[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Josephus]

What about those really cool bowler hats the locals wear.

[Jacob]

Fun times with Alberta - and now Saskatchewan - saying they'll legislate to limit energy exports to BC to punish BC consumers in the current pipeline brouhaha.

I can't speak for the province as a whole, but personally as someone who wants to find a reason* to support the pipeline it's pushing me straight into "fuck you guys" territory. If this comes to pass I'll pay more for gas no worries, I'll start donating money to "eco-defenders" and First Nations active in defending against the pipeline, and I'll actively let my provincial and civic elected officials know that I expect them to do everything to get in the way of construction because nothing move me off the fence as effectively as attempts to push me around.

*As I've said consistently, do something to give me confidence that there are effective plans in place to mitigate leaks and spills - especially in vulnerable and economically important areas - and I'll buy into the "national interest" argument enough to shrug and say "oh well" about the pipeline. If someone can add an argument that it's in BC's economic interest and I'll come around and actually support the pipeline. Beeb took a good shot earlier, but IIRC on closer reading the benefit was fairly insignificant all up- but it at least approached the issue in the right framework to have a discussion.

[Admiral Yi]

Read in The Economist that Kinder Morgan shut down spending on the pipeline to Vancouver.

[Malthus]

It is never going to be in the direct economic interest of BC to allow other provinces to ship their stuff through BC to sell it elsewhere ... unless the province charges a buttload of rent for the privilege, I guess. Demanding one is tantamount to refusal. Is there any major economic benefit to Ontario to allowing Albertan wheat to be shipped by rail across the province to be sold elsewhere? I suppose rail fees, but they can't amount to very much. If Ontario were to block such shipments, and demand that Alberta prove they were valuable for Ontario, it would be understandable if Alberta was annoyed by such an act. 

However, failing to allow it for no very good reason* beggars your neighbors, and engaging in beggar-your-neighbor games is stupid. It leads to the same sort of stupidity you see Alberta and Saskatchewan indulging in. They are thinking exactly the same thing: they feel pushed around, so they lash out and do something dumb: effectively raise energy prices by limiting exports.

An eye for an eye leaves both sides blind.

The indirect benefits are those of being part of a community of provinces which at least attempt to cooperate for the common good: BC gets the benefit of being a part of "Canada", a larger entity on the world stage than "BC", and so able to (presumably) negotiate from a position of greater strength than an individual province could; if BC is required to bend to accommodate Alberta, presumably on other issues Alberta will be required to bend to accommodate BC; etc.

*That is, acknowledging that the environmental concerns are in fact something that can be mitigated against. If they can't, then there is a very good reason to block it. As it is, the suspicion is that BC is simply enacting NIBYism on a provincial scale. 

[Jacob]

Read in The Economist that Kinder Morgan shut down spending on the pipeline to Vancouver.

Yeah, so now the Federal government is exploring options on how to "remove economic risk" for KM. As I understand it, they're basically saying "we'll pick up (some portion of) the tab of the costs while we work through this unfortunate delay." At the same time - and I expect in response to KM's announcement - the Albertan government (recently joined by the Saskatchewan one) is talking tough about taking actions to punish - in this case restricting oil and gas exports so consumers will face significantly increasing gas prices.

[crazy canuck]

If someone can add an argument that it's in BC's economic interest and I'll come around and actually support the pipeline.

The problem is two fold.  First, as I think we discussed before in this thread, the Liberals approved the project and then neither they nor KM made any attempt to follow up to explain the benefits to BC.  If you want a discussion about direct benefits to BC you might want to look a little closer at the economic benefits to indigenous communities along the route.   All first nations through which the Pipeline passes have signed agreements with KM.  I believe 33 within BC and 43 in total.  Here is what a leader of one of those groups has to say as reported in the Vancouver Sun:

The Cheam are one of 43 First Nations that have mutual benefit agreements with Trans Mountain — reportedly worth more than $300 million — that offer skills training for employment, business and procurement opportunities and improvements to local infrastructure.

Primary contractors and First Nations can also jointly bid on pipeline work. Cheam members are engaged in security work along the pipeline with Securigard, he said.

