Is Premier Campbell Playing Favourites?

Elections BC Down For Count

Elections B.C.'s website seems unable to handle a by-election in two ridings:

Imagine how badly they can screw up the provincial general election next May.

The geek in me comes out at times like this. The open source (RedHat Linux, Apache, PHP) server behind www.elections.bc.ca is housed in Regina, not in B.C., and is serviced by SaskTel.

Update

NDP candidates in both Vancouver-Burrard and Vancouver-Fairview, Spencer Herbert and Jenn McGuinn respectively, appear to have carried the day.

Oil, water, salmon and B.C. do not mix

There is nothing intrinsically “conservative” about raping the planet and damaging irreplaceable ecosystems and food sources, and polls among those who identify themselves as “conservative” bear this out:

Last year, Ipsos Reid asked Conservatives in B.C. their top priority for finding new energy; 53 per cent supported wind and solar, 30 per cent said pursue more efficiency and only 11 per cent chose going after new oil sources, like the tar sands. The same poll found 71.7 per cent of Conservative voters wanted a ban on oil tankers close to shore. David Beers, ‘Tankers on the B.C. coast are getting too close for comfort’ – The Globe and Mail April 28 2007

So why isn’t Stephen Harper listening? Does father really know better?

Or is it because he has outstanding IOUs and is beholden to key oil and gas patch supporters of various Conservative MP’s, cabinet ministers, and Harper himself, including former EnCana president and CEO Gwyn Morgan.

Oil Tankers in B.C. coastal waters?

IOU or not, EnCana is directly woven into this story. Under Morgan’s leadership, the company initiated a move which would see the coastal B.C. town of Kitimat have its port turned into an import terminal for certain oil liquids that are used in the Alberta tar sands extraction process – liquids which are in extremely short supply due to the phenomenal growth of that particular environmental disaster.

To get the stuff to its destination, a pipeline would need to be built across British Columbia to northern Alberta, and that project alone is one for concern as any pipeline built to Alberta will have a twin returning back to B.C. carrying import liquids to the tar sands and tar sands extracts for export to the U.S. west coast or Asia.

Enbridge is planning to build two pipelines in a single corridor — one to transport over 400,000 barrels of petroleum per day from Alberta to the B.C. coast, and the other to carry over 150,000 barrels of condensate (a by-product of gas production, which is used to thin oil for easier transport by pipeline) per day from the coast to Alberta. From the new tanker terminal in Kitimat, oil would then be shipped to refineries in California, China and other Asia Pacific markets.

The Gateway Pipeline would be the largest petroleum pipeline development in North America in more than 50 years, and one of the largest private infrastructure investments in B.C.’s history. All told, the pipeline would increase Canada’s trade opportunities and enhance B.C.’s reputation as an international gateway. Anna Grimes, Vancouver Board of Trade June 27 2006

In short, Kitimat will become something akin to the Valdez Alaska Oil Terminal which is operated by the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company.

SNC-Lavalin, a Canadian engineering firm active in oil and gas pipeline and infrastructure projects, has done millions of dollars of work for Alyeska (a pipeline and port operator) and has been involved in billions of dollars of pipeline construction in North American and around the world. Gwyn Morgan is on the board of directors of SNC-Lavalin.

LNG import terminals: ticking time bombs

Kitimat may not only have to contend with oil condensates and bitumen or synthetic crude traveling in and out of its port—there are companies (Galveston LNG, Kitimat LNG) right now trying to get approval to build a time-bomb of a facility, a liquefied natural gas (LNG) re-gassification import terminal, at Kitimat, for the sole purpose of shipping natural gas imported from overseas to the United States. And of course, another petro-fuel terminal, means more pipelines.

Calgary-based Galveston LNG is hopeful of receiving regulatory approval by late May for the “loop” pipeline that would supply substantial volumes of regasified gas to consumers in Alberta, according to a senior company official. “The pipeline will have an initial potential to supply 500 million cubic feet per day,” said Thom Dawson, senior vice-president of Galveston. “Depending on the gas sales and purchase agreements, it can go up to 1.7 billion cubic feet per day.” Estimated to cost $1 billion, the project will entail the construction of a roughly 300— kilometre, 36-inch-diameter pipeline from Kitimat in B.C. to Station Four, north of Sumas, a compressor station and isolation valves. The facility will be built on a 50:50 partnership between Kitimat LNG, wholly-owned by Galveston, and Vancouver-based Pacific Northern Gas Ltd. Both firms have formed Pacific Trail Pipelines Ltd. Partnership to develop a natural gas transmission line. Week in Review, April 3–9, www.albertaoilmagazine.com

If the gas is destined for the U.S., why build the plant in Canada you ask?

