Sandra Finley

Feb 122019
 

By Ana Cristina Camacho

https://thesheaf.com/2019/01/24/concerns-on-transparency-and-sustainability-raised-at-university-council/

U of S President and Vice-Chancellor Peter Stoicheff asks council a question during a University Council Meeting in Room 241 of the Arts Building on Jan. 17, 2019.

 

Beginning by continuing a discussion from a meeting held on Dec. 20, 2018, retired English professor Len Findlay spoke to the council about his concern of redacting transcripts for freedom in information requests. The university has acted in non-compliance with the privacy commissioner’s informal ruling. The information in question is an audio recording of a by-invitation-only symposium held at the University of Saskatchewan in 2015. 

Findlay asked for more information to be released. He says that the recording of the symposium might be relevant to an upcoming investigation into the alleged interference of agricultural giant Monsanto in university affairs.

“Members of council may appear [to be] willing parties to a policy that masks the culture of secrecy within appeals to confidentiality,” Findlay said. “Another incentive for council to inform themselves about this matter comes in the form of an impending public disclosure by the CBC Radio Canada investigative team on the influence wielded by Monsanto on Canadian university campuses — and guess who’ll be starring in that piece.”

Findlay left after speaking. University President Peter Stoicheff speaks to Findlay’s concerns, reiterating the importance of freedom of discussion as a principle. 

“We do need to separate out the rather emotional aspects and important aspects of the Monsanto piece in all of this,” Stoicheff said. “I would encourage all of us to … move towards a position based on principles, not based on the circumstantial specifics of that particular meeting, so as to safeguard all of us in the future when we have all kinds of discussions, formal and informal.”

– – – – – – – – – – –  – –

Mike wrote:

Perhaps any of you who were in attendance could provide context to President Stoicheff’s response.  To me it is almost unintelligible.

Feb 082019
 

Return to INDEX

apluc response

Larry Barr                                                                                                             Feb. 1, 2019

Acting Regional Executive Director

West Coast Natural Resource Region

Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations

and Rural Development

 

Mr. Barr;

 

Re: French Creek Watershed Protection.

 

Thank you for your letter of Dec. 27, 2018 in response to our letter Dec. 6th, 2018.

 

We are concerned that the acts and regulations you have cited will not offer sufficient guarantees of ecological or drinking water protection for French Creek.

 

For example, with respect to the Water Sustainability Act it is unclear who establishes and monitors “Critical Environmental Flows” in BC waters. Can you clarify this for us? Can you also identify what streams and rivers have had critical environmental flows established? We are aware that a critical environmental flow had been set for French Creek some years ago (as described in a provincial document titled: “French Creek Watershed Study”), and that summer flows are typically below what has been set as a critical environmental flow volume. Although this environmental flow was established by an outdated method, we are nonetheless alarmed by this and we fear that logging in the upper watershed could exacerbate the low flow problem.

 

Suggestion:  French Creek flow monitoring should be implemented at a site immediately below the logging property so that specific effects of logging and other land altering activities can be identified. The installation of an automatic flow data logger at this location would make this task a relatively simple one. However, this activity is outside the scope and authority of APLUC and we seek your assistance in making this happen.

 

It seems that the Water Sustainability Act is concerned only with flows, and not water quality. Is this correct? Are there other provincial acts that deal with water quality for ecological protection? We’re certain that your ministry would agree that water quality is equally important as flows in ensuring the health of aquatic ecosystems.

 

We are aware of the work of the RDN’s Drinking Water and Watershed Protection Program in monitoring water quality in various rivers and streams in this part of Vancouver Island. Indeed, two of our affiliate organizations currently participate in this program by taking measurements and collecting water samples. However, this monitoring program may not be thorough enough to measure the specific effects of logging and other land altering activities in the upper watershed.

 

Suggestion: We ask the provincial government to work with the RDN in establishing a water quality monitoring station immediately downstream of the logging property, to measure logging effects on French Creek water quality. Monitoring should include a base-line condition (although some logging has already occurred), and frequent sampling for those parameters usually associated with logging. This would extend the scope of the DWWP Program.

