Immediately following the defeat of the referendum in Quebec on October
30th many of the radio commentators began making remarks that now we are going to have to
make some fundamental changes in the Constitution. They were speaking as if this
was a sudden realization that had not dawned on anyone prior to this date, and was an
outcome of this latest crisis. The Reform Party too, jumped on the band wagon and started talking
about a need for "national overhaul."
Back in 1992 following the defeat of the referendum on the Charlottetown
Accord when everybody and their dog immediately decided that the constitution was no
longer an issue to deal with I published an editorial in THE RECORD plainly pointing out the
need for a national overhaul with fundamental changes in order to settle the constitutional
issue. If the people in power had had the foresight to continue on at that time until an equitable
national arrangement was reached we would not have had to suffer through this last episode of
M. Parizeau's egoistic maneuvers to become the father of his country.
My arguments in 1992 are still valid and timely now, and I present them
below in their entirety.
DECIDING CANADA'S FUTURE II On October 26 the Charlottetown Accord was rejected by Canadians.
Immediately thereafter our Prime Minister and a host of other politicians who pushed this ill
designed reform package upon us began back pedaling away from the whole constitutional issue like
it was a smelly, dead animal. The economy is more important said Mr. Mulroney, and others said
that anything but the constitution is what they want to concern themselves with. I say whoa,
what a bunch of sore losers. The constitutional issue is still the most important problem facing
us as a nation, and we have to get it settled before we can get on with our future as a just and
fair Canada.
What the politicians are afraid to face here is that Canada did not reject
constitutional reform, native rights, Quebec's distinctness, health care, or any of the other
issues addressed in the Accord. What Canada rejected was a hasty and ill designed Band-Aid solution
to a serious and complex issue, an issue so complex and important to all Canadians that
perhaps it can not be solved from inside the current ineffective political system in our country.
What should happen now is that the government should initiate a new process outside current
structures that will be free from the controls of both the Federal and Provincial establishments.
This new process should include representatives from all of the disparate
groupings within our national society who hold neither elected nor appointed political office,
and they should be charged with finding the political values and ideals that all Canadians
hold in common. Once this is determined a new federal constitution can be written that encompasses
only these values and ideals, leaving all others to the realm of the individual provinces.
In this manner we will arrive at a political document that is not a mish mash of hasty compromises
and political sops to various special interest groups that like a house of cards falls apart
any time one of the parts is removed, but instead is a stone castle that will stand fast even if a block
or two should be knocked loose from time to time.
Any document coming from this new process should also not be dependent
upon approval of the House of Commons, upon the Senate, or upon any Provincial Legislature,
instead it should be subject only to an overwhelming majority of the Canadian people. And,
the people should be asked to give their approval not to the document as a total package, but
upon each and every of its articles and sections individually.
Canada today is one of the best societies on the face of the earth, and
the envy of millions who are not fortunate enough to live here. However, the face of Canada is changing
and our political system is failing to cope with the change. In the end this failure will
result in the loss of many of the things which make life in Canada better than anywhere else unless we
do something now to change the system and preserve the good things which we have. We can not
trust our future to a dysfunctional political machine. If we are to settle our constitutional
crisis in a democratic and orderly fashion it is time that the politicians instead of running away
from the issue facilitate a popular constitutional process that can forge a new foundation for a stronger
Canada.
THE RECORD November 15, 1995
View From The West #004
Currently the Liberal government in Ottawa is planning to eliminate
manned light stations along the coast and replace them with automated stations. The rationale for this
move is that it will result in reduced operating costs and a smaller budget to go along with
the current government's program of deficit reduction. The opposition to this move
has countered that the savings would be minuscule while the decrease in coastal safety would be
significant. Personally I think that cutting out manned light stations to trim excessive
costs is like a fat man cutting off his fingers and toes to help solve his obesity problem. Perhaps
if the dreamers of this ill conceived scheme were to clear their heads and look closely at the
matter they might discover a lot more savings could be made by cutting back on the administrative
staff in Ottawa instead of eliminating the vital services provided by our light station keepers.
No matter how many rationalizations the desk jockeys in the government
can come up with, they can not obscure the fact that light station keepers save lives and prevent
routine distress situations from turning into mega-dollar search and rescue operations.
If anything the B.C. coast could use more manned light stations, not fewer ones. Most people
who have spent much time in the remote areas of our coast can give first hand accounts of events
where the light station keepers have either come out in their zodiacs to help someone in
distress, or have provided crucial instructions by radio to vessels in unfamiliar waters.
Automated light stations can not tow in a boater at dusk in a storm on an outgoing tide with a dead
motor and no radio contact except for the nearby light station. Light station keepers do this
as a matter of course.