There are a number of reasons ranging from location to world wide shipping lines, to the EnCana/Enbridge desire to establish an oil and condensate export/import terminal, but frequently overlooked as a significant factor to the current attractiveness of Canada for such projects is that political activism here isn’t as effective, and there are governments in B.C., Alberta, and Ottawa who are so pro oil and gas development they breath butane instead of oxygen. Harper made his intentions clear last fall at a dinner meeting of the Economic Club of New York when he labelled Canada as an emerging energy “superpower”.

The Kitimat LNG project last year received one of several approvals needed befpre it can proceed. Its interesting that any project destined to increase Canada’s share of world wide greenhouse gas emissions (natural gas is a euphemistic alternative name for methane which molecule for molecule has ten times the climate change impact of carbon dioxide – CO2 – and, when used as a fuel, produces significant amounts of CO2 emissions) could receive a positive environmental assessment. Did that assessment consider the GHG component? While John Baird and his predecessor Rona Ambrose try to look green, out the back door their ministry has been approving projects like Emerson’s gateway-linked expansion of Delta Port despite community opposition which submitted environmental assessments of their own that countered the official government story.

What can be done?

Whether we choose to be aware or admit it or not, the fact is that dependence on fossil fuels has much to do with the state of the planet in ecological, political, and military terms. We are all willing or unwilling or uninformed accomplices. Particularly in North America, which has the lions share of world wealth, consumes more than 1/4 of the annual energy production of the entire planet, yet has barely more than 4 percent of the globe’s population, we have a lot to answer for. But our current political leadership only wants to to more of the same, and in fact wants to ramp it up.

What can be done? Take personal responsibility first for your own role, but don’t stop there.

Activism works. Common sense and public outcry resulted in California refusing to authorize exactly such a plant that international mining giant BHP Billiton wanted to build, although a number of other companies continue to lobby various west coast states for permission to proceed. A map showing proposed projects in BC south to California is available here .(PDF)

California activists have had some success but their terminator governor continues to say he supports LNG terminal projects despite his own government pulling the plug on two projects. See: http://www.coastaladvocates.com/ and http://www.lngwatch.com/

Lack of public awareness and action has resulted in a natural salmon fishery that is on its way to being as dead as the east coast cod waters. We can’t allow the prevailing culture of business at any cost to the environment and people continue to drive us into a future that looks more and more like a Mad Max rerun.

Unlock the Ineffectual Legislature, Gordon

Today Real Democracy issued a communique to all members of the British Columbia Legislature calling upon each and every one to pressure Gordon Campbell to unlock the legislature.

Our group has committed to holding members from any party to account if they fail to do their duty for our democracy. Communique >

While campaigning for office Gordon Campbell once promised voters a “fixed legislative calendar.” With no fear of facing the electorate any time soon, Premier Campbell this year decided to break that promise. Despite having both an obligation and the power to open the legislature for a fall sitting, Campbell chose to slam the doors shut, having imperiously declared that there was nothing to talk about in British Columbia.

Nothing to talk about? No issues to discuss? Does Premier Campbell live in a vacuum where time no longer ticks? Perhaps his watch has stopped moving, but our province has not.

187 days, 21 hours and 3 minutes have passed since the legislature last sat in session. That’s 4,509 hours and 3 minutes, or 270,543 minutes, or 16,232,580 seconds. That’s over half a year gone by during which issues important to British Columbians have not been taken up in a single debate in this parliamentary chamber.

Today’s one-day session is crass political theatre, not real democracy.

Mr. Campbell is quoted as disdainfully equating the parliamentary process as nothing but “busy work.” It’s time that legislators from both sides of the house remind Campbell of his real job responsibilities, and demand of the Premier that he fulfill his promises to run an open and transparent government with a fixed legislative calendar. If you do not, we will.

There are numerous issues which need open debate, and every government requires the bright light of scrutiny to keep them on the right track. Campbell shut the legislature down for purely partisan political reasons. It certainly was not closed in the best interests of British Columbians.

David Emerson found out what a committed group of citizens could do to his political future. Stay tuned, we are far from done and B.C. politics is, as hunters might say, a target rich environment.

Campbell Shafts British Columbians

B.C. Legislature opens for only a single day this fall

Wake up, British Columbia. Why oh why are you all sleeping? My informal straw poll of regular citizens in our fair city tells me that fewer than 2 in 10 people even know that the Campbell government refused to call a fall session for the B.C. legislatures.

