Tag Archives: Enbridge

Premier Clark Buys Time on Enbridge

Uncategorized,
Share

Premier Clark’s fight with Alberta Premier Redford over the Northern Gateway project is a very dangerous ploy. She has, by this action, said plainly that the BC environment is open to bids in exchange for the desecration of our province. We are the hooker bargaining over the price of services.

The Premier’s environmental stipulations will cause no concerns with Alberta, Ottawa or Enbridge. Of course they will agree to these terms including a clause re cost of damage – those promises are easy to make and easy to ignore. Once the bitumen starts to flow, how do you enforce any agreement?

The four salient facts remain – spills by Enbridge’s own admission are inevitable, the terrain is inaccessible, the bitumen is highly toxic and all but impossible to clean up, and once the pipeline is operative we will have serial spills, each time adding to existing spill damage.

The spat the premier has launched with Alberta Premier Redford is strictly political with the object of Clark and the Liberals getting better polling numbers.

Unfortunately for the premier, this is like sex – great while it lasts. What we’ve heard from Premier Redford is simply the first round of a long bidding exercise. It must be remembered that Premier Redford did, a few months ago, offer to help build the necessary docking facilities in Kitimat. (That strikes me as an offer to dig your grave and supply a headstone if you would be so kind as to commit suicide!)

What Premier Clark has done is buy a bit of political time in the hope that when next May’s election comes around she will look as if she’s valiantly defending BC’s integrity.

The fact is she has BC in a process it should never be in – trading BC’s environment in exchange for unenforceable and useless environmental safeguards – and money, the amount and payer(s) to be determined. She is doing this not in our province’s interest but that of her party and herself.

This is vintage Liberal stuff – the first priority is always to get elected.

I don’t believe that this ploy will work. The opposition to the Northern Gateway (Enbridge) and tanker traffic is too great.

The responsible course – and one which would have helped her and her party considerably the long run, i.e. next May’s election, would have been to announce that the Liberal government was opposed to the entire Northern Gateway initiative and that in that respect the government and the opposition were agreed.

The general fainting spell this would bring would quickly pass and the NDP would have lost its initiative on this issue.

Alas, such responsible positions don’t happen in BC politics.

Share
Premiers Christy Clark and Alison Redford have been engaged in a war of words recently over Enbridge's proposed pipeline (photo: 24hrs)

Cross-Border Deals with Alberta Undermine Clark’s Tougher Stance on Enbridge

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western Canada, , , ,
Share

Christy Clark claims she will stop the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline, despite existing agreements of her government’s own making, exposing British Columbia to millions in penalties.

“Well it stops right here then,” blares the unelected Premier’s quote in Tuesday’s Globe and Mail under the provocative headline “Premiers quarrel over resource revenue threatens to scuttle pipeline.”   

Christy goes into more detail in the Vancouver Sun: “If Alberta doesn’t decide they want to sit down and engage, the project stops. It’s as simple as that,’ she goes on when asked what she can do about it. Clark said the province needs to issue about 60 permits for it to go ahead, and BC Hydro needs to provide power.” 

Clark and her minions see the writing on the wall and its not good – they have decided to start standing up to Albertans and showing them who’s boss. That’s the ticket – British Columbians will love that, or at least that is what her most recent communications adviser must believe.

Clark, renowned “communicator” after her politically strategic stint in radio, has failed to connect with British Columbians and just last month she traded in Harper’s communications hacks for Gordon Campbell’s old spin doctor. That was her third shuffle in communications staff during her short reign. She is desperate and this new positioning on Enbridge reflects it.

She is so desperate it seems she is taking late night calls from Mike Klassan, co-founder of the City Caucus website, who foreshadowed precisely what we are seeing Clark do today when he wrote this advice way back in May:

As her government enters the final year of its mandate, Christy Clark must take bold steps on the energy file. The kind of deal that most British Columbians wish for is within her grasp, if she so chooses.

Clark must invite Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Alberta Premier Alison Redford, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall and representatives of Canada’s petroleum industry sector to tour Burrard Inlet to see first-hand what is at stake for B.C. There could be no better backdrop than our pristine coastline for this conversation.

In order to stabilize the access to markets, British Columbia must be an equal partner. Premier Clark should therefore propose a Western Petroleum Export Accord that sees a fair share of oil industry profits invested in B.C.

