Tag Archives: Water and Energy

Fighting the Corporate Take-Over of BC

Share

I write this not just as a New Year’s thought but also as one looking personally at his ninth and presumably last decade. And a sad scene I see.

From the commencement of time ownership and control of societies have been shared, preposterously unfairly, between “them that has and them that doesn’t”.

It continues today as never before. What the super rich don’t own, they control. 100s of thousands of jobs, thanks to the computer, have been exported to lands where labour is dirt-cheap and where benefits are minimal if they exist at all.

We are witnessing the corporatization of our government by the powerful. It’s an easy task, for the ordinary MP or MLA, by reason of our rotten system, does what his or her leader orders. The decisions of society are no longer made by parliaments – if they ever were – but in the corporate boardroom.

A question or two:

What say did you have re: fish farms? What say have you about the huge damage these farms present? What say have you now on new licenses?

What say have you had in the destruction our rivers by large and very rich foreign companies? Have you agreed that it’s a good thing that these private sector companies get a sweetheart deal, where they sell power to BC Hydro for more than twice what it’s worth, forcing Hydro to buy this power at a huge loss when they don’t need it?

BC Hydro is technically bankrupt – is that what you thought you would have when the Campbell government set forth its private energy policy, turning over power production to rich companies like General Electric?

What say did you have in the privatization of BC Rail where the Campbell government gave our railroad away in a crooked deal that the government hushed up?

What about the Enbridge Pipeline scheduled to ship hundreds of thousands of barrels of Tar Sands gunk (aka bitumen) from the Alberta to Kitimat? Have you had a say in this matter? The only reason to send this gunk to Kitimat is so that it can be shipped down our coast through the most dangerous waters in the world – have you had a say in this?

Of course you haven’t and it’s instructive, I think, to note that Premier Clark will only express her opinion after the rubber stamping National Energy Board has deliberated.

Premier Photo-Op doesn’t seem to understand that the approval of the pipeline means oil tankers at almost one a day sailing down our pristine coast line.

Is the premier that dumb?

Or is it that her government is prepared to approve tanker traffic?
 
The companies and politicians talk about minimal risk – the plain, incontrovertible fact is this:

THESE ARE NOT RISKS BUT CERTAINTIES WAITING TO HAPPEN.

The issue facing BC can be simply stated: will we give up our land and resources to the private sector and, while we do it, will we accept the destruction of our environment?

The Corporations say that these efforts, fish farms, private power, pipelines and tankers will being lots of money and lots of jobs into BC.

I ask two questions – what money and what jobs? Building fish farms, private dams and pipelines bring construction jobs, mostly to off shore crews, and leave behind a few caretakers to watch the computers. The profits go out of the province into the pockets of Warren Buffet and his ilk.

This is the fact Premier Clark must ponder and soon: will the public of BC simply accept these destructions of our beautiful province? Will they just simply shake their heads and go quietly?

In my view they won’t. Through the ages the long-suffering public takes so much and no more. Read your history, Madame Premier – there comes a tipping point where the public will take no more and in my judgment we have reached that point.

I beg of you, Premier, shake the scales from your eyes, look and think! This isn’t a right wing versus left wing matter but a question of right and wrong.

The last thing in the world I want to see is violence but I tell you fair that the decision rests upon you – if you don’t deal with the fish farmers, the energy thieves, the pipelines and tankers there will be violence, and that will be the legacy of the Campbell/Clark government.

Share

Rafe Reflects on Common Sense Canadian – And Why 2012 is Make-or-Break Year for BC

Share

It’s customary at this time of the year too look back, comment, and look to the New Year. Why should The Common Sense Canadian (CSC) be any different?
 
We’ve been going for about a year and a half so my comments may take us a little earlier than last January but let me start by saying that both Damien Gillis and I are pretty proud of our progress.
 
Neither of us believes in some commonwealth of environmental people and groups. That’s not practical as we all have issues we feel more strongly about than others. We do, however, like to feel that we can bring a vehicle into being that helps all environmentalists and groups find a place to air their feelings. As one would expect, the particular passions of Damien and me will stand out in the work we do but we also support many other groups. Because of the history we bring to the CSC, we tend to look most in four areas, in no particular order: fish farms, private power, pipelines and oil tankers – the latter two being bound together but still two separate issues; but you can’t have one without the other.
 
What we’ve seen happen in the past year or so is a sense of all environmentalists feeling part of the same general battle – and battle it is.
 
