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:

1. Within the Central coast area 128 salmon bearing streams
2. Kitasu Bay to McInnes Island is a major herring spawning  ground
3. All 5 species of salmon, herring, crab, mussels, clams, abalone, prawns, eulachons, pilchards, hake, geoduck, mackerel, halibut cod, pollock, otters, eagles and many birds, plus whales and porpoises
4. Tides that fluctuate over 20 feet causing currents of up to 5 knots
5. Being a region of heavy snow and glaciers there are very strong freshets from May to the end of July
6. The outflow winds from Douglas Channel can be extreme during summer and winter
7. Weather in Hecate Straits -  because of strong complex currents, waves have been recorded up to 30 metres. The highest wind gusts recorded for November, December, January, February and March is 180 -190-plus km per hour.

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.

Prime Minister Harper is acting as though the Enbridge pipeline is a done deal – indeed he’s telling anyone he meets that very thing.

The PM, never much for public opinion at the best of times, cannot see any possible way the general public and First Nations could stand in the way of this ghastly project.

He’s relying on the National Energy Board’s Joint Review Panel hearings to allow him to say that the people have had their say so – on with the pipelines! That they will approve of the double pipeline is all but a forgone conclusion and already The PM and his Resources Minister are complaining that the Commission is tiresome and wasting time; however, the time isn’t wasted as far as I’m concerned, for every moment the Commission sits will make more people aware of the egregious environmental insult this project is.

Where is Premier Clark? I believe that the provincial government has shared jurisdiction, yet she seems to think if she ducks her head British Columbians won’t notice her.

Ms. Clark and the Prime Minister are paying no attention to the fact that the First Nations across the entire project oppose it, but here’s the crunch: if this Tar Sands gunk doesn’t get shipped from the coast there’s no point to pipelines.

Premier Clark can’t avoid the tanker issue. On this issue the First Nations are adamant – in Coastal First Nations spokesman Gerald Amos’ words on the tanker traffic, he is nothing if not concise: “It isn’t going to happen.”

The issues of the pipelines and tankers are joined at the hip – Enbridge is scarcely going to build pipelines unless the Tar Sands gunk will have customers and customers require tankers to go down the coast.

This means that even if Premier Clark can avoid the pipelines issue, she sure as hell can’t avoid the tanker one. To make the cheese more binding, this will be a huge issue by the time the next provincial election comes around in May of 2013.
I have no doubt that the NDP will be unalterably and vocally opposed to the tanker traffic and the premier will have to fish or cut bait. To make it worse, she’s in a Catch 22 position – if she opposes the tanker traffic  many of the right wing of the party will vote Conservative; if she supports it, the centre/left and the crucial swing folks will vote NDP.

Both the PM and Clark completely miss the strength of the opposition to the pipelines and tanker traffic – a strength that is growing and will continue to grow.

In my lifetime, a long one, I have never seen a more dangerous situation where violence may well not be avoided. I have also never seen such a serious situation be ignored by our political masters.

Harper trots around the world to get customers to buy Tar Sands gunk without any serious process to hear the people; while the Premier pretends that it has nothing to do with her.

All the while opposition grows and grows – a clear prescription for disaster.

First, Premier Clark is in one hell of a jam and it’s scarcely improved with a man who I bet left the inner staff of Attila the Hun to join with Madam Photo-op by name of Ken Boessenkool, who amongst other clients worked as lobbyist for Enbridge for two years! What the hell reason could she give for this kind of move?

This woman is out of control. She’s in a political hotbox like President Gerry Ford was when he took over the mess Nixon left him. In fact she’s in a box Houdini couldn’t have escaped.

She’s trying to distance herself from the disgraceful reign of Gordon Campbell and now finds herself in the midst of the worst environmental fight probably in history. The proposed Enbridge Pipeline and resultant tanker traffic is straight from the Gordon Campbell/Fraser Institute playbook and it isn’t working out quite like the Liberal advisors had expected. In fact, Clark is facing, and knows she’s facing a political storm that makes Bill Vander Zalm’s troubles look like a kid’s fight in a sand box.

The trouble is, the public is onto them. It’s becoming clearer and clearer that a rupture or spill is inevitable and that the word “risk” has been replaced by “certainty”. Clark has this problem: the project only has the support of the “right” and the pretty far right at that. This problem wasn’t seen by the likes of Patrick Kinsella and other handlers – it’s called believing your own bullshit.

