Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[VAGAbond]

A comment from an old Socred:

Hi Everybody, Rafe here.

I received an email from a man saying that he has a tough time bringing himself to vote NDP and asked for my comment and here it is. I hope you find it of interest.

Please pass this on to your address book so that we can provide information where the media will not.

Let me take a moment to answer your question which is one that has troubled a lot of people including myself.

 When I was in government (1975-80) I was Minister, first, for Consumer and Corporate Affairs. During that time I passed more consumer legislation than anyone before or since including licensing Car dealers (with six of them in caucus setting their collective hair on fire) forced the Banks to acknowledge and obey BC laws for the first time, forced serious reporting changes to the Vancouver Stock Exchanges for which they have never forgiven me, licensed Travel Agents and made them create a fund to bring home passengers stranded by bankrupt charter companies and so on.

As Environment Minister I stopped the government killing of wolves, stopped exploration for and mining of uranium and went to Seattle and negotiated the saving of the Skagit River from a raising of the Ross Dam which Seattle was permitted to do under a 1941 deal with the BC government.

As Minister of Health I brought in the Homecare program and Palliative Care.

I tell you all these things because there is no way in the world I could have ever done these things for the public of BC had Gordon Campbell been Premier.

The political ground has shifted dramatically and the present day version of the old Socreds is, I think, the party Carole James leads. I know that there are supporters of Ms James that are hard line lefties just as when I was with Bill Bennett there were supporters and indeed members of Caucus who were near fascists. That sort of thing will always happen in a two party system.

If it were 1975 all over again, I'd support Bill Bennett (the best premier BC ever had, in my view); in 2009 I will support Carole James.

Now as to the point that Campbell "cleaned up the mess". Perhaps, but let's be fair and observe that the NDP were struck by the "Asian 'flu" and in fact balanced the budget in their last year. It's also interesting to note that under the Liberals the Vancouver Convention Centre is over budget $400 million, more than double the cost of the "fast ferries". For a fuller account of the Liberals financial record may I refer you to my forthcoming article, next Monday, in www.thetyee.ca.

Now let's look at 2009. This election, for me, boils down to a single issue - the environment and the plans by Campbell to deface and destroy the province I was born in and love and where 7 out of 8 of my grandchildren live. The energy policy, in which no one but industry had a hand in formulating, will ruin an ever increasing number of rivers, not to look after BC's energy needs, but mostly, American requirements, I have nothing against Americans and in fact have often been accused of being to lenient with them, but I don't want to see us sacrifice our environment rivers so they can preserve theirs. This policy is government by the North America Free Trade Agreement and our experts tell us three things-

1. once an American company has access to our water for any reason, it can use it for any reason Including selling bulk water exports.

2. Once an American company has tenure on a Canadian water and is using it, that tenure cannot be terminated either by contract or legislation.

3. Once we are exporting energy, we cannot reduce that supply to the US without reducing our own usage by a similar amount (this is the "Proportionality Clause").

Moreover, the profits which BC Hydro now pays into our treasury will go as dividends to shareholders of Companies like General Electric, Ledcor and Axos. BC Hydro, forced by this government to pay huge amounts for energy that they can't even break even with when they sell it, will bankrupt BC Hydro for which we paid a high environmental price 45 years ago but which has since then given us regular power at 1/10th the cost they pay in California. Dr Marvin Shaffer at SFU calls this new business technique "buy high, sell low"!

If Campbell is returned we will be, like Bre'r Rabbit, stuck to the American Tar Baby.

There is but one other choice, vote NDP.

But will this not mean the financial ruination of the province?

I don't believe so for a moment. But let us assume for the sake of argument an NDP government made a balls up of the economy. That can be repaired by a new government. However, once we have established the Campbell Energy Plan for another four years that will be the end of BC Hydro and the end of hundreds of rivers. FOREVER.

I cannot allow that to happen without giving it the fight of my life.