Let me expand on that last thought a bit. All of us, whether trying to save forests, or a river, or a coastline or whatever are met with the cry “aren’t they in favour of anything?” If they’re not hugging trees they’re against jobs for the young and prosperity for communities. These and similar questions have been raised since the first day someone declared that there were other issues than just monetary ones. To show you how ridiculous this gets, supporters of the proposed “Prosperity” Mine allege that this mine will give employment to 71,000 people! Why not 710,000 if you’re going to be ridiculous?
 
What we try to do is challenge people to make a value judgment on what is done and place the environmental issues securely on the table. The main reason we do that is that damage to the environment is permanent while the economics diminish as time goes by, leaving only the scars.
 
Let’s look at a so-called “run-of-river” project. We’re told that these are necessary to create jobs yet when the deed is done there are only a bare handful of caretakers left behind while the river, and the ecology that depend upon it, are permanently and seriously impaired.
 
Now we are democrats. If the public, fully informed, wish to create permanent environmental damage, that is their right. What happens, however, is that the public, if they are informed at all, only see the glitzy ads by the company and the smooth assurances of the politicians.
 
Public hearings are, frankly, bullshit. The decision has been made and, like a trial in the old Soviet Union, a “show” trial must take place.
 
Let me give you a recent example: when President Obama refused to authorize the Keystone XL project which would take “gunk” from the Tar Sands to  Texas, Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty instantly responded and said that we would have to put the proposed Enbridge pipeline from the Tar Sands to Kitimat, BC, on “the front burner”! Before the National Energy Board hearings even get off the ground the Finance Minister is assuming the result! Yet, he’s right to do so because the “fix” is well and truly in.
 
This takes me to the meat of the matter for, in the past couple of years there has been an astonishing cooperation of environmental organizations to fight these things together.
 
I’ve been all around the province making speeches and often the stage has been shared with COPE union spokespersons, the Wilderness Committee, Alexandra Morton and her Raincoast Research Society, the redoubtable Donna Passmore and her work on highways and farmland issues, CoalWatch Comox Valley regarding the proposed Raven coal mine, citizen groups fighting local issues like overhead transmission lines and numerous grassroots organizations in the Kootenays in Northern BC, on the Sunshine Coast – and the list goes on.
 
Of enormous consequence has been the work all the different environmental groups have done with First Nations on the issues I have mentioned. One of the most touching moments in my Roast of November 24 last were the speeches given by Grand Chief Stewart Philip, Chief Bob Chamberlin and Chief Marilyn Baptiste; and I tell you truly that I wept when they spoke and sang and considered how far down the road to true understanding of their concerns I had come – something, I might add, Chief Philip commented upon with a twinkle in his eye to match my tears.
 
Let me pause here to note that I have left out many people and organizations that have every right to stand out in front as those I have mentioned and I deeply hope that I haven’t offended any of them.
 
Let me speak out clearly on political matters. The Campbell/Clark government are enemies of the public at large. The destruction they have caused, and which will happen because of their policies, beggars description. Not unnaturally, the NDP have been the beneficiaries, often accidentally, from this public disgust with the government. I can tell you that at my “Roast” were people I knew from my old Socred days – people who a year ago would have preferred to be found in a house of ill repute than be seen with the CSC helping us in our fundraiser.
 
I must say this: the NDP gets no easy ride from us. It’s simple to jump on a bandwagon but we demand commitments from them – not airy, fairy crap that passes for commitment in political jargon.
 
I’m going to end now with this look ahead. 2012 will be the year that decides where we go in BC.
 
Will we have more rivers destroyed for private profit? Will we see our province, my homeland and yours, turned over to the 100% certain destruction by pipelines? And to the 100% certainty of catastrophic oil spills on our coast and in Burrard Inlet? Will we continue to allow fish farmers to annihilate our sacred Pacific Salmon? Will we watch idly as Fish Lake is destroyed to set the precedent of more of the same?
 
Will we do nothing as we lose more and more farmland? Will money promised and jobs pledged suck the wind out of our ability to see what’s really happening to us, our children, our grandchildren and for some of us great-grandchildren?
 
That is the advantage, you see, of old age – right before your eyes are the people we hold BC in trust for. The wisdom of the ages, in the soul of our First Nations, is the wisdom we must listen to and apply if we want to save our province from those who would convert it into cash for private use, leaving us with nothing but the scars to remind us what damned fools we’ve been.
 
The Common Sense Canadian will be in this fight in 2012 and in the years to come and, along with those we march alongside, do not intend to lose the battles nor the war.

