|
Environmental News from Georgia Strait, British Columbia, Canada and from the World |
||
| Index & Home Page | ||
|
|
||
|
Environmental News from Georgia Strait in British Columbia, Canada and from the World
|
||
Wait for this document to finish loading, before using the following links
EDITORIAL
A Democratic Step
Quotes for the Times
Youth Talks!
UnBleached Breakthrough!
LETTERS
To Whom It May Concern: At Youbou the Clause which tied the trees to the jobs mysteriously disappeared
Stop Wood Fire Pollution with Cheap Hydro and Gas
www.oilcrisis.com
Yep, we goofed again!
NOTE - Terrorism in perspective
NEWS
New BC Sludge Rules Mimic US Mistakes
Haida File for Offshore Jurisdiction
The Pro Rep Campaign - A Citizen's Initiative to Establish A Proportional Representation Electoral System in BC
Who Bombed Judi Bari? - Case gets to Court after 11 years
SHORT STORY - Singing Trees
FEATURE - Clayoquot Retrospective
POEM - For the Warriors - Clayoquot Peace Camp and Sidney River
FOREST NEWS
Planning for Extinction on East Vancouver Island's private and public land
MacMillan park threatened by adjacent logging
Companies Get Results in BC
Raw Log Export Tax
Fish Over Condos
Fourth WildEarth Gathering
FOOD STUFF
Dances with Centipedes
Cuba Brows Organic Harvest
Organics for the Dalai Lama
Clopyralid Contaminates Compost
BT Corn: A Triple Negative for US Farmers
A Contaminant for Mexico's Wild Maize
FEATUREs
Planning for Extinction on East Vancouver Island's private and public land
A Cure for Transportation Anxiety: The Car Co-op Comes to Cortes
OPINION
Gaining A Toe-hold - Its time to talk about a Guaranteed Annual Income for all
British Columbia's Referendum on Treaty Negotiations - by Chief Sayers
How To Vote Against The Referendum - the Rejected Ballot
Democracy is a lot of work. Anyone who has stumbled out into a winter storm or dragged themselves into a stuffy room while the sun shines and pleasure sings outside, to listen, really listen, to the neighbours, knows what hard work it is.
They also know how privileged we are to have the opportunity.
Now two initiatives challenge our commitment to that hard-won, blood-won, privilege. Democracy, good and bad, features prominently in this issue of the Watershed Sentinel, because nothing is more important.
First, the Treaty Referendum. Eight questions about the provincial stand on Treaty negotiations, impenetrable questions which the First Nations say should never be asked. Hupacasath Chief Judith Sayer suggests that you send those perplexing and demeaning ballots to her, so that your spoiled ballot has resonance. Other organizations are also developing protests. We think it might be the best choice in a bad deal.
Second, on the brighter side, is Adriane Carr's Citizen's Initiative to Establish a Proportional Representation Electoral System in BC. It has detractors. But it's a strategic move, a move of hope in the face of increasing globalization and untrustworthy politicians, where your democratic rights just don't matter a heigh-ho. There is a volunteer canvasser sign up form in the middle of this magazine. Consider volunteering to collect those precious signatures. Without YOU, buttonholing your family, challenging your friends, it might not show the government and all the rest of the politicians, just how serious we are about the need to reform this sick and wounded system. There are few chances to send a message as powerful as this one.
Seize the opportunity! Make history.
* Delores Broten, Whaletown, April 2002
"In effect the Chipko people are working a socio-economic revolution by winning control of their forest resources from the hands of a distant bureaucracy which is concerned with selling the forest ..."
* United Nations Environment Programme 1983
"The measure of those excesses [demand for material things] is seen in the forests and in the natural parts of the Earth. And the people who live there, as we do, are the ones who live with the consequence of supplying the raw material for those excesses."
* Guujaaw, President of the Haida Nation, in the Washington Post, March 26, 2002
Like a marionette your strings are held
In the hands of forces beyond your reckoning
Due to your obsessions with mirrors and bank books
With cowardice the order of the day
With anger judged in ill repute
You cannot even see the police-state grow
Around and within you
While you are busy adding and subtracting*Anonymous, found on the bulletin board at Whaletown, Cortes Island, February 2002
We are very pleased to announce Youth Talks - a new project for the Watershed Sentinel magazine. We wish to increase access of students to the magazine and are offering free group distribution to colleges, universities and student organizations in British Columbia, for the next nine months. Youth Talks also offers opportunities for young writers to work with professional editors, and get their work into print. (Limited honouraria available.) Contact us for writers guidelines, or to receive magazines and a magazine stand. Writers should contact dbroten@rfu.org by email only for guidelines and to discuss story ideas.
The Watershed Sentinel acknowledges the financial support of the Department of Canadian Heritage for this project/Nous reconnaissons le soutien financier du gouvernement du Canada, par lentremise du Fonds du Canada pour les magazines, du ministere du Patrimoine canadien, pour ce projet. We also thank the Endswell Foundation and Friends of Cortes Island.
This issue of the Watershed Sentinel is printed on 100% post-consumer recycled fibre, whitened without chlorine compounds. Thanks to our printer, Horizon Publications, for the opportunity to switch to a more environmentally friendly paper. Interested? Contact Horizon at 604-254-8840
|
Picked up a gratis copy of Watershed Sentinel Dec/Jan edition at the Parksville library. Many of your articles are thought provoking and one would like to comment on each of them. However, I don't have the time to write and I am sure you don't have the time to read. One quick comment on the Georgia Strait Crossing and cogeneration plant. I appreciate that the gas fired plants produce large amounts of toxic fine particulate matter. We have to ask ourselves whether we would rather have that or thousands of houses spewing out smoke from burning damp, green wood. The bigger problem that we have, with all the wood around, is that electricity and natural gas must be priced attractively so that people will not be enticed to burn wood in urban areas. * Michael Jessen, Parksville BC |
|
Great work! As Geological Survey of Canada's coal bed methane guy, I enjoyed the right-on article [Coal Bed Methane: New Gas Wells Promise Vancouver Island a Blast from the Past, Dec. 2001/Jan. 2002]. Also with respect to the total unsustainability of the current per capita consumption of fossil fuels check out www.oilcrisis.com -- there's a wall that will be hit in 5-10 years. * Dave Hughes, Calgary Alberta |
|
Over the last six years, approximately 25,000 people have died from acts of terrorism, worldwide. Over that same period, 52 million people have died from preventable hunger, about 24,000 people per day. Sources: Patterns of Global Terrorism, Bureau of Public Affairs, US Department of State, 2000 www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000; Significant Terrorist Incidents 1961-2001, Bureau of Public Affairs, US Department of State, 2002: www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm; Hunger Fact Sheet, OXFAM International, 2001: www.oxfamamerica.org/fast/OxfamFastFactSheet.pdf * SojoNet 2002 (C) www.sojo.net |
In February, the BC Liberal government quietly passed an Order-in-Council which approves land spreading of sewage sludge. The Organic Matter Recycling Regulation is virtually unchanged from the draft in which environmentalists identified serious problems. [See "Sewage Sludge: Valuable Biosolid or Toxic Hazard," Watershed Sentinel, June/July 2001.] One of the few changes is that the public advisory committee to review the effectiveness of the regulation has been removed.
The urgency and secrecy may have been triggered by the fact that the Vancouver sewage system was reaching a point of crisis over sludge management, and this regulation solves the problem, temporarily.
In Ontario, current issues are: sewage sludge on fields in the Ottawa area, where the fractured bedrock is likely to lead to aquifer contamination; the ban on sales of Toronto sewage fertilizer due to heavy metal levels; and the disposal of paper recycling sludge as berms at gun clubs, with probable contamination of groundwater.
In the US, the EPA Inspector General has just slammed the rules which permit 3.5 million metric tons of sewage sludge to be dumped on farms and forests every year. The review of the US sewage sludge rules identifies ten major deficiencies and found that public health was not being protected.
All of the deficiencies are shared by the new BC regulation. In most cases the BC regulation requires less testing, or no testing and would be impossibly complicated to monitor, if there were any monitoring provisions except self-monitoring. The maximum penalty for pollution or other violations is $10,000 but a site with sewage applied is exempted from the Contaminated Sites Act.
|
Problems with the US Sludge Rules include:
A copy of the Office of the Inspector General report is posted on the National Whistleblower Center web site at www.whistleblowers.org/OIGFinalSludgeReport.wpd. |
The BC government is threatening to lift the 30-year-old moratorium on west coast offshore oil and gas exploration, but their ambitions may have to be put on hold. A suit filed in BC Supreme Court by the Haida Nation claims jurisdiction over the land and waters of Haida Gwaii. The Haida withdrew from Treaty negotiations in March. The suit follows a ruling that BC had failed to consult with the Haida before the Charlottes forest license was transferred to Weyerhaeuser from MacMillan Bloedel. Guujaaw, currently President of the Council of the Haida Nation, was instrumental in the formation of South Moresby National Park.
