Canadian delegations are ridiculed by crowds as they pass through the high-security gates at global environmental negotiations. Canada is a brazen opponent of attempts to confront the rapid loss of planetary biodiversity, and Canadian representatives have well-earned their reputations for belligerent and baseless opposition to any plan to deal with global climate change. When not chanting jingoistic solecisms about the country's "natural legacy" or chest-thumping over its "energy reserves", Canada is pumping oil and loading coal for shipments overseas.

Now arrives another milestone in the disintegration of Canada’s international standing. At this very moment, Canada threatens the EU with a trade war, in “defence of its interests,” because the EU is considering a fuel quality directive (FQD) that would brand oil product from Alberta’s oilsands “highly polluting.” Again, the fact this is a horrendous joke does not make it funny.

Canada defends itself, with a whole lot of help from the British government, with the lie that there is no “scientific” basis for the designation. The stupidity of this claim borders on the offensive, largely because it is so astoundingly disingenuous. The various parties involved — the oil majors, the Canadian, British Columbian and Albertan governments, and various rent-skimming hangers-on — know full well the oilsands are an ecological disaster. The fact of the matter is they are completely aware they are trashing the land, the water, and the global climate. They know full well they are destroying ecosystems, communities and atmospheric stability. They just think it is worth it.

The most important word in that last sentence is “They.” I write as a Canadian, and I assure you they do not speak for me, or for millions of Canadians. The denialist scam presently being perpetrated in Ottawa, Edmonton and Victoria — to name only the legislative seats — does not represent me or, I dare say, millions of others. When a Canadian official tells The Guardian, “We oppose an FQD that discriminates against oilsands crude without strong scientific basis. The oilsands are a proven strategic resource for Canada; we will continue to promote Canada’s oilsands as they are key to Canada’s economic prosperity and energy security” that “we” does not include me or anyone else I know. That "we" is a tiny, arrogant, privileged, destructive cartel that has nothing to do with, and no concern for, what 90 per cent of the country or the globe thinks of when they think of Canada. They don't even care about the people who agree with them.

Stephen Harper’s “government” — to even use the term is a form of undeserved flattery — does not and cannot speak for Canada and Canadians on these issues. It has neither knowledge nor right. The terrible fact is it does not care; indeed, this would appear to be the current federal government’s defining quality. Harper’s most recent non-clandestine involvements in environmental degradation — it seems the vast majority are hidden from view — have involved branding anyone opposed to his energy plan “enemies of Canada” or “radicals” supported by “foreign money.” The last is about the only thing that actually approaches humour — unintentional of course; humour is not something Canadians associate with the Prime Minister.

Apparently, the corporations with whom Harper’s government is coordinating — Shell, BP and Total are only the biggest — don’t count as foreign money. And somehow those who voice their commitments regarding the unacceptability of the oilsands project — the only commitments that are in fact backed-up by science — are “enemies of Canada,” while the true enemies of Canadian democracy (which should surely count as “Canada”, no?) impose a vision of a rent-soaked national fabric dripping oil onto a national and global conflagration.

Europe, if you are listening, the Canada you are being sold is not Canada. Most of us are more than aware of the destruction being wrought in our name. But their use of “Canada” is a cover, and the longer they use it, the more threadbare it becomes. Perhaps the best possible outcome of the current situation is one in which the word "Canada" becomes such a patently transparent ruse that it is exposed for the myth that it is, thus blowing their cover, and rendering the rest of the country finally visible, teeming as it is with people who understand Canadians as citizens of the world.

Strangely, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s plans for West Coast oil tanker and pipeline projects to serve Chinese interests are starting to resemble my daughter’s favourite nighttime fables. Headlines screaming, “Canada PM vows to ensure key oil pipeline is built” look like lots of huffing, and way too much puffing with the Prime Minster looking more like a Big Bad Wolf than the public servant sworn to protect the interests of all Canadians, not the interests of state-owned Chinese oil companies.

Unfortunately for Harper and his Alberta oil buddies, widespread opposition to crude oil supertankers from the public, municipalities and First Nations creates a brick wall no amount of huffing and puffing can tumble. The simple fact is the vast majority of British Columbians oppose oil supertankers and there is no way to ship oilsands crude to China without bringing Exxon Valdez-sized oil tankers to B.C.’s inside coastal waters.  Attempts to force British Columbians to accept supertanker projects will be met with stiff resistance — in the courts, in the streets and ultimately at the polls.

Harper’s claims about the supposed benefits of West Coast pipelines and oil tankers increasingly appear to be made of straw and sticks, rather than hard facts. Economist and former Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) CEO Robyn Allan has come out against Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline and oil tanker proposal saying that, “the higher price Canadian oil is expected to command if the pipeline is built will have negative consequences … in the form of an inflationary price shock, which will have a negative and prolonged impact on the Canadian economy by reducing output, employment, labour income and government revenues.”

Fortunately, no amount of huffing and puffing can overcome the brick wall we are building against this project.

A recent University of Ottawa study also blows holes in Harper’s national interest straw man. The study found the rapid expansion of Canadian oil exports has already resulted in a hollowing out of Canada’s manufacturing sector, due to the increase in the Canadian dollar as it tracks the price of oil. This dynamic —sometimes referred to as “Dutch Disease” — was responsible for 42 per cent of currency-related job losses in Canada between 2002 and 2007. That works out to about 140,000 jobs lost in the manufacturing sector because of the rapid expansion of the oilsands — and the disease would be exacerbated by Harper’s much touted pipelines.

Harper’s Big Bad Wolf persona is also visible in his attempts to demonize Dogwood Initiative and other community and environmental groups (as well as First Nations) that are opposing West Coast oil tanker and pipeline proposals. Harper’s efforts to distract attention from his bully tactics with labels like “radical” are reminiscent of the wolf’s attempts to entice Little Red Riding Hood by dressing up like grandma. The costume didn’t fool Little Red Riding Hood, and the wolf’s true intentions quickly became clear.

