 |
| Bill Tieleman speaks to 5,000 at first Fight HST rally in Vancouver - September 2009 |
Bill Tieleman’s 24 Hours Vancouver / The Tyee column
Tuesday June 17, 2014
By Bill Tieleman
"Lemme tell you the first rule of politics; Always know if the juice is worth the squeeze."
Despite British Columbia environmentalists, First Nations and others gearing up to launch a citizens' initiative petition to fight the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, it's only electoral votes, not signatures that can stop it.
And with the federal Conservative government due to announce its decision today and expected to approve the pipeline with conditions, these groups have to ask themselves -- is the juice worth the squeeze?
B.C's initiative legislation, which is unique in Canada, allows voters to petition the provincial government to take action on almost any issue. But the law is completely toothless.
Even if successful against enormous odds, the initiative can be effectively ignored without government being forced to hold a province-wide vote -- despite misconceptions otherwise.
I know, because I was the strategist for Fight HST's successful initiative process in 2010, led by former premier Bill Vander Zalm.
That effort eventually ended with the 2013 repeal of the Harmonized Sales Tax imposed by Gordon Campbell's Liberal government. The initiative was a critical part of the campaign.
But our victory depended on Campbell's multiple miscalculations, including his decision to hold a binding referendum in 2011 -- not simply because voters flocked to sign the first and only Initiative to pass since the process began in 1994.
That's where the Dogwood Initiative -- the group's name, not campaign -- runs into trouble.
Incredibly difficult threshold
Provincial legislation gives the government the choice of what to do if an initiative reaches the incredibly difficult threshold of gaining the signatures of 10 per cent of registered voters in every one of B.C.'s 85 ridings in only 90 days.
The government can indeed chose to hold an initiative referendum, but the results are not binding.
Or it can simply introduce the bill proposed by the petition into the B.C. Legislature, but not even debate it, let alone pass it.
Environmentalists could spend months and many dollars organizing signatures only to either fail to get enough of them in every riding, or even if they do, be ignored by the legislature.
That's one heck of a lot of squeeze for no juice.
The more optimistic view is that a huge campaign will generate significant attention and shape public opinion, forcing reconsideration and rejection of Enbridge's pipeline before it breaks ground.
But those planning the initiative seem to be overlooking the fundamental flaws in the process -- that a referendum is not required by passage and is non-binding.
"We are currently drafting legislation which, if introduced via a citizens' initiative, would ensure B.C. uses its legislative authority to keep our rivers and streams free from Enbridge oil," said Jessica Clogg, executive director and senior counsel of the West Coast Environmental Law Association, in a June 16 news release.
They also appear to forget that the initiative process doesn't in any way affect the federal government, which has the jurisdiction to approve the pipeline.
While Premier Christy Clark might be encouraged to stand up against Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Enbridge if the petition is successful, she can't block it indefinitely.
Designed to fail
More worrisome for Enbridge opponents is the dangerous risk that their petition fails, like last year's Sensible BC campaign for marijuana decriminalization did, despite garnering 202,037 signatures.
An Enbridge initiative failure could embolden both the B.C. and federal government to see it as a big win for Big Oil and ignore further opposition.
Even a very respectable campaign result that gains hundreds of thousands of signatures but can't match the 713,883 delivered by Fight HST to Elections BC on June 30, 2010 will be seen as a setback.
Remember that signatures have to be verified by Elections BC. In 2010, the final Fight HST number was 557,383. In the Abbotsford South riding, the margin of error was only 599 signatures, and missing one riding causes the whole effort to crash.
The reality is that the citizens' initiative is a challenging tactic designed by a previous NDP government to fail, and was never fixed by a subsequent BC Liberal government that promised to do so, but still hasn't in 13 years. Nor will it.
The initiative's flaws mean that only federal election votes in 2015, which defeat the Conservatives, can stop the pipeline.
And in an election versus a citizens' initiative, the squeeze is definitely worth the juice..