The bureaucrats in Ottawa do not comprehend these kind of services. Their
calculators can only tell them what a light station keeper costs to maintain, not the value
of his or her service. How much is a human life worth? How many people have to be saved each year
or each decade to justify the cost of a light keeper? How many ships on the rocks
are acceptable before the need for a manned light station is cost effective? If anyone has a
precise figure for that I dare them to stand up in a public forum and advocate it. If not then I
suggest that perhaps the right answer is zero.
The real problem that we face on our coasts is not the cost of manned light
stations, but the lack of adequate surveillance and protection. We do not need fewer light station
keepers. Instead we need more light stations, more fisheries officers and more patrol vessels
to not only save us from accidents and disasters, but to protect our resources and territorial
integrity.
The best way to improve the situation on our coasts and to make coastal
services more cost effective and efficient is to start by eliminating the Coast Guard entirely.
Canada needs a strong Navy, not a civilian Coast Guard. The Coast Guard should be disbanded and
its entire function turned over to the Navy. Light station keepers can be kept on as civilian
employees while all other members of the Coast Guard can be given the opportunity to transfer
into the Navy at an appropriate level, and continue on in their careers subject to military
standards of performance and discipline. There should be a build up of smaller patrol vessels in
the Navy to the point that every part of our coast us under frequent surveillance, and that any vessel
in distress is never far from a helping hand. And, there should be either an increase in the
number of fisheries officers with one or two assigned to each naval patrol, or the Navy should
be trained and empowered to enforce fisheries regulations.
I have little doubt that the Coast Guard has embarked on this current fiasco
under pressure to do its part in reducing the national budget, and that the people making
the plans intend to keep the reductions as far away from their own jobs as possible. Cutting fat
from budgets is often a good idea, but this time they are cutting meat. The Liberal government
should take a very close look at what is going on here and rethink its coastal policies with an
eye to the safety and security of our coasts and resources instead of to the interests of the
drones and paper shufflers in the Coast Guard bureaucracy.
THE RECORD December, 1994
View From The West #005
The problem in the forest is straight forward and documented.
We are running out of trees. The forests on the West Coast of the Island take several hundred years to reach
full maturity, and we are cutting them at a faster rate than they can grow back. Everyone concerned
about the forest has to face this fact before any meaningful discussion can even begin to
take place. Trying to solve the problems with the forest industry without first agreeing that
we are currently over cutting the forest is like trying to solve navigation problems here without
first agreeing that the compass points north.
The real solutions to the problems that we are facing are not concerned
with whether or not we get more trees to cut. Anyone who wants to argue that we need more trees
or at least the right to continue cutting as many trees as we are now is either blind to reality
or has ulterior motives that are not necessarily beneficial to the long term interests of our region.
The solutions that we need lie in getting more value out of our forest, in taking full local
control of forest use in the region on both public and private holdings, and in implementing a long
term economic plan for the region that looks forward over hundreds of years instead of only a
few years or decades.
Trees that fall in our region should be processed in the region or traded
for an equivalent amount of timber for our industry. There should be no net loss to the region
in timber that goes out in raw logs, chips, cants, or in other unprocessed or marginally processed
form. What should go out of our region is finished lumber, pulp, and paper; and as
much as possible products manufactured here from our finished lumber, pulp, and paper.
There should be local public control over what can be done with every tree
that falls in the forest, and in the manner that it is to be done whether or not that tree
falls on Crown land, a native reserve, or a private holding. This control should be exercised
by a body democratically elected in the same manner that we elect school boards and village councils,
with adequate safeguards against conflict of interest on the part of board members.
The government is already projecting timber supplies over periods in excess
of two hundred years. These projections plainly indicate that we can not sustain our current
rate of cutting, and must reduce it if we wish to achieve a steady level of harvesting. These
same projections also show the disappearance of high grade old growth timber in the timber supply,
and its replacement by the less desirable second growth. Not only are we losing
trees we are losing the quality of our fiber supply.
The facts in the government projections need to be addressed by the forest
industry and reflected in published long range plans that show their proposed operations
and levels of employment over the next century or more. Everyone has to begin thinking
of the future here in terms of multiple decades and generations if we are to achieve any kind
of regional stability.
Each of us needs to confront the fact that we are running out of mature
trees. This is happening whether or not we protect a few more areas or sell Strathcona Park to the
highest bidder. It is happening regardless of leaked memos, changes of government, blizzards
of faxes, or masses of undulating yellow ribbons in front of any number of official buildings.
Do not be mislead by those who would direct attentions elsewhere. It is
easy to get up and curse the government, and a common ploy throughout history to lay the blame
on outsiders in order to divert attention away from the real problems. The problems lie
in our past forest practices and our failure to build a diversified economy. Our solutions
lie in correcting these mistakes.