Just as the fairy tale’s wolves would do just about anything to get what they wanted, Harper appears willing to go to any length to fight for the interests of oil companies. Democracy, indigenous rights, fair and independent processes and British Columbians’ wishes all seem expendable in Harper’s quest to expand oilsands production.

Fortunately, no amount of huffing and puffing can overcome the brick wall we are building against this project. While Harper’s arrogance is understandable given he has finally achieved his yearned-for majority, he ignores history’s fables at his peril.

When you cut through all the huffing and puffing and attempted disguises, the question is becoming: Is Harper willing to try to force the risk of an oil spill onto unwilling British Columbians?

If he is, I am convinced my daughter will be reading about his defeat in the history books, not in fairy tales.

Thanks to annaadi+ on Flickr for the image. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Today I felt compelled to put my money where my mouth is and join with the “radicals” who value a clean environment over dirty oil. The Conservative Minister of Natural Resources, who has lost any semblance of impartiality he may have had with his comments today … has laid down the gauntlet — this is a fight to the finish. If I had more money I would give more, but you and any other group working against this pipeline will get every penny I can afford to give.
— Janis from Montreal, Quebec

Joe Oliver's letter made my blood boil, and I am tremendously grateful for Dogwood's rebuttal and ongoing campaign against the Northern Gateway pipeline.
— Emily from the Northern Gulf Islands, B.C.

In honour of Joe Oliver. Thank you for fighting against the northern pipeline.
— Kate from Victoria, B.C.

I am not a “billionaire socialist.” However, I am a concerned British Columbian and Canadian and so therefore I am doubling my usual donation. It’s going to be a long hard road but protecting our environment is well worth the effort! Thanks for all your hard work on the pipeline and tanker file.
— Rob from Victoria, B.C.

We will all be radicals before Harper is done.
— Jean from Fort St. John, B.C.

If there’s one thing I really don't like, it’s a bully! Hope this helps the cause.
— Virginia from Vancouver, B.C.

This is how I stand up to bullies, Mr.Harper.
— Karl from Burnaby, B.C.

Thank you for giving me, a 73-year-old radical, a voice.
— Stella Ann from Ponoka, Alberta

The “radicals” news coverage is the trail that led me to you.
— Bruce from Toronto, Ontario

Thank you to jjpacres on Flickr for the image. Used under a creative commons license.

Note: Technical issues with our website are causing all comments to be posted as Anonymous. Our apologies - we are working to fix this as soon as possible.

‘How can I not be an advocate for what is best for their health?’

“I’ve really grown to love the north,” Kathryn says over the phone from Fort St. John, where she’s currently completing a clinical training year.

The third-year med school student can see herself working in any number of the coastal communities that could be affected by tanker traffic.

“There’s something to be said about how it would affect the Coastal First Nations and all the communities along the pipeline route,” she says. “I think about going into these communities and being a family doctor and think: ‘How can I not be an advocate for what is best for their health?’ ”

Kathryn first heard about Enbridge’s tankers and pipeline proposal while she was living in Prince George, but at first didn’t think anything could be done to stop it.  “Last November I watched Spoil (a documentary on the Great Bear Rainforest) and realized this was an ongoing battle,” she says.

The Vancouver native has always loved B.C.’s coast, but a trip to Haida Gwaii last summer heightened her awareness of what’s at stake.

“I think about tankers going right by there and what could be lost is mindblowing,” she says. Lately, the issue has been on her mind more than usual.  “I’ve found myself not about able to think about anything but this pipeline and potential disasters. Here I should be thinking about exams, and I can’t stop thinking about this proposal.”

When an unexpected scholarship cheque for $500 arrived in the mail this January, she gave the whole thing to Dogwood Initiative. “I just thought: I would’ve got by without it, so why not give what I can.”

A heartfelt thanks to Kathryn and all of our donors for helping Dogwood Initiative continue to stand up for B.C.

Note: Technical issues with our website are causing all comments to be posted as Anonymous. Our apologies - we are working to fix this as soon as possible.

Not on Facebook? Send your question to info@dogwoodinitiative.org

Thanks to Oberazzi on Flickr for the image. Used under a Creative Commons licence.

One of the more startling takeaways from Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver’s open letter is how the government has confused “corporate interests” as being one and the same as the “national interest.”

Oliver equates shipping unrefined oil to Asia as undeniably being in the national interest, but there are at least five key reasons why he’s wrong on that front.

1)    Protecting B.C.’s coast is about protecting B.C. jobs. Right now, more than 45,000 people are permanently employed by B.C.’s coastal seafood and ocean recreation industries. We’re not just talking the fishing fleet, but also processors, anglers and tour operators. Enbridge says its pipeline and tankers project will create 560 jobs in B.C., so we’d be risking 80 jobs for every one we stand to gain. Why would we put the livelihoods of thousands of people at risk just so multinational oil companies can make a quick buck? We need to protect real jobs and the existing livelihoods of tens of thousands of British Columbians who support their families with the coastal economy.

2)    Canada’s already got a bad case of Dutch Disease. When a currency becomes tied to the price of a single commodity, such as oil, due to a rapid surge in exports, it frequently causes job losses in the manufacturing sector. When this happens, it’s called Dutch Disease. A recent University of Ottawa study found that Dutch Disease is responsible for 42 per cent of currency-related job losses in Canada between 2002 and 2007 — that works out to about 140,000 jobs lost in Ontario because of the rapid expansion of the oilsands. Every time another oilsands expansion is approved, more jobs are lost in Ontario. Read our blog on Dutch Disease.