15 comments:
I do not think the referendum needs to be just a list of eligible BC voters, as in 18 years of age and older.
I think every young person, tourist, non BC'r, etc. who opposes this pipeline and/or tanker traffic on the coast, should be allowed to add their name to the list.
harper already knows the pipeline is about as popular as he is and a few million names on a list of opposers may be enough for him to step away.
Regardless of politics, common sense and strong minded Canadians alongside First Nations WILL prevent this pipeline from becoming a reality.
I think you're right about Dogwood's misinterpretation of BC's Citizens' Initiative law which applies only to the province, and then only weakly. As Gordo was swirling down the bowl, he attempted to curry favour with the electorate by lowering the threshold and making the Referendum binding, neither of which he had to do---his desperation played out. Otherwise, the Citizens' Initiative was never really meant to work: it was a cookie thrown to a snarling electorate by a dying Social Credit government, hoping against hope that it'd help and, if worse came to worse, the binding Referendum (do you want Citizens' Initiative or not?) on the general election ballot would bedevil a victorious NDP. In a rare display of partisan unanimity, an all-party committee agreed the new legislation should not make it too easy to unseat, dethrone or force parliamentarians to do anything. Just goes to show how outraged BC really was about Campbell's HST lie: it had been...what? some twenty-eight failed attempts (mostly, if not all, Recalls) over two decades before the anti-HST Initiatives (Petition and Referendum) finally worked. It was the most unlikely chain of political events that eventually set the precedent of a legislated tax repealed by force of popular measure---first in 800 years of Commonwealth parliamentary history. Supreme irony had the man who'd done so much to necessitate the Socreds' desperate move of putting that Citizen's Initiative on that ballot all those years ago, Bill Vander Zalm resurrected, spearheading and finally pushing the Initiative over the top. You just can't make this stuff up---but you have to understand the chain of unlikelihoods and the cross-partisan outrage over the HST lie to estimate, even roughly, if Citizens' Initiatives can work elsewhere.
Personally, I think Citizens' Initiatives have an important role in holding governments to account, but, if the HST experience be any guide, it probably needs a red hot issue---which Northern Gateway seems to be---and a tight focus---which confusing federal with provincial affairs seems not.
Besides, the pipeline is now in the legal arena, not the political one, at least not till next year.
I do not think the referendum needs to be just a list of eligible BC voters, as in 18 years of age and older.
I think every young person, tourist, non BC'r, etc. who opposes this pipeline and/or tanker traffic on the coast, should be allowed to add their name to the list.
Well good luck on that one. That would take a change in legislation something the NDP would not agree to, since a change in legislation would have to appply to the process not just one. Why would a one week tourist to BC be able to participate in a vote that is intended for British Columbians? It's nuts (as is the Dogwood Initiative).
Defeating the Conservative government would not stop the process of the pipeline since the project has already been agreed to subject to the 209 conditions which must be met to the satisfaction of the National Energy Board. Now at that stage suppose there is a new government. Does that mean patronage to the governing body of the NEB? Considering there has been lots of critical commentary about patronage done by the Conservatives by The Left? That would be hypocritical to say the least.
As for the Dogwood's Initiative to set a referendum, good luck. Not going to happen. The HST was successful because of many factors (including yes Bill The T. here, but also the huge magnetism of VanderZalm and the chain of events).
Strong minded Canadians? What about those strong minded Canadians that DO want the project to go ahead subject to meeting all conditions and requirements. Don't they count too? As far as The Left goes, I guess not.
Bill, I agree that the time and place to fight Enbridge and Harper is the 2015 election. All the environmental groups opposed to Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan Bitumen pipelines should get working on campaign strategy over the next month or two.
Ed Chessor
The pipeline has already passed the government's explicit yes or no. The only way to stop the process in its tracks is to pack the National Energy Board with patronage appointments by the federal Liberals since it is up to the NEB to decide if all conditions are met.
