Kamloops City Council Candidate Peter Kerek; “I believe Canada should amend its constitution to reflect what has been done in places like Ecuador, Bolivia and Cuba …”

Yesterday afternoon (October 28^th). 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Now, for all to read, here is the discussion which took place yesterday (note that typical Twitter abbreviations have been replaced by full words):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:

Voters want candidates to be clear over Ajax - InfoNews.ca http://infotel.ca/newsitem/voters-want-candidates-to-be-clear-over-ajax/it14104#.VE_Kn9CF7PY.twitter …

Peter Sharp says:

@Kerek2014 My stand is clear and can be found at http://sharp4kamloopscouncil.blogspot.ca/2014/10/i-support-strong-and-responsible.html …

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.