Farmers need a lot of financial support in their efforts to draw a line in the sand and show Harper that he can’t trample on the rule of law. The line may have to be drawn one community meeting at a time.

And this is starting to happen. On January 22nd nearly 100 people gathered in the Raymore Elks Hall to show their support for standing up for the rights of farmers. CWB members, a diversity of political party supporters and a wide-range of community leaders from 30 communities packed into the small hall. Ralph Goodale, Minister when the CWB was changed to give farmers a say, spoke last and spoke passionately. After speeches, questions, debate, lots of learning and a great supper, many people started donating $1 for every acre they farm to the farmer’s defense fund.

ANTI-DEMOCRATIC LEGACY

I was asked to talk about Harper’s assault on democracy, to look at the pattern of his rule since 2006. I was dumbfounded by the growing list of undemocratic acts. There was the proroguing of Parliament before the Vancouver Olympics to suppress information about complicity in Afghan torture. Bullying was already happening, as Harper warned the Law Clerk to conduct himself “according to government interpretation”. There was a constant misleading of Parliament to impose his rule: cuts to KAIROS, a long-stand ecumenical and international development group, were done deceitfully. Minister Oda claimed KAIROS failed to meet CIDA’s new guidelines; it was later found that someone in her office had inserted “not” onto the grant form reversing CIDA’s actual recommendation. Basic honestly was beginning to erode. Then Harper’s 2006 and 2008 Campaign Manager was accused of making “false and misleading statements” regarding overspending for attack ads used against the Leader of the Opposition.

Harper wasn’t just suppressing information required for a functioning Parliamentary democracy, he was starting to repress the inherent rights of Canadians.  The government squandered $1 billion on the G8 and G 20 meetings; 20,000 police were brought in, 1,100 Canadians were arbitrarily held in detention centers, the vast majority of whom had no charge laid or were there under false arrest. Harper made Canada look like a banana republic.

The list continues. Harper obstructed international attempts to negotiate a climate treaty. Under his rule Canada became the only country to not repatriate its citizens from Guantanamo Bay. When Harper tied to get Canada a seat on the Security Council, his hostility towards international law was already well known. Canada, a pioneer of the United Nations, was soundly defeated by Portugal.

Harper steadily centralizes power. Though using populist rhetoric about accountability and transparency, he appointed an unelected party supporter to his Cabinet, eliminated an Access to Information database (CAIRS), and fired the head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for trying to regulate nuclear safety at Chalk River. The Chief Statistician at Stats Canada was driven out because he spoke the truth about how the qualitative information from the Long Census Form was required for good governance.

Harper established rigid controls over Cabinet and civil service contact with the media. After taking $10 million in public subsidies for his election campaign, he threatened to abolish the per-vote public subsidy that keeps Canadian politics from being in the pockets of the rich, as in the U.S.  Harper was found to be in Contempt of Parliament prior to the 2011 election. This was a first for any Prime Minister in the Commonwealth, yet another blight on Canada.

ONE-MAN RULE

With the economic uncertainty following the 2008 financial crisis, Harper was carefully marketed as an Economic Strong Man who could rule decisively. This helped deflect attention from the $10 billion dollar surplus becoming a $50 billion deficit, the largest in our history. Harper branded the federal stimulus package, Action Canada, as a Conservative vote-getting machine and was trying to rebrand Government of Canada departments as those of the “Harper Government”. Most Canadians didn’t fall for this, but with 4 of 10 not voting and the opposition vote split several ways, Harper gained enough seats, mostly from suburban Ontario, to get his majority.

Harper is sometimes referred to as Teflon Man: nothing sticks. He has deflected criticisms of his anti-democratic legacy mostly by playing the politics of fear. He has barged ahead with his extravagant plan to build super-jails in a time of a lowering crime rate and a plan for super-jets (The F-35 Stealths) without any rational bidding process. This is perhaps a $40 billion combined cost, at a time when the government says it will cut $8 billion in spending.

Harper preemptively undermined the UN climate treaty process by announcing he would withdraw from all commitments to the Kyoto Accord, which had previously been endorsed by Parliament.  Following a similar pattern, he preempted the National Energy Board’s hearings on the Northern Gateway pipeline by attacking opponents as “foreign-funded radicals”.  NGOs and First Nations were demonized while multi-nationals who would export thousands of jobs to China were in “the national economic interest”. This brings us back to the CWB, where the benefactors of Harper’s squashing of the rule of law will be the grain and transportation corporations to which farmers will be more beholding.

POLITICS AS WARFARE

While others in the world struggle and in some cases die to create democratic space for progressive reform, Harper systematically shuts down and closes off democratic processes so he can force through his corporate agenda. He skillfully manipulated the electoral system using attack ads, wedge issues like gun control and immigration, suppression of opponents and outright deceit. He’s no democrat in any sense of the term. What characterizes his politics is preemptive attacks: Syria’s dictator labels his opponents as “foreign-supported terrorists”; Harper’s slams his as “foreign-funded radicals”. It’s semantic warfare.

Harper and his circle of ideologues are angry at democracy for its tolerance for dialogue and compromise. They are angry at those who would dare oppose them; they prefer to strike first, with no apologies. Harper’s past political adviser, Tom Flanagan, has spoken of elections as “war by other means”; you fatally wound your enemies.  Flanagan actually called for the assassination of Wikipedia activist Julian Assange. What kind of model is this for upcoming generations?

Harper sees politics as war. He sees sport as warlike. He wants the military to be at the centre of our political culture, while he undermines the very freedoms for which we ritually thank the military. Politics is not rivalry among citizen politicians; it’s not about political participation by farmers, workers, environmentalists, indigenous or other peoples to find the best methods of governance. It is a zero-sum game where winner takes all; where you rule by law not by the rule of law.

Saskatchewan Farmers have now drawn a line in the sand.  The majority of Canadians do not like Harper’s anti-democratic rule. Will others soon join the farmers who have said “enough is enough”?

For more info or to donate go to: www.friendsofcwb.ca

Such phony nationalist hyperbole has been a steadfast propaganda tool for authoritarian governments and under Harper, Canada is now on a slippery slope.

This skirmish began when Harper’s Natural Resources Minister, Oliver, released an open letter attacking those opposing the Northern Gateway pipeline. He tried to backtrack a little when facing the TV cameras, saying he didn’t mean all environmentalists and Indigenous people “were radicals”, but his letter says otherwise. “…There are environmental and other radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade” it reads, and continues: “Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families and lost jobs and economic growth.”

ENEMIES OF…

The Harper government is using the same kind of “attack ads” on Canadian citizens that it has already used to discredit opposition political leaders. Who knows what linguistic twists Harper’s propaganda team will come up with next; perhaps those supporting sustainability will soon be called “enemies of economic growth”. Or perhaps, “enemies of the nation”!

To defend democracy and sustainability we must deconstruct Harper’s manipulation of language. Oliver’s letter sets out a complete attack-narrative on pipeline opponents before the review by the National Energy Board had even started. It is reminiscent of Harper’s Environment Minister Kent attacking proposals to replace the Kyoto Accord before the international conference to establish a climate treaty had even started. Harper got his majority through such pre-emptive strikes on opposition leaders. He apparently wants to rule the whole country using similar combative tactics.

