[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

I guess that's what you are telling yourself in Alberta to justify your "shut up and take it" approach.

The reality is that there's no one making the case that standards are different than during the Exxon Valdez era or in China.

Perhaps CC is right, that Trudeau and Co should do a better job in messaging on this.  But nobody has been saying "just shut up and take it".  Trans-Mountain pipeline went through a full review by the National Energy Board, over a review process that has gone on for five years.  It was only approved with 157 conditions imposed on it by the NEB.

Then even after NEB (which should have been enough - that's what the NEB is for), Trudeau decided to step in and conduct its own review, which it too ultimately approved.

In both steps stakeholders from BC were consulted.  And appropriate measures were put in place - the 157 conditions imposed by the NEB.

I think the piece that people in Alberta might be missing is that the NEB process was widely criticized in media in this province both as to the scope and substance of the review.  It is cold comfort for most British Colombians to point to the conditions created as a result of that process.

I am a bit surprised you are relying on something called a review conducted by Trudeau - wasn't that just a weekend with caucus deciding the matter on the basis of politics?

Alberta relying on the federal NEB. Oh, the irony. 

That aside - is there substance to the claim the conditions they allegedly imposed were inadequate? If so, were there better conditions that ought to be proposed?

Seems to me that this is where the actual debate lies (or ought to). The rest sounds like politicking, province vs province, province vs feds, NDP vs Liberal - the usual Canadian stuff. 

[Barrister]

Alberta relying on the federal NEB. Oh, the irony. 

That aside - is there substance to the claim the conditions they allegedly imposed were inadequate? If so, were there better conditions that ought to be proposed?

Seems to me that this is where the actual debate lies (or ought to). The rest sounds like politicking, province vs province, province vs feds, NDP vs Liberal - the usual Canadian stuff.

But again, a lot of the talk about conditions and consultation appear (to me) to largely be a smokescreen.  The enivornmentalist left is opposed to any pipeline, with any conditions, because they are opposed to the fossil fuel industry.

[crazy canuck]

That aside - is there substance to the claim the conditions they allegedly imposed were inadequate? If so, were there better conditions that ought to be proposed?

Seems to me that this is where the actual debate lies (or ought to). The rest sounds like politicking, province vs province, province vs feds, NDP vs Liberal - the usual Canadian stuff.

There is a substantive concern that when the NEB determined the scope of issues they would consider they were overly restrictive.  There is a lot of detail to the argument that was being made at the Federal Court.  I am not sure where that process is now.  But that court review is going to be determined on the reasonableness standard - the NEB is a statutory decision maker.  As a result there really isnt a good avenue to have a policy debate on whether the scope ought to have been more broad.  The only thing left is essentially what the government is now doing to try to get the Feds to commit to addressing wider concerns.

[crazy canuck]

Alberta relying on the federal NEB. Oh, the irony. 

That aside - is there substance to the claim the conditions they allegedly imposed were inadequate? If so, were there better conditions that ought to be proposed?

Seems to me that this is where the actual debate lies (or ought to). The rest sounds like politicking, province vs province, province vs feds, NDP vs Liberal - the usual Canadian stuff.

But again, a lot of the talk about conditions and consultation appear (to me) to largely be a smokescreen.  The enivornmentalist left is opposed to any pipeline, with any conditions, because they are opposed to the fossil fuel industry.

Yeah, we get it, you don't trust lefty environmentalists but if the Feds want the pipeline to proceed with a minimum of opposition they are going to have to do a better job of dealing with the Province's concerns.  Can they legally push it through without addressing those concerns? - probably.  Should they? - now that is where British Columbia hopes to have some influence.

[Jacob]

But again, a lot of the talk about conditions and consultation appear (to me) to largely be a smokescreen.  The enivornmentalist left is opposed to any pipeline, with any conditions, because they are opposed to the fossil fuel industry.