THE RECORD March 1995
View From The West #006
The sky is falling, just listen to the people, the sky is falling.
Here on the West Coast we are sicker these days, stress is up, we have more family problems, and we are
drinking a lot more too. This is the message that our local officials are spreading far and
wide to anyone that will listen, and they say that it has all come about because of government decisions.
Well, maybe the stress level is up, and some good people have turned down
opportunities to move here because of the current atmosphere. But, this is not an atmosphere
that can be rationally connected to the current government's attempts to correct decades
of neglect and bring stability and long term planning to the management of our forests.
People are upset these days because they are being told to be upset, and
they are being driven to hysteria by a well orchestrated program of fear and disinformation.
If anyone is to blame for the current situation here it is the agitators of this hysteria, and the
interest groups behind the agitators who are hoping to reap political and financial benefits by creating
a volatile situation.
An interesting document to read is the WEST COAST COMMUNITY PROPOSALS TO
THE PROVINCE OF BC. This short paper was presented by the mayors of Gold River,
Tahsis, and Zeballos to the Minister of Forests on March 2. Apart from the obligatory
pokes at the government this document contains some very good ideas, and requests the
provincial government to enact even greater restrictions on the disposition of timber
in the TFL than are currently in place. Among the mayors' requests is a ban on saw logs being
used for pulp, a ban on the export of raw logs, and free rights to salvage sunken logs. The
mayors also advocate that the TFL should be managed and operated by the communities, and that
some of the timber licensees in the region should have their licenses removed. Very little
is mentioned about parks or protected areas, and it is obvious from their place in the proposal
that these items are of minor importance.
What is amazing here is that publicly parks and protected areas are being
used to stir up a lot of turmoil when they are not one of the real issues at hand. Why is it that
land tenure, logging practices, and community development which are a real issue, do not get
a lot of serious discussion in public meetings? Why aren't local businesses putting up "No
More Saw Logs For Pulp" posters in line with the mayors' proposal? The reason is that
there is one other real issue at stake, and it is the one that is the driving force behind all of the
knee jerk reactionism. This issue is one of provincial politics and bruised egos.
Failed Socreds like Gerry Furney, who was twice rejected by the voters
of this riding as MLA, are having a field day crying fire in a crowded theatre and then trying
to blame the government for the stampede. These people do not care about the forest or the community
except to the extent that they can use it to extend their power and influence. Serious
discourse on the issues in public meetings is anathema to them. It does not lead to the kind of
wild emotions that inspire people to adorn themselves in yellow ribbons and provide crowds
for Mr. Furney's pleasure at various locations throughout the province. It is on Gerry Furney
and his ilk that we can lay the blame for the present miasma of uncertainty and fear.
THE MIRROR March 1995
View From The West #008
On January 30th the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks issued a press release, published in this edition of The Record, on an
agreement with three forest companies that addressed environmental damage caused by past logging
practices in the San Juan watershed of southern Vancouver Island. The statement reflected
well on the companies and their undertaking to restore the environment and to enhance
fisheries in the drainage, and it gave credit for the fact that the companies had already
been working on doing some of this for the past three years.
On January 31st in The Province columnist and spin doctor Brian Kieran
took this item and attempted to twist it into an attack by the government on the forest companies.
Kieran's, and by extension the forest companies', position on the issues in this matter
were that in the first place this whole thing should have never happened because it was not playing
fair to dig up instances of bad forest practices that were years old, and were within the old rules
of the day. And, in the second place this was an excuse to impose the Forest Practices Code on
private forest lands, as if to do so was some odious act.
One can not but interpret this whole hysterical explosion by Mr. Kieran
as a message that the forest companies are taking the position that they should not be held responsible
for any damage that may have happened in the past, particularly if the rules in
place at the time did not prohibit it, and how dare anyone presume to require them to adhere to environmentally
sound practices on their on private fiefdoms.
The fact is that the damage is there, and it is not benign. No matter what
the rules were, there is some responsibility. Every day that the damage is not repaired it further
weakens our fishery and allows for further degradation in the sustainability of the forest.
The companies have agreed to undertake the repair and should be commended for doing so.
As for the whining and sniveling about private lands, the point still remains
that these damages did take place in part on private lands under rules that almost everyone
now will agree were insufficient. To not put enforceable rules in place that would prevent
this type of abuse in the present and future would be an act of irresponsibility by the government.
Our forests and forest industry are much too important to us, whether they be in public or private
hands, to not have their responsible management mandated by law rather than by voluntary agreements.