3)    Exporting raw bitumen exports Canadian jobs. Recent polling shows 84 per cent of Albertans would prefer to see oilsands bitumen refined in their province. Further to that, 81 per cent of Albertans think the government should be taking steps to increase the amount of oilsands upgrading and refining provincially. Even the Alberta Federation of Labour, which represents 29 unions and 145,000 workers, has spoken out against Enbridge’s tankers and pipeline proposal because it would exported unrefined bitumen — and  50,000 high-quality jobs to China. We’re not prescriptive about whether new refineries should be built or where (because we believe local people should make these decisions), but one thing is for sure: it never makes sense to sell the wood and buy back the chair.

4)    Half of Canada is reliant on foreign oil. Most of eastern Canada is currently dependent on foreign oil from declining or volatile reserves in the North Sea and the Middle East. If our government really cared about the best interests of Canadians, they’d be at least considering Canadian domestic energy security. Instead, they are selling off our non-renewable resources to foreign oil companies and pushing to allow them to ship it to Asia on oil supertankers through one of the last pristine places on earth.

As former senior federal government geologist David Hughes says in his 30-page report submitted to the review panel: “The proclivity to liquidate these resources as fast as possible in the name of economic growth is a very short-sighted policy practised by the Alberta and federal governments at the expense of the long-term energy security of Canadians.”

5)    What’s the hurry? As former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed says, why not go slower on oilsands/pipeline expansion and use the oil we have left in the ground wisely? After all, one of Canada’s top investors, the 85-year-old Stephen Jarislowsky, has said: “Long term, I think oil in the ground is a good asset.”

Enbridge’s pipeline and tanker scheme is predicated on the assumption that oilsands production could (and should) be tripled in less than 25 years — that calculation goes beyond even the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers’ calculations. Without that expansion, there is no oil to fill West Coast pipelines.

Given the plethora of unaddressed environmental and social concerns in the oilsands (as pointed out by six independent reports in 2010 and 2011), as Canadians we should be thinking long and hard before embarking on further rapid expansion. After all, this is a valuable non-renewable resource that we only get to dig up and use once — let’s use it in the best interests of Canadians, not for the short-term gain of multinational oil companies.

Every time you hear the federal government say “national interest” insert “corporate interest” and you’ll see a clearer picture. The prime minister is abdicating his responsibility to serve in the best interests of Canadians — and prominent commentators are asking: when will Harper stop thinking as an oil CEO and start acting like he is prime minister of Canada?

Thanks to joiseyshowaa on Flickr for the image. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Note: Technical issues with our website are causing all comments to be posted as Anonymous. Our apologies - we are working to fix this as soon as possible.

It started on Monday January 9 when Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver released an unprecedented open letter on the eve of public hearings for Enbridge’s tanker and pipeline proposal to B.C.’s West Coast.

In that letter, Oliver wrote that “environmentalists and other radical groups” are using “foreign money” to “hijack” the public hearings and threatened to streamline the regulatory process. 

It didn’t matter to Oliver that 99 per cent of the 4,000 plus participants are everyday Canadians. It didn’t matter that 10 foreign oil companies are registered interveners for the public hearings. And it didn’t matter that $20 billion of foreign money was poured into the oilsands between 2007 and 2010. No, the only thing that mattered was that regular folks had signed up to participate in a public process (how dare they?) and that public interest groups like Dogwood had helped them do so. 

What happened next even we couldn’t have predicted. As enormous media interest turned our way, it became apparent that the backlash to Oliver’s comments was quickly becoming the national zeitgeist. Within 48 hours we sent a message to our supporters asking them to turn their outrage into action by getting five new people to sign our No Tankers petition. That day, we hit an all-time traffic record on our website and by the end of day we had nearly 10,000 new petition signatures.

Canadians of all stripes were unimpressed by Oliver’s rant. This comment was made by Linda from Gabriola Island as she signed the petition:

“I have been a conservative supporter. And you, Mr. Harper have accomplished some really good things. But this response by you and your government is an insult … this is a democracy. I have a right to my opinion and not to have it trashed in such a disrespectful manner. Please stop your very aggressive attitude to ordinary citizens who love their country.”

Next, the donations started to roll in. Daniel Terry, owner of Denman Island Chocolates, was so outraged by Oliver’s “foreign money” hypocrisy that he went online and donated $7,400 to Dogwood. To our delight, more cheques started arriving in the mail with messages like “Say thank you to Mr. Oliver.”

We quickly switched from defence to offence and the media calls kept rolling in. When the  Ethical Oil, an oil industry front group with close ties to the federal government, started attacking us in this blog, it was just more fuel to throw on the fire.  The bogus group (which, ironically, won’t say where it’s funding comes from) thinks it’s horrifying that Dogwood facilitated the registration of 40 per cent of participants in the public hearings — we think it speaks volumes about how much our supporters in British Columbia care about decisions about their air, land and water.

As it turned out, most of the nation’s columnists agreed with us. From the Globe & Mail and Toronto Star to the Vancouver Sun and Victoria Times Colonist, the pundits tore a strip off Oliver for launching a smear campaign against reasonable Canadians with reasonable concerns.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper must have forgotten to read the newspapers that week because in an interview aired on The National on Jan. 16, he reiterated Oliver’s comments. Lo and behold, the next morning we got a call from The National and that evening the newscast’s top story was how Harper’s comments had backfired, leading to more than 20,000 new signatures on our petition. 

Just as it appeared the storm was over, U.S. President Barack Obama announced his rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline that would have transported oilsands bitumen to the Gulf Coast. We were quick to point to the power of the people of Nebraska — ranchers, farmers, Republican senators — and draw comparisons to British Columbia, where a folkstorm is brewing among citizens of all walks of life.

Combine that folkstorm with the indomitable First Nations opposition and the rhetoric coming out of Ottawa these days and the Enbridge battle is going to make the Keystone XL showdown look like a teddy bear’s picnic.

Still, there’s much work to be done. Susan Riley said it best in her column in the Ottawa Citizen: “Pipeline opponents will win only if Canadians, en masse, rally to defend their beautiful, blessed country — rather than stepping politely aside while it is plundered again for short-term gain.”