Make no mistake, Monday’s media charade and subsequent political positioning was not a result of anything new as Environment Minister Terry Lake claimed, nor is it due to the “Keystone Kops” stunning incompetence, resulting in a half a billion more dollars in new safety cash from Enbridge. It is, rather, pure politics and the right has been working overtime for many months trying to pull their electoral fortunes out of the fire.

The oil and gas agenda under the BC Liberals has been a stealth agenda, and they are so far out ahead of the public dialogue and processes that convincing British Columbians they somehow have a say or any influence is a real challenge, even for Christy. Her claims in light of Alberta’s refusal to negotiate are hollow and risky. Here are just three of many reasons why:

1) TILMA / NWPTA

The original TILMA (Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement) deal between BC and Alberta was eagerly ushered in by the BC Liberals, who even invoked closure to end debate and railroad it through, despite cries of protest from all corners. The agreement dictates that any impediments at any level of government that works to restrict the free flow of trade deals will result in serious penalties. Clark cannot suggest she was not aware of this because since she started steering the Liberal’s sinking ship she has appointed 5 people to TILMA boards who would mete out such penalties.

TILMA was the predecessor to the NWPTA (New West Partnership Trade Agreement), which was also boosted by the Liberals as imperative to the development of Western Canada into an economic powerhouse. And that does not mean we needed agreements to get Alberta beef flowing – it was all about oil and gas. Christy suggests her government can halt the project by restricting power and permits, which would result in penalties as high as 5 million dollars as outlined in this agreement

Moreover under Chrisy’s leadership, the New West Partnership Agreement resulted in a bricks-and-mortar office in Shanghai, strange because it’s not called the New West and East Asia Agreement, but that is what Clark turned it into. This NWPTA Shanghai office is supposed to be up and running this year. Seems a bit odd to stop projects this far evolved with so much already invested and with risk of such stiff penalties while alienating her new friends in Shanghai. Redford gently reminded Christy of this fact when she stated publicly, “We’ve worked very hard through our New West Partnership to ensure free trade across the BC/Alberta/Saskatchewan borders and the shared economic rewards have been great for our citizens. Leadership is not about dividing Canadians and pitting one province against another—leadership is about working together.”

2) Equivalency Agreement

Just as the ink was dry on the NWPTA, ensuring Alberta no impediment in trade deals that required access and right-of-way through British Columbia, another agreement was immediately pursued by the BC Liberals, the details of which I have previously written about in these pages. This deal forfeits British Columbia’s capacity to influence and/or assess the Enbridge pipeline project specifically, along with three other major projects. I guess the NWPTA was not enough to provide certainty to oilmen, therefore another agreement was required that clearly spelled out that BC has no say in these infrastructure projects.

The deal was done in stealth fashion while the Liberals were receiving awards and recognition from prominent enviro’ish activists for their “clean energy” agenda, and while the Premier was secretly arranging another off-the-record meeting after having been tapped by the Bilderberg group to attend their stealthy confab. And just like we never heard anything about sending our premier off to meet with the richest most powerful people on earth, we did not hear anything about his party’s agenda to usher in the oil and gas era at the expense of our environment, economy and sovereignty.

3) Jurisdictional wrangling

When it comes to these “heavy oil pipelines”, the jurisdictional wrangling has been treated like a hot potato during a game of musical chairs. And when the music stops Clark will be left standing with a spud in her hand. It’s a bit confusing to say the least. Which of course is by design. This is what Trillions of dollars – with a “T” – does to grownups. Obfuscation is the order of the day. Regardless of who anybody thinks is ultimately responsible, the facts are the two agreements above tie the hands of British Columbians and Chisty is simply orchestrating a media charade designed to make her appear as if she has some backbone and is taking on the world’s most powerful forces on behalf of British Columbians. Which of course is pure poppycock. It’s all politics – an illusion – designed to forward the aggressive oily agenda and somehow salvage Christy’s quickly crashing political career.

So thorough was the work of this Liberal government ensuring the legal and administrative stage was set for the oil and gas agenda, upon becoming leader of the opposition, Adrian Dix ( a renowned policy wonk and one of the sharpest minds in the pointy buildings) was unable to get his head around how the work could be undone. Dix was forced to appoint a team of lawyers to gain insight into how we might actually regain any ability whatsoever to make decisions about what happens on our land and with our coast or how we might wrestle back a modicum of control over our future.