The NDP, and, of course the Greens have staked out the “no bloody way” voters and you might think well, so what’s the problem?

It’s called The Conservative Party and John Cummins. Without them, Clark might have been able to hold all the non NDP vote and been able to hold on. I doubt that because the government is in deep doo doo on so many fronts. With the Conservatives in the picture it’s Adrian Dix’s dream come true. Not only is their enemy divided but he has a good chance with the voter who perhaps doesn’t like anybody very much but tends to vote right rather than left.

If Ms. Clark were surrounded by happy campers, perhaps the Libs could hang on. The cold fact is that she only had one caucus member who supported her leadership and because he was given a cabinet seat – and then screwed up – she has a nest of adders in her caucus, many of whom will be looking at their own ridings and grasping at the life saver as they jump ship.

The pipeline/tanker issue has Clark buried. She knows it’s a terrible idea for the province and the people but can’t say so because she’ll lose her supporters.

She can’t say yes without jeopardizing her election chances.

She’s apparently without sufficient courage to say “no” and say “to hell with the right”, inside or outside the party, run on that stance then say, “Mr. Dix, we both agree on the pipeline/tanker issue now lets get down to the issue of which party should run this province.”

She doesn’t have the jam to do that so even the faint chance of a May 2013 victory is all but gone.

Secondly, let us get some things straight for the times ahead – there will be leaks and spills from the pipeline and tankers no matter how much trouble Enbridge goes to avoid them. We’re being asked to commit environmental suicide – by Enbridge, the federal government and, by strong inference, Premier Clark.

My old and perhaps late friend, Bud Smith, says we cannot demand perfection. The trouble is, that is precisely what is demanded from Enbridge and its tanker clients because anything less will permanently damage the world’s last great rainforest – it cannot be remedied.

The route Enbridge’s pipelines would travel is for the most part inaccessible except by helicopter, meaning that even if there were measures to fix an oil spill (there aren’t) there is no way it could be handled (see map below).

The proposed pipeline crosses several mountain ranges and nearly 1000 rivers and streams, including at least three major ones where hundreds of thousands of salmon spawn. This is a region which caribou, grizzly bears, other species of bear, including the rare Spirit Bear, deer and moose inhabit. It is, in short, an ecological treasure.

But let’s play along with Enbridge and let’s say that there is only a one in 100 chance of a leakage. Look at the map and see where that 1 in 100 is going to strike…are you going to gamble away our wilderness on these odds?

Forget about the environment for a moment and look at it as a cost-benefit analysis. Given that the leakage will come in a wilderness which will likely be only reachable by helicopter making any equipment for a clean-up out of the question, is the financial gain to BC worth this likely consequence?

This is a critical question, for the record is clear – you simply cannot clean up an oil spillage wherever it may occur.

The fact is, except for a few low paying white collar jobs there is no gain for BC. We are letting Enbridge use our wilderness to transfer Alberta’s toxic gunk to Kitimat to be shipped down our highly sensitive coast line to Asia and America. Does that sound like a good deal to you?

I don’t want to deal with economics here but simply the wilderness of the province of British Columbia.

We must understand that Enbridge has an unbelievably bad track record. Since 2002 their American subsidiaries alone racked up 170 leaks, and the company itself had a staggering 610 leaks from 1999-2008, including a 2007 explosion in Minnesota that killed two men and brought it $2.4 million in fines – this in addition to a 2003 gas pipeline explosion that killed 7 in Ontario. More recently there is the Kalamazoo River spill in July 2010 which will never be cleaned up.

I leave it thusly:

Is there any set of circumstances, other than an assurance of God Himself, under which you would approve any pipeline going through our precious wilderness?

Cartoon by Ingrid Rice.

Gadfrey Daniel! I’m on the same side as Stephen Harper, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and Gadfrey Daniel! once more, the Fraser Institute! I say NO to the census “long form.”

I must say, without intending to hedge, that my opposition takes the form of simple questions.

Why do you want this information?

What specific purpose is it used for?

Is this to get information at taxpayers’ expense for corporations who could get the same information on their own dime?

Is it, more likely, information they badly want but have no way of getting with any certainty it’s accurate unless it’s extracted from citizens under duress?