It's not just the environmentalist left who is opposed to the pipeline. At this point a significant section of the wishy-washy left, the mushy middle, the pragmatic business centre right, and even some of the contrarian right wing, have settled into opposing the pipeline too.

The problem is that the environmentalist left has been allowed to define the BC position because no-one has successfully made a cogent argument that having the pipeline go through BC is in our interest. Your hard left environmentalists can say "BC carries the majority of the risk, but the benefits go to the oil companies; when something goes wrong, we'll be left holding the bag" and it rings true. Maybe their motivation is to oppose fossil fuels altogether, but the argument is persuasive to those of us who accept that fossil fuels are necessary.

[Barrister]

But again, a lot of the talk about conditions and consultation appear (to me) to largely be a smokescreen.  The enivornmentalist left is opposed to any pipeline, with any conditions, because they are opposed to the fossil fuel industry.

It's not just the environmentalist left who is opposed to the pipeline. At this point a significant section of the wishy-washy left, the mushy middle, the pragmatic business centre right, and even some of the contrarian right wing, have settled into opposing the pipeline too.

The problem is that the environmentalist left has been allowed to define the BC position because no-one has successfully made a cogent argument that having the pipeline go through BC is in our interest. Your hard left environmentalists can say "BC carries the majority of the risk, but the benefits go to the oil companies; when something goes wrong, we'll be left holding the bag" and it rings true. Maybe their motivation is to oppose fossil fuels altogether, but the argument is persuasive to those of us who accept that fossil fuels are necessary.

I came across this link on my FB feed, and thought it had a couple of answers for you:

On why Trans Mountain is in BC's best interest

Not least affected will be the people of B.C. Let's just look at one statistic. A Conference Board of Canada report reveals that 348 additional Aframax-size tankers will visit Port Metro Vancouver each year as a result of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. The Conference Board further estimates that each of these tankers will spend on average $366,000 in the Vancouver Metro area. This equates to $127 million per year or $2.5 billion over the first 20 years of operation. This is not chump change. The Conference Board further estimates that the combined impact of the expansion would generate 678,000 person-years of employment and $18.5 billion in fiscal benefits over the first 20 years of the Trans Mountain pipeline's operations.

And on why I keep saying that environmentalists are opposed to all pipelines

The federal government would be happy to see this process run on and on. How do I know this? In 2012 in an interview, the man who is now the prime minister's principal secretary, Gerald Butts, was asked "Why don't we propose a different route for the Northern Gateway Pipeline?" He replied, and I quote: "Truth be told, we don't think there ought to be a carbon-based energy industry by the middle of this century. That's our policy in Canada and it's our policy all over the world." He went on to say "the real alternative to the Northern Gateway is not an alternative route. It is an alternative economy."

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/british-columbia-thinks-it-can-kill-pipelines-because-it-knows-ottawa-doesnt-care

This just frustrates me how political (and anti-science) both sides have gotten on the global warming front.  On the right I see politicians I know and deeply respect rail against a carbon tax - despite the fact that a carbon tax is a pro-free-market way of regulating carbon emissions!

And on the left I see environmentalists take self-defeating stances in the name of opposing global warming.  On pipelines, you can not solve carbon emissions by attacking the supply side.  There are too many other countries more than willing to ship oil.  We have to attack it on the demand side (through things like carbon taxes).  Stopping pipelines isn't going to prevent one less kilogram of CO2 from being emitted - but it sure will help some self-satisfied hippies feel good about stiffing Alberta.

[Jacob]

On why Trans Mountain is in BC's best interest

Not least affected will be the people of B.C. Let's just look at one statistic. A Conference Board of Canada report reveals that 348 additional Aframax-size tankers will visit Port Metro Vancouver each year as a result of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. The Conference Board further estimates that each of these tankers will spend on average $366,000 in the Vancouver Metro area. This equates to $127 million per year or $2.5 billion over the first 20 years of operation. This is not chump change. The Conference Board further estimates that the combined impact of the expansion would generate 678,000 person-years of employment and $18.5 billion in fiscal benefits over the first 20 years of the Trans Mountain pipeline's operations.