It is obvious that Brian Kieran's devotion to the corporations is greater
than his commitment to the processes of reason and logic when he writes about this issue.
On an hilarious side note to this whole episode Port McNeill's Mayor, Gerry
Furney, published a letter to Brian Kieran in the February 2nd edition of the Campbell River
Mirror. After rambling on about the usual bogeymen, patting his own back a few times, and stroking
his favorite Campbell doll, Gerry thanked Kieran for the enlightenment provided by his column,
and announced that it convinced him to stand for the Liberal nomination on the North Island.
Some enlightenment!
THE RECORD February 21, 1996
AMAZING RESPONSE
If you look on page two you will find a letter written by Hugh Sutcliffe,
a vice-president with Pacific Forest Products, addressed to Moe Sihota, the Minister of Environment,
etc. This letter purports to address Pacific's concern with the recent decision on protected
areas on the North Island. When I first read this letter I was astounded, not by its concise
and penetrating arguments, but by the fact that such a large corporation that is responsible
for the welfare of so many people could issue such ill conceived and childish drivel. If the
tone and accuracy of this letter reflects the attitudes and attention to facts of the senior management
of the company, then Pacific is in trouble.
The letter is rife with inaccuracies and misrepresentations, and exhibits
a tone of blind, irrational hostility that has no place in the modern business world. In the opening
paragraphs Mr. Sutcliffe complains about three new parks in Tree Farm License 19, and goes on to
name the Artlish Caves as one of them. Whether these areas will actually become parks or
not is still in question, but the Artlish is certainly not in TFL 19. One would expect that the Chief
Forester of a forest company would know where his forests are.
Further down in the letter a complaint is lodged about the Weymer Creek
area, and it is stated that the Nootka Area Land Use Advisory Board recommended that this area
not be protected. What is not stated is that when NALUAB first voted on the issue they did
recommend to protect it. It was only after some maneuvering on the part of certain board members
that a re-vote was forced under questionable circumstances. This re-vote was protested to
the Land Use Coordination Office.
The most amazing portion of the letter is the treatment given to the issue
of the marbled murrelet in the Gold Valley. First Mr. Sutcliffe states that he has never seen one
in the valley, nor does he know of anyone who has. Fair enough, but with the vast resources at
his command one would think that he should have known about the 1991 report by the Canadian
Wildlife Service on the geographic distribution of the marbled murrelet on Vancouver Island.
Almost a half of a page of the report was given over to marbled murrelet sightings in the
Gold River Valley.
The capper on his marbled murrelet discourse, however, turns out to be
the shocking claim that he would "see no reason why such a bird would fly 25 km through the
smoke of the pulp mill over Gold River ...." Avenor, the owner of the pulp mill and parent
company of Pacific Forest Products, has spent large sums of money and time to clean up its environment.
It is a company working hard to create and maintain an image of environmental responsibility.
For an officer of one of its subsidiaries to say that the mill is so dirty that birds will
not fly through the air around it is almost an act of professional suicide.
The report continually assumes to speak for all of the residents of Nootka
Sound, and accuses special interests of driving the governments decision. The assumption that
someone sitting in an office in Vancouver speaks for the people of Nootka Sound is ludicrous
and insulting to the people in the Nootka Sound Communities, who are far more intelligent and
diverse in their opinions than Mr. Sutcliffe gives them credit for. To try and focus blame
on others, the so called special interest groups, is a classic tactic of diversion used when reality
just does not fit.
The letter from Mr. Sutcliffe was not the only one issued by a forestry
stake holder in the Nootka forests that was concerned with the impact of the new protected areas.
But, unlike the letter from Pacific, the others that I have seen were rational and brought up
valid points that the government needs to consider when implementing the new changes in land
use.
There are a lot of good people working in the forest industry in the Nootka
Sound Region, and many of them are employed by Pacific Forest Products. Perhaps the company
would be better served if it abandoned the policies of its Vancouver grandstanders, and
put more responsibility into the hands of its very capable local managers and staff.
JW
THE RECORD February 21, 1996
View From The West #009
On page 09 you will find a press release issued by SHARE BC in Ucluelet.
Their are several amazing things about this item, and the first one is that Gerry Furney
and I agree on it.
I received the release with a public letter from Gerry that has been published
in other papers. In that letter Gerry opposes Mike Morton's call for a boycott of California
farm products in response to some California cities' opposition to purchasing BC timber products.
I too oppose such a move, and although Gerry may not agree with me, I find
SHARE BC's logic in this and other matters a product of brain dead thought processes. Mr.
Morton's proposal is akin to the philosophy that you can best get at your enemy by shooting
your friend who lives next to him.