Oliver’s letter says “These groups threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda. They seek to exploit any loophole they can find, stacking the public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill good projects.” This discredits citizens who have a right to appear before the Panel which reviews and recommends on the pipeline. It discredits a rational, democratic, discussion about the benefits and burdens of the pipeline by attributing hidden motives to all critics.  Involvement in the regulatory process is equated with “hijacking” it, which is a means for Harper to discredit the federal environmental review process itself. Oliver’s twisting can easily be turned back on his boss, for Harper’s preemptive strike can be seen as an attempt to undermine the regulatory process itself, to achieve his “radical ideological agenda”.

WHAT IS RADICAL?

David Suzuki and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May were quick to respond, arguing that those opposing the pipeline were the antithesis of “radical”. May went so far as to quote the Webster dictionary which says “radical” is “relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough”. They are right that environmentalists and indigenous communities are actually against “radicalism” in that they don’t desire to alter “the fundamental nature” of eco-systems. Harper’s quest for Canada to be an Energy Superpower, apparently at any cost including undermining the environmental review process, is what is “radical”.

Radical can be defined slightly differently, drawing on the phrase “far-reaching or thorough”; it’s about trying to understand something by “going to the roots”. In this sense good science is radical. Harper’s goal is clearly not towards enhancing intelligent public participation by “going to the roots”.

DEFINING NATIONAL INTEREST

Oliver’s letter continues its attack, claiming these “radical” groups “…use funding from foreign special interest groups to undermine Canada’s national economic interest”.  Think about that, an environmental group like the Sierra Club which exists in both the U.S. and Canada is undermining “Canada’s national interest”. Meanwhile a multi-national corporation like Enbridge, which wants to export unprocessed  bitumen across Western Canada and the Pacific Ocean, is not. As Harper presents himself as the savior of Canadian workers, the biggest energy union estimates that Enbridge’s export of unprocessed bitumen will cost us 40,000 jobs. And as Green Party leader May points out, Canada still has “no energy policy. We are still importing more than half the oil we use.”

Mindless rhetoric about “economic growth” undercuts the careful weighing of options. In the big picture, as we plan towards a sustainable economy, protecting the Great Bear Rainforest from massive oil spills would be in the fundamental national interest. Perhaps laying a 1,200 km , three foot round pipeline from Edmonton to Kitimat, that moves 250,000 gallons of raw tarsand oil a day across 600 creeks and rivers, including some where threatened salmon spawn, is not in the fundamental national interest. Perhaps, as May says, overturning “the current moratorium on oil tanker traffic on the B.C. coastline”, and allowing huge Chinese tankers to use the “300 km of perilous navigation in highly energetic tidal conditions is a bad choice”.

MOTIVES REVEALED

Harper is not interested in reasonably reconciling ecological and economic concerns. It’s full-steam ahead with his radical agenda to gut environmental protection in the interest of energy corporations like Enbridge. This is why his government has consistently sabotaged international attempts to get an effective climate treaty. His destructive approach will never create sustainable energy or sustainable economic policy.

The motive for Harper’s attacks on democratic public participation is becoming clear. On a CBC Power Point panel, Harper spokesperson MP Stella Ambler expressed concern about letting “the environmental process kill the project”. It’s environmental protection itself, not “radical environmental and indigenous groups” that Harper is targeting. Harper not only wants to side-step the federal responsibility to consider the ecological impacts of mega-energy projects, but the federal “duty to consult” with First Nations who would be directly affected. Environmentalists and First Nations are all marginalized and demonized as opponents to “Canada’s national interest”.  Ambler’s reiteration that this decision must be “made by Canada and not foreign interests” is a smack in the face of the many thousands of Canadians who registered to speak at the Gateway Hearings.

KEYSTONE WHISTLE BLOWER

Oliver and Harper are trying to push the Gateway Pipeline through because the proposed Keystone Pipeline from Alberta to the U.S. has been held up due to public concerns about contaminating a huge aquifer in Nebraska. We’ve already had a warning about how the Keystone Pipeline puts the environment at great risk. On Jan. 3rd Canadian Press reported on a pipeline engineer who had been fired by Bechtel Corp for his whistle blowing; he had written of, “Cheap foreign steel that cracked when workers tried to weld it, foundations for pump stations that you would never consider using in your own home, fudged safety tests…short cuts on the steel and rebar that are essential for safe pipeline operation, and siting of facilities on completely inappropriate spots like wetlands.”

With the U.S. market now so uncertain, Harper is pushing for Alberta’s tarsand oil to go to China, regardless of the risk to our national-environmental interest. China, along with the U.S., is the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases. That the Kyoto Accord did not require China to meet targeted reductions has always been the main reason Harper used to justify his government not following through with the Kyoto Accord. Now he wants to make China one of our biggest customers of the greenhouse gas-laden tarsand oil. Hopefully connecting these dots will help Canadians better see through Harper’s spin-propaganda.

Events build-up! There is a crescendo effect. The dots must be connected and history itself must be explored. We are reaching this point in our collective consciousness and it’s long overdue.

2011 saw mounting extreme weather events, including here; these are continuing. The climate crisis can’t be grasped without looking at the economy through a new lens. It’s a crisis stemming from economic growth, tied to an unsustainable energy system that isn’t geared to meeting human needs.

We in Saskatchewan are among the highest per capita fossil fuel polluters on earth. And while provincial governing politicians brag of our economic boom, inequality abounds, especially in the north. The vast majority of this fossil fuel pollution comes from industry itself, from coal-fired electricity and from agrobusiness and private transportation.

Many of us kept our heads in the sand about this in 2011. Will this continue in 2012, if economic growth from the resource boom holds?  We are repeatedly told that we can’t change our ways without undercutting our economic security. This view is what got Premier Wall his huge majority, though many more voters stayed home this time round. Playing “the economic card” still mostly works. It also worked for Harper in 2011. But will this half-hearted thinking continue working in 2012?

THE REAL ECONOMY

With all the talk about saving “the economy” it’s a little ironic that there’s so little exploration of how the economy works. On a global scale, especially since the 2008 financial meltdown, we see growing signs of systemic economic dysfunction. In Europe politicians are scrambling over their “debt crises”, doing what they think the market wants rather than being accountable to the needs of those who elected them.

If we continue to keep our heads in the sand, and to blindly depend on growing exports of non-renewable resources for our economic wellbeing, we may also be in for a big shock. The Saskatchewan economy increasingly depends on resource exports tied to traditional economic growth elsewhere, yet that growth is no longer assured. In the long run that might actually be a good thing.

In an energy-starved world you might believe there would always be demand for oil, gas and uranium from Saskatchewan. Really? Fukushima’s nuclear disaster has already reduced uranium demand. You might also think there would be an even more secure market for our grain and pulse crops, but the dominant economy isn’t actually based on production for need.

CONSUMERISM

Humanity grew to 7 billion persons in 2011, adding a billion since 1999. One billion of us remain on the edge of starvation and yet our food doesn’t get to the hungry. They remain candidates for unreliable charity and food aid; according to the workings of our economic system, without income, they don’t qualify to consume.