That would be very hypocritical since there has been a lot of criticism about patronage appointments even those by the federal Liberals when Martin and Chretien were Prime Minister.
Why is The Left anti-everything?
Anon 23 14:01 Got it wrong.The so called left would prefer more social programs and a lot less federal government adverts
SO where are these more social programs supposed to come from if there isn't resource development which is stopped because The Left is anti-everything. There isn't much revenue volume on eco-tourism. Preseve the environment, sure, but there has to be a balance between that and generating revenue from resources to pay for what the citizens want, including social programs. There are not enough high income earners or eco-tourism to over ride resource revenue.
BC is still a resource based province even if the Environmentalists hate that idea. It was the lack of support for resource development (amongst other miscalculations) that cost the NDP the last election (Dix and many NDPers admit that).
A country cannot build up on the basis of saying "no" to everything.
So the pipeline ends up meeting all the environmental conditions placed forward. Then what. Still opposed?
and once the next round of Northern Gateway hearings occur, and they will, be courteous and considerate to others who are in favour of the pipeline. Democracy does not mean hogging the entire hearings time and being disrespectful and disruptive.
Be opposed that is democracy. But do it with courtesy consideration and respect for others who do not agree with such opposition.
Trivia, "designed by a previous NDP government" was in reality the Mike Harcourt government. That and the accompanying recall was deliberately set to be difficult because the NDP did not want to crash on its own legislation. There were many recall attempts from 1992 to 1998, and all of them failed.
The legislation was never revised by the next NDP government, that of Glen Clark.
@Anon above
The Citizens' Initiative legislation came about by a binding referendum placed on the general election ballot by an unpopular Social Credit government: voters approved of the Referendum (do you want Citizens' Initiative legislation?) but not of the Socreds.
The new NDP government was bound by law to produce legislation enabling Citizens' Initiaves: it formed an all-party committee which designed and unanimously approved the resulting legislation---in other words, it wasn't just the NDP that was wary of the new law, it was all parties. But suspecting the Socreds would not respect the voters' choice might have motivated the NDP to approve of an almost unworkable set of thresholds. Indeed, the suspicion turned out to be warranted by Kevin Falcon's "Total Recall" campaign that sought to completely undo the voters' wishes by initiating Recalls in each and every riding won by the NDP, thereby vindicating the legislators' original concern.
Of the Trivium, you got the Rhetoric right, but not the Logic.
"The Citizens' Initiative legislation came about by a binding referendum placed on the general election ballot by an unpopular Social Credit government: voters approved of the Referendum (do you want Citizens' Initiative legislation?) but not of the Socreds."
Quite correct, the concept was initially Social Credit. However, the question itself was legally binding on the government that set the referendum question, Social Credit, not the NDP as they were Opposition at the time the legislation was set, and the question scheduled for the next election. The Socreds were defeated and so the NDP was not bound by legislation to enact legislation to set initiative and recall. They did so as a promise by Harcourt. The Initiative and Recall Act was passed in February, 1995. If Social Credit had won re-election then they would have been bound by their own referendum questions of which there were two and each getting more than 80% of the total valid votes.
"The new NDP government was bound by law to produce legislation enabling Citizens' Initiaves: it formed an all-party committee which designed and unanimously approved the resulting legislation---in other words, it wasn't just the NDP that was wary of the new law, it was all parties. But suspecting the Socreds would not respect the voters' choice might have motivated the NDP to approve of an almost unworkable set of thresholds. Indeed, the suspicion turned out to be warranted by Kevin Falcon's "Total Recall" campaign that sought to completely undo the voters' wishes by initiating Recalls in each and every riding won by the NDP, thereby vindicating the legislators' original concern."
Interesting observation. Not correct on the being bound party. So The Left was concerned about the Total Recall Campaign undoing the NDP's term of government. But the NDP battled that out. So exit the BC NDP and enter the BC Liberals, and the Left expected that same legislation to work in their favour which it did to successful conclusion only once (the HST referendum).