Immediately after filing their suit for jurisdiction, the Nation signed an environmental accord, emphasizing sustainable management, with some of the major ecogroups active on the Central Coast.
One of Vancouver Island's most beloved parks is threatened from overuse and blow down of the ancient Douglas firs that are its main attraction. Located along the only highway leading to Port Alberni and Clayoquot Sound, MacMillan Park's main problem is that it is too small. Cathedral Grove extends several kilometres west of Cameron Lake on both sides of the valley-bottom highway, but the park is less than 160 hectares in size, less than half the size of Stanley Park in Vancouver.
Weyerhaeuser (Weyco), the US-based logging company that bought MacMillan Bloedel two years ago and now owns the unprotected parts of Cathedral Grove, is moving rapidly to liquidate the last of the giant Douglas firs. The company has agreed not to conduct any activities in the 500 hectares of the Grove while negotiations for acquisition are taking place with the government. However the government is focusing only on acquiring 100 hectares where blow down and clearcut logging have already occurred.
PLEASE WRITE TODAY TO PRESERVE ALL 500 HECTARES OF THE GROVE: The Honourable Joyce Murray, Minister of Water, Air and Land Protection, PO Box 9047 Stn Prov Govt, Victoria BC V8V 9E2; Ph: (250)387-1187, fax: (250)387-1356, email: joyce.murray.mla@leg.bc.ca
Please send copies of letters and requests for CATHEDRAL GROVE petition forms to: WCWC Mid-Island Chapter, Box 442 Qualicum Beach, BC, V9K 1S9; Ph: (250)752-6585, fax: (250)752-7085, Email: wcwcqb@nanaimo.ark.com
A few years ago, my father and I watched a W5 episode about a woman who wanted to save a forest from being clear-cut. She believed the trees could sing. My father, a farmer and a former logger, chuckled to himself. I, a child raised in a logging town in northern British Columbia, understood what he meant. It was the most ridiculous thing I had ever heard.
Today my roommate, Dennis, and I are going for a walk in the forest just beyond the property where we live. Nanaimo bike enthusiasts have affectionately named this place the Abyss; to others, perhaps, the Harewood Mines area will do. The day is sunny, fresh; when I step out, I am reminded of biting into a crisp, clean apple. Dennis is on a mission to show me a petroglyph-the hermaphrodite-a cartoon with a penis and a woman's breast.
We ponder its origins for awhile, then wander into the woods just beyond the rock bluffs where the drawing is etched out. Under the canopy of trees, we step along the sodden path; mud that smells like cedar and sweet manure sticks to our shoes. We stop to inspect the papery bark peeling off the gnarled, cayenne-coloured limbs of the Arbutus trees and crouch down to wonder at a leaf that resembles a heart-shaped spider web. In these silent woods, the air is heavy, wet, and clings to us so that our foreheads glisten. Farther on, we come upon a large cedar rising out of the ferns and swamp water.
Underneath, I look up and count the branches that spiral, dense, and so far upward I have to stop. Suddenly, I do not resist the urge to hug a tree! I feel its rough skin against my cheek, smell fragrant cedar, hear a heartbeat? With my arms barely stretched around one quarter of its girth, I somehow know this tree can sing.
We leave the cedar. Twigs snap beneath our feet. A breeze rustles the leaves.
"Can you imagine looking at that tree and seeing only dollars?" Dennis asks.
"No, I can't," I say.
But of course I can.
I think of my father. He is at home on the couch with his feet propped up on the footstool. His gardening encyclopedia balances on the armrest. On the end of the table, his cup of coffee cools. My father is handsome but weathered. The skin sags around his lips and his cheeks are permanently rosy - a result of working more than 35 years outside. In a while, he'll pull his blue-checkered jacket over his thick shoulders, step into his gumboots and head out to feed his cows. For now, he takes his cigarette from his mouth and laughs at the woman on W5. He looks at me and I can see an entire way of life built out of trees in his keen blue eyes.
Dennis and I stop walking. We see a series of small spruce trees with red flagging tape circling their trunks. Having worked as a tree planter, I have seen these flags. I know what they mean but I don't want to believe it. Dennis tears the tape from one of the trees and reads, "Falling Boundary."
"They're going to log in here," he says, furious, crushing the tape into his pocket.
I look at the ribbons. In the collage of browns, greens and yellows, they look like a bloody line slashed through the forest. It makes me angry too.
But I am paralyzed.
On July 1, 1993, after years of blockades and negotiations, amid some of the most shocking clearcut logging in North America, the Friends of Clayoquot Sound opened the Clayoquot Peace Camp. This launched the largest, longest lasting, peaceful action of civil disobedience in Canada's history. The camp was established as a support base for people wishing to show their outrage at forest practices in BC's ancient forests. Visited by thousands of people on their way to Pacific Rim National Park, it was a blockade camp in a burned-out, old clearcut known as the Black Hole.
People took part in non-violence training workshops where the basics of peaceful civil disobedience were taught. Each weekday morning, the camp woke at 4 am to travel to the logging road for the daily blockade. That summer over a thousand people were arrested, including hundreds of youth who were never charged. Many of the 870 charged went to jail.
Nine years later, the Watershed Sentinel asked some key participants what was successful and what failed about the Clayoquot Peace Camp, what its personal effects were, and whether Clayoquot is relevant in these days of globalization and the roll backs to the Forest Practices Code.
Their answers follow.
|
Peaceful Direct Action Code 1. Our attitude is one of openness, friendliness and respect towards all beings. 2. We will not use violence either verbal or physical towards any being. 3. We will not damage any property and will discourage others from doing so. 4. We will strive for an atmosphere of calm and dignity. 5. We will carry no weapons. 6. We will not bring or use alcohol or drugs. * Adapted from Redwood Summer Handbook |
Clayoquot Sound had inspired forest activists for years
In Clayoquot in the decade prior to 1993, there had been numerous half measures and processes meant to resolve the conflict. The government of the day chose to ignore the concern. That willingness to ignore public dissent sparked the largest act of civil disobedience in Canadian history.
* Tamara Stark, Greenpeace, Vancouver BC
Due to a decade of grassroots activism and education on the issue of temperate rainforests, citizens were aware that a global crisis existed and all avenues of democratic input had been exhausted. The wild quality of Clayoquot Sound with its ancient trees, clean water and large mammals stands in juxtaposition to our material culture. There is also a strong spiritual aspect for many people. Many people aware of the global crisis decided to draw the line here.
The Friends of Clayoquot Sound provided a focal point for the movement at this time. During the mid to late 1980s direct action in the threatened watersheds took the form of the eco-warrior model: small but dedicated groups of people willing to put themselves (but not others) at great risk to stop road building and clear cutting. Such actions included tree sitting or locking oneself to vehicles. This proved very successful in some places such as Sulphur Pass in 1988. These actions were dramatic and definitely captured the public attention.
* Bonny Glambeck, Tofino BC
But as the blockades threatened violence, Friends of Clayoquot Sound nurtured a vision of peaceful protest
In 1992 we consciously chose not to do the confrontational chained-to-a-bridge stuff. It was after someone was chained to a gate and the police let the loggers get the lock off his neck. . . . It was awful to witness. . . .
* Norleen Lillico, Cortes Island BC
I began to realize that our ultimate success was limited because 1) we had a very limited pool of potential eco-warriors to draw from, and 2) we were easily marginalized by media and forest companies, leaving us vulnerable to police/logger violence and making our message less legitimate in the eyes of the mainstream.
As a follower of Gandhi's teaching, I believed strongly in non-violence and the power of mass civil disobedience. I argued that, if we were to attract the numbers that we needed, we must make our blockades safe and accessible to everyone (i.e. you don't have to climb trees to get involved). This took the form of blocking the road, stopping the trucks briefly and being arrested. Anyone could drive to the site, get out of their car and take a stand. The format of a "drive-in" base camp, -- training, meeting, blockades -- developed in '92, gave us a framework to handle the incredible numbers of people who came in 1993.
* Bonny Glambeck, Tofino BC
Clayoquot Peace Camp succeeded beyond expectation
It was Motherhood issues - big trees, big wilderness, unceeded First Nations territory, clean water and air, salmon, bears, wildlife. Also, many years of groundwork, starting with Meares Island in 1979. Meares was the first BC wilderness issue to go national.