I, a former Socred minister, with the same core values I had then, am supporting and will vote for Carole James.

Sincerely,


Rafe

 

Please take the time to look at www.saveourrivers.ca and get the bigger picture

[UFV_Poor_Fisher]

ok so i was aware of this...

"This policy is government by the North America Free Trade Agreement and our experts tell us three things-

1. once an American company has access to our water for any reason, it can use it for any reason Including selling bulk water exports.

2. Once an American company has tenure on a Canadian water and is using it, that tenure cannot be terminated either by contract or legislation.

3. Once we are exporting energy, we cannot reduce that supply to the US without reducing our own usage by a similar amount (this is the "Proportionality Clause")."

but what i am wondering is where in NAFTA these conclusions are drawn. i have been told that it is mainly under Chapter 11 that much of this is born out of..if so what part of chapter 11?? if you haven't noticed the document is MASSIVE!!! so if anyone could provide somewhat proper citation for this i would be deeply grateful. thanks.

[Johnny_5]

I think bulk water exports would be pretty tough to pull off, since the water licenses typically have clauses in them about minimum allowable flows in the river, and only allow for diversion of the flow, not removal.  What goes in at the top, must come out at the bottom, and go back into the river.  This is why the power projects are normally located at an impassable obstacle for fish, so that the area of the diverted flow does not affect them.

[chris gadsden]

Re: NDP and enemy to green power by Steve Davis (Progress letters, April 20)

Let's hope Mr. Davis is right and the NDP would in fact destroy this fraudulent industry.

Mr. Davis acts like his industry is "investing" in BC, when we are underwriting these private power projects with our commitment to purchase the power from them at 20 times what we make it for on our own public dams. ($30 billion of our money already - and that's just the tip of the iceberg. The GE / Plutionic proposal for what would be the largest private hydro power project in Canadian history in Bute Inlet, would cary approximately a $20 BILLION contract all on its own. All our money.) Not a fair comparison - our public power costs and this new exorbitant private river power? It is when we don't need and can't in fact use this private river power, because most of it comes at the precise time of year when our public dams are full to brimming over. Which means we will be forced to export virtually every watt - at a substantial loss.

Indeed, this "market-driven" industry and government have come up with a new savvy business principle they'd like to share with us: "Buy High/Sell Low." We buy it for $80-120 MWh and are forced to dump it onto the spot market for less than half, yielding a debt cycle that will ultimately bankrupt our historic public power utility - the legacy of that far left wing socialist WAC Bennett.

The economic consequences to this program couldn't be more grave for British Columbians, especially at a time like this:

1. Astronomically higher rates for consumers (get used to paying California style rate - 4x what we pay today)

2. Astronomically higher rates for industry - meaning widespread job loss in already hard-hit communities

3. Higher taxes for all British Columbians as we lose the approx. $700 million/year dividend our pubic power utility has put towards our schools and hospitals

4. The long term cost of giving away our most valuable and vital resources - our energy and our water: PRICELESS

Mr. Davis gives the impression we should be thankful to his industry for absconding with our rivers and tens of billions of our hard earned dollars. And he shows the opinion he has of our intelligence when he tries to pass this power off as environmentally sound. Thank you St. Steve! There's nothing green about this stuff - though there will be plenty of carbon credits attached to further enable pollution from the tarsands. I invite readers to visit SaveOurRivers.ca to see my videos detailing the impacts of these projects and to read articles from some of Canada's top ecologists, biologists and energy experts about the folly of this program.

We never asked for this program, we were never consulted about it, we never gave our consent. And we we tried to be involved in the process through our local government, Bill 30 came in and took away our rights.

This is a scam. The biggest we have ever seen.

I have another take on the position taken by Mr. Davis (former Vice President of Ledcor Power): His industry is destroying our public power utility, economy and environment.

Let's hope he's right about the NDP.


