BC's Auditor General John Doyle was at it again this week - publishing yet another tough report on the mismanagement of the province's resources by the BC Liberal Government. Doyle began his term as AG with forestry issues and returns to that subject in his latest report. (Feb 15, 2012)

Read the report here

Enrbidge Inc.'s controversial proposed Northern Gateway pipeline will be in the spotlight at the Vancouver International Mountain Film Festival this Wednesday evening, beginning at 7:30 pm (doors open 6:30) at North Vancouver's Centennial Theatre (2300 Lonsdale Ave).

The evening will feature four compelling documentary films from the past year - White Water, Black Gold, Tipping Barrels, The Pipedreams Project, and On the Line - each offering a unique perspective and artistic approach to the issue of pushing Tar Sands bitumen through BC's landscape and coastal waters.

A similar event last year drew a packed house of 800 to the Centennial Theatre - click here to see some highlights.

I will have the privilege of MC'ing this year's event, titled "Sacred Headwaters", which will also feature appearances by several of the filmmakers.

Two of the films on the program are short documentaries that involve outdoor adventures through the waters of the Great Bear Rainforest - the site of proposed supertanker traffic carrying Tar Sands bitumen from the port of Kitimat, the terminus of the would-be pipeline from Alberta. The First of these, Tipping Barrels, is a recently-released film that follows two surfers, Arran and Reid Jackson, soaking up big waves and the spectacular fauna and flora of the Great Bear. Meanwhile, The Pipedreams Project documents the two month journey of a pair of young kayakers' along the proposed tanker route down BC's rugged coast.

The evening will also feature a pair of feature films - extreme adventure filmmaker Frank Wolf's On the Line and David Lavallee's White Water, Black Gold. Both films are also journey stories. On the Line follows the voyage of Wolf and his friend, hiking, cycling and paddling the entire 1,100 km proposed pipeline route from Bruderheim, Alberta, to Kitimat. White Water, Black Gold "follows David Lavallee on his three year journey across western Canada in search of the truth about the impact of the world’s thirstiest oil industry."

These four films offer compelling human stories and a spectacular visual feast of BC scenery as the backdrop for a vital discussion about a project that threatens to irrevocably change the very nature of these special places.

Tickets are $18 in advance, $20 at the door.

The Norwegian salmon farming industry got a lesson in the old adage, "be careful what you wish for" this week when it learned of industry critic Don Staniford's next job.

The British-born, globe-trotting salmon activist announced on his blog yesterday that following his scheduled deportation from Canada later this month he will be heading to Norway to work with that country's leading environmentalist bad boy, Kurt Oddekalv, head of the Green Warriors of Norway. 

The industry may have got its wish - seeing the last of Staniford in BC - but it's turning out to be a case of out of the frying pan, into the fire.

Oddekalv had this to say on the development: “I am pleased to announce that Don Staniford is coming to Norway to spearhead the global work of the Green Warriors. Once he has finished fighting the Norwegian Government owned company Cermaq in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Don is welcome here in Norway.  Cermaq's problems in Canada are coming home to roost.”

One of the industry's three Norwegian titans - which together own 92% of BC's salmon farms - Cermaq-Mainstream, is currently suing Staniford for defamation at the BC Supreme Court over his recent campaign comparing salmon aquaculture to Big Tobacco. On the opening day of the trial last month, officers from the Canadian Border Services Agency showed up to inform Staniford he would be deported following the trial for over-staying his visa. The charge is accurate, and yet it was hard not to draw a connection to the industry and its close ally, the Harper Government, given the place and manner in which Staniford was delivered the news.

Staniford and Oddekalv are unquestionably the global salmon aquaculture industry's boldest foes. Both employ provocative tactics that consistently get under the industry's skin. Their partnership is the salmon activist equivalent of Che Guevara and Fidel Castro joining forces.

I've met Oddekalv on several occasions and spent a few days at his Green Warriors headquarters near Bergen, Norway in 2009 - while working on my film "Farmed Salmon Exposed". To describe Oddekalv as a character is an understatement. The man is a larger-than-life eco-Viking, always happy to regale his guests with tales of his daring exploits against the industry and other environmental violators in his native Norway. 