What Falcon did was no different than attempts by The Left against the BC Liberals (and which may start up again after November this year).
Of interest is the statement "undo the voters wishes" as applied to the NDP. Curiously said statement is not applied by The Left now.
Of the Trivium, you got the Rhetoric right, but not the Logic.
Not exactly there. The NDP simply brought forward legislation it promised to do. It was brought in in 1995, and none of the two successive NDP governments revised the legislation to lower the threshold on either initiative or recall. To be fair, one could have (Glen Clark), the other simply couldn't because of the circumstance (Dosanjh).
As I recall (no pun intended), the referendum question on the election ballot bound the government of BC to create legislation for Citizens' Initiative (that is, if it was approved by the electorate, which it was). The question was authorized by the Socreds, who happened to be the government of BC at the time; however, that election changed things, as elections often do, but the government was still bound to create the necessary legislation---it just happened to be an NDP government at that time.
As I recall (no pun intended), the referendum question on the election ballot bound the government of BC to create legislation for Citizens' Initiative (that is, if it was approved by the electorate, which it was).
The legislation created two questions which were placed to the electorate in 1991. The reference of "government" is to the government that existed. Once the election had been called, the government of the day ceases to exist to be able to enact or act upon legislation (the government of the day exists in a minimum essential caretaking role during the election only, there are no powers of enacting on legislation once the Election period begins.
The question was authorized by the Socreds, who happened to be the government of BC at the time; however, that election changed things, as elections often do, but the government was still bound to create the necessary legislation---it just happened to be an NDP government at that time.
Technically no. If there was such an obligation Harcourt would not have to state his government would start. In fact if it was incumbent on the government to enable such legislation, it would have done so starting at the first Sitting after the election, which it did not. The legislation was passed in 1995. If it was incumbent on the government to provide such after the questions, the enabling legislation would have begun much earlier, by the Second Sitting which would have occured in 1992.
You can run but...
It will make much more sense to get rid of Harper and his herd than to start any initiative. The pipeline is federal. The initiative is provincial. It would be better to start educating the public on the ramifications of the pipelines and how it won't provide jobs for those in B.C. They are running schools for welders and pipefitters in the Phillippines and the Canadian Welders Assoc. is over there certifying them. Rich Coleman is already saying they have "better" skills than workers in Canada. Now that is a message to get out. there will be no jobs for Canadians, or dam few. The cost of pollution is too great to take the risk. The government won't be making any money in B.C., its the guys in Alberta who get the royalties. Spend the next yr educating the public and you may find Harper and his herd are gone and any politician left standing will know how the people feel about pipelines and pollution.
"It will make much more sense to get rid of Harper and his herd than to start any initiative. The pipeline is federal. The initiative is provincial. "
You're also forgetting that there are also provincial criteria that also must be met such as development permit (about 60 of them).
The pipeline project is now in the hands of the NEB's bureaucracy, the process has now since passed the federal political end.
"It would be better to start educating the public on the ramifications of the pipelines and how it won't provide jobs for those in B.C. They are running schools for welders and pipefitters in the Phillippines and the Canadian Welders Assoc. is over there certifying them. Rich Coleman is already saying they have "better" skills than workers in Canada. Now that is a message to get out. there will be no jobs for Canadians, or dam few. The cost of pollution is too great to take the risk. The government won't be making any money in B.C., its the guys in Alberta who get the royalties. Spend the next yr educating the public and you may find Harper and his herd are gone and any politician left standing will know how the people feel about pipelines and pollution."
Already been done, kiddo. Your lines have been repeated many times in many forms. What you have outlined isn't new.
So without revenue sources such as Northern Gateway (if it actually goes ahead, the MacKenzie Pipeline went through the same thing, but was never started), how do you expect the government to pay for services that people want from government? From eco-tourism? Not going to happen. if you think it will, start an eco-tourism business get it off and running and start contributing to the economy. Perpetually whining and saying "no" to everything isn't going to help.
Post a Comment