"Our young councillors negotiated with Kinder Morgan for two years to get that agreement for the Cheam," Crey said in an interview. "This is no payoff, we negotiatied hard for what we got."

Premier John Horgan could do real financial harm to First Nations in B.C. by frustrating the pipeline project, he said.

"If this project doesn't go through it will hurt our people," Crey said on Facebook. "It appears that Premier Horgan is prepared to actively undermine the prosperity of First Nations in B.C."

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/environmentalists-red-wash-their-fight-against-pipeline-first-nation-chief-says

The other considerable direct benefit BC gets is an extensive upgrade to its coastal protection of over a billion dollars in federal spending to increase capacity and local infrastructure for those purposes.  That will mitigate the risk of not just the increase in KM traffic but all the other oil tanker traffic which travels down our coast.

Lastly, part of this project is to increase the supply of fuel products directly to the Vancouver area. Right now the supply is constrained. 

There are probably other benefits but those are the obvious ones off the top of my head.


The second problem is that the media here is telling a pretty unbalanced story about the opposition in BC.  It was only recently that the local media (with the exception of a few) have woken up to the fact that the project actually has significant first nations support and I am not sure there is much awareness that the project is supported by all the first nations that will be directly impacted by the project.  In the words of Chief Crey, the environmental movement have done a good job "redwashing" their positions.


There is a good debate to have regarding the proper way to do this.  But the discussion isn't about that anymore.

Read in The Economist that Kinder Morgan shut down spending on the pipeline to Vancouver.

If that is what was printed, it is inaccurate.  KM has suspended "non-essential spending".  It is not clear what that really means because construction is continuing. 

[Jacob]

It is never going to be in the direct economic interest of BC to allow other provinces to ship their stuff through BC to sell it elsewhere ... unless the province charges a buttload of rent for the privilege, I guess. Demanding one is tantamount to refusal. Is there any major economic benefit to Ontario to allowing Albertan wheat to be shipped by rail across the province to be sold elsewhere? I suppose rail fees, but they can't amount to very much. If Ontario were to block such shipments, and demand that Alberta prove they were valuable for Ontario, it would be understandable if Alberta was annoyed by such an act. 

However, failing to allow it for no very good reason* beggars your neighbors, and engaging in beggar-your-neighbor games is stupid. It leads to the same sort of stupidity you see Alberta and Saskatchewan indulging in. They are thinking exactly the same thing: they feel pushed around, so they lash out and do something dumb: effectively raise energy prices by limiting exports.

An eye for an eye leaves both sides blind.

The indirect benefits are those of being part of a community of provinces which at least attempt to cooperate for the common good: BC gets the benefit of being a part of "Canada", a larger entity on the world stage than "BC", and so able to (presumably) negotiate from a position of greater strength than an individual province could; if BC is required to bend to accommodate Alberta, presumably on other issues Alberta will be required to bend to accommodate BC; etc.

*That is, acknowledging that the environmental concerns are in fact something that can be mitigated against. If they can't, then there is a very good reason to block it. As it is, the suspicion is that BC is simply enacting NIBYism on a provincial scale.

There is, as I understand it, little risk associated with wheat shipments. The crux of my concern is the risk associated with increased oil transport.

If there is a major oil spill - either at the pipe or from one of the tankers (we're looking at a fourfold increase in tanker traffic) that could have serious economic costs for BC through loss of tourism and loss of fisheries. This 2017 article from Maclean's puts some numbers to the scenarios.

The Exxon Valdez spill cost $3.5 billion to clean up. If something like that happens in the Burrard Inlet or the Georgia Strait how much of that cost is going to be borne by BC? Beyond that, the impact on the economy of the province and quality of life of millions is going to significantly suffer in that kind of scenario. What are the plans for mitigating the risk, and for responding effectively in the case of leaks or spills?

If the pipeline scenario had started with a an acknowledgement of our concerns and a clearly set out set of plans (with attached funding) for how to manage the risks and respond in case of emergency I would have shrugged and gone with a "yeah, the national interest - Alberta's oil is important and besides, I do drive a car and all" but so far all we've gotten is "shut up and take it." I mean, for all I know there exists such plans and funding - but it's not something anyone has taken the time to explain or verify as being adequate.