* Dan Lewis, Rainforest Kayak Adventures, Tofino BC
The Peace Camp became a melting pot, attracting activists from around the world. Alliances were made, skills were shared and campaign strategies were formed at camp. There was great hope that what happened in Clayoquot would have a positive ripple effect on forest practices throughout the province. Unfortunately, the government effectively isolated Clayoquot and its Science Panel from the rest of the province.
* Norleen Lillico, Cortes Island BC
Why do I think Clayoquot was able to reach out as broadly as it did? The 1993 protests happened at the right time - that was the luck aspect. The protests were organized in a way to allow anybody who felt strongly to participate - that was the strategic planning part!
In 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit, the Convention on Biological Diversity was signed. There was tremendous hope that this heralded a major shift towards ecosystem respect. The Clayoquot decision by the NDP was such a half-measures decision with so much favouring of industry and clearcutting, that it was a catalyst for public action. The Clayoquot movement provided a venue for the public to express their hopes, their frustrations and their convictions for the earth in the wake of the Rio Earth Summit disappointment.
* Valerie Langer, Friends of Clayoquot Sound, Tofino BC
Yet the logging continued . . .
The volume of response made it feel that there were people across Canada who actually cared about what was going on, that this was actually a broad movement. It was empowering. But it was also disempowering to have to watch the trucks roll every morning.
It was at Peace Camp that we started looking at economic tools, like the Market campaign. I continue to feel that is the strongest strategic move. What we learned at Clayoquot is that the market is one of the most effective tools. But like language, anything will be co-opted faster than you can imagine. I don't know, but I don't imagine that anyone was under any illusion that the sustainable forestry definitions wouldn't be co-opted by industry.
It continues to be a fight to have interior forests recognized. Now in 2002 we're looking at what's worked and hasn't worked on the coast. If Science Panel standards are good enough for Clayoquot, why aren't they good enough out here? How can we leverage those gains for the interior? If a company says it won't buy from endangered forests, it's up to us to say, "That's great and you should include endangered forests in the interior." I would like to see thousands of people mobilized for all the forests and their critters, but we haven't seen that yet.
* Candace Batycki, Forest Ethics, New Denver BC
. . . and life in the Camp was exhausting
After a few months of rising at 4 am for the blockade, after a planning circle that had eaten up most of the previous evening, and the incessant drumming for most of the night, we all became more than a little ragged. There were many huge successes that summer. There were also huge costs: burn-out by many of the organizers, personal anguish and disillusion of the court experience, the profound loss of power experienced as, even with all the work of all those people, the logging trucks drove by each day and trees fell each day of that summer (except the mass arrest day). Maintenance of the Peace Camp drained more energy than anyone expected.
The camp was a microcosm of society and we had to cope with a whole gambit of disillusion, hatred, fear, sexism, way too much drumming on nowhere near enough sleep, and disaffected individuals from all walks of life.
I was eternally grateful for our 'peaceful direct action code' which campers agreed to honour during their stay. The Peace Camp was an attempt at utopian existence within the here-and-now. It's not just the doing but also how it gets done. In camp all voices were heard and valued. We weren't just asking for change, we were living it, without using the tools of the oppressors . . . or so we hoped.
* Norleen Lillico, Cortes Island BC
For me personally, I was challenged to accept Gandhi's teachings as more than just a tactic to save the rainforest. I was deeply hurt by my allies that summer and have been on the long journey of forgiveness and reconciliation. One of the key problems in '93 was people's inability to care for themselves. People worked seven days a week, sleeping only a few hours a night. Due to sleep deprivation, exhaustion and the stress of living in a war zone, the core group collapsed in on itself. Bad decisions, dysfunction and burn-out ensued.
Some people felt indispensable in the struggle to save Clayoquot, but in the end probably would have been more effective if they had taken time to look after themselves.
* Bonny Glambeck, Tofino BC
Still there are changes in Clayoquot Sound
Clayoquot is still the only region in Canada that is fumbling, but at least trying to craft sustainability in spite of the forces of globalization. We have managed, in part, but significantly, to bring the local resource back into local hands. We are the first place to have a majority native-owned logging company doing ecoforestry certified by the international Forest Stewardship Council, Iisaak Forest Resources. We are still fighting huge corporate interests but we have achieved some significant concessions from government to allow resource extraction to shift towards sustainability. We haven't reached it yet, but it is more possible here than almost anywhere else in the country.
There is no doubt that globalization, the BC Liberals and cynical self-interests in the region still present threats to achieving a green economy, but since 1993 there have been enough initiatives undertaken to give the power brokers a challenge if they try to dismantle the achievements made to date.
* Valerie Langer, Friends of Clayoquot Sound, Tofino BC
Ten thousand people became empowered through the 'radical university' at the Peace Camp. It would be hard to determine how many of these folks are now active in other ways, for example the anti-globalization movement. I suspect that many are. This issue is all about globalization - the movement has simply begun to address that one umbrella issue rather than fight each issue separately.
Clayoquot has always been a bellwether for the province's wilderness debates. What we are seeing now is that groups like the Friends are going to international markets, because they know that consumers around the world are concerned about the global environmental crisis. Governments have made themselves irrelevant in the debate by failing to resolve the issues.
* Dan Lewis, Rainforest Kayak Adventures, Tofino BC
The BC government hurried to establish the Forest Practices Code as a response to the international community. The Code has been used primarily as a PR tool rather than an environmental protection tool. It did, however, shift the debate so that some of our issues which were previously dismissed as hog wash were acknowledged as legitimate. Once legitimatized there is no turning back.
The Peace Camp also started a whole host of other environmental groups and trained thousands of people in the theory and practice of non-violence. That, to me, is one of its greatest accomplishments.
I think that Clayoquot isn't repeatable. Times, issues and the public mood are changed and so the movement and movement organizing must change too. Me? I plan to go to Kananaskis.
*Valerie Langer, Friends of Clayoquot Sound, Tofino BC
|
Press Release: Tourism Operators Return to Japan Dan Lewis and Bonny Glambeck of Rainforest Kayak Adventures returned to Japan in February 2002 for Friends of Clayoquot Sound. They met with companies which buy wood from International Forest Products (Interfor). . . . Interfor is currently planning to dramatically increase their rate of cutting in Clayoquot Sound, and wants to build 13 kilometres of road into Sulphur Pass, a pristine area which was the site of protests in 1988. |
Anyone who was involved should feel a sense of real pride in the broader community that by standing together we really were able to make a difference. Through a massive outcry from concerned Canadians from across the country, combined with concern from the market place, we did see a very large logging company take steps toward recognizing the right of First Nations to be more involved in decision making. There was also a recognition that environmental sustainability had to be a watchword of whatever model emerged. The implications continue today. We see it in the willingness to meet certification standards.
For me personally, it was an extraordinary moment to see so many people caring. We lose so many battles, it's quite easy to despair and get cynical about the potential for real change. There are those few moments that we should feel really proud of and celebrate our victory. It's easy to forget because always another battle and the victories don't come on one particular day. They are a series of steps. We worked long and hard. We should stand back and say, "That was a real win."
It is important to understand that we have fought these battles before and we have won. Now there is real sense of darkness and doom and a questioning as to whether we can get the government to listen. The lesson from Clayoquot is: Woe to those who choose to ignore the voices of the people!
* Tamara Stark, Greenpeace, Vancouver BC
Companies Get Results in BC
"World Class" Forest Practices Code Trashed in Draft
by Delores Broten
In March, a 29-page draft of the "Results Based" Forest Code, planned by the BC Liberal government to replace the sixty or so books of regulations and guidelines of the Forest Practices Code, was leaked for public comment. The comments were so scathing that the Ministry has already undertaken to re-write the draft Code, but with no indication of a change in direction.
A previously leaked document had pointed out other disturbing changes in Forest policy. Logging companies will be responsible for the timber supply analysis on land they lease from the public. The Americans are demanding in the softwood lumber dispute that BC timber be priced on open log markets. The government has responded with plans to pull the timber supply out from under First Nations, community forests, and value-added manufacturers. They would have to outbid the corporate giants who control the rest of the public forests of BC.
According to the Victoria Times-Colonist, Ron MacDonald, chief executive officer for the Council of Forest Industries, revealed that the government has already consulted industry "repeatedly."
That would come as no surprise to anyone who examined the proposed features of the new Forest Code.
Government and industry argue that, with the incorporation of the environmental lessons of the 90's, it is safe to leave the forest in corporate hands.
* Victoria Times-Colonist, Press Release, Shuswap Environmental Action Society, Canadian EarthCare, and Valhalla Wilderness Society, March 2002.