Share

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

Share

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

But a funny thing happened on the way to the press release for the RCC’s Joint Action Plan. The word “Energy” was dropped from the Energy and Environment sector. That’s right. Never mind that energy, including oil, natural gas and hydroelectricity, is arguably the most important sector of Canada-US trade in today’s constrained energy supply world.
 
Mounting opposition to pipeline development on both sides of the border make the Energy word a bit loaded politically for Harper and especially Obama right now. (Visions of the protesters surrounding the White House and the BC First Nations announcement of opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline float in my head as I write this). At any rate, it was conveniently dropped. The new Environment-only sector in the Action Plan concerns itself with fairly benign co-operation on air quality standards for emissions from light duty vehicles and trains and levels of particulate matter in air.
 
To understand what poison pills may await us in the not-talked-about-but-still-there Energy trade sector, a look at the RCC Consultation Report released in February of this year is required.

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

And also from the page 9 Statement: “…there were a number of suggested initiatives that were considered but not included in the initial Joint Action Plan. The RCC will continue to examine these suggestions as it develops areas for future work.”
 
Of the eight suggested initiatives which the government chose to list in the Consultation Report’s Energy and Environment section (Appendix B, page 22) consider the following three:

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

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

In the wake of both the Fukushima disaster in Japan and the privatization of the Canada’s nuclear industry, the limiting of liability in the wake of nuclear accidents is particularly chilling. One expects that like the US (which, for example, limits liability on the costs of oil spills to a ridiculously low amount in dollar terms), we can expect to see similar regulations in Canada regarding nuclear accidents.
 
And finally, neither Tar Sands oil nor hydroelectricity will be “discriminated” against in the future by regulations in either country. The term “Large-scale” hydro projects remains undefined in the document. But surely Site C Dam would qualify for non-discrimination and perhaps some of the larger ruin-of-the-river projects.
 
The RCC documents are all written with the outdated and disproven arguments of increased “customer choice” and “decreased customer cost”, hand-in-hand with public safety and environmental protection enhancement. The public knows none of this is true. But Harper marches on, head down and in step with his corporate buddies, to the beat of the trickle-down economics drum, while global markets implode, citizens arise en masse and peak everything envelopes the world. No wonder he and Obama need to continue to build a police security state to enforce their policies on us.
 
The other three trade sector action plans and consultation report items will be discussed in future postings. They are equally, if not more, disturbing.

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

Share
George Abbott (left) has been tapped to rescue the ailing BC Liberal Party...Good luck with that!

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

Share

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

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

The trouble with the first three is the Campbell/Clark government doesn’t have the political courage to do them and, moreover, doing so would cost the party substantial political donations – a telling point with this bunch to whom election funds always trump honesty and honour..
 
The fourth one is tricky. The provincial government probably doesn’t have the authority to do anything about the pipelines but it sure as hell does over tankers – and without tankers there will be no pipelines. The Campbell/Clark lack of courage is because of its stupidity with the HST and it’s now so deep in debt to the feds they dare not oppose them. Yes, folks, the HST has us in thrall to Ottawa, something that in my time has never happened. In plain language the feds hold Premier Clark in a blackmail position – if BC is to be shown any mercy over the HST cock-up it must permit the Fish Lake project to proceed, make no noise on the Enbridge pipeline project and approve oil tanker traffic on the coast.
 
This, dear readers, is one reason Gordon Campbell was eager to clear out and one of the reasons Prime Minister Harper gave him that plum job in London.
 
Those are not the only problems Mr. Abbott has. The underlying malaise that the C/C government must deal with is that they have done a lousy fiscal job. While painting themselves as the fiscally sound party, they have kept the story of NDP fiscal sins front and centre, for wasn’t it they who bollixed up our economy?
 
The answer is no. The NDP look like Ebenezer Scrooge compared to the government of wastrels we’ve been governed by for the last 10 ½ years. It started right after the May 2001 election when Campbell gave away more than a billion dollars in taxes on the well off.
 
From that point until now, the Campbell/Clark government has more than tripled the real provincial debt, putting the province in hock for as far as the eye can see.
 
Because of the lousy media we have, it wasn’t much noticed that when the Liberals came down with their unbelievable 2009 election budget – which was over a billion dollars short of reality – that it was phoney as Hell and that the Liberals knew it throughout. This came out when, after the election was safely behind them, the government said that it was all the fault of the Recession. To accept this bullshit would mean that the Liberals didn’t notice the Stock Market crash in 2007/08, nor the recession that followed! They also had to ignore the information that the Finance Ministry had that tax revenues were dropping.
 