So yeah - I don't want significantly increased risks of major ecological and economical damage in my home without some clearly explained and verified measures in place on how to mitigate those risks. I don't think that's particularly unreasonable thing to ask for.

[Jacob]

... running to a meeting right now, but from skimming CC's post that's what I've been looking for.

[crazy canuck]

It is never going to be in the direct economic interest of BC to allow other provinces to ship their stuff through BC to sell it elsewhere ... unless the province charges a buttload of rent for the privilege, I guess. Demanding one is tantamount to refusal. Is there any major economic benefit to Ontario to allowing Albertan wheat to be shipped by rail across the province to be sold elsewhere? I suppose rail fees, but they can't amount to very much. If Ontario were to block such shipments, and demand that Alberta prove they were valuable for Ontario, it would be understandable if Alberta was annoyed by such an act. 

However, failing to allow it for no very good reason* beggars your neighbors, and engaging in beggar-your-neighbor games is stupid. It leads to the same sort of stupidity you see Alberta and Saskatchewan indulging in. They are thinking exactly the same thing: they feel pushed around, so they lash out and do something dumb: effectively raise energy prices by limiting exports.

An eye for an eye leaves both sides blind.

The indirect benefits are those of being part of a community of provinces which at least attempt to cooperate for the common good: BC gets the benefit of being a part of "Canada", a larger entity on the world stage than "BC", and so able to (presumably) negotiate from a position of greater strength than an individual province could; if BC is required to bend to accommodate Alberta, presumably on other issues Alberta will be required to bend to accommodate BC; etc.

*That is, acknowledging that the environmental concerns are in fact something that can be mitigated against. If they can't, then there is a very good reason to block it. As it is, the suspicion is that BC is simply enacting NIBYism on a provincial scale.

There is, as I understand it, little risk associated with wheat shipments. The crux of my concern is the risk associated with increased oil transport.

If there is a major oil spill - either at the pipe or from one of the tankers (we're looking at a fourfold increase in tanker traffic) that could have serious economic costs for BC through loss of tourism and loss of fisheries. This 2017 article from Maclean's puts some numbers to the scenarios.

The Exxon Valdez spill cost $3.5 billion to clean up. If something like that happens in the Burrard Inlet or the Georgia Strait how much of that cost is going to be borne by BC? Beyond that, the impact on the economy of the province and quality of life of millions is going to significantly suffer in that kind of scenario. What are the plans for mitigating the risk, and for responding effectively in the case of leaks or spills?

If the pipeline scenario had started with a an acknowledgement of our concerns and a clearly set out set of plans (with attached funding) for how to manage the risks and respond in case of emergency I would have shrugged and gone with a "yeah, the national interest - Alberta's oil is important and besides, I do drive a car and all" but so far all we've gotten is "shut up and take it." I mean, for all I know there exists such plans and funding - but it's not something anyone has taken the time to explain or verify as being adequate.

So yeah - I don't want significantly increased risks of major ecological and economical damage in my home without some clearly explained and verified measures in place on how to mitigate those risks. I don't think that's particularly unreasonable thing to ask for.

There has been exactly two major shipping incidents in the history of this coast (and the Alaska coast) despite all the oil tanker traffic which travels our coastline.  You mentioned the Exxon Valdez.  that was caused because the person in charge was drunk.  The second was a vessel that lost power but assistance was rendered in time to avoid a major incident.  The plan for these vessels is that they must have Vancouver Port pilots and that they be accompanied by two tugs at all times - one tied to the vessel and one ready to lend assistance.  I am not sure what possible shipping risk there could be other than an intentional act of sabotage.

[Malthus]

There is, as I understand it, little risk associated with wheat shipments. The crux of my concern is the risk associated with increased oil transport.

Depends on what you mean by "risk". In terms of actual risk of (say) being killed, there is no comparison: rail transport is far, far more risky.

Rail transport kills far more people each and every year than pipelines.

For example, rail transport killed 66 people in Canada for the last year stats are available (2016).

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/stats/rail/2016/sser-ssro-2016.asp

How many have been killed by pipelines?

http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/stats/pipeline/2013/sspo-2013.asp

The last fatal accident on a federally-regulated pipeline system occurred in 1988.