The IWA has suggested a raw log export tax to answer the US softwood lumber tariff, but the coastal Private Forest Landowners Association points out that such a tax might slow log exports and hurt workers. In February Cabinet authorized over 1 million cubic metres of raw log exports from public land by Order-in-Council, with a fee of $1 a cubic metre.
* Vancouver Sun, March 2002
In March, stewardship and environmental groups with over 10,000 members wrote to the Minister of Water, Land, and Air Protection in support of the Streamside Protection Regulation. The Regulation, developed after four years of consultation, is threatened by pressure from developers.
* Vancouver Island Voice for the Environment, March 2002
Activist solidarity meeting, Sinixt Territory, south central Slocan Valley , June 1-7, 2002
Dances with Centipedes
Revolving Doors Place A Foot in Every Bio-Tech Camp
by Aaron Freeman
Reprinted from the Hill Times, Canada's parliamentary newspaper, November 2001
Consumers can be forgiven for being cynical about biotechnology. After all, it's hard to know who to trust when there's no clear line between the biotech industry, government and organizations that claim to be on the side of consumers.
Consider the government's funding of biotechnology. A Statistics Canada report found that the federal government spent $314 million on biotechnology in 1998.
Many agencies make contributions to biotech industry coffers. The Canadian International Development Agency, for example, spent $280,000 to push genetically modified (GM) corn in China, and Industry Canada, from 1994 to 2000, gave the industry lobby group BIOTECanada $6 million to improve the image of biotechnology.
But nowhere is the government's pro-biotech bias more evident than at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), which operates under Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. While the agency is charged with regulating biotech foods, it is also a major promoter and financial booster of the industry, placing itself in an untenable conflict of interest.
One of the favourite recipients of CFIA biotech subsidies is the Food Biotechnology Communications Network (FBCN), which claims to be "Canada's leading information source for balanced, science-based facts about food biotechnology and its impact on our food system."
FBCN's booklet, A Growing Appetite for Information, bills itself as a "bias-free zone" on biotech issues in Canada. It contains snapshots of new biotech products, espousing the benefits of each. When it comes to the issue of mandatory labelling -- which would allow consumers to choose whether or not to consume GM foods -- the booklet parrots industry messages, suggesting that voluntary labelling is the way to go.
The Growing Appetite publication was financed by CFIA, although there is no recognition of the public agency's funding anywhere in the booklet. CFIA also funds FBCN's 1-800 information line, web site and other promotional materials.
CFIA doesn't always work through intermediaries. In June 2000, the agency paid $300,000 to insert a supplement asserting the safety of GM foods in two of Canada's largest consumer magazines, Canadian Living and Coup de Pouce.
The industry line, so promoted by government, is completely out of sync with consumers, who have a great deal of mistrust for GM foods and simply want to know whether a product contains GM products or not. A Pollara/Earnscliffe poll earlier this year, for example, found 94 percent of Canadians favour mandatory labelling.
Liberal MP Charles Caccia hoped to do something about this concern. He initiated a Private Member's Bill, C-287, which would have required mandatory labelling of GM foods. But as the bill began gaining support from all corners of Parliament, the biotech industry rallied powerful Liberal allies to quash the initiative.
As the bill approached its second-reading vote, a letter signed by Agriculture Minister Lyle Vanclief, Health Minister Allan Rock, Industry Minister Brian Tobin and Trade Minister Pierre Pettigrew requested the Commons Health Committee to hold hearings on "the best options for meeting consumers' information needs with respect to genetically modified foods." The letter was a clear attempt to head off Caccia's bill, with the tried-and-true avoidance strategy of asking for further study of an issue.
When Liberal MPs showed up in the House to vote on the bill on Oct. 17, a pamphlet urging MPs to "Vote against Bill C-287 and support Canada's Agri-food business" was waiting for them on each of their desks. The pamphlet was published by various food industry associations. No one seems to know how it ended up on MPs' desks in the House of Commons Chamber.
The strategies of Team Biotech worked, and the bill was defeated.
When a regulated industry has the inside track with the government that regulates it, it is consumers who are left on the outs. But don't look to the Consumers' Association of Canada (CAC) to expose this cosy relationship.
Growing Appetite was published jointly with CAC, which has been a leading opponent of mandatory labelling. Last year CAC head Jennifer Hillyard told a Commons committee that the CAC does "not take donations from industry, only from individuals." But documents obtained by Canadian Health Coalition researcher Bradford Duplisea show that the group receives money from both Monsanto and the CFIA.
The CAC's spokesperson on biotech until earlier this year was Lee Anne Murphy, who now works for Monsanto and is an FBCN board member.
CFIA bankrolls the CAC's biotech efforts, including grants totaling $60,000 to cover such costs as consumer analysis of various legislative and regulatory efforts, and to pay for a full-time staff person to work on biotech. Agriculture Canada also gave CAC $20,000 to develop an information kit promoting biotech.
Both government and industry have invested huge sums on biotech. It's a gamble they are hoping will pay off, but it won't if consumers mistrust the technology and the players promoting it. Team Biotech hopes they can win through a massive PR initiative, but the revolving doors between watchdogs, regulators and the regulated will only serve to make consumers even more wary.
* Aaron Freeman is an Ottawa-based writer and a founding director of Democracy Watch, PO Box 821, Stn. B, Ottawa, Ont. K1P 5R1.
Oxfam America reports that, despite the US embargo of the island, Cuba has successfully initiated a sustained recovery in food production. By decentralizing agricultural production, initiating ecological practices and opening farmers' markets, Cuba has been able to turn around the severe food crisis of the 1990s.
Cuba has a unique model for agriculture, with land reform laws limiting the size of private land holdings and the government mixing market mechanisms with state controls.
Cuban farmers are also doing more with less. Animal traction has replaced tractors in many farms and organic fertilizers and pest controls are used instead of expensive chemical-based imports.
The Cabinet of the government-in-exile of the Dalai Lama has taken the unprecedented step of proclaiming, in its Charter, the intention of pursuing natural farming and protection of the environment in its agricultural settlements throughout India. The change from modern farming with chemicals, hybrid seeds and expensive heavy machinery will take several years before the land will recover its full potential.
* Agriculture Division, Central Tibetan Administration, January 2002
The persistent herbicide clopyralid, produced by Dow AgroSciences as Confront, has contaminated compost in Washington state, Pennsylvania and in New Zealand, making the compost unfit for sale. Confront is used on lawns to kill dandelions, clover and other broad leaf plants. Clopyralid and other herbicides in the pyridine carboxylic acid group break down extremely slowly, especially during composting. One such herbicide is triclopyr, known by the trade names Garlon and Release, used to kill broad leaf maple and other suckering plants in Canadian forests and to clear hydro right-of-ways.
In Washington, plants treated with Confront have contaminated compost at local composting facilities with levels of clopyralid high enough to cause damage to compost users' crops, including those at local gardens and nurseries. Publicly available studies show low acute toxicity to humans and animals, but no data on reproductive effects, developmental effects or cancer are available. Clopyralid is quite soluble in water, mobile in soil and extremely toxic to certain plants. Sunflowers, legumes, tomatoes and potatoes can be affected by clopyralid at levels of 10 parts per billion (ppb) or less.
Public utilities in Washington and Oregon are urging the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reconsider its registration and re-registration criteria for herbicides to include the requirement that no residual herbicides remain after a normal 60 to 90 day composting cycle.
* Pesticide Action Network Updates Service, December 2001
Over the last six years, US farmers who planted genetically modified Bt corn have lost US$92 million, an average of about $1.31 per acre, according to "When Does It Pay to Plant Bt Corn" by Dr. Charles Benbrook, the former Executive Director of the National Academy of Science Board of Agriculture.
From 1996 to 2001, American farmers paid at least $659 million in price premiums to plant Bt corn, while boosting their harvest by only 276 million bushels - worth about $567 million. Farmers lost European export sales, faced lower corn prices, and had lower net profit due to the high cost of Bt corn seed.
* Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, December 2001; www.iatp..org
Native wild maize growing on remote Mexican mountains, 100 kilometres from any genetically engineered crop, is seriously contaminated with genetically modified (GM) material from the US, where Monsanto has cornered the market. The scientific findings have been verified and published in Nature. Mexico has had a moratorium on new plantings of GM maize since 1998 but allows the import of GM crops for consumption. The wild maize in Mexico is the source of all domestic corn varieties, and is a critical gene bank for future evolutions of domestic seed.