Thanks to vivoandando on Flickr for the image. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Note: Technical issues with our website are causing all comments to be posted as Anonymous. Our apologies - we are working to fix this as soon as possible.

Retired Professor of Economics Reimar Kroecher recently wrote me this e-mail:

If Enbridge gets permission to build its pipeline from the Tar Sands to Kitimat, and the volume of oil exported from Canada rises dramatically, there will be a substantial increase in the Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar and other currencies.  In the economic literature this effect is sometimes referred to as the Dutch disease.  When the Netherlands started exporting high volumes of newly found natural gas, the Dutch currency appreciated substantially [hurting the manufacturing sector]. Norway also had the same experience when it revved up its exports of hydrocarbons.

Kroecher’s e-mail raises a point that effectively challenges the argument Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the oil industry like to make — that sending unrefined Canadian oil to Asia is self-evidently good for our economy. It is not. As with any decision, there would be winners and losers.

Obvious losers would include Canada’s retail and manufacturing sector, which suffer as the Canadian dollar tracks the price of oil. A premium on the Canadian dollar has a devastating effect on Canadian manufacturers — 627,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in recent years, according to one measure. One economist at the University of Ottawa has estimated that 42 per cent of manufacturing job losses in recent years are linked to Canada’s rising oil exports. This only gets worse the more oil Canada exports.

Another loser would be our coastal seafood and marine recreation sectors, which could be devastated by a large oil spill and together employ approximately 45,000 people.  Oil interests might argue that each extra barrel dug up or steamed out creates “jobs jobs jobs,” but as Andrew Leach satirically points out, such claims don’t hold much water, or oil.

The winners would be the companies that dig and steam oil out of the ground in Alberta, many of whom are substantially or wholly owned by foreign interests such as China’s state-owned oil company Sinopec and Petrochina. More than 35 per cent of oil and gas extraction and support in Canada is foreign controlled and four of the five richest companies in the world are non-Canadian oil companies with operations in the oilsands.

Kroecher’s e-mail concludes: I want to urge you to add your voice to those Canadians who are attempting to prevent this pipeline from being built.

It may seem difficult to hold back the most powerful industry in the world, and the politicians who back them. Difficult, yes, but it’s not impossible. We are the majority, after all.

Track our progress at www.notankers.ca and sign the petition to grow our network and our power.

Thank you to Ecstatacist on Flickr for the image. Used under a creative commons license.

Note: Technical issues with our website are causing all comments to be posted as Anonymous. Our apologies - we are working to fix this as soon as possible.

Almost every year when I get a new calendar I sit down to ponder what’s likely to happen in the coming year. I don’t use a crystal ball or tea leaves — generally I just take a few moments to ponder the economic and political trends and imagine how they may extend into the future. It’s not an exact science, but my record of predictions is pretty good.

Throughout the world people are getting increasingly frustrated by their political leaders’ lack of progress on the big challenges facing humanity. With the global climate and economy in jeopardy, many feel that traditional means of dialogue and decision-making are broken and corrupted by the influence of corporate interests. The solution: take it to the street. While British Columbia is not Cairo, or New York, tangible disconnects do exist between what people want and what our political leaders are delivering.

the meltdown that is coming if we don’t dramatically reduce our heat-trapping pollution is becoming clearer every week. While Prime Minister Stephen Harper plays strongman for the oil and gas industry and B.C. Premier Christy Clark promotes virtually any polluting industrial project she can get a photo op from, people are desperately searching for a way to break the paralysis. For people deeply concerned about the liveability of the world their children will inherit, there are few paths forward other than active civil resistance (civil disobedience occurs when people consciously refuse to obey certain laws, customs or commands of a government with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or policies).

In British Columbia this means that large infrastructure projects that will tie our province into selling fossil fuels for generations are likely to become targets for civil disobedience. Enbridge’s proposed oil tanker and pipeline project in northern B.C., Kinder Morgan’s plan to quadruple the number of oil tankers passing through Burrard Inlet and Port Metro Vancouver’s expansive coal export facilities are likely targets. Another trend fuelling potential boots in the streets is the growing perception that the one per cent and their political supporters are rigging the rules in their favour. While the Occupy movement is in transition, I expect it will reconstitute and focus more narrowly on some of the one per cent corporate fat cats benefiting from rigged tax and environments laws. Potential targets are: Jimmy Pattison because of his massive investment in exporting B.C. resources (coal, salmon, timber), Warren Buffet’s Burlington Northern & Santé Fe’s trains importing U.S thermal coal to export for coal-fired power plants in China, as well as coal giant Teck, the largest donor to the governing provincial Liberals.

Also, First Nations are likely to increasingly blockade logging, mining and oil and gas projects to both bring attention to the poverty in their communities and the enormous amount of wealth being generated from the territories. Increasingly I’m hearing First Nations leaders say that the only way to get Ottawa and Victoria to pay attention is to create “uncertainty.” Getting between corporations and their money is the best way to get governments to commit to change.

Premier Clark continues to sit on the fence on Enbridge’s proposal to bisect British Columbia with two pipelines that will bring 225 oil tankers to the north coast each year. The premier says she will await the recommendations of the regulatory process that has just started.

While she may want to avoid a decision, Premier Clark won’t have that luxury (especial now that Prime Minister Harper and Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver have put their thumb on the scale with their incendiary remarks about foreign radicals highjacking the regulatory process).

By the end of next year, between 200,000 and 250,000 British Columbians will have joined the growing movement to ban tankers. More than 20,000 have already going the movement in first half of January.

These No Tankers supporters aren’t randomly distributed across the province — they are strategically located in many of the battleground ridings that will determine who forms the next provincial government. People in battleground ridings  — Oak Bay-Gordon Head, North Saanich, Comox Valley, Burnaby North, Burnaby Lougheed, Maple Ridge-Mission, Vancouver-Fraserview, Vancouver-Fairview, and Vancouver-Point Grey  — are organizing and the numbers are growing fast.