Endless consumption is crucial to preserve the economic system. Domestic consumption makes up the bulk of the economic activity in our economy. Consumption is economic growth. And, to encourage perpetual consumption and growth we have all been encouraged to live on credit, which was very profitable for the financial institutions but ultimately made us all vulnerable, after the 2008 crash. Many hard-working people ended up losing nearly everything.

Making things even stranger, consumption isn’t directly tied to wellbeing. Since the 1970s, corporate globalization has promoted the myth that people in developing countries will become healthier if they consume more like us. I suspect that most of us still buy into some version of this.

Yet in 2011 several studies showed that more people are now dying from diseases linked to “over-consumption” than to malnutrition. Food security should exist for the billion people on the edge of starvation, but the major causes of death in the so-called “developed countries” – cancer, heart, disease, diabetes, etc., are now all tied to unhealthy, high consumption. Eating in a consumer society can even be considered an addiction. These diseases continue to rise elsewhere as global markets spread the same unhealthy “food” products.

HUMAN NEED

Today’s economic growth isn’t primarily intended to meet human needs and increases in human illness can actually be “good” for the economy, for this creates a new and very lucrative market; look at the profits of the medical-pharmaceutical industry. The epidemic in anxiety is also profitable for investors and owners.

The pattern is getting clearer. Continued economic growth built upon the fossil-fuel industry brings us escalating extreme weather events. Growth in agro-business and the big food chains brings ill health. The economy is not evaluated by its consequences but only by its ability to be lucrative, for some.

You’d think this huge disconnect would be enough to motivate most of us to question the rationality and morality of the economy. This started to happen more widely in 2011. But not much here! Why is that? Will 2012 be different?

OCCUPY MOVEMENT

2011 saw the birth of the Arab Spring, which will continue to challenge colonial structures of the fossil-fuel economy. The sleeper in 2011 may have been the Occupy Movement. It was mostly comprised of upcoming generations who already face the brunt of growing inequality, the shrinking middle class and may face irreversible climate change. The way the corporate-run economy mal-distributes “wealth” is getting some attention: the 99% and the 1%! The Canadian Taxpayer’s Association has received much press about how many days work it takes for the average person to earn what they pay as taxes. We now know that for most of us it takes a year to earn what the top CEO’s earn in a day.

The myth that corporate economic growth benefits us all is starting to collapse. In just one decade, with the recession and many market bubbles bursting, the output of the global economy still doubled from $35 to $70 trillion. Did human wellbeing double? Of course not! Nor will it if fossil-fuel driven economic growth is allowed to double yet again. Growing concentration of wealth and inequality went hand in hand with this “economic growth” as did the rise in carbon in the atmosphere. It’s time we looked at outcomes, and stopped believing in endless promises. We owe this to our grandchildren.

With globalization the world has become even more precarious for people who have been dislocated from local, more sustainable economies, and must look for any paid work as a means to survive. Meanwhile, people continue to lose jobs due to corporate mergers and downsizing. More and more do temporary work with no prospect of job or income security. Those who gave their working lives to corporations are finding that their pensions and their prospects of old-age security are shrinking. Even after the sacrifices made by labour after the 2008 taxpayer bailout of banks, workers are being asked to take new wage cuts so that corporations can maintain their greedy bottom-line.

Is it any wonder we saw such “youth riots” in 2011? Will these just increase among those being marginalized in 2012? Or will other generations join with youth in envisaging a new kind of economy, where production is tied to human need and geared to sustainability? Politicians trying to maintain the status quo have not been able to give the necessary leadership. Each of us has a big choice to make in 2012, or we’ll find ourselves in an even greater fix come 2013.

The Harper government is using closure and limiting speakers at Committees to push its legislation through. It assumes that a parliamentary majority gives it the right to ram through whatever it wants; to remake Canada in its own image. Luckily the Harper government doesn’t control the courts or the media, though some supporters would like to obliterate the division of powers that provides for an independent judiciary and a free press, which is what fundamentally differentiates dictatorship from democracy. Canada’s democracy will surely be severely tested over the coming years of Harper rule.

KILLING THE CWB

When Bill C-18 was recently tested in the Federal Court, Judge Douglas Campbell concluded that Harper’s legislation breached the government’s “statutory duty to consult with the CWB and conduct a vote” among the farmers to be affected by the legislation. This meant the Harper government was breaching the rule of law, which wasn’t setting a very good example by those who regularly manipulate the fear of crime and staunchly advocate retributive law and order.

Harper’s Agricultural Minister, Gerry Ritz, however was intransigent, claiming the “Parliament of Canada alone has the supremacy to enact, amend and repeal any piece of legislation”, continuing “This is a fundamental feature of democracy”.  The Minister totally missed the point. Judge Campbell wasn’t saying that the Harper government couldn’t bring in new legislation; he was saying that the way it was doing this breached existing law, specifically Section 47.1 of the 1998 Canadian Wheat Board Act which requires a vote by producers. The Harper government nevertheless plans to appeal the ruling and proceed to implement Bill C-18 as soon as possible. Damn the rule of law!

KILLING KYOTO

The same disrespect for the rule of law is shown in Harper’s international dealings. Just as the United Nations Durban conference on the climate crisis was getting under way, Harper’s Environment Minister, Peter Kent, indicated Canada would soon withdraw from its obligations under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Kent said “Kyoto is the past” as though Canada’s global environmental commitments could be wiped from the slate at will.

The response was immediate with international observers saying Harper’s actions were at best “unhelpful” and at worst “belligerent”. Green Party leader and newly elected MP Elizabeth May called the Harper government a “global pariah”. When the Harper government carries through with its threat we will stand alone as the only country which ratified Kyoto and then pulled out. Our international reputation, which includes bringing countries together for the Montreal Protocol which led to a treaty to protect the ozone layer, will be further squandered; we will become an environmental rogue state.

Minister Kent argues that the failure to meet Kyoto targets of reducing greenhouse gases by 6% below 1990 level by 2012 is solely the failure of the Liberal government which signed the Protocol. Yet the Protocol was ratified by the House of Commons as a binding international treaty and the Conservatives have been stalling on climate action since they took power in 2006. Kent’s Parliamentary Secretary repeats Harper’s mantra that we “can’t disadvantage our economy”, which is exactly what Harper is doing by ignoring the mounting evidence that not acting will have untold effects on the social, economic and environmental security of our offspring.

WATERED-DOWN AGREEMENT

The international community hasn’t been dissuaded by the Harper government’s reckless behaviour. After extending the Durban conference for 36 hours, a watered-down framework was finally accepted for future negotiations to replace the Kyoto Protocol. All emitting countries will start negotiating a binding treaty in 2013 to be completed by 2015 and take effect by 2020. Years of stalling, most notably by the Harper government has however left us all at greater risk. 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest year on record and we are already on course to surpass a 2 C degrees average global temperature increase, the threshold atmospheric scientists say could lead to irreversible climate changes. Water and food insecurity would ensue.

Agreement was also reached to extend the Kyoto Protocol to fill the gap until the new binding agreement takes effect. And a $100 billion Green Climate Fund to assist developing countries convert to sustainable energy was also established. Minister Kent however refused to endorse either of these measures, which will further marginalize Canada from international action on the climate crisis.