Meanwhile, Staniford is the man who developed a global network of salmon farming critics through his former position as director of the Pure Salmon Campaign out of Washington, D.C. His quest against open net pen aquaculture has taken him to all the industry's operations - in Norway, Chile, Scotland, Ireland, Canada and the US - many times over.

Staniford - who has also plied his trade in BC during an earlier stint with the Friends of Clayoquot Sound and before that in Scotland -  decamped again to BC a year and a half ago, as the province was developing into the front line of the battle over salmon aquaculture. But in the course of that time, he's gone from the director of a well-funded global campaign to guerrilla-style warrior with few resources, surviving mostly on donations from supporters (in recent weeks, his phenomenally successful legal defense fundraising campaign has netted some $50,000 in public donations).

Partnering with Oddekalv provides a major boost to Staniford's work. Despite his comparably daring campaign tactics, Oddekalv runs a well-oiled operation - offering Staniford resources he has lacked in recent years. For Oddekalv - perhaps the only major environmental leader who would dream of hiring Staniford right now - the activist from Liverpool may prove a valuable catch. The two men's tactical styles are a good fit - and Staniford brings to the Green Warriors of Norway a global perspective and rolodex to match, not to mention his unrelenting determination to take down the industry.

Staniford's trial is due to conclude next week, after which he will be escorted out of the country at the end of February.

And from there, it will be very interesting to see what mischief these two salmon rebels make for the industry back home.

Regional politicians in jurisdictions along Howe Sound are calling for a bigger role in the review of a major proposed gravel mine at McNab Creek. Several Sunshine Coast regional directors and councilors have recently stepped forward with concerns about the lack of local government involvement in the project's environmental review - currently being carried out under the federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Burnco Rock Products, Ltd. of Calgary wants to build a 77 hectare, 55 metre deep gravel and sand pit in acknowledge fish and wildlife habitat. The company estimates it can extract 1 - 1.6 million tonnes of gravel per year for 20-30 years from the property, rising to as much as 4 million tonnes in some years. The size and potential environmental impact of the proposal have local politicians and citizens raising red flags. A local citizens' group, The Future of Howe Sound Society, is also concerned the project has slid under the radar thus far and is urging the public to comment on the proposal by the end of the week, when the first public comment phase closes.

Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District expressed surprise at a January 19 meeting that the public comment period for the project was already underway. “We’ve got a huge thing going on, and we find out about it in the newspaper, when we have already registered quite a strong degree of concern,” West Howe Sound director Lee Turnbull told the meeting, according to the Coast Reporter. “The extent of this — this is going to be bigger than Sechelt. I’m not kidding. This is bigger than the [Lehigh] construction aggregate and it’s going to be running out of Howe Sound.”

The Future of Howe Sound Society has been warning the public about the project since last year. In November they issued a media release calling for more public involvement in the federal government's process:

Howe Sound is only now recovering from the environmental damage and pollution caused by past mining and other industrial activities. Dolphins and whales are returning to Howe Sound for the first time in a generation and fish numbers are increasing. To now allow new industrial projects without a comprehensive land use plan would be short sighted and tragic.

Public participation is necessary to ensure that any review conducted through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency goes beyond that and examines the overall impact on marine life, residents and users of Howe Sound.

The project was first proposed by Burnco in 2009 but faced a series of setbacks when the Department of Fisheries and Oceans sent it back to the drawing board with some key unanswered questions. The company says it's addressed DFO's concerns about potential impact on nearby fish habitat - which supports coho, chum, Chinook, pink and steelhead salmon and resident and sea-run cutthroat trout - but not everyone is convinced.

Councilor Dan Bouman told the Gibsons council meeting on January 17, “I’ve been aware of this project for about three years. I’m wondering: [DFO] is the key agency that has statutory authority to grant or not grant authority to do habitat damage. They’re saying it’s too much. Why are we going into environmental assessment?”