The last federal election proved that oil tankers can be a voting issue. What many people don’t know is that in seven of nine B.C. ridings where oil tankers were an election issue last May the pro-oil tanker candidates lost. Conservative candidates Troy de Souza, Gary Lunn, and Deborah Meredith lost by narrow margins in part because of their support for oil tankers.

The same will be true in the upcoming provincial election.

The battle lines over West Coast tankers will also intensify now that Kinder Morgan is planning to quadruple the number of oil tankers setting sail from its facility in Burnaby. Municipal opposition is already solid with the mayors of Vancouver, North Vancouver, Burnaby and Victoria already calling on the federal government for extra consultation. The Islands Trust and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) are also taking action.

Outreach efforts began a few months ago to expand the No Tankers support base throughout the Port Metro Vancouver municipalities and battleground ridings. This will have political consequences beginning in 2012, especially if Clark tries to remain on the fence.

Vancouver has set the ambitious goal of becoming the greenest city in the world during the next eight years.

These efforts could be sabotaged by the rapidly expanding exports of coal and oil coming from its ports. Vancouverites will be appalled to discover that Jimmy Pattison’s Westshore coal export facility near the Tsawwassen ferry terminal is actually the largest single source of global warming pollution in North America. That’s right folks, the largest source of pollution on the continent.

While the port is not under the city’s jurisdiction, they do have a seat on the “port cities committee” of Port Metro Vancouver. As civil resistance increases the notoriety of Vancouver’s climate unfriendly exports, city officials will have no other option but to begin flexing their muscles with provincial and federal authorities.

The juxtaposition of the city’s green aspirations and the polluting reality will get interesting in 2012.

Recently enshrined B.C. Conservative leader John Cummins will be the political game changer in 2012.

If Cummins continues to rise in the polls, Clark and the B.C. Liberals can kiss goodbye any chance of being re-elected. Even if the B.C. Conservatives fall from 20 per cent to 10 per cent Clark’s chances to form government will be slim.

Elections in B.C. are generally two-horse races. When third parties in B.C. garner around 10 per cent in an election, strange things happen.

• In the 1972 election — the last time provincial Conservatives pulled more than 10 per cent of the vote —  the three-way split vaulted the NDP to a landslide over W.A.C. Bennett’s Social Credit Party.
• In 1991, the rise of Gordon Wilson’s Liberals (or the demise of Rita’s Johnson’s SoCreds) led to a NDP landslide.
• In 1996 the Reform Party attracted almost 10 per cent (and the Progressive Democratic Alliance got almost six per cent) and the NDP formed government despite coming second in the popular vote.
• In 2001 the Green Party pulled almost 12 per cent and the B.C. Liberals won a landslide.

While Adrian Dix and the NDP’s strengthening polling numbers must concern the B.C. Liberals, if the B.C. Conservatives solidify their vote at around 10 per cent it will be fatal to Clark’s election chances and probably her leadership.

Clark’s team seems to be counting on right-leaning voters to return to her party once the election is called. Likely some will, but I think she is underestimating the betrayal many of these voters feel towards her party and Gordon Campbell because of the HST and Campbell’s policies on First Nations and the environment. This underlies Clark’s obsession with distancing herself from Campbell and his legacy, although she would love to have some of Campbell’s undervalued success in keeping right-leaning voters in one big tent.

Only two things could potentially save Clark and the Liberals:

Given the high-profile federal Conservative insiders rumoured to be joining up with Cummins, the latter is more likely.

So far the former MP Cummins, who holds controversial views on both First Nations and women, has avoided major mistakes, but there are 17 months until the election an eternity for a loose cannon like Cummins.

We will soon be able to tell which way the winds are blowing for the B.C. Conservatives. 
Now there are two by-elections that have to be held this spring: Port Moody-Coquitlam (to replace Liberal Ian Black) and Chilliwack-Hope (to replace Liberal Barry Penner).

If the B.C. Conservatives maintain their position in the polls I predict more incumbent Liberal MLAs will retire. I expect at least four by-elections in 2012 and perhaps more.

Cities everywhere are facing enormous challenges. The combination of an increasingly unstable global economy and climate, growing inequality, the rising cost of fuel and food and downsizing of provincial and federal governments, means our local governments are going to have to quickly restructure how they make decisions about the big challenges we collectively face to feed ourselves, house ourselves and transport ourselves. 

Unfortunately, our regional decision-making structures are not up to these challenges and need to be modernized. The voting structure at BC Transit and the Capital Regional District are ill-equipped to deal with these larger problems that no one municipal government can resolve by itself.

Despite years of effort, little progress has been made in developing a top-notch regional public transportation system, in solving the growing homelessness problem, in protecting and expanding local food production or in managing growth and protecting green spaces from reckless development.

Given the controversy surrounding sewage, light rail transit and the land-use decisions in Juan de Fuca and Central Saanich, some critics — particularly developers and their political supporters — are calling for the 13 municipalities in the CRD to be amalgamated into one body like Ottawa or Toronto.

This won’t work on southern Vancouver Island. Many of the communities in the CRD have distinct cultures, and the makeup of the CRD is too diverse for a one-size-fits-all solution. The challenges facing Sooke are different from those of downtown Victoria. The character of Saanich is unlike that of the Juan de Fuca area.

That said, there is need for modern decision-making rules and structures that facilitate co-operative decision-making on the enormous collective challenges facing our region. We must consider how together we can create and implement a plan to make our region the most liveable in the world.

Many influential people in the region are searching for a path forward on these issues. I predict a conversation about developing a “made in the region” solution will begin to percolate in 2012, and a solution will coalesce in 2013 just in time for the next round of municipal elections.

"Politics is not predictions and politics is not observations. Politics is what we do. Politics is what we do, politics is what we create, by what we work for, by what we hope for and what we dare to imagine." — Paul Wellstone, Former U.S. Senator

Here in B.C., we’re in a classic David and Goliath battle — First Nations and thousands of British Columbians going head to head with the multinational oil industry and the powerful Conservative government that wants to bring oil supertankers to our coast.