VIGILANCE NEEDED

The disrespect for the rule of law shown by Harper’s government is distressing. I sometimes have a sinking feeling when I think about a government such as this being “in charge” of our country. And this isn’t because I am a distraught partisan supporter of another party which lost in the May federal election, for I am not. It’s because history teaches us that if we aren’t vigilant about democracy, democracy can begin to slip away before the public catches on.

The distinction between the “rule of law” and “rule by law” is crucial. A government that thinks it can use raw power to impose whatever laws it wants, with little or no regard for existing law, will inevitably move towards authoritarian rule.  After only six months the Harper majority government is beginning to look a little like a clique that had a successful coup, rather than a mature government that fundamentally embraces democracy.

Let us never forget that notorious authoritarian regimes are sometimes originally elected to power and democracy can be weakened by governments that go overboard to manipulate simplistic views. The Harper government spends much time building up the image of the military while slowly undermining the freedoms that we often credit the military with protecting.

The Harper Conservatives may have grown out of the Western Canadian Reform Party with its call to make the federal government more accountable and transparent. But Harper’s rule is now taking us in the opposite direction. The 30% of eligible voters who gave Harper his majority government may not have grasped what they were doing and they can’t be held personally responsible for Harper’s inclination for arbitrary rule. Nor can those who didn’t vote, though they also played a role in allowing Canada to get on this slippery slope. But, nor can any citizens now be excused for not closely watching what the government actually does, how it does it and what this will mean for Canada’s future. We can only hope more Canadians will wake up and stand up for Canada in 2012.

A very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all my readers!

Statistics Canada reports that in 2008 cancer was the leading cause of death, ahead of heart disease and stroke combined, which used to be the number one killer. 30% of all deaths in Canada were from cancer, 21% from heart disease and 6% from stroke. A trend of ever-increasing deaths from cancer began decades ago. In 2008, for the first time, cancer was the leading cause of death in all provinces and territories. It was the leading cause for Canadians aged 35-84 and accounted for one-half of all deaths among Canadians 55-64.

In 2011, according to the Canadian Cancer Society, there will be 178,000 new cases of cancer, excluding 74,000 non-melanoma skin cancers. 75,000 Canadians will die of cancer, half from lung, colorectal, prostate or breast cancers. Causality is complex because cancer comes in 200 forms. Cervical cancer involves a virus, while lung cancer involves smoking addiction and also results from radon gas from the uranium industry. Diet is known to be a factor in some cancers; the rising diabetes rate is a precursor for increasing cancers. As more of us live longer our risk of dying from cancer may also increase.

WHY NOT PREVENTION?

We already know enough to conclude that our approach to cancer needs changing. Presently we invest far more resources trying to find cures than preventing cancer in the first place, yet over one-quarter of all cancers result from smoking which is preventable. The approach to prevention matters. As long as we simply held smokers personally responsible for their affliction and counted on reasoning and moral pressure on them to stop, things continued on much the same course. When society put limits on the tobacco industry and smokers, whereby smoking wasn’t accepted as an inherent right and the public health and cost consequences were taken into account, the rate of smoking began to fall. This has still to affect women smokers.

There are some limits to this “social control” approach. You can’t hold people responsible for contacting a cancerous virus, or for breathing, drinking or eating carcinogens put into the environment by industrial practices. Yet these too require preventative public policy. We have to become much more creative and more adamant about this.

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXINS

We lack systematic monitoring of environmentally-induced cancers. The extent of cancer that comes from environmental toxins remains debatable but many authorities, like the recent U.S. President’s Cancer Panel, suggest we “grossly underestimate” this. Several things stand in the way of improved monitoring, in particular, industry’s lack of transparency and accountability. The biomedical model which assumes cancer comes from biological-genetic malfunctions also biases the healthcare system to look for a cure rather than to focus more on prevention.

Basic bio-medical research has nevertheless helped us better understand and treat cancer. And while the incidence of cancer continues to grow, so too does the effectiveness of some cancer treatments which has increased survival rates. Cancer mortality rates started to fall from the 1990s, though we are still behind many other developed countries in this regards. But the human suffering from the increasing incidence of cancer continues to spread. And spending more and more money on treating more and more cancer is ultimately counterproductive and will contribute to bankrupting our healthcare system.

PROFITS IN CANCER

There are also huge profits to be made from expensive cancer treatment and cancer screening programs.  Lobbying by the medico-pharmaceutical industry plays a role in keeping us fixated on treatment rather than pursuing prevention. If we spent as much on prevention as we presently spend on cancer diagnosis such as nuclear medicine we’d be getting on the right track. People with cancer of course should have access to the best and safest medical procedures, but common overuse of diagnostic methods can increase the public’s radiation exposure and even increase the probability of some cancers.

The medico-pharmaceutical lobby also plays on the public perception of risk, which ensures that cancer budgets continue to be weighted to screening and treatment rather than prevention. Basic research questions whether some screening programs even enhance early cancer diagnosis or extend life-span. It’s debatable whether there’s any public health advantage to extending breast and prostate cancer programs to all patients, but it is hard to counteract public pressure for this. Vested interests are always willing to lobby political funders on behalf of patients looking for any reassurance to reduce their fear of cancer. Evidence, not fear, has to be the basis of sound cancer policy.

BALANCED APPROACH

It’s simply silly to ignore the role of environmental degradation in cancer. Rising skin cancer rates relate to increased exposure from UV rays. The thinning of the ozone layer from industrial and consumer pollutants plays a major role in this. Of course a rational approach involves both treatment and prevention; we don’t want those who get skin cancer to go untreated. But we also know that reducing sun-tanning whether on the beach or in tanning centres will reduce one’s risk. Banning the chemical pollutants responsible for thinning the ozone is required to reverse this situation so that risks don’t worsen for future generations. Prevention is vital to create a sustainable society.

This both-and approach clearly applies to smoking, but it also applies to cancers resulting from today’s energy systems. The benzene that goes into tailings ponds at Alberta’s tar sands is a carcinogen, as are various radio-nuclides that are deposited with uranium mine tailings in northern Saskatchewan. We also know diet can play a role in encouraging some cancers. It is counterproductive to continue to allow industrial waste and food industry practices that are cancer-causing to continue to spread. Investing in public health and environmental policies which affirm preventative practices will serve to reduce cancer rates before they require expensive screening and treatment programs.

EVIDENCE-BASED

What would an evidence-based approach to cancer look like? First we’d stop blaming people for their cancers. We’d use public policy, as we have with smoking and must now with diabetes, to reduce behavior that increases the risks of cancer. But we must start to thoroughly monitor environmental toxins so that our knowledge about their role in rising cancer rates becomes more firmly based. And known carcinogens simply must be banned from getting into our air, water and food. Finally we have to put strong boundaries on the medico-pharmaceutical industry lobby that plays on public fears so that questionable but profitable cancer programs keep going. We can’t allow limited funds to be tied up in reacting to the cancer epidemic; we need to get out in front of it, and develop effective preventative measures.

This is easier said than done, but we need to know where we want to go to ever be able to get there. Bringing cancer prevention onto at least an equal footing with cancer treatment would be a big step forward. We must get some balance into the “war on cancer” if we are going to make real headway towards sustainability.