Let’s get down to cases with a few questions to the census man/woman.

If you aren’t going to disclose anybody’s name, why then do you need it?

Why do you need my telephone number unless someone is going to call me — like a telemarketing company?

Why do you need to know who stays in my place, including children, by name? Is this so telemarketers know that mine is a very good place to sell kids clothing or family lifestyle magazines? Or if there are no children, peddlers of dentures, prosthetic devices and electric carts?

Why do you want to know whether people who live with me are foreigners? Might I expect a visit from the immigration people?

Too personal, step away

You ask highly personal questions about people staying with me, including their relationship to me and if they’re living common-law, plus much, much more. Why do you need this? What use will be made of the information? Just on the common law question — of what earthly business is it of yours what relationships people have with one another?

Remembering that the names and details of my guests will now be known to you, why do you need to know about their mental health problems?

What business is it of yours where my guests were born, including whether or not they are landed immigrants and if so, when they achieved that status?

Am I doing investigations for the immigration department?

What possible right have you to know my guest’s religion? What use will you make of that information? To be peddled to religious nuisances who pound on the door and interrupt one’s Sunday hangover?

Why, unless you want to send them a birthday card in their native tongue, does the Canadian government demand that I demand information from my guests on the basis that I might go to prison if they don’t give it to me?

Since French and English are the official languages of Canada, of what interest is it to Ottawa what other languages are spoken unless, of course, this information is sold to telemarketers?

Ancestors? Who cares?

Why should I tell you how much income I made and how much tax I paid?

Are you seriously asking me to believe that this information will not be sent to the tax department? Am I to trust you? Be prepared for a surprise — I don’t!

You really get personal about my ancestry and religion. Of what concern is it of yours what my ancestry is? Dealing with religion, what’s it to you? You want to know all about my parents. What possible reason can you have for that? They’re not likely to either need help from the government or cheat it since they’re both dead.

It’s interesting to note that the information about “race” goes to the people who administer the Employment Equity Act. Does that include names and addresses? Who gets this information — the lowliest clerk in the department?

You want to know where people living with me lived five years ago, a question I might find too personal for even me to ask of them. Is this information for municipal governments to help them to identify “illegal” suites?

Reason being?

Before I answer a lot of personal questions, under penalty of prison if I don’t, just tell me, question by question, why you want this information. I base this request on the notion that my privacy cannot be invaded unless good reason is shown. This “good reason” is not satisfied by saying that we have “good reasons.”

Your whole case seems to be “we need the information” and “trust us.”

That’s not good enough, and I don’t.

Those who have set their hair afire over the abandoning of the “long form” say that in surveys, people don’t object.

Okay, not for the first time, I stand alone as an objector and do so on principle — the principle being that almost everything government wants to know about me is none of their damned business.

It’s often said, “If you have nothing to hide, why worry?”

I worry because I do have something to hide — my privacy!

I have that old fashioned notion that if someone demands information from me, they must at the very least tell me why they need that information and what use they will make of it.

Is that too much to ask of our government?

Governments are generally so untrustworthy we must have ombudsmen, privacy commissioners, auditors-general and conflict of interest commissioners to protect the interests of the lowly citizen. We have these and other people in place for one simple reason — governments habitually break trust with the citizenry. Why would they be any different in this regard?

Numbers for everyone

I remember when the Canada Pension Plan was introduced, we were told that whatever information we gave the government would just be our little secret. In no time, the SIN number was required for ID by almost anyone you wanted to do business with.

If the long form census — indeed the short form for that matter — requires personally identifiable information, Canadians are entitled to know, in detail, what that information will be used for.

If I’m asked, “Do you not trust your government?” my answer is a plain, unequivocal NO. Why the hell should I?

Second, this from my colleague Damien Gillis just back from looking at carnage of the Chilean Farmed Fish collapse:

And so it was to my horror that I read Mary Ellen Walling’s callous take on the Chilean Crisis I had just witnessed. Walling [said]: “Prices are up 10 to 15 per cent over the past six months because of the lack of product in the marketplace…It’s good for the B.C. industry because we’ve got good, solid prices moving forward…There’s a significant lack of Chilean product in the U.S. market. It’s a great opportunity [for B.C. salmon farmers]” Rather like a spokesman for undertakers praising Hurricane Katrina as being good for business! Nice guys these fish farmers!