 

We agree that ever-increasing demand for domestic and probably agricultural uses has decreased ground water aquifer levels within the French Creek watershed. This only heightens our concern that the French Creek flow regime may be altered by logging activities and thereby exacerbating this ground water problem for both domestic well uses and ultimately aquatic ecosystems.

 

Although the French Creek watershed has been designated as a “Community Watershed”, we are uncertain what particular protection measures are accorded to such watersheds. For example, does this designation provide for community input to resource extraction planning, such as logging? Should it? From a provincial regulation perspective, does this designation require a particular degree of caution in government decisions regarding the watersheds? For example, does it promote an enhanced interministerial exchange or referral of resource applications? Should it?

 

We are aware of the 2007 BC Supreme Court judgement against the Sunshine Coast Regional District which had sought a logging moratorium in its “Community Watershed” – Chapman Creek. We have made a similar suggestion for French Creek (see our earlier letter). But, if moratoria are not acceptable to the provincial government or the courts, what other avenues are open to communities or citizens who wish to protect their drinking water and ecosystems other than the Acts and regulations cited in your letter?

 

We note that the Sunshine Coast Regional District used measures in the provincial Health Act in their argument; which to the average citizen should be a strong enough instrument to use in advocating for watershed protection. Apparently not, although it seems an appeal to this ruling may be underway by the Regional District.

 

In a special investigation of community watersheds by the Forest Practices Board in 2014, deficiencies were found in both the management and assessment of these watersheds. Recommendations were made to, among other things, establish guidelines for an appropriate hydrologic assessment. We discovered a few weeks ago that the Association of BC Forest Professionals  and the Engineers and Geoscientists of BC have prepared a draft set of guidelines titled: “Draft Professional Practice Guidelines: Watershed Assessment and Management of Hydrologic and Geomorphic Risk in the Forest Sector”, which we understand is in its final review.  As far as we are aware the last hydrologic assessment of French Creek was done 18 years ago and may no longer be valid, given the number of changes in the watershed, global warming effects, etc. We have been advised that at least the larger forest companies commonly conduct hydrologic assessments, as has the company carrying out logging in the upper French Creek watershed, but this may be oriented more towards engineering requirements for such things as designing culvert sizes, than for an understanding of potential ecological effects or impacts on drinking water supply.

 

We would welcome your comments on our suggestions and views.

 

Respectfully,

 

Ross Peterson, on behalf of APLUC

 

  1. Honourable Doug Donaldson, Minister of Forest, Lands, Natural Resource Operationsapluc response and Rural Development.

Honourable John Horgan, Premier of B.C.

Feb 082019
 

Return to INDEX

https://www.change.org/p/stop-belfast-water-bottling

Cloud Ocean Water has bought land for a proposed second bottling plant, close to its current operations in Belfast.

The China-owned company could be eyeing up billions more litres of water from beneath Christchurch to bottle and sell overseas as part of a major expansion of its operations in Belfast, The Press reported.

At least eight bores with permission to take drinking water are on or next to the new site, and If the bottling company gains consent to use them, it could have access to another 7.5 billion litres of the city’s water – five times what it can already take – for export each year.

Cloud Ocean already has permission to take 1.57 billion litres annually from two bores at the old Kaputone wool scour site on Station Road, Belfast.

Whether water bottling actually occurs is uncertain, because the issue is at the centre of a High Court action over the ability of firms to rely on old industrial use consents.

Representatives of Cloud Ocean confirmed it had bought the new site at 55 Belfast Rd and has applied to the council for permission to build a neq facility.

The community of Christchurch has had no say in the decision-making process, which could in future, affect the City Council’s ability to supply drinking water to the public.

Cloud Ocean bought the land for its second site from Belfast Business Park and submitted a resource consent application to the city council to develop it just before Christmas.