But the diversity of views in Ontario and Quebec did rekindle a deeper perspective that was wearing thin as I watched the Sask Party juggernaut win 49 of 58 seats. The overwhelming electoral victory makes perfect sense only in the short term; it presents no long-term viable vision of sustainability. The election reminds me of the car oil filter ad “you can pay me now or pay me later”.

At the Forum I heard energy analysts from Canada, the US and Europe. Only one argued that nuclear energy would fill the gap between growing demand and supply while helping ameliorate the climate crisis. In our post-Fukushima world, with greater cost-effectiveness of, and speedy conversion to, renewables, most thought the argument for nuclear was completely un-compelling.

A SEA-CHANGE?

Many jurisdictions struggle with the new energy reality, but not here! Our election never came close to talking about our huge per capita carbon footprint or how it grows with the expansion of the fossil fuel industries. The closest we got to energy policy was indirectly with the controversy over potash royalties.

The NDP lost big. The Sask Party got the largest percentage of support ever won here (64%), outdoing the 57% Liberal support in 1912. It’s uncommon for governing parties to lose after one term, so Premier Wall’s victory was near certain. But it’s also uncommon for there to be such a loss of support for an opposition party. The NDP went from 20 to 9 seats and from 37% to 32% of the vote. Most telling, it’s the first time a sitting NDP leader lost a seat.

The NDP had such a small caucus in 1982 after the landslide defeat by Grant Devine’s Tories. After Devine’s two-term regime nearly broke the fiscal back of the province, the NDP enjoyed a record four, consecutive terms under Romanow and then Calvert, who then lost to Wall in 2007. The NDP is now left with only northern and old inner-city seats; rural and suburban seats are for now controlled by the ruling Sask Party.

LINGENFELTER ERA OVER

Is this an irreversible sea-change or simply the result of Brad Wall riding the resource boom and the NDP having a very unpopular leader?

Lingenfelter is part of the NDP old-guard, first elected in 1978 and in the legislature until 2000 when he then became an Alberta Oil executive. His recent return to take his “rightful place as Premier in waiting” was akin to Ignatieff’s return to lead the Liberal party. Lingenfelter’s hard-won leadership race left the party ranks deeply split and the Sask Party took advantage of his unpopularity with some very mean-spirited attack ads. Polls showed most decided voters, of all persuasions, didn’t want him as Premier. This view was even strong (25%) among NDP supporters.

SOCIAL JUSTICE

Can we conclude that Lingenfelter brought his party down? His confusing narrative on wealth distribution and affordability didn’t gain momentum. His baggage as an oil executive, his past pro-nuclear pronouncements and his association with the old-guard made any credibly message about social justice nearly impossible. He tried to talk about the hardships facing First Nations, renters and how there was more homelessness and increased use of food banks in Wall’s “New Saskatchewan”. But this was drowned out by Walls’s easy rhetoric about staying the course and “moving Saskatchewan forward”, what the Globe and Mail referred to as Wall’s “austerity pledge” and “bare bones vision”.

Also, remember it was the Romanow NDP with Lingenfelter as Deputy Leader that made the shift to a Tony Blair-like “New Labour” perspective, stressing wealth creation over distribution or social justice. Social democratic parties have been slow to catch on to the growing inequality gap, what the occupy movement calls the 99% and the 1%.

DECLINING DEMOCRACY

While Sask Party support grew, voter participation declined; 56,600 fewer people voted than last time. Voter turnout dropped to 66% (from 76% in 2007), just barely higher than the all-time 1995 low of 65%. Many on the bottom of the growing inequality gap that the NDP belatedly tried to appeal to probably never voted. This is not good.

Some NDPers may want someone to blame but this won’t work. It was fairly easy for the Greens to become the third party with the Liberals running only a few candidates and dropping from 9% to less than 1% of the vote this time. Meanwhile the Green vote barely rose from 2% in 2007 to 2.8%. They may regret watering down their message of ecological sustainability just as polls showed they have the most credibility on the environment with the voting public.

Nor did the Greens play a role in Sask Party gains. Higher profile environmental candidates Peter Prebble in Saskatoon and Yens Pedersen in Regina lost by 1,700 and 800 respectively. Greens only received 135 and 295 votes. Only in Lingenfelter’s riding did the Greens almost make an impact, with new leader Victor Lau getting over 500 votes. But Lingenfelter lost by 900.

The Greens will have some soul-searching to do to sort out why they didn’t gain more support when the NDP was in such a free-fall. Not being able to count on a fair voting system such as proportional representation (PR), the Greens have to develop a well-thought out strategy which likely means extra-parliamentary activity between elections.

A NEW SASKATCHEWAN?

Will the NDP bounce back with a more compelling message of equality and sustainability? Or are we perhaps entering decades of Alberta-like one-party rule built on the back of profitable resource-exporting?

Is the party that has governed for 47 of the last 67 years no longer the natural governing party? Will the expansion of oil and gas drilling, the development of our “own” tar sands and more little steps to nuclearize the province, take us down a one-way street, perhaps to a one-party state? This seems to happen in profitable resource-extracting regions whether in the Middle East or in hinterland regions in industrial societies.

The trend from agriculture to mineral wealth took place over many decades and it will take years to change course to find a sustainable path. From 1950 to 1980 the value of agriculture in the goods-producing sector fell from 70% to 40% of the total, while minerals grew five-fold from 5% to 25%. The big expansion of non-renewable extraction occurred with the joint-ventures of the crowns under NDP Premier Blakeney. Those crowns were later privatized by the Devine government and mineral wealth now flows out of the province in unprecedented billions, while leaving our north the second poorest region in all Canada. Poverty will continue to trickle down!

Lingenfelter couldn’t get traction with his bid to increase potash royalties because the full story of resource royalties and profits and ecological impacts was never told. It will soon have to be told in order for the “New Saskatchewan” to catch up with the rest of a world already struggling with vital questions of inequality, unsustainable resource profiteering and the climate crisis. The small NDP opposition has to study and seriously articulate these challenges if they are ever to take the not so new Saskatchewan in a different direction.

Several questions were about vulnerable groups – low income seniors, First Nations, students with huge debts and street people. The event was so scripted that spontaneous, honest, communication was impossible. Premier Wall answered by referring to his 4-year record, while Lingenfelter stressed what the NDP would do if elected.

SUBTLE DIFFERENCES

There were some subtle differences which the journalists present barely explored. Wall talked of “targeting help” for the needy whereas Lingenfelter talked of creating overall services to help the community. Lingenfelter stressed that all seniors, regardless of income, would benefit from a rebate on property tax, that all renters would benefit from rent control and that all students would benefit from his proposed tuition freeze. Wall talked of removing seniors from income tax, providing subsidies for low-income renters and providing student scholarships.

The dots weren’t connected. When CBC reporter Stefani  Langenegger  asked Lingenfelter why better-off seniors would get the rebate, he responded that there weren’t many wealthy seniors and he wanted to avoid “red tape”. But he didn’t defend universal services. Whenever possible Wall stressed reducing provincial debt and balancing the budget, rather than intervening to see wealth more equitably distributed.

