowledge of tides, weather, types of fish and bird life. The area from Kitamaat to Hecate Straits is designated Area 6, by Fisheries and Oceans Canada and is the most consistent salmon producing region in British Columbia with runs in the odd and even years.
In Area 6 there is:
If a ship enters Laredo Channel from Hecate Straits at McInnes Island the tanker would have Lenard Shoal and Moody Bank at the bottom of Aristazabl Island. On the east side of Aristazabl Island there are 2 very dangerous rocks known as Wilson and Moorhouse. Campania Sound is also a very treacherous body of water from Dupont Island to Hecate Straits.
There are many rocks and to name a few, Bortwick, Cort, Ness, Evans, Cliff and Janion also Yares Shoal. This area is a minefield of reefs. These rocks are spread out between Rennison Island, Banks Island and Campania Island. This route would be extremely dangerous to tanker traffic. Using the Otter Pass route, Nepean rock becomes a very prominent problem for ships’ travel.
Should a major oil spill occur I feel an oil boom would not be able to contain it because of the velocity of the current in this area and the oil could travel 20-50 miles in one 6 hour tide. This area is not the Mediterranean or a lagoon.
If a spill occurred in Laredo Channel the herring spawning area at Kitasu Bay to Price Island could be totally destroyed, possibly forever. The eel grass which the herring need to spawn on could be wiped out. Some years over 10,000 tons of herring spawn in this area.
A spill at freshet time would be the most devastating. Due to the differences of its viscosity, salt water is heavier and would be lower and the fresh water being lighter, becomes a shallow layer at the surface. The juvenile salmon live in this fresh water layer as they migrate to sea. The juvenile salmon jump like raindrops and if they were migrating in a spill area the oil could wipe out an entire run. Some streams could become barren of salmon.
I have tried to point out, so people know, the dangers of the entire marine area and what could happen if there is ever a spill. I have spent my entire life around Princess Royal Island and the vicinity. I personally am totally opposed to the Kitamaat terminal for oil tankers.
A spill on the coast is inevitable and the consequences horrific.
What must we do?
Let’s not pussyfoot – there must be and will be civil disobedience. This will be a long way from civilization thus will require careful planning.
First, we need a “ways and means” committee to galvanize the huge number of angry citizens and to start, I would recommend that First Nations and all environmental groups come together.
It’s impossible to get groups to amalgamate because each has different specialists. The fact is, however, that all environmental groups and, at last count, 131 First Nations are all against this pipeline/tanker traffic.
It would be wrong of me to second guess what recommendations would be made by such a group, although I have a suggestion – create a ‘Club” called the I’LL BE THERE CLUB, meaning that the member will be part of the protest.
Secondly – and here I would ask First Nations to lead – we must formulate a plan to protest when construction begins and as it goes along. I call upon First Nations leadership because they are already well organized and deeply committed.
It will take time – and leadership.
The time to start is right now.
My new book, The Home Stretch which outlines what various religions have to say about Souls, Near Death Experiences and how they think they’ll get us the best deal. The book is online and can be downloaded on your computer, Kindle, Kobo or iPad from www.kobo.com or www.kindle.com at the ridiculously low price of $9.99
Read this story form the Hill Times on the Harper Government’s intention laid out in its recent budget bill to go after charities who are critical of its oil and resource development plans. (March 29, 2012)
PARLIAMENT HILL—Opposition MPs say a surprise allegation in the federal budget that Canadian charities are violating federal rules limiting their political advocacy is retribution for widespread opposition from environmental groups to the massive Northern Gateway oil sands pipeline across British Columbia.
The obscure provision in the budget Thursday to beef up the Canada Revenue Agency’s “enforcement tools” to monitor political activities of charities demonstrates the partisan nature of the Conservative government, opposition MPs said.
NDP MP Megan Leslie (Halifax, N.S.) told The Hill Times the measure is one of several provisions that show the budget, aside from its main thrust of public service spending cuts, is all “pipeline, pipeline, pipeline.”
“The over-arching theme here is this is a budget for the great pipeline to China,” Ms. Leslie said. “This is about pipelines, pipelines, pipelines, and at any cost.”
“Whether it is going after charities, who might have a different opinion, cutting the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy and cutting Environment Canada and not relying on science and evidence, or whether it’s going after the Environmental Assessment Act and weakening it, that’s what this budget says to me, it’s all about pipelines,” Ms. Leslie said.
The reference to political activities of charities was a needle in the haystack of the budget’s total $5.2-billion in broad spending cuts the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) is proposing for the next three years, with a projection that the spending reductions, combined with other economic forecasts, will result in a surplus by 2015, the next federal election year.
But the measure was so unexpected at the traditional pre-budget lockup for journalists that Reuters news correspondent David Ljunggren asked Finance Minister Jim Flaherty (Whitby Oshawa, Ont.) about it at a news conference before Mr. Flaherty tabled the budget in the Commons, asking Mr. Flaherty why the budget was putting the “tax police” on charities.
“We’re not making any changes in the rules relating to charities, we are providing some resources, some additional resources for enforcement of the rules by the Canada Revenue Agency,” Mr. Flaherty said.
“Quite frankly, we’ve had a lot of complaints and concerns expressed by Canadians that when they give money to charities they expect the money to be used for the charities purposes, not for political or other purposes,” he said.
“This not black and white, because the Canada Revenue Agency permits a small percentage of dollars to be used for advocacy and other purposes, but there is clearly a need, in our view, for more vigilance, that charities obey the rules as they are now,” Mr. Flaherty said.
The main budget document noted charities are allowed to engage in political activities, centered primarily on advocacy, as long as the activities are related to their charitable goals and represent a limited portion of their resources—no more than 10 per cent for larger charities.