Home » News » Let’s set the record straight on tailings ponds and elections
News
Let’s set the record straight on tailings ponds and elections
Opinion | Edmonton Journal | Graham Thomson | March 06, 2010
Read the full article on the originating site
I’d like to call today’s column “Setting the Record Straight.”
And I’d like to dedicate it to all the readers who take the time to set me straight over errors, real or perceived.
A real error this week was my statement that the oilsands’ tailings “ponds” cover an area of 50 square kilometres. My information was a few years out of date. Today, the tailings lakes cover 130 square kilometres and are growing by the minute as industry pumps enough effluent each day into the lagoons to fill 80 Olympic pools.
A perceived error was my statement in a different column that the Alberta government proved it wasn’t in the back pocket of the oil companies when it pressed charges against Syncrude over the death of 1,600 ducks in a tailings lagoon in 2008.
A reader begged to differ: “They did not start prosecution until their hands were forced by Ecojustice Canada. This is why I don’t believe the Stelmach government, or the Klein government before, or the Harper government, deserve any credit for environmental protection. When it happens here, it happens despite the government.”
This reader pointed out the environmental group Ecojustice — formerly the Sierra Legal Defence Fund — launched a private prosecution against Syncrude Canada in 2009 before the federal and provincial governments stepped in with their legal action.
“Our lawsuit achieved its objective — having lit a fire under the federal and Alberta governments, less than a month after our action, they followed suit and formally charged Syncrude with fines that could total $800,000,” says the Ecojustice web page. “Sometimes it just takes a serious nudge from a concerned citizen and some good lawyers.”
Did the governments act only because private citizens launched legal action? It’s an intriguing argument made more credible by the apparent lag-time of the governments’ charges.
However, here’s the Alberta government’s response to the Ecojustice claims: “Feel free to use the word ‘preposterous.’ “
Those are the words of justice spokesman David Dear. “That’s not the way prosecutions work and this was a very complex case involving environmental law,” says Dear. “There are two tests: The first is reasonable likelihood of conviction; the second is in the public interest. When both those questions are answered in the affirmative, then it goes to trial. There is no outside influence whatsoever.”
I guess this is Alberta Justice setting the record straight on Ecojustice setting the record straight on my column that initially tried to set the record straight. I hope the record has been straightened.
Another story that could do with some record-straightening popped up last week involving comments from Liberal MLA Kevin Taft and New Democrat Leader Brian Mason, who said, in back-to-back news conferences, it’s time to discuss ways to get more people out to vote in provincial elections in light of the record low turnout in 2008.
One possibility they both mentioned was the Australian system in which voters are fined for not casting a ballot — and where turnout is regularly around 95 per cent. Australia introduced the system federally after turnout in their 1922 election dropped to what for them was a shockingly low level of 60 per cent. Alberta’s turnout hit 40 per cent in the last provincial election, making you wonder if we need cattle prods to prompt people to vote.
I’m not in favour of forcing anyone to cast a ballot — and neither necessarily are Taft or Mason. But their comments sparked an outrage among readers of The Journal web page, who are under the impression the opposition parties would break out the cattle prods the moment they formed government. I feel vaguely guilty about the uproar because I was the journalist who asked them what they thought of compulsory voting.
Here, to set the record straight, are the at-length comments made by both politicians:
Taft: “I’m going to go out on a personal basis … This particular issue hasn’t come up (in caucus). I think it’s time for debate around should people be fined for failing to vote. There may be a better way. Should people get a tax receipt — you go, you vote, you get a $50 tax receipt? Those debates should happen. My feeling is that if we don’t have those debates, and take steps, democracy will shrivel and shrivel until it can effectively be lost.”
Mason: “I was actually thinking about this before Kevin said it but he kind of beat me to it. I think it also is time that we had a discussion about measures that could be taken to increase voter turnout, including the Australian model which does make it a legal requirement that every citizen should vote. Every citizen benefits from our society in one degree or another and has many rights and I think they also have obligations and that’s to participate in our political system.”
Mason then added that many people such as students living away from home and people in work camps find it difficult to vote: “We need to first of all ensure that everyone is enfranchised and has the ability and capacity to vote before we start talking about them not exercising their franchise.”
I hope that sets the record straight.
Keep the cards and letters coming.
gthomson@thejournal.canwest.com
Tagged with: syncrude, ducks, lawsuit, edmonton journal, ecojustice canada