POTASH ROYALTIES

Lingenfelter called for an increase of potash royalties from 5 to 10 cents on each dollar of sales. He contrasted the low salary increases going to Saskatchewan workers with the high salary increases of company heads and shareholders. Wall never bit, staying on his macro message about economic progress. Wall finally opposed a royalty hike because it would upset the business climate, so the two party leaders did disagree on potash royalties. The NDP seems to have selected this as the strategic issue that could prevent them from being routed at the polls.

Wall tried to get the NDP’s promise to share royalties with First Nations into the debate. Lingenfelter stuck with his point that First Nations get far less resources for education than do other children in the province, and decried the increasing use of food banks during an economic boom. The two leaders were clearly targeting their messages to different voters.

When Lingenfelter raised ongoing school closures, Wall responded that these could be stopped if the local economy were “rebounding”. Tying universal services like access to education to the state of the local economy is an unprecedented position and Wall wouldn’t dare argue this in relation to healthcare. But Lingenfelter let this slip by as if he didn’t realize what the Premier had said. There was to be little debate on matters of principal.

Wall often argued his case by pointing to previous NDP government policy, and he had a point.  Lingenfelter was highly selective in making his points; if potash is a problem, so too is uranium. Of the $1.3 billion dollars of sales in 2009 only 105 million came to the province as royalties.

The last question was on the issue ranked # 1, healthcare, but there wasn’t any opportunity to explore this in depth. Different stats on wait-lists were presented but nothing was said on the importance of protecting environmental health as part of health promotion and cutting healthcare costs. Lingenfelter proposed 100 primary healthcare clinics across the province, arguing that the “team approach” would be cost-saving. Wall did not respond to this idea, preferring instead to talk of reducing wait lists by increasing “training seats” for doctors.

NOTHING ON ENVIRONMENT

The leaders went “toe to toe” on whether or not to distribute more corporate-controlled wealth to Saskatchewan people. But they never acknowledged that all the people, whose votes they were trying to win, needed clean water, air, land and energy to survive. Then I realized there was no mention of the environment at all.

There are two kinds of questions that should be asked of those wanting to control our government. The first set is about the nature of the wealth being produced and how it is or isn’t being distributed within society. The second is about the impacts of production and consumption on the environment and whether existing practices are sustainable. Of the questions asked during the debate none addressed the second; six addressed how the wealth is distributed, two addressed the wealth itself. The other one addressed the popularity of the leaders.

POLITICS OF ENERGY

Both leaders side-stepped energy! The only mention of renewable energy was when Wall accused Lingenfelter of not costing his proposal to put more wind power on the electrical grid. Lingenfelter didn’t reply. There was no mention of climate change or what Saskatchewan is going to do to lower its record-breaking carbon footprint (nearly twenty times the global per capita). No mention that at present two-thirds of our electricity comes from fossil fuels. No mention that the ongoing nuclear catastrophe in Japan involves uranium fuel from here.

The environment was made invisible. One might conclude there was collusion to avoid the politics of energy. With Walls’s endless talk of “responsible spending” I wondered why Lingenfelter didn’t ask him why Sask Power was spending $1.2 billion to sequester carbon from a 100 Megawatt coal plant at Boundary Dam, when many times this capacity of renewable energy could be produced with much less cost to the taxpayer.

The journalists were partly to blame; they could have insisted that serious environmental questions were addressed. One could have asked what the leaders’ position was on bringing nuclear wastes from Ontario to a dump in the north. There were, after all, several northerners outside the CBC studio raising this issue, while the leaders “debated” inside. However when CBC reporter Langenegger  got to ask her second question it was about how important the party leaders thought their popularity was in the campaign.

Wall and Lingenfelter differed on whether and how to distribute wealth, including how much royalty companies should pay. But they pretty much agreed on how wealth should be produced. Tommy Douglas used to refer to the Conservatives and Liberals as “tweddle dee” and “tweddle dum”; the same thing might soon be said of the Sask Party and the NDP. With the Greens excluded no one was likely to ask whether corporate-driven economic growth was even sustainable. The only time that the Premier even used the term “sustainable” was when he questioned whether a program had a “sustainable plan”. There was no indication that either he or his opponent grasped and/or cared enough to raise the matter of ecological sustainability.

IGNORING THE NORTH

In his closing statement Lingenfelter called for a “better balance between the wealthy and those having trouble making ends meet”. Wall claimed that Saskatchewan “leads this nation in quality of life”. This reflected their underlying differences. But the debate remained highly abstract, attempting to court particular voters to the polls. With all their campaign-generated concerns for people facing hardship, neither leader mentioned that the north, where much of the resource wealth comes from, remains Canada’s second poorest region.

Saskatchewan will likely need a new generation of political leaders to grapple with the justice and environmental challenges we now face.

Premier Wall sidesteps the issue; there was no concern expressed when Pinehouse,  Patuanak and Creighton were targeted as potential sites for a nuclear dump. On April 14th North Battleford groups delivered 5,000 signatures of people opposed to such a dump. Afterwards the Premier publicly acknowledged the “negative public opinion about a nuclear waste facility”, adding “I don’t think the mood of the province has changed, and frankly, what’s happening in Japan has got people thinking…” This left an impression that his government didn’t support a nuclear dump, but the industry-run Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) carried on with its monetary inducements in the north.

7,000 GENERATIONS WALK

The northern-based Committee for Future Generations then organized an 820 KM walk from Pinehouse to Regina to express its opposition to a radioactive dump. After 20 days on the road, the respectful thing would have been for Premier Wall to greet these hardy citizens. The walk got front page coverage in both big city dailies, but when the walkers got to the Legislature August 16th Premier Wall was nowhere to be seen. Not even the Deputy Premier or a Sask Party MLA turned out to welcome those who had just made Saskatchewan history with their marathon. Only a staffer came to receive the letter to the Premier.

By August end there was still no response. At the Legislature rally August 16th the NDP opposition took a position against a nuclear dump. And the northern Committee continued collecting petitions, now having an additional 10,000 signatures in addition to the 5,000 presented to the government in April. People across the province are apparently eager to say “no!” to a nuclear dump; private party polling will confirm the widespread opposition.

THE PREMIER’S LETTER

Wall’s advisors may have thought it ill-advised to continue ducking the issue, for on Sept. 6th Committee Chair, Max Morin, finally received a letter. Premier Wall “apologized for the delay in my response”; though he didn’t apologize for not greeting the walkers. He reiterated the industry position about the NWMO looking for “a suitable location for the storage of used nuclear fuel”, without mentioning that it would be far safer to keep the wastes close to where they are created. No mention that a main reason the industry wants central storage is to reprocess nuclear wastes to get plutonium in the future.

YEARS DOWN THE ROAD

What is Premier Wall actually up to? The clincher sentence in his letter is, “The Government will not make a decision on a particular proposal by a willing host community until a proposal has been developed and put forward…which could be years down the road.” If Premier Wall meant what he said in April, when he acknowledged the “negative public opinion” about a nuclear dump, then why is the industry-run NWMO continuing with its insidious process for “years down the road”? Does this explain why Wall’s government recently signed an agreement with GE and Hitachi, Cameco’s partners in uranium enrichment technology, to do research on nuclear waste fuel with the University of Saskatchewan?