One cuddly cat, our Prime Minister.

I took a whirlwind trip to Toronto a week ago and, as always, airplane rides are for contemplation and I began to wonder a wonder – why do we like some politicians and detest others? And how come we tolerate a system where the leader’s wishes trump parliamentary power?

Those who belong to one team or another tend to extend the hand of forgiveness to their leaders’ peccadilloes especially when they’re in government. When a government goes badly wrong though, as Glen Clark’s did, love can shift to hate overnight. The NDP are especially cruel to their fallen angels as Mr. Clark, Ujjal Dosanj, can no doubt attest.

Why, for example do I dislike the Prime Minister; have a gut feeling of negativity towards Mr. Ignatieff; think Jack what’s-his-name from the NDP is OK and rather like Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc.

And why should liking or disliking a leader matter?

Re Harper, maybe it’s because he was always late for my talk show though he knew that a guestless host closely resembles a fish flopping around in the bottom of the boat.

I don’t care for Mr. Ignatieff because he’s shown a massive disinterest in British Columbia and for me that’s fatal.

Mr. what’s-his-name is a decent sort of bloke and his only real failing is that he acts as if he were important?

I like Mr. Duceppe because he’s given me a standing invitation to go with him to a Hab’s game next time I’m in Montreal. He does an excellent job of keeping the country together by reason of being an official separatist. As long as he and the Bloc exist, Quebeckers can vote BQ to protest, secure in the knowledge that the bribes will continue thus they can safely go about their business of being Canadians without loving Canada.

Our  “fuehrer prinzip” reflects a system where all power reposes in the Prime Minister who acts not on the advice of MPs but unelected power brokers. We’ve come to look upon our elections as being 3 leaders plus Duceppe and vote accordingly. I know that will bring the cry “I vote for the person, not the party” to which I must reply “obviously you have no idea how the system works and you should confine your political action to electing directors of your golf club where the candidate’s ability may have some bearing on how the place is run.

The National Media understand this leader worship and tells us not what the party stands for but what the leader will do. If you vote for “the man” not the party your choice is about as important as your preference in ice cream flavours. Canada’s best journalists, an oxymoron if there ever was one, make the leaders’ debates look like a session of a Youth Parliament where only proper questions are asked and decorum outscores debate every time. Think about it, when was the last time an issue from BC, was put to the leaders during the debates? When was the question of the Pacific fisheries ever asked? Or Forestry? The plain fact is that British Columbia is as important to our political leaders as the Scilly Isles are to London.

Very little difference can be found where a leader’s response to issues invariably boils down to “me too but I’d do it this way not that way”. There isn’t a large “C” Conservative Party in the land except that hideous lot running things in Victoria. There certainly isn’t a socialist party and the Liberal philosophy has always been nice and simple – do what it takes to get elected then stay elected.

On issue of national unity nothing has changed in my lifetime. Quebec has fits of separatism like recurring bouts of poison ivy, but gets goodies like the child threatening to run away gets his Popsicle. Every election we’re told how important “The West” is indication the Central Canadians refusal to understand of the reality that there are three very distinct regions in Western Canada which only unite when Ottawa power brokers pisses them all off at once.

The winning formula never changes – get your votes in Ontario and Quebec and you’re high and dry. It would be different if we had some sort of Proportional Representation where MPs have some power but that won’t happen unless and until electoral reform becomes an issue of the people, not just university professors.

There’s a curious dichotomy playing out in this country at present – we’re all told and indeed tell ourselves that we don’t want or need yet another election yet we’re also told and believe that minority governments are terrible so we must avoid all forms of PR! Which is it to be, a five year dictatorship by a leader who has parliament in his pocket or a prime minister whose control of the purse and policy, depends upon Parliamentary consent?

There are of course other options such as the American “checks and balance” system where the executive, elective and juridical branches check each other’s power. It’s the best system I know – on paper. The perfect becomes imperfect because the elective branch can’t stanch the flow of money from interest groups to those they want to interest – and influence. But that’s not the product of the system but the lack of will to use that system appropriately. The US system – endorsed by no less an authority than constitutional expert Dr Edward (Ted) McWhinney, – has no buzz in Canada where those who profit from the system have no incentive to change it. We prefer the Canadian way – bitch over our beer only rousing ourselves to get another.

There being no will to reform, there’s no way to have it.