Campbell’s excuse? He said that there’s nothing to talk about, that he didn’t want to engage in busy work.

Imagine that. Nothing to talk about.

Of course, that’s far from the truth, in fact, the reality is quite the opposite. There are plenty of issues that demand urgent debate right now.

Under Campbell’s leadership, BC Hydro is being privatized through the backdoor process of contracting out new generation projects. Its sneaky, and not responsible for B.C. electricity payers nor for taxpayers. What’s worse, in this age of climate change reckoning, is that some of the first projects on the block are coal fired plants, two of which, if they go ahead, will double B.C.‘s greenhouse gas output in one sickening move.

Not enough to talk about?

How about the Gateway project – one of David Emerson’s pet efforts too. Its all about adding huge new road projects so that trucks can move to and from the newly expanding Port of Vancouver/Delta Port. There’s a climate change component to this which almost nobody talks about – outsourcing manufacturing to China and Asia where greenhouse gas controls are far laxer than even our pitiful efforts simply moves the problem out of the United States and Canada to some other jurisdiction which we can not control.

What does B.C. get out of this? A few jobs. Big deal. The goods are mostly going to end up elsewhere.

Or then there’s the recently approved expansion of Deltaport, thanks to the Minister Responsible for Raping the Environment, Rona Ambrose. Despite Canadian government scientists own reports suggesting a signficant environmental impact, Ambrose’s office a couple weeks ago approved the project, citing “no significant environmental impact”.

Wait, there’s more. Numerous provincial and federal politicians have been agitating for a lifting of the offshore oil and gas moratorium. Now that Harper’s in the saddle, folks like Gary Lund, and simpatico’s like Rona Ambrose (who used to help Ralph Klein with his oil sands expansion policies), can assist the Campbell government in breaking the age-old moratorium.

Or how about the bitumen pipeline that Enbridge wants to build across the whole of British Columbia, a pipeline that would see tankers in our inside waters loading up with the foul stuff to cart off to China.

There’s a whole raft of attacks on B.C.‘s energy production system and our environment happening right now.

And Gordon Campbell has the gall to say there is nothing to talk about? Talk about arrogant, the legislature is to open for a single day on November 22 to appoint a new child and youth representative.

Fancy that. Opening for a single day to appoint someone to head up a department which has had a sorry record under Campbell’s leadership so far. No, its not too cynical to say its all about optics, while the government continues to screw the citizens of British Columbia, and our future generations.

Scientist: BC Fish Farms Kill Wild Salmon

From the common sense department:

2006–10-20 (CBC News) ‘No debate’ that fish farms kill wild salmon, says B.C. scientist

The independent scientific community speaks with a single voice with regards to sea lice and their impact on wild salmon. Salmon farms kill wild salmon. There’s no debate around that. It’s been known and acknowledged in Europe for more than a decade.Dr. John Volpe, University of Victoria

The committee is wrapping up its hearings after seven months and thousands of witnesses, and is expected to make its report to the legislature next spring. (Why so long? Because Gordon Campbell says there’s nothing to talk about, so he’s locked the legislature for the fall.)

It should be noted that Patrick Moore, former Greenpeace warrior, is on the side of the fish-farming industry. Contradiction? Or sell out, as many environmentalists claim, citing Moore’s support for the nuclear industry, logging, the plastics industry and genetically modified foods to name a few of his controversial about-faces. Wired magazine in 2004 published an interesting article about Moore entitled Eco-Traitor.

Its only a matter of time before we see Rona Ambrose or Stephen Harper share the same stage as Moore. Watch for it.

For the record, I have never knowingly purchased or eaten farmed salmon. When we eat out, if the restaurant can’t assert that its wild, we don’t order salmon.

Organizing boycotts of products and industries is going to become a “growth industry” in itself, and soon, I believe.

Like to bamboozle? Consider career as Finance Minister

Will McMartin’s latest installment on B.C.‘s finance minister, Carole Taylor, and other political figures from B.C.‘s past, mixes a good dose of humour with an important message. Pertinent to the health care story of last week:

According to the budget released in February, health expenditures last year totalled nearly $11.5 billion. In the current year they’ll be just over $11.9 billion, or $446 million higher than the previous year.

Here is the question: by what amount did the finance minister claim to have increased funding for health this year—a) $446 million; b) $821 million; or c) $1,950 million (that is, “almost $2 BILLION”).

The correct answer is c) “almost $2 billion.”

Confused? Of course you are. According to British parliamentary tradition, and even B.C.‘s own Financial Administration Act, the legislature only may approve expenditures for one fiscal year. (It’s called the “principle of annuality,” and is practised in democratic countries around the world.)