A report submitted on behalf of the company to the federal review process acknowledges a number of important wildlife values as well - listing 24 different blue and red listed species that may occur in the area of the proposed project. The report suggests about half of these species likely don't use the specific area of the proposed pit, but acknowledges potential impacts to others:

[Species at Risk] confirmed to occur in the Property include coastal tailed frog (in Harlequin Creek), herons (forage in the spawning channel and McNab Creek mainstem), and barn swallow (nests in abandoned buildings). Other SAR that could potentially occur on the Property include red-legged frog, northern goshawk, band-tailed pigeon, coastal western screech-owl, sooty grouse, olive-sided flycatcher, and pine grosbeak.

The Future of Howe Sound Society is also concerned about the massive mine's potential impacts on the broader region of the Sound - including whales and dolphins and other community values register its concerns about the project this week, saying on its website, "The aim of the Society is to protect the future of Howe Sound through the development of a comprehensive and holistic land and water use plan," which the region currently lacks.

The group is urging citizens from the region and beyond to weigh in on the public comment process this week, saying, "If you do not make your views known, please understand this project and it’s predictable destruction in the Sound will take place unchallenged just at a time when the dolphins and whales have returned to the Sound."

The BC Cancer Foundation is ready for your concerns over accepting title sponsorship from controversial oil pipeline builder Enbridge for this year's annual "Ride to Conquer Cancer" (make that the "Enbridge Ride to Conquer Cancer"). They even have a handy instruction sheet preparing their staff to deflect your tough questions and subdue your outrage. I should know - I helped draft it (well, sort of).

This past Thursday, reporter Stephen Hui published a leaked internal memo from the BC Cancer Foundation on The Georgia Straight's blog. The document was a draft list of talking points (scroll down) formulated to deal with the building backlash over the fundraising partnership between the Foundation - which is the fundraising arm of the BC Cancer Agency (a provincial department) and not to be confused in any way with the Cancer Society - and Enbridge Inc.

I first wrote an exposé on the "Enbridge Ride to Conquer Cancer" in The Common Sense Canadian last November, titled "Oil, Cancer and Bicycles". 

Interestingly, a number of the sample questions listed in the memo - to which optimal answers are supplied - were copied and pasted directly from my list of emailed questions to the organization last Fall, while others are very similar. For instance (copied or similar phrases in bold):

• Their talking points question: "Are you concerned that Enbridge is using the BC Cancer Foundation to green wash or soften its public image in BC?"

• My original question to them: "[Are] you concerned that Enbridge is using the BC Cancer Foundation to greenwash or soften its public image in BC in light of all the controversy its proposed project has generated?"

• Their talking points question: "Given that the monies raised by the BC Cancer Foundation are going to a public body, the BC Cancer Agency, essentially Enbridge is providing funds to the provincial government, can you disclose the amount?"

• My question: "Given these monies raised by the BC Cancer Foundation are going to a public body, the BC Cancer Agency, I have to ask you the specific amount of Enbridge's financial contribution to the Foundation with regards to this event."

• Their talking points question: "How can you accept money from Enbridge, they are a cancer-causing organization? [It’s been proven that Benzene, found in petroleum products, is a carcinogen]. Would you accept money from a tobacco company?"

• My question: "Is it hypocritical to accept sponsorship from a known cancer-causing company?"

The "best practices" responses provided are a study in the corporate PR art of deflection. You can read them yourself here, but of note to me was the layered responses to the key question - namely, how can you take money for cancer research from a company whose products cause cancer? (I won't go into that point in detail here - you can read the basis for this contention in my original article - suffice it to say there is considerable evidence that oil and its byproducts cause cancer at various stages of its life cycle). Here are the instructions from the memo - picked up after the initial response isn't working:

[If pushed on the Benzene/cancer causing questions] I’m not an expert in environmental factors as they relate to cancer. What I can tell you is that the Ride raises more money than any other cancer fundraising event in Canada and these dollars are supporting research with direct impacts on cancer outcomes in this province and across our country.