Damien Gillis

Filmmaker - Save Our Rivers Society

[Novabonker]

All the Liberals have left the house! (and now work for IPP's) Belly up to the trough!
Geoff Plant, former BC Liberal Attorney General @ Renaissance Power.
Mark Grant, BC Liberal executive director@ Rupert Peace Power.
David Cyr, former Assistant to BC Liberal Minister Mike de Jong @ Plutonic Power.
Robert Poore, worked under the Provincial Revenue Minister of the Province of BC @ Plutonic Power.
Tom Syer, who has held a variety of senior positions in the BC Government including Gordon Campbell’s Deputy Chief of Staff @ Plutonic Power.
Bill Irwin, after holding key positions in the BC Ministries of Land and Water, and Crown Lands @ Plutonic Power.
Bruce Young, has held several high profile positions with the BC Liberal party and lobbied his own party on behalf of Katabatic Power @ Atla Energy.
Stephen Kukucha, former senior policy advisor for the BC Ministry of Environment @ Atla Energy.
Bob Herath, former Assistant Regional Water Manager for the BC Ministry of Environment @ Syntaris Power.
Paul Taylor, after his work as President and CEO of crown corporation ICBC as well as high level positions in the BC Government@ Naikun Wind Energy Group.
Michael J. O’Conner, former President and CEO of Crown Corporation BC Transit @ Naikun.
Jackie Hamilton, formerly held various BC Government environmental assessment and regulatory management positions @ Cloudworks Energy.

[jetboatjim]

I believe it was #4 out of 5 on the liberals goals, as per their pamphlet.  " To create a world class fishery "

I think they failed the fishery part, nevermind the "world class" part.

I will vote the NDP...............I'm not into shoving rivers into concrete pipes.

[Novabonker]

ooops- Screwed up my post- It was supposed to be about 143000 speration pay and 9000 "retraining" allowance.

[Novabonker]

And another giveaway from the Liberals to a company that has Rich Coleman's brother in an executive position. I used to live near Jordan River and it was a pretty special place.

The University of Victoria's Environmental Law Clinic has asked the provincial auditor general to investigate the government's decision to allow Western Forest Products to take private lands out of tree farm licences on Vancouver Island without public consultation and without demanding compensation.

The law clinic, acting for the Sea to Sea Greenbelt Society and supported by organizations ranging from unions and First Nations to ratepayers and recreational groups, wants an opinion from Acting Auditor General Errol Price on whether the public has suffered an economic loss and whether environmental protection and public recreation is being compromised.

"On the face of it, it doesn't seem to be very prudent management," said Calvin Sandborn, the clinic's legal director.

"It doesn't seem to serve the public interest. It's great for Western Forest Products, but not for the workers and local residents and environmentalists and people in urban planning and surfers and First Nations."

In January, Forests Minister Rich Coleman announced that WFP would be allowed to remove 28,283 hectares of private land from three tree farm licences on Vancouver Island, without paying compensation -- a previously recognized principle.

The province did put conditions on the deal, including a three-year ban on log exports from the lands, First Nations access, protection of community watersheds and protection of Roosevelt elk and black-tail deer winter ranges.

But, those conditions apply only as long as WFP owns the land, according to a letter from Coleman.

Under tree-farm licence arrangements, when a company has privately owned land in a licence -- as in this case -- it agrees to follow stringent logging rules. In exchange, it gets guaranteed access to timber on Crown land.

Since WFP has taken those lands out now, the law clinic suggests it should be forced to financially compensate the government for that privilege.

"In the past, both government and industry have recognized that, if the public loses the benefit of having private lands contained in a TFL while the licensee continues to harvest on the TFL's Crown land, compensation to the Crown is appropriate," the law clinic paper says.

The private lands question came to a head this week with WFP's conditional sale to developer Ender Ilkay of more than 2,000 hectares of land in several parcels west of Victoria -- around Shirley, Jordan River, Jacob Creek, Muir Creek and the Sooke Potholes.