The cities that are in opposition to using BC timber products do not produce
the farm goods that the boycott would target. They consume them! A boycott would have the potential
of driving down the prices of these perishable goods in the California markets to
the benefit of the same cities that Mike would punish. The farmers on the other hand, would get
mad at BC and also stop using our timber products. With groups generating ideas like this
it is no wonder that we have problems in the forest industry.
THE RECORD April 17, 1996
View From The West #010
The traditional summer of hot and heavy Tyee fishing in Nootka Sound appears
to have been cooled off by an anticipated absence of fish and new DFO regulations mandating
non-retention of chinook on the west coast of the Island.
The decline in the fish stocks has been going on for years from California
to Alaska, and should be of no surprise to anyone. Since almost everyone has been saying for
quite some time that something had to be done, the latest action by the DFO should not be too
surprising either.
As this paper goes to press there are still discussions going on between
the DFO and some stake holders, and the final outcome may still be open for adjustment.
In regards to the proposal of catch and release on the chinook this season,
it is my opinion that if the fish are so endangered that we can not afford to keep them, then strict
measures need to be put into place to insure that we do not even incidentally catch very many
of them.
No matter what anyone says, we all know that catching and releasing a salmon
is stressful for the fish, and will result in an increased mortality rate due to both physical
damage from being captured, and easy predation by seals and dogfish when exhausted.
I have heard it reported that some of my fellow guides have said that catch
and release is no problem. They will let their clients catch the big fish, mangle them with
their nets, haul them out of the water for photo opportunities, and then toss them back. This is
absurd!
Any guide with half a conscience and even a smidgen of respect for the
chinook will do their utmost to see that their clients never hook one to begin with. If they
do hook one they will get the fish in as fast as possible and release it beside the boat with as
little contact as possible. Forget the mug shots.
If the DFO is truly serious about protecting the chinook this summer they
will also outlaw barbed hooks on the west coast, and prohibit down riggers, heavy weights, and
other devices designed to facilitate deep trolling. You do not need to troll for groundfish, and
what coho there are out there are readily taken near the surface.
This situation that we now face is a product of greed and stupidity. We
have lost our salmon stocks to the greed of fish processors who want ever more and cheaper fish;
to allowing technology in the industry that has made more and cheaper fish possible
while putting thousands of traditional fishermen on the beach; to land developers who
see spawning and rearing grounds as building sites; to forest companies who blithely desecrated
untold numbers of watersheds because doing so was cheaper than acting responsibly; to
industries that thought our waterways made fine and dandy sewers; to our diversion of water for
hydro and irrigation; and to all of us who found little bits of polluting here and there to be
easier and cheaper than looking after the environment.
There are lots of things that need to be done to protect our fishery and
our fishing industries, both commercial and sport. A closure on chinook this summer is only one
small patch on a gaping wound, but it may help. Let us not approach it with the same attitudes
that got the fishery into this jam in the first place.
THE RECORD May 29, 1996
View From The West #011
Troy Lanigan of the Canadian Tax Payers Federation would have us close
lighthouses to save money. From his arguments one would gather that the sum of $1.1 million
is worth more than a life or even a number of lives. Of course he does not present it exactly
that way. Instead, he places the burden of proof on the proponents of manned lighthouses by saying
that there is no evidence to suggest that "safety would be jeopardized by automating
lighthouses."
Mr. Lanigan's reasoning is a classic example of the philosophical viewpoint
that has become the curse of the late 20th century, and the main reason that modern nations
are running aground on the shoals of social and moral decline.
Mr. Lanigan is a believer in the bottom line, a bottom line measured in
dollars and cents. This philosophy has no social conscience and places very little value on the
welfare of the group, whether that group be the village, the province, the nation, or the world.
It is a philosophy of greed and individual selfishness.
When people like Larry Gillanders, the late and unlamented leader of the
Social Credit Party, talk about government based on business principles, this bottom line philosophy
is the principle that they are talking about. When other politicians and theorists talk
about unfettered free enterprise, lower taxes, and less government, this is the philosophy that
they are rooted in. It has become the philosophical foundation of the amoral segment of the business
world, and the prevailing ethic of modern corporations.
Do we want to follow Mr. Lanigan's lead and incorporate this philosophy
into our view of how we should be governed? Do we want to put dollar values on our lives, our security,
and our social well being? At what price should we be willing to sell off the things that
make us one of the best and most admired societies in the world?
In the case of lighthouses what proof is there that automating them would
not result in a reduction in maritime safety? Given the figure of $1.1 million, the cost
of maintaining manned lighthouses is less than five cents per Canadian per year. Is this too
much to ask for providing an intelligent and responsive presence on our dangerous and rugged coast?