In short, the Liberal government either was so stupid as to not notice a market crash, a huge dose of criminality on Wall Street, or the severe Recession that followed – or they deliberately lied.
 
Then there was the HST that one need not mention.
 
In short, the Liberal Party’s renowned fiscal prudence is a crock of crap. And it’s worse – the government ought have foreseen the fiscal problems even before it hit the fan – reading numbers and foreseeing trouble is what Finance Ministries are all about.
 
To Mr Abbott – while you’re reorganizing your party, looking to the future as politicians always say, I must warn you that you will be looking to the past as well as you will be asked questions. There are, even in your own party, a great many British Columbians who want answers, no matter how awkward it might be to give them.
 

Share

Auditor General: BC Hydro, Clark Govt. Have No Plan to Repay $5 Billion Slush Fund Debt

Share

Read this report from the Vancouver Sun on BC Auditor General John Doyle’s slamming of BC Hydro’s shocking accounting practices.

“Not often do accountants engage in the bookkeeping equivalent of hand-to-hand combat. But
there was some of that at a meeting of the public accounts committee of
the legislature one day last week, as BC Hydro’s chief financial
officer and acting CEO Charles Reid squared off against Auditor-General
John Doyle.

The occasion was supplied by the committee review of
Doyle’s recent report on Hydro’s growing practice of defer-ring current
expenses to future years. The flashpoint was provided by Doyle’s
bald assertion that although every penny of the soon-to-be-$5-billion
balance in the 27-and-count-ing deferral accounts will have to be
repaid, neither Hydro nor the government has any detectable plan to do
so. (Nov. 30, 2011)

Read article: http://www.vancouversun.com/Auditor+finds+billion+snake+dilemma+Hydro+hard+swallow/5788297/story.html#ixzz1fDPdH0v4

Share

Mark Hume: Tyson Creek Private Power Project a Disaster That Shouldn’t be Repeated

Share

Read this story from Mark Hume in The Globe and Mail on one particularly bad example of ecologically disastrous private river power projects (IPPs) in BC. The Tyson Creek project in Narrows Inlet on the Sunshine Coast actually involves a lake with a massive hole drilled at the bottom – resulting in major siltation problems in the fish-bearing streams and inlet below.

“There have been growing concerns in British Columbia about the impact of private power projects on streams and rivers. But
we should worry about our lakes, too, according to a file of internal
government documents related to the Tyson Creek hydroelectric project.

The
documents, obtained by Gwen Barlee of the Wilderness Committee, track
the licensing, development and subsequent but temporary closing of the
project when it caused the usually clear Tzoonie River to turn the
colour of mud.” (Nov. 27, 2011)

Read article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/mark-hume/tyson-creek-experiment-ought-not-to-be-repeated/article2251369/

Share

Free Speech, Censorship, and Why Ryerson’s Journalism Program Can Go F#@k Itself

Share

On November 24th a “roast” was held for me and it was a fantastic night.

During my speech I raised the “Ryerson” incident that was recently revived.
 
About 10 years ago I received a call from a young woman from the Ryerson School of Journalism who asked if I would write the main article for their “Annual”. I accepted and asked no money in return.
 
I asked her if she knew who I was and what I did. She assured me that she did.
 
Addressing myself to the graduates, I did an essay on free speech and concluded with the statement that they had all better be “ready to self censor or that they would be censored”.
 
Some weeks later the same young woman called me again and was obviously in some distress as she told me that my article was “unsuitable”.
 
“Was it badly written?” I asked.
 
“Not at all – it was very well written…it’s just…unsuitable.”
 
“To whom?” I asked.
 
“It was just unsuitable.”
 
“Why?” I asked.
 
“It’s just unsuitable – but we have a couple of options here. We can pay you $100.”
 
“I don’t want your money,” I said.
 
“The second option is you can do another article.”
 
“There is a third option,” I replied. “You can all go fuck yourselves!”
 
My God! One of the top schools of journalism rejects an article on free speech! If ever I needed verification of my statement, here it was!
 
A few weeks later I happened to be interviewing the deputy dean of Ryerson and I told him this story, off air. He protested vehemently, assuring me he would look into the matter and would get back to me in a few days.
 
I never heard from the man again.
 
Fast forward to about three weeks ago when I got an email from a young woman from Ryerson asking me if I would give her an interview for the Annual. I agreed and made a time and date in Lions Bay for the chat. She was delighted and couldn’t wait – so she said.
 