Sales of the spectacular waterfront and forested land, including the Jordan River townsite, campsite and surfing beach, are a windfall for the forestry company, according to the law clinic.

"Government's apparent failure to obtain compensation from WFP and to adequately protect public interests threatened by the deletions suggests there has been uneconomic, inefficient and ineffective management of public resources," says the audit request.

Sandborn said he does not know whether removal can be reversed, but, special bodies could be set up to control development and protect the environment.

"This is Victoria's wild coast experience and the province has a responsibility to protect that as a public asset," he said.

Assistant auditor general Morris Sydor said the information is being reviewed to see whether it will be pursued.

At a packed public meeting with Ilkay and WFP chief operating officer Duncan Kerr in Shirley Monday night, speakers accused Coleman of betraying the public trust.

"There's an elephant in the room who isn't here," said environmentalist Vicky Husband, referring to Coleman.

Malahat-Juan de Fuca NDP MLA John Horgan said he asked government about the lack of consultation and compensation.

"The elephant said he had no need to consult because the law provided for deletion," he said.

Kerr, in an interview yesterday, said the sales are needed to improve the company's balance sheet.

"The name of the game in business is: If you have an asset that contributes to your core business, you operate it. If it doesn't contribute it doesn't make sense to hang on to it," he said.

WFP needs to invest in mills on the coast to keep the industry viable, he said.

Kerr would not say whether more land from the 12,000 hectares that WFP has removed from the TFL on southern Vancouver Island will be put up for sale, saying it depends on the business climate and land values.

[maverick]

This may sound like a dumb question but why is there no Progressive Conservative Party in BC. I have lived in Alberta my whole life and travel to BC frequently so I should know this but I don't. I was just wondering if anybody knows.

[alwaysfishn]

This may sound like a dumb question but why is there no Progressive Conservative Party in BC. I have lived in Alberta my whole life and travel to BC frequently so I should know this but I don't. I was just wondering if anybody knows.

There is a BC Conservative party. Here is the link to their website: http://www.conservativesbc.com/

[maverick]

Then why are they not considered before the Green party? The PC's have done a pretty good job in Alberta up until Ed got the helm.

[alwaysfishn]

Then why are they not considered before the Green party? The PC's have done a pretty good job in Alberta up until Ed got the helm.

They are a new party, I believe since mid 2008 and I don't think they have candidates running in all ridings.

[chris gadsden]

I thought this letter has some food for thought.



IPPs: green or greenwash?


While Raincoast Conservation acknowledges the urgency of addressing climate disruption, we do not support large scale run-of-river power projects as a solution.

IPP advocates don't appear to understand the broader ecological problems well enough to foster the dramatic changes needed to transform entrenched cultural imperatives that are the fundamental issues driving this crisis.

Specifically, the unsustainable consumption of resources by a culture that believes in limitless economic and population growth will never be curtailed by continually meeting growing demand.

If we are serious about controlling carbon emissions, we should first diminish energy consumption through measures that recognize conservation as an energy resource.

For example, the public subsidies flowing to companies like Plutonic Power, as well as revenue from the carbon tax, should be redirected into initiatives such as expanding public transit and green retrofits of homes and commercial buildings. Transportation and buildings are identified as two large sources of greenhouse gas emissions by the B.C. government's Climate Action Team.

We also need to replace carbon-emitting energy production with renewable energy that is environmentally sustainable, shrink or eliminate industrial forestry to preserve carbon sinks and limit the release of greenhouse gases, as well as institute a carbon pricing system that will significantly reduce fossil fuel consumption.

To be effective, renewable energy needs to replace non-renewable sources, not augment them. In other words, the non-renewables must be taken offline when green energy comes online.