Even when using Mr. Lanigan's own perverse philosophy, the case for manned
lighthouses may be made when analyzing the true costs involved. The $1.1 million that would
be saved from putting a bundle of lighthouse keepers and supporting staff out of work
could easily be eaten up in increased costs in other areas.
From first hand experience I know that lighthouse keepers have effected
rescues of distressed boaters in minutes, and have provided invaluable verbal support to vessels
in foul weather searching for a haven. What is the cost of one search and rescue attempt
for a small craft lost at sea? How much savings do we gain in the health care budget because drenched
and battered seamen get immediate attention at a lighthouse before being shipped
on to a medical facility? How many extra lives are put at risk mounting a full scale rescue
operation because there was no lighthouse keeper to give immediate response in a crisis?
Mr. Lanigan's tide is the tide of monetary greed threatening to wash away
the foundation of public security and safety. I am mighty glad that Captain Clark has decided
to steam against it.
THE RECORD June 26, 1996
View From The West #012
The FRBC affair steams on as opposition politicians and rural communities
all scream and holler at the government, the former hypocritically, the latter mostly out of
fear, but no doubt with some greed tossed in. The government, on the other hand, has its feet firmly
planted in a pile of wet cow pies on this issue, and no doubt by now wishes that it had done a little
more ground work before going after the excess funds.
The opposition party can be written off in this debate. They were not in
favor of FRBC in the first place, and would like to give all of the stumpage fees back to the big
corporations to use for dividends and six figure bonuses for top management. To hear them defend
FRBC is ludicrous, and only further accentuates the juvenile mentality of opposition in this
province.
The forest companies' objections pretty much mirror those of their lackeys
in the opposition. Even though the increased stumpage rates are probably saving them from
economic action by the U.S., they do not like the thought of "their" money going
anywhere except back into their coffers. To them, if they have to have FRBC, the best use of the funds
would be to reduce their operating costs by paying for projects that they would otherwise have to
pay for themselves.
The rural communities are another story. They are looking at a declining
industry, no matter what is done, and the off loading of programs from the province to the
local governments. They are very concerned with jobs and a secure tax base. They do not care if
FRBC is returning more money than expected as long as they get it back into their communities
in one form or another.
All the while the government diddles around. FRBC money has accumulated
in amounts that would cause even King Croesus to turn green with envy. This of course is
the peoples' money as the trees belong to all of us, and using this logic the government wants
to give it back to all of us by paying off our public debts. Not a bad idea except for two things.
The first mistake is that they promised that they would only use the money
for certain purposes when they set up the program. To deviate from that promise without first
going to the forest communities and getting an agreement is a breach of faith. It is an act
of arrogance.
The second mistake is the failure to develop a creative vision of direct
public involvement in the renewal of our forests. To set up a system that relies primarily upon the
submitting of proposals by various entities to fulfill the task of forest renewal is shortsighted
at best. And, in our modern era of suspicion and mistrust of everything public, it leads exactly to
the backlog that we have as the bureaucrats take every precaution to make sure that they do not authorize
any projects that might adversely reflect on their competence or honesty.
The philosophy that it is better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing
seems to prevail at FRBC. As any veteran can tell you, sometimes doing nothing is the wrong
thing.
Giving grants for projects should be only one facet of the FRBC mandate.
Another facet should be the active and direct renewal of our resources and the environment upon
which those resources depend.
A massive amount of the FRBC pie should go to fund a new agency that is
arm's length from day to day political control. This agency, lets call it the BC Resource
Renewal Agency, should have the mandate to seek out and repair environmental damage that is degrading
our resource base. There is no end of watershed restoration and other projects that
desperately need to be done in this province. An agency such as this could hire the personnel
necessary and get on with the job without the blizzard of red tape and labyrinth of hoops that
are now required to fund such work through FRBC.
Hiring preferences could go to displaced forest workers and fishermen first,
and wages could be indexed to current union wages for similar work so that the fear of cheap
labor would not be a roadblock. In addition the work centers and administrative facilities could
all be located in rural communities to help off-set the local economic effects of declining timber
and fish harvests.
Some critics will say that an agency such as this would be a boon to the
corporations who would be able to duck their responsibility for repairing their damage to the
environment. That problem can be addressed quite simply. Wherever environmental damage can be attributed
to any person or corporation, or group of such, they should be required by law
to repay the province the full cost of repair plus a percentage.
Our environment is in trouble, and there is no good excuse for not taking
FRBC funds and fast tracking a response to this serious problem.