That's a great statistic, thanks for sharing. I'm sitting at "mildly opposed" but that's enough to move me over to "mildly in favour" (assuming that it's substantially true, but until proven otherwise I'm willing to take it at face value), especially if I can be shown that the "157 NEB directives" are a reasonably conscientious and reasonably well-funded stab at risk mitigation.

Hitherto, as someone who's somewhat media and current events literate who has followed the issue with some but not obsessive interest, this is the first time I've heard anything like that. Previously, the only BC economic benefit argument that I've come across was a clearly weak "we'll use BC labour to build the pipeline in BC, so that's job creation" (which is true, but very temporary).

And on why I keep saying that environmentalists are opposed to all pipelines...

I do not disagree with you that the initial core of the anti-pipeline movement is anti-oil altogether. My point is that a significant amount of the opposition to the pipeline is not from the hard-environmentalists but from more regular BC folks who have been sold the narrative that the pipeline will enrich oil companies while providing little to no benefit to BC, and leaving us holding the bag with the inevitable ecological consequences (and the risk of real damage to our tourist industry, if bad things happen at the worst spot).

The supposed economic benefits from the shipping is a fairly substantial counter to the "no benefit to BC". The risk mitigation may be more of a matter of communication than substance, I don't know, but if there's real substance there it certainly hasn't been sold effectively.

In the end, though, I guess that's mostly the Trudeau Liberals' problem. Horgan's going to dig his heels in to some degree due to the coalition with the Greens. Selling the pipeline to non-Green voters may cause him to dig them less rather than more, but he'll still have to oppose it somewhat.

IMO the thing will probably get built, with the only real question being how much damage it does to the Trudeau Liberals in BC.

This just frustrates me how political (and anti-science) both sides have gotten on the global warming front.  On the right I see politicians I know and deeply respect rail against a carbon tax - despite the fact that a carbon tax is a pro-free-market way of regulating carbon emissions!

And on the left I see environmentalists take self-defeating stances in the name of opposing global warming.  On pipelines, you can not solve carbon emissions by attacking the supply side.  There are too many other countries more than willing to ship oil.  We have to attack it on the demand side (through things like carbon taxes).  Stopping pipelines isn't going to prevent one less kilogram of CO2 from being emitted - but it sure will help some self-satisfied hippies feel good about stiffing Alberta.

I don't disagree with any of that, on either side

[Grey Fox]

But again, a lot of the talk about conditions and consultation appear (to me) to largely be a smokescreen.  The enivornmentalist left is opposed to any pipeline, with any conditions, because they are opposed to the fossil fuel industry.

It's not just the environmentalist left who is opposed to the pipeline. At this point a significant section of the wishy-washy left, the mushy middle, the pragmatic business centre right, and even some of the contrarian right wing, have settled into opposing the pipeline too.

The problem is that the environmentalist left has been allowed to define the BC position because no-one has successfully made a cogent argument that having the pipeline go through BC is in our interest. Your hard left environmentalists can say "BC carries the majority of the risk, but the benefits go to the oil companies; when something goes wrong, we'll be left holding the bag" and it rings true. Maybe their motivation is to oppose fossil fuels altogether, but the argument is persuasive to those of us who accept that fossil fuels are necessary.

I came across this link on my FB feed, and thought it had a couple of answers for you:

On why Trans Mountain is in BC's best interest

Not least affected will be the people of B.C. Let's just look at one statistic. A Conference Board of Canada report reveals that 348 additional Aframax-size tankers will visit Port Metro Vancouver each year as a result of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. The Conference Board further estimates that each of these tankers will spend on average $366,000 in the Vancouver Metro area. This equates to $127 million per year or $2.5 billion over the first 20 years of operation. This is not chump change. The Conference Board further estimates that the combined impact of the expansion would generate 678,000 person-years of employment and $18.5 billion in fiscal benefits over the first 20 years of the Trans Mountain pipeline's operations.