No one is going to stop the oil tankers for us. Please pitch in $20 today. You might think a few dollars is just a drop in the bucket, but it’s actually what makes this whole operation possible.

This story is going to play out in media all over the world and it’s humbling to think that you and I are at the centre of it all, standing together for a future we believe in.

I draw inspiration from that knowledge every day. So when I read the headlines I also feel a tremendous amount of hope and resolve —resolve to attract even more people to stand with us; resolve to force provincial politicians to stand up for the people they represent; and resolve to make investors and governments recognize the rights of the First Nations who oppose this project.

We can achieve these things, but it’s going to take a tremendous amount of people power to get this done. We are relying on your support to raise $100,000 to keep our programs going next year. For the cost of going to the movies, you can help us reach our goal. Please give $20 before Dec. 31.

None of us can do this alone. We've always relied on each other to build our campaign in opposition to oil tankers on our coast. A group of donors has promised to match whatever you can give. I hope you'll take them up on it.

Despite some disheartening things in the news lately, there have been plenty of good news stories this year related to our work.
•    Thousands of you made history by registering to speak at public hearings on the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project. The National Energy Board just announced the decision on Enbridge’s pipeline is going to be delayed by at least a year due to the overwhelming public outcry.
•    Mayors on Vancouver Island and in the Lower Mainland are already raising concerns about proposals for expansion of oil tanker traffic in southern waters.
•    In November’s municipal elections, leaders who oppose oil tankers were elected all over the province, showing just how many British Columbians this issue resonates with.
•    Columnists and financial analysts continue to refer to the Northern Gateway pipeline as being nothing more than a pipe dream.

Please help us achieve more great successes in 2012 by donating $20 today. As each new donation comes in, we are reminded of who we are working for — we are working for you and thousands of people like you.

When we first launched the campaign it was just us, a good strategy and a network of friends against the largest industry in the world. Tough odds, but we’re tenacious and we believe there is a vast untapped network of British Columbians who share our vision for the province and are willing to fight to make it happen.

At Dogwood Initiative we routinely take on Goliaths in the oil, logging, mining and urban sprawl industries and win. To some, we are the quintessential underdog, the little guy (who no one expects to do much) that somehow prevails against seemingly overwhelming forces. But we don’t see ourselves that way.

Don’t get me wrong, I love an underdog. And who doesn’t? Movies and sports are filled with iconic underdogs. Films such as Rocky and Forest Gump drew million to cinemas. In sports, it is the unexpected champions — the teams that barely squeaked into the finals only to prevail — who are longest remembered. Think of all the documentaries made about the unexpected World Series victories of the 1969 New York Mets. Here in Canada there is the beloved Terry Fox who, although he never completed his “Marathon of Hope,” exemplifies the courage of ordinary people conquering extraordinary challenges.

Canadians' reaction to underdogs in politics is more complex. Close seconds in politics are quickly forgotten. When David and Goliath struggles do garner attention, Goliath is usually positioned as the inevitable victor. That is until the underdog wins, and they do frequently.

Dogwood Initiative has been involved in many unexpected victories. Just this year we stood up against developers and succeeded in stopping a proposal to build unwanted cabins next to the Juan de Fuca trail. We succeeded in getting the Capital Regional District to enforce its Regional Growth Strategy. Our No Tankers campaign helped get 4,000 people — eight times more than the previous record — to sign up to tell the National Energy Board they will not except Enbridge’s tanker-pipeline project in B.C.  Seven of nine candidates who profiled their opposition to oil tankers in B.C. waters won in spring’s federal elections.

Over the last decade we have taken on big industry and government to stop the privatization of land, shut down coal-fired power and coal-bed methane and taken thousands of hectares of forest away from logging corporations to be managed by communities and First Nations.

To outsiders, Dogwood may seem like the prototypical underdog —  a small group of people taking on powerful developers, oil and coal companies and governments — but this is a misconception. We are much more than the 11 creative and hardworking staff. We are a catalyst fuelled by the thousands of proud British Columbians committed to taking strong actions to protect the communities they love and the air, land and water on which they rely.

Together we are not underdogs — we are the majority. The more organized we get and the more we understand our collective power, the more formidable we become.

At this time of year, what we really need is donations to help get us ready for next year. We need to raise $100,000 by the end of the year to keep our programs going. All donations received by Dec. 31 will be doubled by a group of generous major donors. Please give what you can today.

See the declaration at www.yinkadene.ca

OMG, To Asia with Oil!

In the Vancouver Sun: A spokeswoman for Harper said Thursday that if Keystone were to be delayed or lost, the government would continue to focus on exporting crude to Asian markets."Canada will be looking for a buyer," spokeswoman Sara McIntyre said.

In the Globe and Mail: William Robson, president of C.D. Howe Institute, an economic think tank[:] “We do want to make sure we aren’t hostage just to [the US] market because they don’t treat us as nicely as their self-interest suggests they should,”[...] And that will mean pushing ahead with the Gateway pipeline to move oil sands crude to the West Coast and beyond, to markets such as oil-hungry China, he said.

From Reuters: Asked whether the Keystone delay might accelerate efforts to look for Pacific markets for tar sands crude, [Prime Minister Harper's spokesperson] told reporters: "It could be part of the discussions."

Claims of Urgency Aren't New

Federal government and commentator support for Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline, and West Coast exports  of oil in general, is not new.

• Stephen Harper's Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver has long cited a need to send oil to Asia, explicitly supporting Northern Gateway. 
• Alberta's former Energy Minister Ron Liepert often seemed apoplectic about sending oil to Asia, here saying Chinese investors wonder why "we don't just plow a line to the west coast."
• Scotiabank analyst Patricia Mohr got some good coverage for a report that claimed projects like Gateway are "vital for the Canadian economy."