THE RECORD October 16, 1996
View From The West #013
Leading into and during the last provincial election much was made of the
province's bond rating, Mr. Clark promised not to raise taxes, and everybody preached debt
reduction. Now we hear screaming and moaning because the bond rating is dropping, there appears
to be a budget deficit, the government is contemplating using excess FRBC funds to pay
off part of the debt that everyone seems to despise, and there is much wailing and gnashing
of teeth because expenses are being cut back along with transfer payments to the local governments.
What is important here? It is time that we all think seriously about what
kind of a society that we want to live in, and that we be honest with ourselves about the cost of
that society. Debt reduction, balanced budgets, and low taxes are noble goals, but they are
being used as a smoke screen by political interests who really want an end to public services,
fair wages, and a viable democracy.
The achievement of a zero deficit and a balanced budget through the cut
back of services and the selling off of public assets such as land and crown corporations will
lower the quality of life for most people in the province, and weaken the power of the mass of society
in favor of that of the wealthy elite.
Quality of life will be less because needed services will not be there
except at a much higher price than that which the average person was paying in taxes. And, even
worse, once the market place takes control of services the outlying areas can expect the
level of services to drop considerably. Add to this the fact that the public will not have near as
much control over the quality or content of the services offered once the right to make decisions
passes to private owners.
The raise in the price of services will also see an increase in the transfer
of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy. The transfer of this wealth will be compounded
if lands and infrastructure are sold off and privatized. The selling off of provincial
assets would be analogous to a young couple selling their house in order to settle in to a lifetime
of paying high rents to a landlord.
Once the transfer of wealth is accelerated the decline of political power
will follow. The wealthy will be able to use their advantage to buy more and more elections, and
make it harder for poorly funded opponents to be heard. This will lead to more and more laws
favoring wealth, such as laws lowering wages, laws breaking unions, laws lowering safety
standards, laws limiting responsibility and other laws that give large corporations even
more of an edge in commercial enterprise.
The current economic path that is being followed by several of our political
parties is a path that will lead to a new ordering of society. This new ordering will not be entirely
new though, it has a name and a historical precedent. Five hundred years ago we called it feudalism.
This time, however, instead of military barons we will have corporate barons, and
instead of mainly serfs on the land most of us will be wage slaves.
What can we do about this? If we let it take its natural course in the
end the wage slaves will revolt, the barons will be slaughtered, and it will all start over again.
The good news is that we can avoid that scenario by taking remedial action now.
Mr. Clark's biggest error has been to buy into the fable that says that
we can not have tax increases. We have to have tax increases. Improving efficiency is good,
and it will save us some money. Finding waste is good, and it will save us some money. But,
neither one of them will find us enough money, and cutting services is generally counter productive
to building a more just, equal, and secure society.
The question is not whether to raise taxes or not, but where and how to
raise them. Taxes like the GST, PST and many user fees are regressive and fall heavily upon the
poor and middle class who pay a much higher percentage of their wealth into these taxes
than the rich who hardly notice them. These taxes also impose an unfair burden of accounting
and book work on small and medium businesses who could better use the time and resources
to be productive. Regressive taxes should be repealed.
Income, land and other assets are a different story. Here we can find excess
personal wealth that can be used for the benefit of society. Everyone needs to have a certain
level of income protected from taxes so that they can live, and everyone needs a certain
amount of property protected from taxes so that they can have a place to live in. Beyond that
the rest is gravy.
The income tax should have a hefty minimum deduction to protect people
with marginal or sustenance incomes. This will help those in the lower income brackets to
make ends meet, and will save a bundle in tax administration by reducing the number of taxpayers
that the system needs to pay close attention to. Above the line of the basic deduction
there should be a graduated scale that approaches ninety percent once you get into mid six
figure incomes. World wide income should be taxed.
Property taxes should function much in the same way as the income tax.
A basic deduction should be allowed, and other allowances made so that people can be secure
with a modest home and small farm or business. Then, the property should be taxed on
a graduated scale that is a function of the total property owned by the taxpayer world wide.
Property and income taxes must be an obligation for all citizens, and citizenship
must be a requirement for property ownership. Failure to pay taxes should result
in a loss of both citizenship and all property in Canada.
Fairly graduated taxes would make small and medium businesses more competitive,
and would increase the size and the well being of the middle class. Tax increase
is only a dirty phrase if the increase is unfair.
As for the bond rating, who cares? The bond rating only matters if we want
to borrow money. Are the opposition parties crying now because they want us to borrow more
money? I thought that reducing the deficit was the rage.
THE RECORD November 27, 1996
View From The West #014
For almost thirty years I have held that the primary villain in society
is greed, and that this greed is a natural component of pure, unfettered capitalist enterprise. Greed
is the foundation of capitalist economics and has become the defining force in shaping our society
into one that places its highest values on excessive profits and the mindless accumulation
of wealth, irregardless of the side effects.