Politically, Premier Wall can’t appear to be completely in the hands of industry. So his letter continues with the “on the other hand” answer to the northern Committee. His wording is deceptive. It is perhaps encouraging that he says “the decision on whether to host a site” will be decided “in relation to the level of support from the Saskatchewan people more generally”.  However, he said that this is in addition to “the NWMO assessment and level of community support”. Premier Wall has already admitted what the polls show, that there is not any significant support for a nuclear dump here. So, again I ask, why is the industry being allowed to continue to animate, that is, try to buy “community support”?

ON CONTRADICTIONS

Premier Wall’s letter includes the seemingly unambiguous statement that “The Government will not support a proposal unless there is clear support from the people of Saskatchewan.” If he sincerely means this, if this is the government’s position, he doesn’t need to wait for “years down the road” to make a decision. There should be a process underway right now to see if “there is clear support from the people of Saskatchewan” for a nuclear dump. If not, he should tell NWMO to cease their monetary inducements in the north. He can’t have it both ways.

The burning question is: which comes first for Premier Wall? Is it Saskatchewan democracy? Or is it nuclear industry expansion?  If Premier Wall was true to his words he’d already have come out against a nuclear dump. He talks as though he respects “the level of community support”, meanwhile a petition in Pinehouse has already shown that community support for a nuclear dump doesn’t exist there. So why is the “NWMO assessment”, with only one goal, of creating a nuclear dump, being allowed to proceed?

Premier Wall’s appeal to “community support”, like his appeal to “clear support from the people of Saskatchewan”, is apparently political rhetoric to buy more time for industry to penetrate the north. That way, by the time Saskatchewan democracy comes into play “years down the road”, the industry might have signed contracts and its dump be underway. Their strategy has always been incremental so the public doesn’t know their end-game.

PUBLIC BE DAMNED

We know from Manitoba that the “feasibility research” was inextricably tied to the actual planning of a dump. When people caught on and government changed hands legislation banning waste storage was passed. Why isn’t Premier Wall following the example of Manitoba in 1987 or Quebec in 2008 when they said flat out, “we won’t take Ontario’s nuclear wastes”?

The Wall government isn’t being proactive or protective because it wants the nuclear industry-driven process to succeed. It considers a nuclear dump to be “adding value” to the uranium industry, as was advocated by its own Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) in 2009. Though over 90% of the thousands participating in the UDP’s public consultations opposed a nuclear dump, the public be damned.

If Premier Wall meant it when he says in his letter that a nuclear dump “is not a priority to the province” and it is already clear that there is not “the support of provincial residents” for this, why is he being so permissive with the industry? Why is Premier Wall so interested in remaining “informed and engaged” with the nuclear industry, when he is unwilling to do this with the Saskatchewan public?

Premier Wall’s letter to the northern Committee appeals to rhetoric about popular democracy, but unless his government is challenged, it’s clear it will let the industry get its way. We can’t allow such smoke and mirrors to operate with an issue so vital to our future. The Premier and other Sask Party candidates need to be called on their “double-speak” on nuclear wastes.

More on nuclear wastes at:
http://crowsnestecology.wordpress.com/category/nuclear-wastes/

Has the breaking point come? Might the growing inequality and corporate greed be the sleeper in our November 7th provincial election?

THE “OCCUPY” MOVEMENT

Financial districts have been occupied in over 80 countries since the Vancouver-based magazine Ad busters suggested that Wall Street be occupied. The “occupy” movement spreading across the globe speaks of the 99% versus the 1%; since the 1980s even more wealth has concentrated at the top, among those that some now call “the filthy rich”, the 1%. Meanwhile income security is bottoming out for more and more of the common, hard-working people.

We are no exception; inequality is increasing in Saskatchewan. In 2009 the top 20% of earners got 43% of all after-tax income, while the bottom 20% got only 5% of this income. If there were 100 people earning $100 a day in total, the bottom 20 would have to share $5.00, getting an average of only 25 cents. The top 20 would share $43, giving them an average of over $2.00 a day. This wouldn’t tell the full story; the top 20 earners would perhaps include one person who got huge earnings. This 1% is mostly CEO’s and wealthy investors. In 2010 while the rest of us lost savings and earning power, Canada’s top CEO’s got a 13% increase in pay and a 20% increase in bonuses. This includes CEO’s running multinational corporations in Saskatchewan. In 2008 Cameco’s CEO had compensation of “just over $4.5 million, up from 3.7 million in 2007”. To put this in perspective, this was one-third of the $14 million in uranium royalties going to the province in 2003.

RENT, HOUSING, FOOD BANKS

Premier Wall speaks of us as a “have province”, as though resource profits trickle down to improve quality of life for everyone. Growing income inequality suggests otherwise. Things continue to get harder for working people. Since 2006, rent for a two-bedroom apartment has increased by 50% to nearly $900 per month. The cost of housing increased even more, up 90%. Our occupancy rates are amongst the highest; since 2009 Regina’s occupancy rate has been the worst in all Canada.

For every rich CEO there are thousands of homeless. From 2008 to 2010, homelessness nearly doubled here. Over 2,500 people used a Saskatchewan shelter at least once, and this wasn’t for a few days. Those using shelters just once averaged 56 days in the shelter. The largest group of homeless people was women and men aged 25-34. Rural and urban shelters are both stressed; Regina’s shelters run at 93% capacity year-round.

In March 2009, 18,875 Saskatchewan people were assisted by food banks. The number rose by 20% to 22,662 people in March 2010. More than four of ten people depending on food banks are children. By 2008, 33,000 Saskatchewan children lived in poverty and the number continues to climb. Northern Saskatchewan remains the second poorest region in all Canada.

TRICKLING UP

Meanwhile, the resource boom gives incredible wealth to the large corporations. In 2007, of the $14.4 billion in resources sales, the province got only $1.8 billion in royalties. In 2010 with $1.6 billion in potash sales, royalties were only 77 million. In 2009 with $1.3 billion in uranium sales, royalties were only 105 million.

In 2010 the Sask Party government signed the New West Partnership, an agreement virtually identical to TILMA (trade, investment and labour mobility agreement) which it opposed when in opposition. This allows corporations from Alberta and BC to sue Saskatchewan for laws and policies that they think are unfair to their businesses. This could further jeopardize the crowns and force small businesses to compete with large out-of-province corporations.

The crowns have protected us somewhat from the escalating inequality. We still have the lowest auto-insurance in Canada and until 2007 we had the lowest utility bundle. Sask Water still works for a need-based rather than greed-based system, trying to ensure that quality water is available to all citizens as a right. However, even after the grave warning about the role of “inadequate oversight and enforcement” in the 2003 North Battleford water disaster, this August we had nearly 200 Drinking Water or Boil Water Advisories across the province. First Nations communities remain disproportionately at risk.

WHAT’S IN STORE?

What if Wall’s government further entrenches its majority rule? Should we expect more of the same? As I write, the government is sharpening its knives for even more privatizing of Saskatchewan resources. An estimated 27,000 square KM of oil-sands in the northwest stands ready to exploit without comprehensive land use plans, mapping of aquifers or an adequate regulatory or royalty-sharing system. In 2010 the government gave itself the authority to abolish the habitat or conservation status of crown land, which it can privatize without recourse to the legislature. First Nations and Métis communities complain that the government is continually bypassing their “duty to consult”. The Sask Party is encouraging more use of fracturing technology for shale gas drilling in spite of land and groundwater contamination. With Sask Party approval, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) continues to bypass democracy and target the north for a nuclear waste dump.