A few days later I received an email from her saying that the subject, being put to a lot of journalists across the country, was “your biggest disappointment in your career,” and asking me what my answer would be. I immediately replied “the censorship of my article for Ryerson School of Journalism.” That happened to be true.
 
She wrote back saying that this wasn’t really what she was looking for.
 
Perhaps a day later she sent another email.
 
“While I would love to conduct the interview, the issue is not that you are criticizing Ryerson or the Review (which we have no problem with), but rather that what you wish to talk about doesn’t exactly fit in with our theme. I really want to stress the fact that this is not a cancellation due to the fact that you are angry with our publication; it is because this series is specific to “most” tales. Examples from previous videos show journalists talking about their dumbest moment on a deadline, their most awkward meal, etc. And while your story is interesting to be sure, it is not a “most” something from your journalistic career. I hope you understand.”
 
Somehow Ryerson doesn’t quite understand that a journalist who has fought for years for free speech in this country would think that being denied it was a big disappointment.
 
Let me now go to 1990 when another “roast” in my honour was held. I asked that all proceeds go to the UBC School of Journalism and with some help from Jimmy Pattison, a scholarship in my name was set up and when it was handed out I was asked to make the presentation.
 
Of course I agreed and was asked to say a few words, which I did, warning the graduates that when they got into the Canadian media they would either self-censor or be censored.
 
I have never been asked back! A scholarship in my bloody name and I don’t get to make the presentation.
 
The upshot of this is that the Canadian media is censored in the absence of appropriate self-control by the journalist, as demonstrated twice by the #1 or #2 journalism school in the nation and repeatedly for a decade by my old alma mater, the University of British Columbia.
 
How does this censorship happen?
 
For the most part, it’s simply an understanding that some questions and some subjects for columns and articles are just “not on”.
 
Let’s go back to 1991-2001 when the NDP governed BC. They were, even by the standards set by the Vander Zalm government before them, pretty awful. Every political pundit in the province, including me, held their tootsies firmly to the flame for that decade. Especially expert in their shots were columnists, one of whom brought them down almost single-handedly over the “Fastcat” ferries and Mr. Clark’s naivete over a gambling licence.
 
Now it’s 2001 and Gordon Campbell is in power and almost in the drive home from government gives a huge tax rebate to better off folks. The bumbling and fumbling, the loss of BC Ferries, BC Rail and the virtual bankruptcy of BC Hydro made Glen Clark’s misdeeds look liked childish pranks. It’s been a decade of paying off political pals, resulting in the government that was supposed to be fiscally superior more than tripling the real provincial debt.
 
The zealous media that thrashed the NDP has become a snoozing, slothful syndicate of political poodles reporting only that which simply couldn’t be ignored as news; the ignoring being done on a daily basis by the same columnists who did their duty and then some during the NDP years.
 
I hasten to observe that I don’t blame the journalists themselves – they have families, mortgages and kids’ education to pay for and I don’t think I would have been any better if I didn’t have a legal profession to fall back on.
 
Probably the worst example of media favouritism is the Vancouver Sun, whose editor in charge of the editorial pages was a fellow of the Fraser Institute, a right wing (to say the least) “think tank” that churns out big business babble to a fare-the-well. If you wish an example you only need look at the number of times Mary-Ellen Walling, the fish farmers’ flack, and environmental whores like Patrick Moore, get op-ed columns with no similar access to the other side of these environmental debates.
 
This is not mere mental meandering but very practical – when you see what’s happening with wild salmon because of farmed fish cages, what’s happened to BC Hydro and our rivers because of sweetheart deals it’s been forced to make, what’s happened and is happening to lakes to be mined, to say nothing of the pipelines from the Tar Sands, then tankers down the coast, you must ask yourself where has the mainstream media been? The answer is short and clear: Up Big Business’ ass.
 
You simply cannot have a functioning democracy without a media that keeps pressure on the government as they go. That doesn’t mean that the government isn’t entitled to praise when they do good things but that their every action is assessed with a jaundiced eye as in days gone by.
 
It must always be remembered that the government has unlimited use of public funds with which to bombard the public with their spin.

I close with a bit of doggerel slightly altered to fit:

You cannot hope to bribe or twist,
(thank God!) the BC journalist
But, seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there’s no occasion to

 
As A.J,Leibling put it “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”

 

Share

Conservation Groups Slam Paltry Funding for Site C Environmental Review

Share

Read this article from the Georgia Straight on the concerns of environmental groups over the prohibitively small amount of funding made available to participate in the Joint Panel Review into the proposed Site C Dam.