The firm wants to build a 22,000-square-metre bottling plant and distribution centre, where it would also produce plastic bottles.

Cloud Ocean already owns a resource consent, currently inactive, for a 27m bore on the site, allowing it to extract 200 million litres a year.

One, which is active, allows almost 2.1 billion litres of water to be taken annually from three 120m bores. A second inactive consent allows 5.1 billion litres to be taken from four bores between 26m and 34m deep.

Cloud Ocean is currently turning the former wool scour on its current site, into a 22,000sqm bottling and production plant, with warehousing alongside it.

Aside from the cost of the Station Rd scour property and an adjacent old tannery, Cloud Ocean paid $2277 for its 1.57 billion litre annual water take.

Using a 20-year-old permit originally granted to the land’s former owner, Kaputone, Cloud Ocean is currently consented to take massive quantities of water, for next to no cost.

Rapaki Natural Resources, which owns the adjacent property, also plans to bottle water on its site.

Combined, these companies are set to uptake more than 24 million litres of water per day – every day, for bottling. And this is without taking into account, any expansions to operations.

Aquifer water is a precious resource.

Bottliing aquifer water is also a gross waste of such a vital resource – water is already limited within the Canterbury area.

As a nation, we need to care for, and conserve our water supplies as much as we can, not give it away. And with our oceans becoming more choked in plastic, aquifers are one of our remaining, reliable water resources.

This petition is to urge this government, to revoke these historic permits from the current land-occupiers, and alter the law accordingly.

Upholding these permits would not be acting in the best interest of the land, assets, or our people.

Water permits should be non-transferable.

New permits should only be granted as a strict case-by-case basis, with peer reviews in place to protect these resources, and should be publicly notifiable – with room for open, public debate.

Aotearoa Water Action is currently challenging these consents by High Court hearing.

Please help by donating to their costs.

Aotearoa Water Action Inc: 38 9019 053 0141 00

Feb 062019
 

Return to INDEX

Excellent letter!  A request to support the Strathcona Resolution

Offered for use as a Template.

AVICC-Qualicum

Many thanks to Julie:

Here is the letter that has gone out to QB, Parksville council and the RDN (Regional District Nanaimo) board.

If it can be passed onto other jurisdictions encouraging their local government to vote in favour of this resolution, that would be great.

Thanks,

Julie

Letter on behalf of APLUC  (Arrowsmith Parks & Land Use Council).

= = = = = = = =

UPDATE    Feb. 6/19:

JULIE WRITES:

I am getting feedback from some of the councillors/directors that the letter has been sent to.  So far, folks seem supportive.  I think from their perspective they want to know if this is a preventive measure motion or how it might affect operators in their jurisdictions.

I have been emphasizing that this motion speaks solely to operators that export their water internationally ie China, States and would not affect commercial operators that deliver bulk water to mostly local rural customers.  I have also stressed that local agri operators are very interested to see this motion approved.

If other folks send this out to their local reps they could add the above concepts to the letter  or put it in the body of the email that introduces the letter.

Thanks, Julie

– – – – –  – – –

CONVERSATION WITH BRENDA LEIGH:  

  • Local Haulers” deliver bulk water to local people.   The water is from a tap, the municipal water supply.  The Resolution does not apply to local haulers.
  • The BACKGROUND for the Resolution, as submitted to AVICC is changed.  (The Resolution and supporting info is at (no password)  2019-01-24 The Strathcona ResolutionThe posting has the changed BACKGROUND.)

Feb 062019
 

Return to INDEX

 

The list below was started in 2019 during the first round of the battle over the Merville taking of groundwater.  And then stopped when the Union of BC Municipalities took a Resolution to the Provincial Govt – no to the taking of the water.

Please use the “Comments” at the bottom to add locations / information to the list.

We do not have the capacity to distinguish between bottling of groundwater versus surface water.

NESTLE

. . .  see also NESTLE in the main INDEX.   (News reports, etc.)