* BBC News, November 2001, Greenpeace, September 2001
Planning for Extinction
on East Vancouver Island's private and public land
by Jill Thompson, Sierra Club of BC
While the Forest Practices Code evaporates before our very eyes, the BC government has finally presented its first draft "Landscape Unit Plan" on Vancouver Island. It covers an area just north of Qualicum Beach called Rosewall Creek. Landscape Unit Plans were supposed to satisfy landscape-level biodiversity planning under the Forest Practices Code. The shocking thing about this plan is that it only hits about 1/6 of the government's biodiversity targets. The government is actually using the very reason why the area's ecology is so degraded --private ownership -- to justify slashing biodiversity targets.
Here's the background:
1. East Vancouver Island ecosystems are under-represented in protected areas and vulnerable to extinction.
Eastern Vancouver Island (roughly the south-east fifth of the island) was largely exempted from biodiversity considerations under the Protected Areas Strategy because the vast majority of it is privately owned. Such a large swath of privately owned land is unique in BC and dates back to the historic E&N land grant, intended to provide Vancouver Islanders with passenger rail (another story).
As a result, east island ecosystems were left out of public forest biodiversity initiatives and they have nowhere near the 12% protection that the province committed to. Only 1-2% of the area is currently protected, leaving east island species and ecosystems extremely vulnerable to extinction.
2. The Private Forest Practices Regulation says that private landowners in the Forest Land Reserve only have to protect critical wildlife habitat if surrounding public lands have been exhausted for that purpose.
Because 70% of the Rosewall Landscape Unit Plan is privately owned, this means the government needs to maximize its use of the other 30% for wildlife needs, or forfeit its ability to demand wildlife protection on private lands.
3. The Rosewall Landscape Unit Plan only sets aside 5.7% of the public lands as biodiversity reserves, or 1.7% of the total Landscape Unit.
This means that private landowners cannot be legally required to protect critical wildlife on their land.
4. This is a plan for extinction.
This level of habitat protection does not meet any of the accepted minimums for biodiversity conservation, including the recommendations of the Forest Practices Code Biodiversity Guidebook. By failing to protect sufficient proportions of eastern Vancouver Island habitats, this government is planning for extinction.
5. Government is setting Small Business Forestry tenure holders up for continued uncertainty and controversy.
At least 2 provincial species at risk used to thrive in the Rosewall Landscape Unit, the implausible marbled Murrelet, a penguin-like sea bird that nests on mossy old-growth branches, and the striking Coastal Douglas-fir/Garry Oak-Oniongrass ecosystem. Provincial policy is to protect adequate habitat for them to recover. For marbled Murrelets, this is defined as 10-12% of the originally suitable habitat. Instead of planning for this in the Rosewall Landscape Unit, the BC government is choosing to stick its head in the sand.
6. This plan signifies a complete failure of the BC government to address the needs of species, tenure holders, foresters and biologists.
It is the responsibility of the BC government to live up to its own policies. In this case, that means designating at least 12% of the forested landscape in the Rosewall Landscape Unit for biodiversity and species at risk. It puts professional foresters and biologists in the untenable position of trying to make a living by signing forestry plans that clearly violate their code of ethics by contributing to ecosystem extinction.
* Write or phone: Cindy Stern, District Forest Manager, South Island Forest District, 4885 Cherry Creek Road, Port Alberni, BC. V9Y 8E9. Ph: (250)731-3010; fax: (250)731-3000 Cindy.Stern@gems1.gov.bc.ca
The Pro Rep Campaign
A Citizen's Initiative to Establish A Proportional Representation Electoral System in BC
www.freeyourvote.bc.ca; (866)776-7379
What is the Free Your Vote Campaign all about?
It is a citizen's effort to reform our way of electing the legislative assembly in BC so that the results are a more fair and accurate representation of voters' wishes. It is based on the idea that a party getting 58% of the vote should get 58% of the Legislature seats, not 97% as the Liberals did in the 2001 BC Election. Its proposed electoral system is similar to the system used in Germany and the system that was adopted by a binding national referendum in New Zealand in 1993.
Using BC's Recall and Initiative Act, Adriane Carr has proposed legislation to establish a mixed proportional representation electoral system for BC so that a party's overall share of legislature seats matches as closely as possible its share of popular vote. For 90 days, from May 13 to August 12, 2002, volunteer canvassers will gather signatures on an official petition in support of the proposed legislation. Over 1000 volunteer canvassers had signed up by April 5th. The goal is to get the number of signatures required by the Recall and Initiative Act, 10% in each riding, (about 225,000 signatures province-wide) so that the government has to either introduce the proposed legislation in the legislature or put it to a province wide vote.
The next possible referendum vote date is the last Saturday in September, 2005. A successful vote requires more than 50% of registered voters province-wide and more than 50% of registered voters in each of at least 2/3 of the electoral districts in BC to vote in favour of the initiative. If there is a successful vote, the government must introduce the legislation into the house, but the government is not obligated to pass the legislation (i.e. the vote result is not binding).
The Free Your Vote Campaign will recommend that Government introduce the legislation, refer it to the public for in-depth consideration, and move it forward to a binding referendum so that the decision about changing our electoral system rests with BC voters.
Why is the campaign called "Free Your Vote"?
It is called Free Your Vote because, under a Proportional Representation system people feel freer to vote positively for a party they like, not negatively for a party or candidate they may not even like in order to keep out another party or candidate. They feel freer to vote with their conscience, not out of fear.
How would the proposed Mixed Pro Rep system work in BC?
Fact 1: Each voter would have two votes.
Your Party Vote is for a political party that you feel most closely represents your viewpoint and that you would like to see represented in the Legislative Assembly. Your Constituency Vote is for a specific candidate you feel would make the best MLA for your electoral district.
Fact 2: The Legislative Assembly would have fewer seats.
The constituency seats would be based on the federal riding boundaries. BC currently has 34 federal ridings and would have 34 provincial constituencies matched by 34 party list seats (68 total) under the proposed mixed proportional representation system. A readjustment of federal seats is in progress based on the 2001 census. It is likely the number of federal seats in BC will increase by 2, so the BC legislature seats under the proposed Pro Rep System would be 36 constituency seats + 36 party seats = 72 seats total.
Fact 3: There would be 34 local representatives.
34 MLAs will be constituency MLAs to represent 34 Electoral Districts which correspond to the federal riding boundaries. They are to be elected to the legislative assembly by voters in the same manner as all MLAs are currently elected today. Although there is nothing in the legislation that says they have to, Party MLAs also may have offices in their home constituencies. Because there is no distinction in duties between Constituency and Party MLAs, Party MLAs may also respond to requests from constituents.
Fact 4: 34 party MLAs are drawn from lists subject to public scrutiny.
The 34 Party MLAs are elected to the Legislative Assembly based on each party's share of valid votes on a party ballot and based on ranked lists of candidates submitted by each registered political party. Each party prepares its list by whatever process the party decides. The lists are posted by Elections BC in every voting place. The lists are subject to public and media scrutiny. Candidates who are running for constituency seats can also be on the list for party seats.
Special Note: Although there is no requirement to do so in the proposed legislation, experience in other countries with similar systems show that party lists are normally balanced in terms of rural-urban candidates, male-female candidates and minority group candidates. In these countries a party usually puts the party leader and the party's best known and respected constituency candidates at the top of each respective party list. If the May 2001 BC election had been run under the proposed legislation and if BC political parties behaved like their counterparts in other countries with similar systems, it is likely that prominent politicians like Corky Evans, Ujjal Dosanjh, Adriane Carr and Colleen McCrory would have been at the top of their party lists and thus would have been elected to party seats and be sitting in the BC legislature today.
After a general election the chief electoral officer confirms who is elected to the party seats using a mathematical formula so that a political party's share of seats in the Legislature, as closely as possible, matches the percentage of popular vote that party gets on the party vote ballot.
Fact 5: Parties must pass a threshold to be eligible for party seats.
A party must get at least 5 percent of the popular vote or win one constituency seat to be eligible to hold party list seats. This is similar to the systems in New Zealand and Germany, and unlike the systems in Italy and Israel where the threshold is very low and a larger number of very small parties are elected.
Other key points
Registered political parties must run candidates in at least 4 of the 34 electoral districts in order to be eligible for party list seats.
A political party's ranked list of party candidates must be submitted on or before the 15th day of a general election. A person can be both a constituency candidate and also a party list candidate in a general election. However, if elected as a constituency representative, that person is struck from the party list and those lower on the list move up. Between elections this list cannot be changed except to withdraw candidates.
Between elections if a party seat list from the previous general election is exhausted and there is no one to fill a vacant party seat, that seat remains vacant until the next general election.
Both party and constituency seat Members of the Legislature enjoy the same rights and privileges in the legislative assembly.