The B.C. government, however, is moving in the opposite direction as it pursues all manner of fossil fuel development, from offshore oil and gas to coalbed methane. The province is also supporting the construction of the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline that would carry some of the world's dirtiest oil from Alberta's tarsands to the B.C. coast for export to hydrocarbon-hungry markets abroad.

Within this context, the government is attempting to convince the public that the province is doing something substantive to address climate change by opening up our coast to widespread IPP development.

Conservation science is clear that most forms of energy production have environmental consequences, even "micro-hydro" projects that are considered low carbon emitters. Scale often makes the difference between sustainable regional solutions and large energy projects designed for profit and export.

Consider Plutonic Power's proposed IPP for Bute Inlet. The draft terms of reference fail to establish a clear framework for a thorough environmental assessment that would identify potential impacts. And while the energy that this IPP produces might be "clean" in terms of carbon emissions, the power project does not come near to being green, sustainable or low impact. The threats to terrestrial, aquatic and avian species and their habitats illustrate how these run-of-river mega-projects require a sober second look.

Five species of Pacific salmon, as well as winter and summer-run steelhead, spawn and rear in reaches or tributaries of the 17 rivers proposed for water extraction and diversion; Plutonic is proposing to divert between 77 per cent and 95 per cent of the mean annual flow from those 17 rivers and tributaries, with potentially harmful consequences for salmon at every life stage.

Now is the time for intelligent planning, before poorly conceived energy developments cause large-scale environmental damage.

Raincoast Conservation is calling for a moratorium on independent power projects, along with the establishment of an expert panel of scientists, who aren't suffering from what UVIC's Michael M'Gonigle calls "climate myopia" and grasp the broader ecological crisis. We envision such a panel would be mandated to distinguish between benign and harmful IPPs and to identify areas that should be off-limits to energy development as part of a rational and transparent planning process.


Chris Genovali

Executive Director

Raincoast Conservation

[Projecthealingwaters]

It is killing me to watch what could happen in B.C. from a back seat. I am no longer a resident but I care about the province and everything that makes it what it is.
 I have written to the Federal Ministers regarding the salmon fishery but alas my replies are kind of benign, the provincial folks do not reply to Alberta addresses apparently.
 I have followed Rafe's battle and signed what petitions I can but I know the battle is in your hands, I hope you can win the day.
 Perhaps even one term of NDP will be enough to dethrone Gordon Campbell from his party and they can stop and start listening to all of you.
 The issue I see both there and here, is the sound of potential jobs has to be a large "sway" factor for many voters in this time of closed mills and recession. Good luck folks!

[chris gadsden]

Vancouver Apr 29, 2009
The Wilderness Committee and Sierra Club BC today released a Freedom of Information document which shows that a comment made this week by Environment Minister Barry Penner regarding the number of rangers in BC Parks is wildly erroneous.



Minister Penner, responding to criticisms regarding recent park ranger staffing cuts, said in a media interview two days ago that the number of “rangers on-duty for the spring and summer will likely drop from 225 full-time equivalent positions last year to about 200 in 2009”.



The FOI document reveals Penner exaggerated the number of ranger positions by over 300 percent. According to the document, there were just 63.8 full-time equivalent ranger positions in BC Parks in 2006/07 even before the latest round of cuts – just a fraction of the 225 full-time equivalent ranger positions Minister Penner erroneously said existed.



The document also shows BC has just 10 regular full-time equivalent park ranger positions year-round – a 60 percent decline from 2001 when there were 26 regular full-time equivalent rangers.



Recent information provided by the BC Government and Service Employees’ Union reveals the most recent cuts will reduce current park ranger positions by an additional 40 percent – leaving less than 50 full-time equivalent rangers positions to patrol 13.5 million hectares of protected areas.


“I am amazed at the numbers Minister Penner put out. Park rangers are becoming an endangered species in BC,” said Gwen Barlee, policy director for the Wilderness Committee. “There are fewer regular full-time park rangers left in BC than there are Vancouver Island marmots which are in danger of dying out altogether.