. . .  see also under LAWS & REGULATIONS in the main INDEX,   under “Ontario”

Aberfoyle, ON   . . .  Nestle,  Canadian headquarters.

Locations named in the article   2016-09-30   A Look into Nestle’s Controversial Water Bottling Business in Canada, from Vice.com

  • Kawkawa Lake, District of Hope, BC   . . .  more details below, under B.C. Locations.
  • Hillsburgh, Ontario  . . .  see below, under Ontario
  • Wellington, Ontario   . . .  same

B.C.,  LOCATIONS OF WATER BOTTLING PLANTS

Fanny Bay  . . .   (we have info,  just haven’t got it posted yet)

Harrison Mills . . .   Fraser Valley Regional District,   Christopher’s Spring Water,  FVRD Board approved in Feb 2015

2015-02-04  Rezoning approved for Harrison Mills water bottling plant, Agassiz Harrison Observer, Fraser Valley Regional District

http://christophersspringwater.com/ 

https://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/report/data_availability_e.html?type=historical&station=08MF073&parameter_type=Level         

Data starts at 1938.  Last Date modified: 

Hope (Kawkawa Lake),  Nestle 

. . .  2016-09-19 & 2018-04-12 Chilliwack chapter (RE Hope, BC) wants
Nestle to “stop profiting from water; & Water campaigners hold action at Nestlé, the Hope Standard.

drought and forest fires intensified resistance to the taking of water.

TO DO: the URL tells how much water Nestle was taking, at no charge, for years.  Citizens had been protesting.  Government deaf.  Is there documentation to answer the question – – was it the intensification of resistance at Hope that brought about SOME change?     It appears to be very similar to what happened in Ontario.  With the exception that in Ontario a moratorium was implemented.  The moratorium has been extended to the end of 2019.

Merville, B.C., bottling  plant defeated . . .  see in main INDEX, at MERVILLE

Port Alberni . . .  (we have info.  Not yet posted.)

Rosewall Creek  . . .  see Fanny Bay

Strathcona Regional District (SRD)  . . .  passed the “Strathcona resolution” calling on the Province to stop the taking of water.  The Resolution was triggered by an attempt at Merville, outside the SRD.   Created confusion.  There isn’t a water bottling plant in Strathcona RD.    See in main INDEX, at STRATHCONA RESOLUTION.     

Union Bay . . . see Fanny Bay

 

ONTARIO, LOCATIONS OF WATER BOTTLING PLANTS

TO DO:   go to Rob Case ( see Wellington, below) for more info.  Aberfoyle is Nestle headquarters.   I think there is a plant there.   Are Hillsburgh and Wellington two OTHER locations?

Aberfoyle . . .  Nestle

Elora . . .  Nestle  (water group, very good blog.  Under “Organizations”.   Add the link here.)

Hillsburgh, ON . . .  Nestle

Wellington, ON . . .  Nestle

December 2018.  joked with Rob Case of the Wellington Water Watchers:  your wins in Ontario  (extension of the Provincial moratorium) will shift all of the water bottling industry to BC.   We’re set to supply 100% of the water for export!

Rob was very interested in what we are doing.  No surprise, they didn’t know about the role of the Federal Govt in the promotion of water bottling for export.   Information sent.

2018-11-24 Six Nations and Wellington Water Watchers join forces at Nestle protest, Guelph Today

EXCERPT:

“We’re going to greet them with love anyway because our relatives that make bad decisions need to be welcomed into the community that is making the right ones,” said indigenous activist Eryn Wise of Seeding Sovereignty.

“As indigenous peoples, even though we know it’s not our jobs to be emotional support folks for everyone else, we end up doing it because we are caretakers, we are land defenders and we are people that are going to save this planet,” Wise said.

Feb 062019
 
BETTMAN/GETTY IMAGES/courtesy of BERLIN film festival
Charles Ferguson on Nixon: “He was a complicated person, and there were parts of him that were very serious and even idealistic.”