If a political party gets more persons elected as constituency candidates than should be their share of seats based on the province-wide popular vote for that party, the party keeps the seats it won, and it retains a higher share of seats than the party ballot would otherwise allocate. The other parties eligible for party list seats then split the 34 party seats so that the overall seats for each party match as closely as possible each party's popular vote on the party ballot. In these circumstances, those other parties will receive a lower percentage of seats than their party ballot vote would otherwise allocate.
* Free Your Vote Campaign Office, PO Box 130, Gibsons, BC V0N 1V0
Chief Sayers on
British Columbia's Referendum on Treaty Negotiations
No room to Move at the Table
Introduction
Treaties are about ensuring there are benefits to all parties at the table, about knowing who owns what, and how disputes are resolved. Treaties are about bringing certainty to all British Columbians.
We do have our rights as First Nations that are protected under s.35 of the Constitution Act. These cannot be taken away. What we were attempting to do at the treaty table was to define them and make them more understandable. We as First Nations were willing to negotiate instead of going to court to define every single right. We will not negotiate away those rights. So when the questions posed in the referendum seek to limit our rights, such as the right to self government, which includes the right to tax, the right to manage our lands, the right to control our lands and resources, set standards, we will not compromise. These questions seek to limit our rights, even though the province says that is not what they are attempting to do.
This is not intended to be a legal analysis, but rather a practical approach to how a majority “Yes” vote would affect negotiations. After having sat at the negotiations table for over 9 years, I believe we have a good insight into what is happening. If this brings up any questions, please feel free to call me or email me and discuss them. If you have anything you want to add, please let me know.
Referendum Questions
1. Private Property should not be expropriated for treaty settlements.
This question assumes that expropriation has been an option for treaty settlements. Both the federal and provincial governments have said that “fee simple lands” are only available on a willing seller, willing buyer basis. Expropriation was never an option for governments. Therefore the question is misleading to the voter.
The problem with this question is how the voter and the government define private property. To the homeowners, it is the lands that their homes are on, which are more appropriately defined as fee simple lands.
To companies like Weyerhaeuser, Interfor, Timberwest, BC Hydro, their Tree Farm Licences and licences for use of property are their private property.
To First Nations, private property is our entire territory and all the resources in it.
There are too many interpretations as to what private property means to give a clear mandate to the government on a Yes vote. (Issue: Gives a power of consent to individuals and corporations who have interests in crown land, when this should not be the case.)
If people vote No to this question, then they agree that private property should be expropriated for treaty settlements, presumably only if required. This would include people’s homes on fee simple lands and this was never the intention of First Nations or the governments. The question framed in this way is ludicrous.
[The only way Question 1 could be answered with a simple yes or no would be to remove the word “not” from the question - Ed]
2. The terms and conditions of leases and licences should be respected; fair compensation for unavoidable disruption should be ensured.
Again, who defines what fair compensation would be? The government? The First Nation, the lease holder?
This language is permissive, leaving it to the government as to when they “should” respect leases and licences.
First Nations have been asking for compensation for our lands and resources since day one in the treaty negotiations and have never been able to negotiate it. Compensation is not listed as an item to negotiate in the Framework agreements. The Supreme Court of Canada has said where infringement of our rights is unavoidable, compensation should be paid. This question sets a double standard for First Nations and lease or licence holders, which is unfair.
3. Hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities on Crown land should be ensured for all British Columbians.
This question implies that hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities were not ensured prior to this when, under negotiations, they were.
Right now, reserve lands are federal crown lands, held for the use and benefit of the people of the particular First Nation.
A Yes vote would mean this would be the negotiating position of the province, even though they have no jurisdiction over reserve lands.
If crown lands are how First Nations will hold their treaty settlement lands, and if there is a majority Yes vote, and if First Nations cannot have control and management over their own lands, negotiations would stop cold. First Nations need to decide, what, if any, of their lands can be accessed by the public. First Nations need to be able to consider safety, privacy in their residential areas, protection of sacred and significant sites and other areas that are valuable to them. Jurisdiction over our lands is key to negotiations.
A No vote could mean that access to crown lands would be at the discretion of the government. Would that mean all crown land, or some crown land? It is not specified in this question.
4. Parks and protected areas should be maintained for the use and benefit of all British Columbians.
The biggest issue with this question is that no parks and protected areas can become treaty settlement lands ever. This causes several problems. The first problem is that there is not enough crown land in some First Nations territories to make a fair settlement. So as not to disrupt any fee simple land owners, the next available lands become Parks and protected areas. There are a fair number of parks in British Columbia.
Often times Parks and protected areas have sacred sites, archaeological sites, burial sites, middens, or other areas of significance to the First Nations. In order to manage and protect these areas, it is key to make them treaty settlement lands. Many of these sites are so significant to First Nations, that, unless they get these areas back, there will not be a settlement.A No vote would mean that all parks and protected areas should not be maintained for the use and benefit of British Columbians. This is one of those questions that you know was designed for a Yes answer as a No answer would give you a result nobody would like. But a Yes vote would bring all kinds of problems to the negotiating table and prevent many treaties from being resolved.
If this question had even said ‘substantially,’ or ‘most of parks and protected areas,’ it would have given negotiators some flexibility to work on lands which are important to First Nations for very valid reasons.
5. Province-wide standards of resource management and environmental protection should continue to apply.
So who said province wide standards of resource management and environmental protection are the right ones? One only has to cast one’s eyes about to see that the provincial standards have not really done their job. Look at our forests, our waters, the quality of air we breathe. Why can’t we as First Nations set our own standards which are better than provincial standards?
This flies in the face of self government and our ability to manage and control our own lands. Their position to date has been that our standards should meet their standards, and we have said we would beat their standards. Now there will be no room to negotiate this. This question leaves no room for recognition that we First Nations managed our resources in a sustainable way. We knew how to look after our resources so they would always come back to sustain future generations. We have great knowledge on how to protect the environment as this was our responsibility. Now, with this question, we will not be able to use this knowledge and experience. This is not negotiations.
These are two entirely different concepts being thrown together in one question. Resource management: how do we use our resources. Environmental protection: how do we preserve our environment for today and future generations.
Does anyone know what the standards for resource management are right now, or for that matter, environmental protection? The softwood lumber dispute calls for radical changes to resource management. Revisions are proposed for the Forest Practices Code, Environmental Assessment, Energy Policy, lifting of moratoriums on grizzly bears, fish farms and now possibly oil and gas. Does this question mean the standards that were applicable when the questions were asked or the new standards to be passed in the fall?
One also has to remember that provincial laws and standards do not apply to reserves. This question lets the voter assume that they do. In some instances, First Nations can pass bylaws to cover these issues; in others, the Indian Act provisions apply.
6. Aboriginal self-government should have the characteristics of local government, with powers delegated from Canada and British Columbia.
What does this actually mean? All of the characteristics? Some of them? A repeat of the local Government Act?
The Constitution Act protects our right of self government; it is not a form of delegation from the federal and provincial governments, but is of itself a government. Saying that it is a delegated government demeans our governments that have existed since time immemorial.
The First Nations Summit, which represents the First Nations involved in the treaty process, says that if the inherent right of self government is not on the table, they will not be at the table. This is by far the most important question in the referendum.
Giving us the characteristics of local governments is in some respects less than what we have under the Indian Act, and why would that be OK?
A Yes vote means the end of negotiations. A No vote would mean the government could look at other forms of self government that are not delegated. Does a No vote mean No to the Characteristics of local government, or No to the delegated form of self government?
Additionally, one has to point out the provincial government cannot bind the federal government. This will be challenged on a constitutional basis in the next court case against the referendum.
7. Treaties should include mechanisms for harmonizing land use planning between Aboriginal governments and neighbouring local governments.
This question assumes that there will be cooperation between the parties and that harmonization can be done. But in cases like my Nation, and others like it, we have two local governments, the City of Port Alberni and The regional District. How do you harmonize three plans? Whose has priority? This isn’t just a simple question, but a whole complex issue of competing jurisdictions.
Also this question doesn’t take into consideration if our lands are bordered by a licence, like a tree farm licence, or a park. Why don’t they have to harmonize their plans to ours?
A No vote would mean that there would not be harmonization of land use planning. What in actuality is harmonization? This is a new term. Establishing protocols of working together, sharing development plans and other land use with one another, meeting one another’s concerns, could be another way of dealing with this. Is it really necessary to have land use plans that harmonize?
8. The existing tax exemptions for Aboriginal people should be phased out.
This question lets the voter think that the province has jurisdiction over current tax exemptions for Aboriginal peoples. This is totally misleading. The current tax exemption is found under the Indian Act, to which the province has no jurisdiction. Coming to the table with such a position to which the province has no say, would cause major issues at the table. If exemption from taxation is an aboriginal right, this question cannot stand.