The chorus citing economic imperatives to send oil to Asia sounds a lot like the chorus that before today claimed economic imperatives meant Keystone's approval was nigh.

Federal Wheels Greased But Still Squeaky

The federal government's appointed authority on Enbridge: the National Energy Board's Joint Review Panel - which doesn't include any British Columbians by the way - has already done what it can to keep things speedy, by denying First Nations' requests for a parallel review, and limiting the scope of the review by excluding e.g. climate change impacts.

But the feds are still failing to heed the adage 'a stitch in time saves nine', by consistently falling short in their duties to First Nations, leading to virtually inevitable legal challenges.

Enbridge Out of Ideas?

For its part, Enbridge offered a 10% equity stake to First Nations, but that fell flat.

They've also been funding a project booster organization called the 'Northern Gateway Alliance' in an attempt to build support for the project along the route, but if the number of Facebook Friends after two and half years is any indication, it hasn't exactly caught fire.

In a further attempt to win the hearts and minds of British Columbians, Enbridge set up 'Community Advisory Boards' outside of the review process to tour the project route and incorporate community feedback. But since most northerners want no pipeline, not a different pipeline, I don't think this is going to work either.

There really isn't that much else Harper or Enbridge can do.

The Wall Remains

What today's decision means is that despite the clamour, projects don't get built without social licence, and when a lot of people get organized and deny social licence, politics trumps all else — as it should, because politics is how democracies get things done, after all.

In British Columbia, it doesn't really matter which political party you vote for, chances are the next person you see is already opposed to more oil supertankers on the coast. More than 70 First Nations have signed legally-based declarations prohibiting these projects, here and here. These are a big deal.

Stephen Harper knows this, Premier Christy Clark knows this, and it doesn't matter how hard the industry pushes, or how often the feds or Clark attempt to deflect controversy onto the regulators, I think sooner or later it will be in one of their best interests to cry uncle and look for an out.

A column in the Calgary Herald last week got Dogwood supporters so hot under the collar that they flooded the newspaper with more than 100 letters to the editor.

Running under the headline “Does everyone have a right to complain at Northern Gateway pipeline review?” Deborah Yedlin’s column questions whether all of the 4,000 people who registered to speak at the upcoming Enbridge public hearings should have the right to do so. 

The answer was a resounding “yes!” Letter-writers also did an excellent job of pointing out the hypocrisy in Yedlin’s accusations about environmental organizations receiving American funding. Indeed, so many of the letters gave us goosebumps that we’ve decided to share excerpts from some of our favourites. 

Thanks to everyone who wrote for standing tall for B.C.

In a democracy, in which my father fought 5.5 years to defend, all citizens have the right to speak, and any person who would deprive any citizen of that right to speak is in violation of the basic principles of partipatory democracy, and are insulting our veterans on Remembrance Day.

 — James Montgomery, Maple Ridge

A healthy democracy requires a robust and critical free press, meaning the right of media to speak freely about issues of importance — which is why I find Deborah Yedlin's suggestion that such rights should be questioned when it comes to individuals both ironic and offensive. When newspapers openly question the right of citizens to speak in defence of their values and concerns, I feel concern for the health of the fourth estate, Canadian democracy and civil society. I am a business owner and the executive director of a business improvement association at that. I am definitely "pro busineses" but I also strongly oppose the Northern Gateway project and I most certainly feel that I have an inalienable and sacred right to be heard as a productive member of my community, province and country. The more important and controversial the issue the more fiercely we should reserve that right, not belittle it or question its relevance.

— Wesley Regan, Vancouver

What part of “public” and “hearing” is not clear?

— Michele Murphy, Victoria

I don't believe I am complaining when I say that my family lives on wild salmon. I feel fortunate to live on the beautiful central coast of B.C., where we can fish for salmon. I have a fear that oil tankers sailing on the very stormy and rocky B.C. coast will run aground and destroy our food source. Remember the Exxon oil tanker disaster near Valdez? Shipping disasters happen no matter what assurances are given. Yedlin should consider the people who depend on the salmon to live. As go the salmon, so go the First Nations people . . . on our way to extinction.

— Gail Moody, Bella Coola

B.C. taxpayers will have to pay the bill and deal with the damage if an oil tanker carrying Alberta crude has an accident on our coast. Do we have a right to speak at the Enbridge environmental review? You better believe we do!

— Paul Manly, Nanaimo (Published in Calgary Herald)

Who will speak to the voracious multinational corporation who plans to use every means possible to push a project through?  A plan that is not about creating jobs, but about ravaging the earth in order to make a small number of people rich beyond belief and perpetuate carbon emissions. My family is Metis. My brother has supported his family for over 30 years in the oil and gas industry.  My sister, her daughter and twin grandchildren live in the Peace River.  I was born and raised on Vancouver Island within sight of the coastal waters at risk.  I have lived in Kitimat and Dawson Creek in my lifetime.  My grandmother and her family were from Athabasca since before recorded Canadian history.  I have contributed to the economy of this province, voted in the elections, volunteered and raised my family here.  Who has the right to tell me that I have no right to speak?

— Sandy Slobodian, Victoria (Published in Calgary Herald)

If only Canadian citizens and organizations funded by Canadians should be allowed to speak at this hearing, then maybe only Canadian companies with only Canadian shareholders should be allowed to make an application to do business in Canada. Then we would not have to have these hearings, because the oil would have to be sold in Canada and the pipeline would not be needed.  

— Ken Bigelow, North Vancouver

The Canadian anthem goes like this, "Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee". Every single citizen in this country has the right to stand up for the good of the country. So, I say to you. I am one in 30 million, and I am standing up for my country. Oh Canada, I stand on guard for thee.