“A prominent B.C. environmental leader is slamming the Conservative
government for achieving “a new low” by capping funding for interveners
in the Site C dam’s joint environmental assessment process. ‘While $19,000 [per organization] may look like a fair amount of
money, when you’re talking about having to hire technical experts,
lawyers, and researchers, it does not go very far, especially when
stacked up against the kind of resources B.C. Hydro has at its
disposal,’ George Heyman, executive director of Sierra Club B.C., told the Straight by phone. ‘So it’s an extremely tipped playing field.’

The provincial and federal environmental-assessment offices
announced on September 30 that a harmonized environmental assessment
process, including a joint review panel, will be undertaken for the Site
C project. The proposed dam would be the third on the Peace River,
alongside the W. A. C. Bennett and Peace Canyon dams.” (Nov. 24, 2011)

Read full article: http://www.straight.com/article-546646/vancouver/groups-slam-site-c-assessment-funding-cap

Share

Rafe on Supporting the Common Sense Canadian – Plus Our New Op-ed Blog

Share

The Common Sense Canadian has been going well over the past year-plus and this seems to be a good moment to reflect on what we’ve done, not done, and will do.
 
First please understand that we are just two people. Our funding is very limited and, to speak boldly, we need considerably more. We’re deeply grateful to those who have donated and special thanks to those who have signed on for a regular donation. We’ll be launching a special promotion next week for November and December, encouraging more of you to become monthly sustaining contributors – even $5 a month helps, as it’s funding we can count on into the future.
 
Second, one way you can immediately be of help is to attend my 80th birthday Roast on November 24th next – tickets cost $35 in advance ($25 for students) and all proceeds go to the Common Sense Canadian. (Incidentally, the name derives partly from Thomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense which sparked the American Revolution. Paine is a great hero to Damien and me.)
 
The most critical issue we now face comes from the success of this offering. Our “hits” and regular emails from readers tell us that we’re making contact with a large number of British Columbians and that has become a unique “problem” – more and more people want us to get involved with the war they’re having with the establishment over an environmental issue in which they are heavily involved. And, in a moment I’ll tell you what we’re going to do to assist these wonderful folks in BC and Canada.
 
For historical reasons Damien and I find ourselves with three issues that dominate our time – Fisheries, private power projects (IPPs) and power projects generally, and pipelines/tankers. This by no means dulls our concern about other issues such as the Gateway Project and its many facets, mining issues such as Raven coal project on Vancouver Island and the so-called Prosperity Mine and other issues that  so many of our courageous citizens are involved in.
 
We have set up a page called “Your Voice”, where we welcome op-ed blogs on issues we don’t regularly cover (you can read our first entry there now – a piece from David Williams, President of Friends of the Nemaiah Valley, on the cultural impacts of the proposed Prosperity Mine). This column will be accessible from our home page and also included in our weekly mail-outs to readers. I want to emphasize this – we take all these issues seriously and just because a blog is published doesn’t mean that we won’t help in other ways as well when the opportunity arises.
 
We reserve the right to edit for errors and length as well as issues of good taste and defamation – and we can’t guarantee that we’ll publish every piece. But if you have an issue you’re dealing with and would like to inform more people about it, please contact us with your proposed op-ed.
 
Damien and I welcome this opportunity to expand the horizons of the Common Sense Canadian.
 
We must be our own media in this province of anaemic mainstream media who peddle, uncritically, the establishment line.
 
Please join us!
 
Rafe and Damien
 
 

Share

Abbotsford Councillor Patricia Ross Takes Stand Against Water Privatization

Share

Read this story from TheTyee.ca on Abbotsford Councillor Patricia Ross’ brave stand against a private model for water services in her community being pushed by the town’s mayor and others.

“Ross is the sole incumbent to oppose a public-private partnership
(P3) that would see the private design, build, partial finance and
operation of a water works project in Mission’s Stave Lake, a contract
of 25 years. Originally a partnership with neighbouring Mission as a way to address future water shortages, in April the district dropped out of applying for a federal P3 grant for the project, in the wake of strong public opposition.

To Ross, Abbotsford broke a ‘gentleman’s
agreement’ by going ahead with the P3 without the partnership of
Mission. But she has other concerns, including the private operation of
the water system, cost uncertainties, and what she sees as the lack of
choice given to the public in the matter — concerns shared by other
opponents, including some new council hopefuls.” (Nov. 10, 2011)

Read full article: http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/11/10/Abbotsford-P3-Deal/

Share