It has been frustrating over the years to watch the process as the system
of greed keeps expanding its influence and eroding the values of community and family
that we once relied on to survive as a people. To see entire governments such as those of Margaret
Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Augusto Pinochet, and other even less savory thugs come to power
based on the gospel of greed has been disheartening. What has been even more frustrating
is to have seen serious criticisms of the this value system down played, ignored or even
vilified, and to have seen the ideas and values that have a real concern for community and social
well being marginalized and dismissed without serious consideration. What is uplifting
is the fact that maybe the worm is turning.
More and more on the radio and television, and in the print media the fact
of the widening gap between the rich, who are getting richer, and everyone else, who are getting
poorer, is being noticed. The value system of unfettered avarice is finally starting to
attract some serious questions, and the criticisms that those who value people and the environment
over money have carried on for so long are finally gaining some credence. This is not happening
without the threat of reactionary response, however.
The practitioners of greed have a lot to lose if more democracy and a heightened
social conscience should gain wider ground amongst the common people. In some
areas of the world stopping this spread has a straight forward solution. The greedy kill anyone
willing to stand up against them. Here the preferred manner for dealing with populist ideas
is to use the control of wealth to shape opinions by either ignoring or dismissing dissenting viewpoints,
and by promoting those ideas that reinforce the privileges of the wealthy.
Money dominates the major political parties, and the granting of that money
is contingent upon the pursuit of certain policies and specific government actions that favor
the donor. For small parties and parties that eschew corporate donors the policies and actions
that are expected by the supporters are those that favor the common citizen and protect them
from the unbridled power of wealth. For the major parties who take corporate funding the expectation
by the donors is that policies and actions will be carried out in a manner that
enhances the donors' opportunities to increase their wealth at the expense of the common people.
Money also dominates the area of information, and by controlling what information
is available the wealthy can shape the course of debate. Every day more media outlets
fall prey to a centralizing force that is concentrating the control of what we read and
hear into fewer and fewer hands. As the mainstream outlets for ideas become more agglomerated the
questions on wealth and greed that now have been finally starting to rise up in public
debate may be submerged once more, or may be discussed in a context totally irrelevant
to the real problems at hand.
The fact that the questions of wealth and greed are finally being taken
up as serious components in the debate about the problems that we are facing in society
is encouraging. And, maybe the fact that the forces of greed are so aggressively concentrating
their control over the media to compliment their control over the major political parties is a
signal that society as a whole might finally be receptive to the idea that some people have too
much, and that the common good might be a better goal than personal profit.
As resources dwindle while the population grows, and the gap between the
wealthy few and the rest of us spreads ever wider, rough and turbulent seas could lie over
the horizon for our social and economic system. It is time for all of us to look deep inside ourselves
and ask "what really are my values."
THE RECORD January 15, 1997
Reprinted In WATERSHED SENTINEL
Editor :
After reading several of the articles that appeared in your November 29
issue I was amazed at the inconsistencies between what is being said now and what was being said
prior to the last provincial election. Has everyone changed sides, or are we seeing a campaign
of government bashing for no other purpose than to bash, no matter what the government
does?
Prior to the election the opposition parties ran on promises of cut backs,
budget slashing, tax reduction, so on and so forth. It has become almost holy doctrine that
people are demanding these things. Yet, now when the government is paring expenses, cutting
back budgets, and diverting money to pay off years of accumulated debts, you and others are
crying foul and hollering like stuck pigs. Are these wails of anguish sincere or are we
just witnessing inflammatory acts of political opportunism?
Had Mr. Campbell, who was running on a platform of even more severe cutbacks,
won the election would he have made good on his promises and pared spending even
deeper than the government is doing now? Had he done so would his friend Mr. Lornie have
carried on about how he was betrayed, and would you have complained, or would you have rationalized
it all away? Maybe the case is that Mr. Campbell was lying all through the election
and had no intention of making good on his promises, knowing full well what the reaction
would be when their reality struck home to the voters.
Mr. Clark's biggest mistake in putting together his platform was to make
a promise of no tax increases. Contrary to the pie-in-the-sky theories of the Reform Party,
you can not cut or freeze taxes and increase spending. There is not enough savings in eliminating
waste to fund the things that we all seem to want, like sewers and economic development grants.
If we want these things somebody is going to have to cough up more taxes to pay for
them, sooner or later. Local politicians, editors, and other critics who are now whining and sniveling
about reduced spending would have far more credibility if they were to start demanding
an increase in tax revenues so that we can get on with these projects.
Sincerely,
Published in THE COURIER-ISLANDER December, 1996