Conclusion
All of the 8 questions asked are complex and problematic to negotiations. A Yes vote would mean inflexible negotiating positions from the province. If we as First Nations know that this is their mandate and one we cannot accept, and one that they cannot move from, why would we waste any more time, energy and money trying to negotiate? These questions paint a bleak picture for negotiations.
This government is not serious about negotiating treaties. Negotiations went on hold over a month before the election. For well over a year, the province has removed all substantial issues off the table, certainty, governance, land holding, general provisions and revenue fiscal. They will not be back on the table until after the referendum and new mandates are established.
The Province unilaterally cut 25% of the BC Treaty Commission (BCTC) budget and 51 staff in the treaty office Consultation dollars were cut. Jack Weisgerber, a vocal opponent to the Nisga’a treaty, was appointed as the provincial treaty Commissioner at BCTC. This government is trying to stop treaty negotiations in this province; the referendum is only one tool to do that. They say differently, but they do not walk their talk.
* To contact Chief Sayers: Hupa casath First Nation, 323 River Rd., Box 211, Port Alberni, BC V9Y 7M7; ph: (250)724-4041; fax: (250)724-1232; opet@island.net
How To Vote Against The Referendum
- the Rejected Ballot -
Voters dissatisfied with the referendum on treaty negotiations should send a message to the Campbell Government by mailing in a rejected ballot or sending them to Chief Sayers or other organizations, not determined by press time, who will ensure they are counted.
A rejected ballot is the term used by Elections BC for a properly signed ballot package: return envelope containing a whole ballot with signature. The ballot may be blank or have comments attached, but should not be defaced. Rejected ballots will be counted and numbers reported. Each rejected ballot vote undermines the legitimacy of this referendum.
Choosing not to vote will only allow the government to claim that the low voter response was due to apathy. Voters can only send a significant message by returning a rejected ballot.
The restrictions placed on welfare recipients make it virtually impossible for them to break away from the system. To begin with, in order to qualify for social assistance, an applicant must have an address. When faced with the requirement of paying a damage deposit plus a month's rent in advance, for someone with no financial resources, an address is very difficult to establish.
Once having cleared the hurdle of establishing an address and thereby qualifying for social assistance, the recipient is required to remain in the area, seeking employment and regularly reporting to the local Human Resources office.
For many, social assistance is a dead end. If stuck in an area of limited employment opportunities, the prospect of moving and qualifying again in another location that may not be any better is a disincentive. Many simply lose hope and fall into the routine of a life on social assistance that falls far short of fulfilling the hopes and expectations of the individual or the community at large.
We must be, like Admiral Lord Nelson at the Battle Of Trafalgar, looking at the situation with our blind eye to the telescope, only pretending to read the signal flags. But there the similarity ends. Nelson won his battle. It appears we are losing ours.
We are wasting the potential of what must be one of the most favoured areas of our planet. We are squandering the great wealth of our natural resources, and the promise of fulfilment and satisfaction for our citizens. We have measured success by a yard-stick of inequality rather than community. Many have far too little while others have far too much. We are in grave danger of losing the opportunity to set an example to the world.
It's time, again, to raise the issue of a guaranteed income. A national, portable, non-judgemental, guaranteed income could replace Old Age Security and Canada Pension. Disability pensions, workers compensation, social assistance, employment insurance and whatever other programs now exist could be rolled into the same plan. Private pension plans would not be affected.
Individuals could be taxed when combined income reaches a determined level; realistic resource royalties and corporate income tax could reflect the cost of the guaranteed income plan.
The bulk of those on social assistance or at the bottom end of the income scale are living in the areas of greatest population density. Ironically, those are the areas of the highest cost of living, along with the greatest competition for employment.
A guaranteed income plan for all, with a claw-back clause to discourage abuse, would very likely cost less than the crazy-quilt coverage we have at present. Combining all those expensive bureaucracies into one compact unit would be only the beginning of societal benefits to come.
No longer would citizens be tethered to the office that issues their social assistance or employment insurance cheques. They would be free to seek out areas where the cost of living is lower and employment opportunities, if not better, are at least no worse. The possibility of organizing co-op housing and business ventures could become a reality.
Public land could be made available for habitation. Populations, regardless of size, generate supporting enterprise and therefore taxes. History has demonstrated the success of such ventures. Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver are examples.
We have in our population, many well educated and skilled organizers and planners who would welcome a chance to pursue a career that doesn't prove to be yet another trip down a wrong road. Perhaps, with careful planning and strict attention to sustainability, we could avoid such tragedies as the boom and bust cycles of our forestry, mining and fishing industries.
Perhaps we could even come to the realization that imagination, although intangible, is by far our most valuable resource.
A Cure for Transportation Anxiety
When the pings and rattles hit, car co-ops come to the rescue, in large cities and rural settings like Cortes Island
by Dianne Bersey
Ping, rattle, ping, rattle. Uh oh, that doesn't sound good. Ping. No, that doesn't sound good at all. Car owners are always attuned to these unpleasant pings and pongs that suggest all is not well with the old buggy. Take me for instance. I'm on constant alert for unfamiliar ticks and tocks ... aural signals that my vehicle needs a new this or that, a tail pipe, a gasket, a tisket, a tasket. It's not that it's always in need of repair. It's the anticipation that's wearing me down.
But the very thought of going through the car buying process again gives me a nervous tick. Where will the money come from? How will I know it's reliable? Do I really need a vehicle full-time? The list of concerns goes on and on.
As a Cortes Islander tucked into a plot of water-surrounded land with about 1100 other folks, my transportation options are self-propelled; my own vehicle, cycling or walking. Or maybe not.
In the depths of mulling over my vehicular concerns a voice in my head keeps whispering, 'check out the Cortes Island car co-op.' 'Oh sure,' another voice challenges, 'put a big chunk of change into a vehicle you can only use occasionally, that isn't really yours, that you share with other people who aren't fussy about upkeep. I don't think so. Might work in the city, but out here, nada!'
Fortunately my mental quandary found a ready resource in Delia Becker, one of the movers and shakers behind the Cortes car co-op. When challenged at an island social event, Delia responded knowledgeably to my barrage of simmering doubts and hesitations about co-operative ownership.
"The car co-op? That's the vehicle we arrived in!" Delia is referring to a 1994 Mazda MPV van sitting in the driveway. "The Cortes car co-op is no longer just an idea. The co-op vehicle has been on Cortes since mid-fall. We already have seven member-users!" Does it get much use? "Well, we'd be happier if it was being used more. At present it's in use approximately 15 days a month." Doing what? "Making the weekly Tak grocery and supply run to Campbell River, transporting shell fish farmers to meetings in Victoria and Port Hardy or facilitating a social weekend or two to Quadra or Victoria, whatever is needed."
Details, details
That sounds amazing, but, but.....? How is the car booked? Who keeps it maintained? Who gets to keep track of everything? Who collects the money? What happens if someone doesn't return it on schedule? What if a driver can't get back on schedule? Where is the van kept when not in use?
It's important to keep in mind, Delia points out, that the Cortes car co-op is part of a much larger organization. Even on this small island it's not about some house-bound fact-checker fielding calls at all hours of the day and night, keeping track of bookings and fees on the back of a flyer. The Cortes Co-op is a member of the Vancouver based 5-year old Co-operative Auto Network (CAN), an incorporated not-for-profit organization with over 51 vehicles and several paid employees. These fine folks have the whole operation on computer. Our local car, and others in Vancouver, Courtenay, Tofino and Nanaimo, all are booked through a 1-800 phone number. All financial arrangements, fees and other services are managed via computer by the Vancouver office.
There is someone 'at home' 24 hours a day to keep track of the details, make bookings, sort out confusions and help keep the co-op co-operative. The only local function is maintenance, currently managed on Cortes Island by 'car parents' Delia and William.
Supply and demand
Now my mind begins to roll. Think of the possibilities. There are lots of communities that could become 'satellites' of the Vancouver Co-operative Auto Network. There could be co-op cars throughout the province, linked to co-ops across Canada, around the world. The prospects are dazzling!
I return to earth with a bump. What happens if the demand exceeds availability of a vehicle? Delia assures me that this is a good situation not a bad one. When demand begins to rise, more vehicles will be made available.
"On Cortes Island, our dream is to have several vehicles. A pick-up truck and a van at least. Long term, we'd like to have vehicles at a couple of locations on the island, as well as a car at Heriot Bay on Quadra Island and even one in Campbell River. Those vehicles would facilitate ferry transfers and keep us connected." Now we're talking serious transportation solutions. Other guests who have been following the conversation, leap in enthusiastically. "Oh that would be fabulous, especially if ferry service is cut back or there's a lot of overloads, like in the summer." "Just think, I could catch a ride to Campbell River, pick up a vehicle and head for Victoria."