— Keegan Pearson, Saltspring Island

I find Yedlin’s concerns over U.S. "interference" without merit. Like the oil companies who will profit from this pipeline, Enbridge is itself a multinational corporation with substantial U.S. holdings, employees and investors. Americans have as much right to speak on this issue as anyone else. Were it believed that a substantial number of registrants — foreign or otherwise — were in support of this project, I have to wonder whether it would warrant any discussion at all in Alberta.

— John Carswell, Brentwood Bay

Yedlin has done the review process a likely unintended favour —her article has triggered reactions that will solidify “the right to be heard!” Is it possible that was her intent?

— Gerry Taylor, Victoria

Yedlin ignores the obvious explanation why persons and foundations from other nations oppose the Northern Gateway pipeline: because if the oil from the tarsands is allowed to flow to Asia, it's game over for a livable climate. 

I'm grateful that foreign entities are pointing out Canada's foolishness in investing in infrastructure that will have to be shortly abandoned as the intense weather consequences, which the world is already experiencing, grow ever more deadly. Canada used to be seen as responsible, credible and humane. What a change, when Canadian journalists call for a limit on the right to speak in a public hearing on a matter that will have impacts on every single one of us.

— Carrie Saxifrage, Vancouver

I could not live with myself if I sat quietly and allowed something this disastrous to happen on our coast. It is not only my right but also my responsibility as a steward of this place to speak for it.

— Keely Roden, Victoria

Why question my right to speak in the review process? Already so little voice is given to the people. Meanwhile, the "voice" of oil lobbyist's money is deafeningly loud; it seems to be practically all our world governments can hear. Should we really think to silence the people further?

— Luke Turvey, Vancouver

My name is Dave and I reside in Smithers, B.C. I have a recreational cabin on Babine Lake, where a great number of Salmon of different species start their lives. My home acreage in Smithers is cut in half by a salmon bearing stream. I own a boat in Prince Rupert where I recreational fish and take family and friends to enjoy the coast. As you can see, I am heavily involved in caring for clean water, wild salmon and a pristine coast. I have four daughters and five grandsons that will one day look back and ask if Dad had done enough to fight Enbridge to preserve this area for them to enjoy and live in. If people who do not live in this area but reside in B.C. cannot help me speak up against Enbridge, who then, can?

— Dave Anderson, Smithers

To borrow a phrase from the occupy movement, "This IS what democracy looks like." 

— Joe Lanteigne, Madeira Park

Ms. Yedlin's misdirected focus on the international funding of environmental groups obscures the true problem, which lies more in the direction of an undisclosed consortium of international oil companies funding Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project, and a pro-oil sands, pro-Northern Gateway federal and provincial government who do not protect the public interest.  But she must know that.

— Melissa Walter, Vancouver

I have signed up to speak at the hearings, with no affiliation to any foreign organization. I was born in Alberta and now live in B.C. In 2008 I lived in Kitimat and had the opportunity to sail the Douglas Channel. As we sailed I could not believe that tankers were going to navigate these narrow channels. If common sense alone could prevail and not greed, no one would attempt to do what is proposed for this area.

— Margie Grimble, Gabriola Island

No doubt columnist Deborah Yedlin, who wrote "Does everyone have the right to complain at a review" has never had to try to sponge oil off the feathers of shivering Murres and Guillemots as I have in two separate incidents of "human error" in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Just two species of thousands which stand to be impacted by human error which is inevitable with increased tanker traffic on our coastline. Year round our marine ecosystems harbour a complex diversity of species from large sea lions and whales to the smallest invertebrates and plankton which energize our food webs.  She may think they are irrelevant to someone from Alberta, but those of us who would have to live with the potential catastrophic consequences driven by the greed of governments and multi-national companies who think that profit can be justified at any risk to the environment must be heard. My Canada is not one where the greed of one province willingly degrades the natural capital of another.  Whether from British Columbia or any part of Canada, we have every right to ensure the protection of all our environment now and in the future, and claiming that it is U.S. money fueling the urge to be heard smacks of lazy journalism.

— Garry Fletcher, Victoria

I think that we should be celebrating the fact that so many people have signed up to have their voice heard; in a time of falling voter-turnout rates, it is exciting to be able to say that over 4,000 people want to take the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights in our country.

— Hannah Lewis, Vancouver

According to Ms Yedlin's logic, no citizen of the world has a right to communicate a grievance against the policies of a corporation in another country.  In other words,  I as a Canadian cannot criticize the Chinese for lopping off shark-fins and leaving the animal to die a slow death, or Nike for running sweatshops in Bangladesh. Nor was it moral for Greenpeace to harass Japanese whalers. 

I disagree:  If you live and derive your sustenance from this planet you have a right to protest its destruction. The majority of British Columbians do not wish to see hundreds of huge oil tankers negotiating Hecate Straight. We require a pristine oil-free ocean to thrive economically.

— Rosemary Cornell, Vancouver

Deborah asked Canadians to be outraged. I am outraged, Deborah, but not because outside organizations are interfering. I am outraged that you are asking my fellow Canadians to believe that this is out about our natural resources only. Are we planning to sell this oil only domestically? No.  This is globalization. Global implies the entire world is implicated.  And it is.  We all have the right to an opinion about it, and we all have the right to share that opinion in the review process. Anyone who thinks that an oil spill, or emissions that will spell game over for our climate, would affect only those who live along the pipeline, or only Canadians, is terribly, tragically, wrong.

— Danette Jubinville, Vancouver

I am a student here in British Columbia.  I have the opportunity to surf on the pristine west coast of Vancouver Island. I am not the only animal paddling among the kelp and waves.  I often see seals with their big brown eyes popping up to examine at the strange creatures on surfboards. Hundreds of sea birds circle the stream mouth and sometimes I sit in awe as a pod of whales pass far out in the strait.  All it would take is one oil spill and this paradise would never be the same again.  It is my right to participate in the hearing.  I long to one day take my children out surfing and point out to them the eagles and the whales.

— Jesse Ashwell, Victoria

Thank you to jjpacres on Flickr for the image. Used under a creative commons license.