And on why I keep saying that environmentalists are opposed to all pipelines

The federal government would be happy to see this process run on and on. How do I know this? In 2012 in an interview, the man who is now the prime minister's principal secretary, Gerald Butts, was asked "Why don't we propose a different route for the Northern Gateway Pipeline?" He replied, and I quote: "Truth be told, we don't think there ought to be a carbon-based energy industry by the middle of this century. That's our policy in Canada and it's our policy all over the world." He went on to say "the real alternative to the Northern Gateway is not an alternative route. It is an alternative economy."

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/british-columbia-thinks-it-can-kill-pipelines-because-it-knows-ottawa-doesnt-care

This just frustrates me how political (and anti-science) both sides have gotten on the global warming front.  On the right I see politicians I know and deeply respect rail against a carbon tax - despite the fact that a carbon tax is a pro-free-market way of regulating carbon emissions!

And on the left I see environmentalists take self-defeating stances in the name of opposing global warming.  On pipelines, you can not solve carbon emissions by attacking the supply side.  There are too many other countries more than willing to ship oil.  We have to attack it on the demand side (through things like carbon taxes).  Stopping pipelines isn't going to prevent one less kilogram of CO2 from being emitted - but it sure will help some self-satisfied hippies feel good about stiffing Alberta.

When our environmentalists fight you on pipelines they are thinking also of the method of extraction. Alberta should really do something about that.

[crazy canuck]

A piece by the former Conservative Minister which gives a good sense of the conflict over what should be included within the scope of review of a project.  And why many British Columbians don't trust the NEB conditions are adequate


http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/joe-oliver-liberals-drive-another-nail-in-the-coffin-of-canadas-resource-industry

[Barrister]

IMO the thing will probably get built, with the only real question being how much damage it does to the Trudeau Liberals in BC.

I have no confidence of that.

There were three pipelines being proposed a few years ago: Keystone XL, Energy East, and Trans Mountain.  Energy East is dead.  Keystone is basically dead.  And all opponents of Trans Mountain need to do is to keep delaying the process until Kinder Morgan just throws in the towel.

[Barrister]

A piece by the former Conservative Minister which gives a good sense of the conflict over what should be included within the scope of review of a project.  And why many British Columbians don't trust the NEB conditions are adequate


http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/joe-oliver-liberals-drive-another-nail-in-the-coffin-of-canadas-resource-industry

Are we reading the same article?  What you posted was a spirited defence of Trans Mountain and the NEB.

[crazy canuck]

A piece by the former Conservative Minister which gives a good sense of the conflict over what should be included within the scope of review of a project.  And why many British Columbians don't trust the NEB conditions are adequate


http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/joe-oliver-liberals-drive-another-nail-in-the-coffin-of-canadas-resource-industry

Are we reading the same article?  What you posted was a spirited defence of Trans Mountain and the NEB.

Yep, and re-read the criticism he makes of a more rigorous review process.  Remember his government was in power when the NEB did the bulk of its work on this project.   Now contrast that with the position BC is taking - that a more rigorous review is required.

[crazy canuck]

BC's Chief Justice gave an interview regarding his concern over the lack of judges being appointed by the federal minister

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/chief-justice-christopher-hinkson-frustrated-by-judge-shortage-at-the-b-c-supreme-court

[Malthus]

BC's Chief Justice gave an interview regarding his concern over the lack of judges being appointed by the federal minister

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/chief-justice-christopher-hinkson-frustrated-by-judge-shortage-at-the-b-c-supreme-court

This situation is getting absurd and I've never heard a good reason for it.

[Ancient Demon]

BC's Chief Justice gave an interview regarding his concern over the lack of judges being appointed by the federal minister

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/chief-justice-christopher-hinkson-frustrated-by-judge-shortage-at-the-b-c-supreme-court

This situation is getting absurd and I've never heard a good reason for it.

Supposedly it's because they don't have enough qualified candidates that are sufficiently diverse (women and brown people).