I'm surprised to learn that William, also a Cortes member, still has a vehicle of his own. "That's true. But I want to switch over completely to the co-op." William, a drywall installer, is in the process of working out how he can move his tools from job-site to job-site, but not be dependent on a vehicle everyday. "I'm thinking about a lockable trailer I can move to the job-site with the co-op vehicle and leave the trailer there until the job is completed. I really want to support the concept, not just for the money it saves, but for the positive environmental impact. Less pollution for one thing. Fewer vehicles on the road."
For Scott, owner operator of the Tak restaurant, the car co-op is about having a novel kind of vehicle insurance. "I need a reliable vehicle to make my restaurant grocery run to Campbell River. When the high season arrives I'm making two trips a week. I can't afford to have a vehicle break down. The car co-op gives me emergency back-up..., and a vehicle large enough to take friends to Nanaimo for the weekend!"
Delia offers more co-op advantages. "Cortes members have access to vehicles in Vancouver, Courtenay, Tofino and Nanaimo and reciprocal connections with affiliated auto co-ops like Nelson. You can bus to Vancouver and pick up a CAN car there."
My transportation anxiety is beginning to wane. But wait! What does all this cost?
A great deal less than owning and operating a personal vehicle. Although it's a wise person who knows exactly what their vehicle is costing them, I suspect many are like me. What I don't know won't scare me. But the truth is car or truck ownership is expensive. Maintenance, fuel and insurance for average private vehicle use can add up to $4000 - $8000 per year! The Co-operative Auto Network handout says: "Remember that the monthly co-op fee and prices for usage INCLUDE ALMOST EVERYTHING (emphasis mine); insurance, gas, cleaning, maintenance, and BCAA membership ... Most of our members pay an average of $75 per month for all the car they ever need."
Of course, the cost to individual members will vary depending on usage. For Delia, who is doing a lot of travelling at this time, it's costing all inclusively, about $200 a month. "I've been making a lot of trips up and down Vancouver Island. And I want to be sure that we keep this vehicle now that we have it."
What do I need to do to reduce auto dependence, support the environment and save some money? In addition to a $20 membership and a one-time, refundable share purchase in the co-op of $500, there are three rate plans available with three components -- a monthly administrative charge, an hourly rate and a per kilometre fee. All you need to get involved is to meet CAN criteria that include: a good credit rating; a BC driver's license (or willingness to get one soon after joining), and; evidence of a healthy regard for the rules of the road.
Interested? Check it out.
* Co-operative Auto Network (CAN). General information, registration, vehicle bookings for all locations (Vancouver, Nanaimo, Courtenay, Tofino and Cortes Island) Ph: 1-877-226-2277, www.cooperativeauto.net. On Cortes Island: Delia: 830-8533 or 830-9162; William: 935-0034.
* Feature sponsored by Friends of Cortes Island Watershed Sentinel Sustainable Education Fund
As someone who loves maps, and has tried my hand at making fairly technical ones, the travelling exhibit of maps of "Islands in the Salish Sea" really moved me deeply. The diversity and quality of the vivid artwork, the wonderful stories and ecologies enfolded in each one, were a joy to behold.
Friends of Cortes had commissioned local artist Brig Weiler to do one of Cortes, and her piece, while quite abstract and totemic, actually spoke of a simple truth: there are many maps and layers of a place, as many perhaps as those who know it well, and it all depends on what you're trying to describe, and for whom. Thus her piece had twenty or more small maps of Cortes arranged almost like cards in a poker player's hand, each one somewhat secretive and mysterious. She related how many at an early gathering of the commissioned artists spoke of the apprehension shared by many that such hand crafted maps of our islands could give too much away. The end result however is one of jubilant celebration of what we still have and cherish, and are fierce about defending from the depredations of development. So there's the bright counterpoint to such worry, and it fills an islander's heart with pride.
We've got our dry-as-a-bone subdivision and zoning maps on all these roly-poly islands, most of them based on a perfectly illogical square sectional grid that barely even makes good ecological sense on the prairies. But that's how centrally-planned colonies were started, with brave homesteads bound by straight lines, and so we've been chafing at them ever since, because the organic and lively growth of community-in-place is never quite so organized.
But this sort of "base sheet" information was mere backdrop for what the artists really felt was important - the unique and spontaneous nature and history of each island's cultural web, the greater community of indigenous plants and animals, the way the land interweaves with the sea, the way the land is used or not, the way the waters and winds flow, the use of colours that return year after year with the changing seasons of the temperate coast. An island of rare apples, an island of wild sheep, an island of wild flowers and birds, an island of architecture without architects, an island of hard-working families and individuals, an island that is still a First Nation, an island that gets swamped by the summer tide of tourists. These are the nebulous places which we the lucky inhabitants can call Home, at a scale we can get to know most intimately, and care for as generations come and go, as local stories are told, as seemingly insular lessons are shared, and as they all face the challenges of popularity in the years ahead.
This wonderful collection of island maps catches an extraordinary archipelago dancing in a brief moment of time. I'm so glad they're publishing a book too, since it's such a good moment to remember
You've got to want to fight,
the odds are so overwhelming
they always have more money, more force,
(Remember, it's force and not power they have more of)
more weapons and the means to use them,
more offices, typewriters, telephones, Xerox machines,
secretaries to diligently type and mail memos,
men to deliver the charges,
all the many ways of keeping us busy,
distracting us from the work.
The work, the work ...
You've got to want to fight,
want to do it from some place deep, deep, within,
deeper than the need to take vacations,
grow gardens, play with the children,
deeper than anything else,
from some place deep enough
where truth is what matters,
where the truth of justice and freedom
is the only, natural truth,
as essential and unquestionable
as breath, or seasons,
or the rock at the center of Earth.
And this truth, and its sister the love of it,
makes you want to fight.
You've got to want to fight,
facing the terrible truths of oppression,
the deadly and violent acts
can grind you down, bleed you slowly.
If you're not careful.
The knowing can be a butcher knife in the guts
that slashes and twists,
or it can be a bitter poison dripping in the blood
like rust,
or, if you're lucky,
maybe it will only be
tired lines around the eyes and an occasional
tightening in the chest maybe only that.
But whatever else, the knowing has got to make
you want to fight,
it's got to make
you want to fight enough
to know more
to know that what is worth fighting for is
what lasts grass, wind, flowing water, mountains;
to know that it will endure longer than
our own lives, to know that it is for what is
all around and through us, through our hands
and the work of our hands,
through our bodies, greater than any one of us.
Knowing that,
knowing that makes you not fear
their threats, their violence, their fear,
it makes you want to fight,
truthfully, honestly,
as hard as you've ever done anything,
because you want to,
you need to.
Like wanting to sink into the sweet earth
after a long day,
like wanting to linger in the blessedness of dreams,
like wanting to wake to clear dawn,
like wanting to rise and work through the sun until the evening star
and maybe past,
first you've got to want to,
you've got to want to fight.
* Ellen Klaver, Boulder; Earth First! Journal Feb. 2nd, 1986
Judi Bari was a working class leader of Earth First! who organized solidarity between workers (loggers) and environmentalists for the Redwood Summer in California in 1990. She began to build lines of solidarity between the social solitudes, based on their common opponents, the large logging corporations.
At the time there was a popular Forests Forever referendum going on in California to stop the corporations from clearcut logging the last of the Redwoods. Bari's car was bombed and the FBI said she did it to herself. They refused to investigate further. As a result Earth First got branded terrorist, and the referendum lost.
Bari and her organizing partner Darryl Cherney sued the FBI (because they either did it or knew who did it from the political disinformation wing). The case has been tied up in court for 11 years, but has passed every legal hurdle and delaying tactic. It is finally going to trial April 8 in Federal Court, Oakland California. Judi died of breast cancer in 97, but the Redwood Summer Justice Project got her deposition into the record one month before she died.
* DB. See www.judibari.com
|
Watershed Sentinel |
|
|
Watershed Sentinel |
ph/fax: (250) 935-6992 |
Publisher and Editor Delores Broten; Associate Editor Don Malcolm; Computer Graphics Yendor
Circulation 3,000; Published six times per year; Subscriptions $20.00 Canada $26 US; Distribution by news stand sale,
by subscription and to members of Friends of Cortes Island, free at Vancouver Island Regional Libraries, and through Doormouse Distributors, Toronto
Member British Columbia Association of Magazine Publishers; ISSN 1188-360X
Join Reach for Unbleached! and receive a year subscription to the bimonthly magazine Watershed Sentinel including MillWatch. Membership is $25.