Environmental health continues to erode. Even without tar-sands projects, we have the highest greenhouse gas footprint in all Canada (72 tonnes per capita compared to 20). We are on the receiving end of most of the acid rain from Alberta’s tar-sands. And as other jurisdictions are moving towards green energy, our government continues to shore up the toxic economy. The $1.2 billion earmarked to capture carbon for a measly 100 MW unit at Boundary Dam is outrageous when you consider what kind of non-toxic renewable energy could be built for that kind of public investment.

The choice is becoming clear. Are we going to become a resource colony for the corporations who take most of the wealth out of the province and leave the toxic wastes for our grandchildren? Are we going to idly stand by while inequality increases among us? Or are we going to begin to develop a social economy, a green economy for the benefit of the environment and the 100 percent?

go to www.labourissues.sfl.sk.ca for some sources

PIPELINE PIPE-DREAMS

Our federal and provincial governments push for Trans-Canada’s Keystone pipeline to bring even more toxic tar-sand oil through the lush southern prairies into the U.S. They push for Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline to the West Coast where tankers going to China will threaten the marine ecology and diminishing fish stocks. Meanwhile, year-by-year, non-toxic renewable energy makes steady gains.

According to the Monthly Energy Review of the U.S. Energy Information Administration, domestic renewable energy production by June 2011 was “significantly greater than that of nuclear power and continues to close in on oil.” During the first half of 2011 renewable energy (biomass, bio-fuels, ground source heat, solar, water and wind) provided 18% more energy than nuclear plants and 80% of the energy that comes from crude oil. Renewable sources provided 14% of electricity, quickly catching up to the 19% from nuclear, which, despite heavy public subsidies, has lost ground since 2009. (Globally renewable-generated electricity passed nuclear in 2005.) Coal’s share in the U.S. electricity market has also dropped as renewable capacity increases.

NET-METERING PROGRAM

Meanwhile, Saskatchewan has an on-again, off-again net-metering program which barely taps renewable sources. It allows small, individual producers to put excess electricity on the Sask Power grid, but provides only credit for this. If you produce what you consume from the grid you won’t have an electrical bill, but “your excess power must be used during your annual billing cycle”. The small producer takes all the risks. The only incentive is a 35% grant on eligible costs up to $35,000 which is administrated by the Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) which monitors the program.

The program started in 2007 under the Calvert NDP but was discontinued by the Wall government in 2011, just as it was starting to gain momentum. It’s recently been extended to August 30, 2012, but to qualify, a project registration form must be filed by December 2011. A government program review is underway, with no date of a report. Wall’s government clearly doesn’t want energy policy to be an issue in the November election.

There are now 200 plus small producers in Saskatchewan’s program, mostly generating wind power. Our family has installed a hybrid system of both wind (2.2 KW) and photovoltaic (PV) solar (1.3 KW) to maximize production through all seasons. After four months we’ve produced about 2,000 kWh, close to what we consume. Net-metering however doesn’t promote the conversion to renewables because there’s no incentive to produce more than you consume. While the price of electricity will continue to rise, the pay-back time on the investment is long. After the SRC grant and even if prices double, it will take ten years to recover our costs, disregarding depreciation and maintenance. Our motive for installing renewables was mostly environmental; we cut about 6,000 pounds of carbon a year compared to using electricity from Sask Power’s coal plants.

FEED-IN TARIFFS (FIT)

The conversion from coal must be made province-wide if we are to lower our greenhouse gases, which are the highest in the world (72 tonnes per capita annually, the global average is 4 tonnes). Jurisdictions wanting to encourage the conversion to renewables to help avert a climate crisis have gone way past net-metering and implemented feed-in tariffs (FITs) where small producers are guaranteed a fair price to cover their costs and provide some earnings. This is quickly catching on globally; two billion humans now live in places that have or will soon have feed-in tariffs.

California launched the first FIT called the Interim Standard Offer in 1983-84. It was based on avoided costs of using fossil fuels and favoured large developers. It established 1,200 MW (Mega-Watts) wind capacity, mostly in California’s windy passes and reduced CO2 over the decades. Germany is rightly considered the global pioneer; its first program, in 1991, provided 20-year contracts and was more advanced than California is today. Germany sparked the revolution in renewables in 2000 with its Advanced Renewable Tariff after its decision to phase-out nuclear power. It succeeded because it’s not a “one size fits all”; it differentiates the size and application for each technology. France followed suit in 2001 and Spain in 2004. These three countries set “the gold standard” for renewable energy policy world-wide. By 2008 Germany had 24,000 and Spain had 17,000 MW wind capacity. France, which heavily subsidizes its large nuclear fleet and was more restrictive with its siting policy, had “only” 3,400 MW of wind. Germany is now a world leader in solar energy and Spain is looking at tidal power.

NORTH AMERICA LAGGING

North American has been slower to convert; Ontario now leads all Canadian provinces and U.S. states. Its 2006 Standard Offer Contract had limited success with only 150 MW capacity by 2008. But its 2009 Green Energy Act brought it into the same league as the Europeans. It has social as well as environmental objectives: it favours local control, community economic development and equal economic opportunities. Like Germany it has no regulatory cap and has a diversity of tariffs for different conditions (e.g. off-shore and on-shore). Ontario outranks the timid programs in Vermont, Maine, Wisconsin, California and Oregon. A recent program comparison by Paul Gipe of the World Future Council says Ontario surpasses Spain.

SASKATCHEWAN’S LOBBIES

Ontario has awarded over 2,500 MWs of contracts for renewables; one-fifth of these include homeowners, farmers, community and aboriginal groups. This amounts to 70% of our total grid and Saskatchewan has the potential for renewables equal or greater than Ontario’s. With a much smaller land-mass, France has wind capacity equal to our total grid. Even if our existing wind capacity goes through a planned doubling we will still be under 400 KW compared to France’s 3,400. Why are we so far behind?

Thirty years after California’s first program and twenty years after Germany’s, we’ve barely touching the surface. There are some who would call our on-again, off-again net-metering program “green-washing masquerading as policy”. We have been held back by Sask Power’s addiction to coal; the $1.24 billion committed to rebuild a 100 MW unit at Boundary Dam for carbon capture “while enhancing provincial oil production” shows the province’s misplaced priorities. One hundred MW renewable capacity could be built much cheaper and older, dirtier coal plants could be phased-out. And energy conservation and efficiency is hardly tapped. Meanwhile the powerful uranium lobby repeatedly tries to convince gullible politicians that we should buck the global trend and “go nuclear”. Our energy policy is more lobby-based than evidence-based and evidence will likely be lacking during the election.

But the future is already here, or at least it’s becoming clear that the sooner we replace the environmentally dangerous sources of energy, the sooner we start the transition to a sustainable society that doesn’t sacrifice water, air, land or health for energy. If those running our governments were concerned about all our grandchildren they would nix the crude oil pipelines and shift resources for a faster transition to renewable, sustainable energy. The November election is a time to speak up loudly about this.