Yesterday
afternoon (October 28th). I ended up having a one-on-one discussion
with Kamloops City Council candidate Peter Kerek.
This
is just my personal opinion, but I have to say Kerek used some rather strange rationale,
in his arguments for the nationalization of BC’s mining industry. Maybe it’s just the circles I run in, however
those I know would only expect that from a government with heavy state control
over almost everything. Perhaps it can also be explained by responses (http://www.localvote2014.ca/do_more#candidate-136)
he makes on a website called the Dogwood Initiative (two of which are posted at
the end of this article, and should be required reading by all voters).
Regardless,
I thought perhaps an explanation of the word “Nationalization” itself might be in
order. NATIONALIZATION … from the
Encyclopædia Britannica:
·
alteration or
assumption of control or ownership of private property by the state. It is
historically a more recent development than and differs in motive and degree
from “expropriation” or “eminent domain,” which is the right of government to
take property for particular public purposes (such as the construction of
roads, reservoirs, or hospitals), normally accompanied by the payment of
compensation. Nationalization has often accompanied the implementation of
communist or socialist theories of government, as was the case in the transfer
of industrial, banking, and insurance enterprises to the state in Russia after
1918 and the nationalization of the coal, electricity, gas, and transport
industries in the United Kingdom and France between 1945 and 1950. More
recently, a further impetus has been resentment of foreign control over
industries upon which the state may be largely dependent, as in the
nationalization of the oil industries in Mexico in ...
Now,
for all to read, here is the discussion which took place yesterday (note that
typical Twitter abbreviations have been replaced by full words):
Peter Kerek says:
Peter Sharp says:
Peter Kerek says:
@Sharp4Kamloops if KGHM is committed to
Kamloops then they should support nationalizing the mining industry and keeping
all profits here.
Peter Sharp says:
@Kerek2014.
Canadians have the money to invest, or not. It's up to us if we want to buy in.
Your voice is communism plain and simple
Peter Kerek says:
@Sharp4Kamloops I have no problem defending
the rights and interests of all Canadians, not just those with money to invest
Peter Sharp says:
@Kerek2014
many Canadians (even middle class) invest in things including rrsp's, etc. IF Canadians
wanted they could instead buy shares. Freedom of choice
Peter Kerek says:
@Sharp4Kamloops try selling RRSPs to those who
can't afford housing, food, education, dental, transit: your argument's a
little "rich", no?
Peter Sharp says:
@Kerek2014
and those you speak of are receiving benefits from taxes paid by BCs business
community, and by union and non-union workers
Peter Kerek says:
@Sharp4Kamloops that's true, so you're still
defending your position that those who receive benefits and don't own RSPs
shouldn't get a say?
Peter Sharp says:
@Kerek2014
Hmmm... sadly disappointing you feel the need to stretch my comments miles out
of context. Have to wonder why you feel the need for that
Peter Kerek says:
@Sharp4Kamloops it's no stretch: you equated
the freedom to buy shares with everyone having the right have a say in matters
re our resources
Peter Sharp says:
@Kerek2014
As voters we do have a direct say at Provincial and Federal level. As
individuals we have direct say as well by how we choose to use disposable
income
Peter Kerek says:
@Sharp4Kamloops surely you recognize there are
people without disposable income, our current middle class is built on debt -
that's not even disposable income, that's borrowed money.
The
proposed AJAX Mine is a hot button topic, so I would be interested in hearing
your thoughts. You can post them here,
or feel free to drop me an email at shapr4kamloopscouncil@gmail.com.
I’m
Peter Sharp, candidate for Kamloops City Council.
As noted above
at the start of this post, here are Kerek’s responses to the Dogwood Initiative:
Please detail actions
taken so far in your career that you think would be of interest to Dogwood
Initiative supporters:
I have been a
member of the Resolutions Committee of the Kamloops and District Labour
Council, as well as the delegation that has called for a ban on super tanker
traffic, a ban on the Northern Gateway pipeline project, a ban on salmon farms
and the nationalization of the petroleum industry in Canada. We have also, for
several years now, put forward a resolution calling for greater debate on
whether the earth's ecology can withstand the capitalist system any longer.
I have also been
publicly active in fighting the proposed AJAX Mine on the outskirts of
Kamloops; this mine, as proposed by the KGHM Corporation, poses so many serious
threats to our health, economy and environment on so many levels but will
likely receive a rubber stamp from the Environmental Assessment Office if we
don't have more community leaders publicly standing against it.
For most of the
last eight years I have been the editor and head writer of the Interior Worker.
The Interior Worker is a bi-monthly newsletter published by the Kamloops and
District Labour Council. The newsletter has always focused on progressive
issues, including human rights abuses and environmental degradation caused by
mining both here and abroad, and especially in Latin America. We've also
reported on illegal whale hunting, pipeline protests, climate change, and
indigenous struggles here and abroad.
The KDLC is the
only labour council in Canada to publish a newsletter for distribution amongst
the general population. You can see some of my articles on the labour council's
website: http://www.kdlc.ca/category/interior-worker/
Additional comments
or clarifications:
I think Elections
BC should sponsor the exact same number of advertising spots for every single
candidate as well as host weekly forums for the duration of the election
period. There should be a small sum allotted to each candidate to spend on
promoting their campaign on-line but otherwise all campaign donations would be
banned and there would be a very low cap on campaign spending. Candidates should also be required to attend
the public forums or be disqualified from running for office and would be
required to reimburse Elections BC for whatever had been spent on their
campaign. I believe these measures would go a long way to reducing the
corrupting influence large donors have on our political system while allowing
candidates with few donors to have their ideas heard.
I have some
reservations about increasing the level of "citizen input" (I'm
assuming somewhat that this refers to referendums) regarding the exploitation
of our resources because I fear that in some cases a well-run campaign to
convince enough people to build a mine or pipeline could end up violating all
sorts of rights of First Nations populations.
I believe Canada
should amend its constitution to reflect what has been done in places like
Ecuador, Bolivia and Cuba, which is to declare that the earth also has rights
and constitutional protections. I believe once this amendment were enshrined in
our constitution there would be a much higher standard set that would protect
the land even if there was a majority of citizens in support of a hazardous
project.
I also feel that
just because a majority of citizens in 2014 thinks a project is a good idea, it
shouldn't negate the fact that the land must be preserved for future
generations and that the interests of future generations may not be well served
by simply giving today's populace greater say in what they do with the land. I
totally agree that decisions about the land should not be left to corporations
and corporate-sponsored governments, but I'm not convinced that a majority of the
populace might not also choose the same destructive path that a corporation
might promote.
If the land had
rights then there would be a legal standard to be met rather than merely the
simple majority standard.