How about transportation of oil by rail across Ontario and Quebec--which is also a "thing"? It, too, is far more risky than pipelines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster

If there is a major oil spill - either at the pipe or from one of the tankers (we're looking at a fourfold increase in tanker traffic) that could have serious economic costs for BC through loss of tourism and loss of fisheries. This 2017 article from Maclean's puts some numbers to the scenarios.

The Exxon Valdez spill cost $3.5 billion to clean up. If something like that happens in the Burrard Inlet or the Georgia Strait how much of that cost is going to be borne by BC? Beyond that, the impact on the economy of the province and quality of life of millions is going to significantly suffer in that kind of scenario. What are the plans for mitigating the risk, and for responding effectively in the case of leaks or spills?

If the pipeline scenario had started with a an acknowledgement of our concerns and a clearly set out set of plans (with attached funding) for how to manage the risks and respond in case of emergency I would have shrugged and gone with a "yeah, the national interest - Alberta's oil is important and besides, I do drive a car and all" but so far all we've gotten is "shut up and take it." I mean, for all I know there exists such plans and funding - but it's not something anyone has taken the time to explain or verify as being adequate.

So yeah - I don't want significantly increased risks of major ecological and economical damage in my home without some clearly explained and verified measures in place on how to mitigate those risks. I don't think that's particularly unreasonable thing to ask for.

But that's not what I was reacting to.

I was reacting to the idea that a pipeline has to have some sort of direct economic benefit, even assuming the environmental concerns are remediated.

We all agree that if the environmental concerns are significant and un-remediated, that's a quite legitimate reason to oppose the pipeline ... but you gotta be fair about it and admit that every single form of transportation known to man is subject to its own risks.

We central Canadians risk getting smashed by trains at crossings (or in one notable case, having our town destroyed in a flaming rail crash) because we allow rail cars loaded with stuff to cross our provinces ... fair enough for us to demand high levels of oversight and safety in return; but not to use that as an excuse to prohibit railways altogether!

[Barrister]

Approving a pipeline has to be about more than "just what's in it for me".  That kind of attitude just beggars your neighbors.  Even if the next economic benefit to BC is zero, as long as the pipeline is safe it should be approved.

And remember - this isn't a new pipeline!  They just want to twin an existing pipeline.

[crazy canuck]

And remember - this isn't a new pipeline!  They just want to twin an existing pipeline.

Well yes and no.  They are going to replace an aging pipeline that actually needs to be replaced (something that gets completely lost) and at the same time twin it.  The route is actually going to be somewhat different from what exists now.   Largely because modern construction methods allows for a better route.

[Jacob]

I was reacting to the idea that a pipeline has to have some sort of direct economic benefit, even assuming the environmental concerns are remediated.

I see. Well to clarify, then: I don't think the pipeline has to have some sort of direct economic benefit. However, if it does it becomes easier to argue for it, especially if combined with proper risk mitigation. If it does have such benefits (past a certain threshold), then I'd personally be a supporter of the pipeline as being in BC's interest (in addition to Alberta's and the Nation's).

Lacking direct economic benefit but with proper risk mitigation in place, my personal attitude would be one of reluctant acceptance.

[Jacob]

The problem is two fold.  First, as I think we discussed before in this thread, the Liberals approved the project and then neither they nor KM made any attempt to follow up to explain the benefits to BC.  If you want a discussion about direct benefits to BC you might want to look a little closer at the economic benefits to indigenous communities along the route.   All first nations through which the Pipeline passes have signed agreements with KM.  I believe 33 within BC and 43 in total.  Here is what a leader of one of those groups has to say as reported in the Vancouver Sun:

The Cheam are one of 43 First Nations that have mutual benefit agreements with Trans Mountain — reportedly worth more than $300 million — that offer skills training for employment, business and procurement opportunities and improvements to local infrastructure.

Primary contractors and First Nations can also jointly bid on pipeline work. Cheam members are engaged in security work along the pipeline with Securigard, he said.

"Our young councillors negotiated with Kinder Morgan for two years to get that agreement for the Cheam," Crey said in an interview. "This is no payoff, we negotiatied hard for what we got."