In the current fiscal year, B.C.‘s Legislative Assembly approved a health expenditure increase of just $446 million. That’s all.

But Gordon Campbell’s government presents three-year spending plans with each annual budget. So this spring, while the budget for the current year lifts health spending by $446 million, it also outlines an increase of $237 million next year (2007–08), plus another $138 million in the year after that (2008–09).

The latter two increases have not been approved by the legislature, and they may never occur. But that hasn’t stopped the BC Liberals from claiming credit for them.

Moreover, where most people—you know, taxpayers, and other simple, honest folk—would calculate the three-year increase at $821 million ($446 million + $237 million + $138 million), the Campbell government adds up those same numbers and arrives at $1,950 million. (See pp. 11 and 20 of Budget and Fiscal Plan, 2006/07–2008/09, here.)

That’s because they figure that the $446 million will be spent this year, and then it will be spent again next year along with the $237 million. And in the final year, the $446 million and $237 million will form a base for the $138 million. You add it up like this: $446 million + $446 million + 237 million + $446 million + $237 million + $138 million.

Got that? The new, improved total is $1.95 billion.

Just like that—presto!—a rather modest funding lift of $446 million has been transformed into a gargantuan boost of “almost $2 billion.”

(Do not try this at home. If you measured the growth of your children in this fashion, they’d be over 20 feet tall by the time they left home, and your grocery bills would be huge!)

The rest is worth a read, too.

False Alarm: Health Care

Will McMartin writes in this morning’s Tyee:

“You can see what I’m trying to impress upon everyone,” [B.C.‘s Finance Minister Carole] Taylor told the assembled scribes, referring to a chart that showed health costs rising from 41.6 per cent of last year’s budget, to 71.3 percent in 2017–18. “This is an issue that we all have to get our heads around.”

In show-business parlance, it was a boffo performance. Predictably, B.C.‘s goggle-eyed news media quickly succumbed to the charms of our Gucci-favouring finance minister.

Golly. It’s a good thing that premier Gordon Campbell, who last spring fled the legislative assembly to tour European health facilities with his brother-in-law, has decided to cancel the legislature’s scheduled fall sitting to travel around B.C. and have a “conversation” about health care with British Columbians.

But there is just one, tiny problem with Taylor’s bleak forecast, and the underlying premise of Campbell’s desire to introduce dramatic reforms to B.C.‘s public health system.

There is no fiscal crisis.

Reports published by the finance ministry—readily available to the public, and the news media, too—show that provincial expenditures on health have not exploded, nor are they expected to do so in the foreseeable future. Taylor’s warning of a looming fiscal crisis caused by skyrocketing health spending is contradicted and refuted by her own department. (The Tyee – Carole Taylor’s False Alarm)

Why, you wonder, would Carole Taylor and Gordon Campbell try to pull off this stunt? Its simple: many politicians are completely consumed by dogmatic, virtually slavish, subservience to the ideology of the day, all at the expense of common sense.

Campbell and Taylor, like most market is king fiscal conservatives, see the world through a particular prism and a health care system which is largely like the one we have today doesn’t fit into their preferred future spectrum.

Of course, Campbell and Taylor are entitled to their opinions, but they are not to be granted the luxury of lying to the public in order to sell this particular bill of goods.

Not without paying a price.

Carole Taylor’s alarmist news conference earlier this month should have caused a great many journalists to perk up their ears and pick up their calculators, before writing word one. Quite apart from the issue of health care, an important question raised by this story is why haven’t other journalists and publications done their homework? Are they lazy? Co-opted by ideology themselves? Or have they simply succumbed to group-think and blindly bought into what’s known as the prevailing wisdom?

There’s a lot of the latter running around our political parties, of all stripes, these days – and always has been.

We treat managing our public affairs in a manner so haphazard that its almost Enron-like. Financial analysts and the business press wouldn’t allow a publicly traded company to use such shocking numbers (growth in health care spending from 41.6 per cent of last year’s budget, to 71.3 percent in just 11 years is not only absurd but shockingly so) without diving deeper first.

Rhetorical question of the day: as a society we pay far more attention to quarterly reports and stock prices, and penalize, heavily, any firm that dares to try to pull the wool over investors’ eyes. Why do we scrutinize so closely quarterly company reports, but readily, meekly, accept distorted facts and misleading figures along with the latest spin being spewed by our political leaders?

Here’s a stock tip: Sell short. Carole Taylor and Gordon Campbell’s “personal stock” should be pummelled.