Nine years after winning an Oscar for his financial crisis doc ‘Inside Job,’ documentarian Charles Ferguson lands in Berlin with a four-hour, two-part doc about an “out-of-control president” way before the current commander-in-chief took office.

After making a major splash with 2010’s Oscar-winning documentary Inside Job, tech millionaire turned filmmaker Charles Ferguson appeared to disappear, at least in the eyes of anyone eager to see what was next for the man who had dissected the 2008 global financial crisis with such surgical precision.

He would resurface five years later with the climate-change-focused Time to Choose, which garnered critical acclaim but failed to generate major ripples beyond the festival circuit. Now he returns with Watergate, an impressively epic, exhaustive exploration of Richard Nixon’s notorious scandal, spread over four-plus hours (handily cut into two parts) and undoubtedly among the lengthier titles at this year’s Berlin Film Festival.

But this wasn’t the original plan.

After Inside Job‘s success, it looked like Ferguson would be following the path of many Academy-endorsed doc-makers and shift the focus of his lens to even more ambitious subjects. But he kept hitting walls with the ones he tackled.

First came an HBO narrative feature about Julian Assange, a film that Ferguson says didn’t work — and was never completed — because of “death by a thousand cuts,” with several different versions of the script and nobody involved able to agree.

Then, in late 2012, he was hired by CNN to direct a documentary about Hillary Clinton. Less than a year later he called it off, citing insurmountable resistance from not just the Clintons and the Democratic Party, but the Republicans as well.

“Both sides made extremely aggressive attempts to interfere with the making of the film,” he says.

With Watergate, the first major documentary about the president-toppling scandal (something Ferguson says he finds “a little peculiar”), the director has a top-tier subject whose potential for feather-ruffling ended several decades ago. While the name of Donald Trump isn’t once mentioned in Watergate‘s 260 minutes (although the film’s subtitle, Or How We Learned to Stop an Out-of-Control President, offers a certain hat-tip), it’s nearly impossible to watch it without comparing Nixon’s grandiose, multilayered self-destruction with the current situation in the White House.

This affected Ferguson’s storytelling technique, which he initially had hoped could serve up “more of a political thriller” with “comedic and lighthearted” moments.

“It became clear that this was not going to be appropriate,” he says. “If this was going to be watched in the context of another potential presidential impeachment, then I had to be really careful.”

And in making Watergate while Trump’s presidency was in its chaotic infancy, Ferguson found himself softening somewhat toward Nixon — whose name remains synonymous with conspiracy and corruption. As for Trump, Ferguson is less forgiving.

“[Nixon] was a complicated person, and there were important parts of him that were very serious and even idealistic,” he says. “And he was also — without question — an extremely intelligent and intellectually sophisticated guy, in ways that Mr. Trump shows no sign of being.”

This story first appeared in the Jan. 30 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine.

Feb 052019
 

VANCOUVER—The Federal Court has quashed a controversial Fisheries and Oceans Canada policy that allowed fish farms to transfer young salmon into open-net pens without first testing them for a contagious virus that could pose a threat to B.C.’s iconic wild salmon.

In a 199-page decision released Monday, Justice Cecily Strickland wrote that the policy in question “fails to embody and is inconsistent with the precautionary principle, and it fails to take into consideration the health of wild Pacific salmon.”

In her decision, which addressed two separate but related cases, Strickland gave the federal department four months to develop a new policy that considers the threat the virus (piscine reovirus, or PRV) poses to wild salmon and complies with the precautionary approach.

The two cases were brought by biologist Alexandra Morton and the ‘Namgis First Nation against the minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and two salmon farm companies.

“Getting a win on the PRV part is good news for us and really good news for wild salmon,” said ‘Namgis Chief Don Svanvik, who added that he and his legal team are still reviewing the extensive decision.

As for Morton, she said she felt validated when StarMetro reached her, about an hour after the decision came down.

Morton has launched two lawsuits related to the government’s policy on this virus and with this most recent decision, can say she has won both.