Premier John Horgan could do real financial harm to First Nations in B.C. by frustrating the pipeline project, he said.

"If this project doesn't go through it will hurt our people," Crey said on Facebook. "It appears that Premier Horgan is prepared to actively undermine the prosperity of First Nations in B.C."

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/environmentalists-red-wash-their-fight-against-pipeline-first-nation-chief-says

This is definitely compelling to me.

So far, I've spoken mostly from a Vancouver based perspective, but the interests of the First Nations - both independently as per their rights and as part of the larger BC fabric - is very important to my perspective.

If - as you say (and I have no reason to doubt you) - all the First Nations along the route are in favour then that's huge from my POV. It's somewhat at odds with what I'm passively seeing in the media around here where the First Nation's interests are generally positioned as being "land defenders" against the pipeline. I'm not quite sure how to square that apparent contradiction - I suppose they're from First Nations whose territories are not crossed by the pipeline, and they're getting involved anyhow?

The other considerable direct benefit BC gets is an extensive upgrade to its coastal protection of over a billion dollars in federal spending to increase capacity and local infrastructure for those purposes.  That will mitigate the risk of not just the increase in KM traffic but all the other oil tanker traffic which travels down our coast.

We're getting $1 billion dollars in federal spending for coast protection? Great! I wonder why that's not consistently part of Trudeau and Notley's message because that's certainly been buried in the coverage I've seen and that information has a significant impact on my position on the issue - and, I expect, will have an impact on the position of others as well.

I'd obviously like a bit more detail on it - ideally with some expert input - to convince myself that it's adequate and sufficient and so on, but on the face of it that sounds great.

Lastly, part of this project is to increase the supply of fuel products directly to the Vancouver area. Right now the supply is constrained.

Sounds like a plus. Not enough to move the needle by itself for me, but still in the positive column.

The second problem is that the media here is telling a pretty unbalanced story about the opposition in BC.  It was only recently that the local media (with the exception of a few) have woken up to the fact that the project actually has significant first nations support and I am not sure there is much awareness that the project is supported by all the first nations that will be directly impacted by the project.  In the words of Chief Crey, the environmental movement have done a good job "redwashing" their positions.

Yeah, I'm not too keen on the "redwashing" gambit at all. As I said, I'd be very curious about who the FN opposed to the pipeline are. The cynic in me suspects they're neighbours who're complaining because they're not getting a cut, but I have no doubt some of the opposition is genuine - but I'm still curious what their argument is.

Other than the piece you linked, are you aware of any other good coverage the digs into this?

There is a good debate to have regarding the proper way to do this.  But the discussion isn't about that anymore.

I'd still like to have this discussion, in spite of the noise. Much as the "we'll punish you at the pumps" thing annoys me, if the First Nations whose territory is crossed are in support - and benefit financially - AND there's adequate risk mitigation being put in place (and being funded) then yeah I'm in favour of the pipeline.

If that is what was printed, it is inaccurate.  KM has suspended "non-essential spending".  It is not clear what that really means because construction is continuing.

I think that may have been a move by KM to ratchet things up a notch - to get the Albertans and the Feds riled up a bit (or at least their publics) - to move things forward on the political side of things. Seems to have worked too.

[Jacob]

There has been exactly two major shipping incidents in the history of this coast (and the Alaska coast) despite all the oil tanker traffic which travels our coastline.  You mentioned the Exxon Valdez.  that was caused because the person in charge was drunk.  The second was a vessel that lost power but assistance was rendered in time to avoid a major incident.  The plan for these vessels is that they must have Vancouver Port pilots and that they be accompanied by two tugs at all times - one tied to the vessel and one ready to lend assistance.  I am not sure what possible shipping risk there could be other than an intentional act of sabotage.

That's legit.

My perception of the risks involved may be askew. I'm happy to have it put into context.

EDIT to add: when I posted first I'd just moved from "yeah the pipeline is going to happen and that's okay, no big deal" to "wtf Alberta screw your bullying ways, take your pipeline and shove it". You've talked me back down to "yeah it's going to happen and that's okay, no big deal" - I'll still be annoyed if gas jumps to $2/L or whatever, but I'll deal.