[If pushed. Verbal answer only] Nationally, Enbridge is in a three year sponsorship agreement for the Ride, which is helping to invest more dollars from the event into critical, live-saving research. The BC Cancer Foundation collects event related feedback from our Ride participants and the public, which will help us to inform future plans and agreements.

In other words, whatever you do, DO NOT ACTUALLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

I had also asked the Foundation whether it felt it was "problematic to be associated with such an unpopular company and project in BC?" (i.e., the controversial proposed Northern Gateway pipeline). The talking points response: "Ride participation for 2012 is on track to set a new record with over 3,000 riders. This event is very personal to these individuals because they are survivors or are honouring loved ones who have been taken by Cancer."

And yet, they're clearly concerned enough to go to the trouble of formulating an internal strategy for dealing with Enbridge blow-back. To date, to my knowledge, only my original column, a subsequent excerpt published in Common Ground Magazine, and the aforementioned Georgia Straight blog have drawn attention in the media to this issue. But with the enormous media focus and public awareness the battle over Enbridge's pipeline is generating as we speak, that may be about to change.

I suggest it is time for the BC Cancer Foundation to put those talking points to use. After all, practice makes perfect. It is time for the organization - linked through its sole client, the Cancer Agency, to the BC Government - to hear from the public about its deplorable choice to provide a very unhealthy company a platform to greenwash its image at such a pivotal moment in its campaign to build the Northern Gateway Pipeline.

So go ahead and phone in or email your questions and concerns - and watch for those copied and pasted talking points! (You may even try reading along with them when they go into a given script - I know that one, that's talking point #8 - my favourite!)

Lest I be accused of being down on cancer research in general, I've done a little research of my own - into alternatives to the Enbridge Ride.

Readers who wish to continue supporting cancer research through a cycling activity may choose to divert their funds from the Enbridge Ride to Conquer Cancer to the "Ride2Survive" - described on the organization's website as "a one-day cycling event from Kelowna to Delta BC to raise funds for cancer research through as an Independent Fundraising Event for the Canadian Cancer Society." (emphasis mine) The organization also boasts that 100% of the funds raised from the ride go directly to cancer reserach, something few cancer reserach initiatives can claim.

And they don't take money from Enbridge.

Get MP3 (51 MB)

Listen to Damien Gillis on CHLY's A Sense of Justice from last week, discussing Enbridge and Kinder-Morgan's proposed Tar Sands pipelines through BC. Damien and host Rae Kornberger cover the National Energy Board's recently-begun hearings into the Northern Gateway Pipeline to Kitimat and the contention by fake grassroots group EthicalOil.org and the Harper Government that foreign interests are behind BC's opposition to the project. Is there any truth to these claims and what is the relationship between EthicalOil.org and the Harper Government? (41 min - from Jan. 11)

Read this in-depth report from DeSmogBlog.org exposing more connections between "astroturf" group EthicalOil.org and the Harper Conservatives. (Jan 14, 2012)

The Ethical Oil-Harper government revolving door doesn’t end there. Hamish Marshall is married to EthicalOil spokeswoman Kathryn Marshall, who took over last fall when her predecessor Alykhan Velshi moved into the Prime Minister’s Office as the director of planning.

Hamish Marshall, through strategicimperativesonline, has registered 32 websites. Nearly all are connected to EthicalOil.org, the Conservative Party of Canada, and the right wing Alberta Wildrose Alliance Party.

Both ethicaloil.org's americans4opec.com and chiquitaconflict.com are hosted on the server, as is Kathryn Marshall’s personal website, kathrynmarshall.ca...

The web gets really interesting when you look at the other sites registered on Marshall's server.

Conservative Party candidates with websites hosted on Hamish Marshall’s server include Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, one of the most vocal proponents of the tar sands. Oliver's open letter last week refers to the "environmental and other radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade". See the WhoIs profile for www.JoeOliver.ca.

Read article: http://www.desmogblog.com/cozy-ties-astroturf-ethical-oil-and-conservative-alliance-promote-tar-sands-expansion

Watch this video interview by CTV News of BC Premier Christy Clark, in which she joins EthicalOil.org and the Harper Government in decrying "foreign meddling" - via BC environmental groups and First Nations - in the hearings into Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline. (Jan. 15. 2011)

When it comes to the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, British Columbia's premier says the debate and decision is best left to Canadians.