“This is a very significant victory for the health of wild salmon, for Alex, for coastal communities and for the species that rely on a healthy salmon population,” said Ecojustic lawyer Kegan Pepper-Smith, who represented Morton.

At the heart of the cases is the highly contagious virus, which has been shown to cause a sometimes fatal disease — heart and skeletal muscle inflammation, or HSMI — in farmed Atlantic salmon in Norway and other places.

The industry and the B.C. government have argued that the virus has not been proven to cause HSMI in B.C. and is not associated with elevated mortality at B.C. farms, though at least one study has diagnosed the disease based on lesions in the heart and skeletal muscles of salmon at a B.C. farm.

Morton and other groups concerned about the conservation of wild salmon meanwhile, says ocean-based fish farms are breeding grounds for the virus, which can then transfer to wild Pacific salmon populations swimming past.

While more research is needed to fully understand what risks PRV may pose to wild salmon, a recent study co-authored by a Fisheries and Oceans Canada scientist found the virus is associated with jaundice or anemia in farmed Chinook salmon.

What that could mean for wild Chinook salmon is of particular concern because they are the main food source of the critically endangered southern resident killer whales and some southern B.C. populations of the salmon are already considered at risk of being wiped out.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada is currently reviewing the court’s decision, according to statement from Fisheries Minister Jonathan Wilkinson that was provided to StarMetro by his press secretary.

“Our government understands that a strong, science-based approach to regulating the aquaculture industry is essential and that is why we have and will continue to conduct extensive research which informs our policies and regulations,” Wilkinson said in the statement.

He added that the federal government is working with B.C. to “help restore and protect wild Pacific salmon.”

The BC Salmon Farmers Association is also reviewing the court’s decision, according to spokesperson Shawn Hall.

Hall added that the association is looking forward to the seeing the outcome of the Canadian Scientific Advisory Secretariat’s PRV risk assessment that is currently underway.

“Supporting good science into the health of both wild and farm-raised salmon and working closely with First Nations and coastal communities are cornerstones of responsible salmon farming in B.C.,” he said.

In her ruling, Strickland wrote the DFO’s current threshold of acceptable potential harm to B.C.’s wild salmon is too high.

That threshold “essentially permits any transfer of fish having a disease or a disease agent, unless the transfer places genetic diversity, species or conservation units of fish at risk,” she wrote.

In short, the ministry would only halt a fish transfer if it put the entire population and genetic diversity of wild salmon at risk.

“This is not consistent with the Wild Salmon Policy definition of conservation, and it is unreasonable,” said Strickland.

Pepper-Smith said it’s now a matter of waiting to see what the minister does in response to the court’s decision.

As far as Morton’s concerned, she wants to see the federal department screen all farmed salmon for PRV and prohibit the transfer of infected fish into farms.

It’s unclear at this stage what implications the court’s decision will have for the B.C. industry, which has been consistently ranked the world’s fourth-largest producer of farmed Atlantic salmon. In 2016, $757.5 million worth of farmed salmon was harvested in B.C. making it the province’s biggest agri-food export.

 

Wanyee Li is a Vancouver-based reporter covering courts, wildlife conservation and new technology. Follow her on Twitter: @wanyeelii

Ainslie Cruickshank is a Vancouver-based reporter covering the environment. Follow her on Twitter: @ainscruickshank

Feb 042019
 

Return to INDEX

With thanks to Denise:

Have you seen this article on TimberWest and Professional Reliance?  Very sad reveal!  Great to see young people working on this though…

https://vimeo.com/252243072?fbclid=IwAR1HOH2Ie-FTfvmn0cwmZHaB53OCkKgincf1ETV-ewd–dmhAs6lfAa3oF0

Feb 042019
 

CN Radio: Australian Ambassador Tony Kevin’s Plan to Free Julian Assange

Consortium News

Tony Kevin, a former Australian ambassador, defends Julian Assange & WikiLeaks & reveals a plan to get him safely from Ecuador’s London embassy back to Australia. He is interviewed by CN Editor Joe Lauria for Unity4J.