"I don't think Canadians benefit from foreign meddling in our decisions," B.C. Premier Christy Clark told CTV's Question Period on Sunday.

Watch video: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120115/qp-northern-gateway-pipeline-debate-120114/

If money talks, then the geyser of financial support that has sprung in the past few days for salmon activist Don Staniford's legal defence speaks volumes. Staniford - who has been described by aquaculture trade media as salmon farming's "public enemy number one" - is being sued by the world's second largest farmed salmon producer, Oslo-based Cermaq (operating as Mainstream in Canada), for defamation. The trial, expected to run 20 days, begins today at the BC Supreme Court in Vancouver.

The company, whose biggest shareholder is the Norwegian Government, may have been banking on Staniford submitting to its demands out of court due to a lack of funds to pursue the case - but any chance of that happening disappeared over the past weekend when the activist raised over $20,000 in public donations for his legal battle. Staniford has been building his case, giving depositions and collecting evidence over the last several months but only went to the public for funding this past Friday, when he launched a page on the community fundraising site gofundme.com. Since then, as of this printing, over $11,000 have tumbled in - in contributions that range from $10-500 a pop, most of them being in the $30-50 region. The goal of the gofundme.com campaign is to raise $50,000 in total.

On top of those online donations, a Norwegian fishing group, The Wild Salmon Warriors of Norway, announced this morning it was kicking in 60,000 Norwegian Krone ($10,000 CAD) of its own. As the former director of the global Pure Salmon Campaign, Staniford frequently traveled the world of the aquaculture industry, drawing together an international alliance of over 30 groups and coalitions battling the industry in Norway, Scotland, Ireland, Iceland, Chile, the United States and Canada. (Full disclosure: I've worked with Staniford on the Pure Salmon campaign - including my film "Farmed Salmon Exposed" and other initiatives over the years).

Staniford has already received $20,000 in legal funding from West Coast Environmental Law - directed toward his lawyer David Sutherland, an expert in defamation law. The injection of up to another $60,000 would be an enormous boon to Stanford's case, which revolves around a recent campaign of his targeting the open net pen salmon farming industry.

The campaign employs a series of graphical representations resembling a cigarette package - emblazoned with messages similar to surgeon general's warnings, such as "Salmon Farming Kills" - to highlight problems with the industry. Cermaq's defence is based on the notion that statements like these, coupled with the cigarette iconography, give the impression that farmed salmon is hazardous to human health. Staniford's counsel will likely counter that the implication is salmon farms kill things like seals and sea lions (often shot by salmon farmers to prevent predation of their stocks) and wild salmon, through the incubation and transference of sea lice and diseases by farmed to wild fish. Moreover, it will make the case that the analogy to the tobacco industry derives from comparable approaches to denying science that is critical of industry.

According to the Canadian Press, "The company's trial brief states it's seeking $100,000 in general damages, $25,000 in punitive damages and a permanent injunction to stop Staniford from writing, printing or broadcasting defamatory words against Mainstream." (emphasis added) It's that last piece - the concept of a lifetime ban from speaking out against the company - that has Staniford determined to fight. In a recent Victoria Times-Colonist story on the case, Staniford told reporter Sean Sullivan, "This is about justice for wild salmon and freedom of speech.”

Clearly, this David-and-Goliath battle has captured the public's attention, as the dollars roll in to support Staniford's case. But it's Cermaq that sees itself, ironically, as the David in this battle. According to CP, spokesperson for Cermaq subsidiary Mainstream Canada - the second largest fish farm operator in BC - "[Laurie] Jensen said the company is playing the role of David. 'I think we're on the righteous end of things in that we have to defend ourselves,' she said. 'If we don't, we do a disservice to our communities, our partners, our employees.'"

For his part, Staniford appears ready for the duel. Further emboldened by this outpouring of public support, he claims, "I am going to fight until the bitter end and win."