The key to avoiding penalties under the TILMA/NWPA is to revoke the Equivalency Agreement. I have written about here and here and others such as Robyn Allan have brought to the Premier’s attention. I suspect the legal team will have more to say about that, but for now it is simply stunning that Clark would threaten Alberta and these economic development projects while leaving BC exposed to such stiff penalties, all simply to salvage her political career.

Share
Enbridge CEO Patrick Daniel may be unable to undo the damage of the NTSB's scathing report on his company's spill in Michigan's Kalamazoo River

Keystone Kops

Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, ,
Share

A “Keystone Kops” fiasco is the expression used by Debbie Hersman, Chairperson of the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), to describe “Enbridge’s poor handling” of their huge oil spill in Michigan’s Kalamazoo River on July 10, 2010. Indeed, the whole matter would have been a comedy of errors had the spill been something innocuous. It wasn’t. It was more than 3 million litres of “dilbit”, a thick goo from Alberta’s tar sands diluted with solvent to make it fluid enough to move through pipelines.

Enbridge handled the spill like true comedians, a routine they had apparently been perfecting since 2004. In that year, they detected corrosion in the pipe that eventually burst but “took advantage” of lax regulations and failed to do repairs. In 2005, they identified 1.3 metres of cracking in the same area but again neglected repairs — when profit is more important than safety, why repair what isn’t yet broken?
When the pipe did rupture on July 10th, a full 17 hours and 19 minutes lapsed before they shut off the oil. This time delay represented three shifts of employees, none of whom seemed to pay attention to the alarms — unbelievably, they pumped additional oil into the pipeline twice to compensate for the drop in pressure. Even then, it took someone from a natural gas company to advise them they had oil gushing into the Kalamazoo River.

The senior vice president of operations at Enbridge, Leon Zupan, testified to the NTSB, “[W]e had people that were really trying hard to do what they thought was the right thing, but they needed more technical support, they needed more management support, they needed more technical training, and they needed to be clear about what our expectations were in terms of following procedure…. [I]t’s clear to us we could have done more to train and support those people.” Obviously, no one had a clue about what they were doing. Enbridge’s clean-up costs on the Kalamazoo River are currently at more than $800 million.
And this is the company that wants to build the 1,172 km Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta to BC’s coast, through some of the most remote, wild and difficult terrain on the planet.

Enbridge’s competence in promoting oil pipelines, however, may far exceed their ability to prevent spills. Their warm and reassuring advertisements are peppering the media with images of pristine scenes of wilderness just waiting to be made useful by corporate kindness. “Where energy meets nature” is one comforting theme. For anyone worried about the effect a pipeline might have on nature, Enbridge makes the lavish promise that, “We will plant a tree for every tree we remove.” And for anyone dubious about such lofty intentions, Enbridge is quick to remind the doubtful reader that, “It’s a bold promise,” they boast, “but one that will play an integral role for our company into the future.” And if that doesn’t convert the cynic, be assured that, “It’s commitments like this that will help ensure that future generations continue to enjoy our natural spaces.”

But Robyn Allan, a noted Canadian economist, in her analysis of Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project, has some insights that deserve serious consideration. The environmental damage from inevitable spills is self-evident. The damning report by the NTSB on Michigan’s Kalamazoo River spill highlights Enbridge’s systemic ineptitude and cavalier attitude about safety. And, in an earlier analysis, Allan concluded that the Northern Gateway project will shift Western Canada’s oil pricing structure from the lower West Texas Intermediate to the higher world market Brent structure, adding $2-3 to the cost of each barrel of oil. But Allan recently identified a less obvious example of corporate cunning.

The Northern Gateway project, she contends, is designed as a separate corporate entity to be entirely independent of Enbridge. As such, Enbridge would not be responsible for any environmental damage accruing from a Northern Gateway pipeline spill. Unlike the Kalamazoo spill, in which the wealthy corporate body of Enbridge must assume liability for the damage, the cost of the damage from a Northern Gateway spill would be limited by the assets of only that single legal entity. It has no value beyond itself. If Northern Gateway causes a spill and is shut down because of safety concerns, its value disappears, and its ability to make restitution evaporates like the solvent in the oily goop that would be despoiling BC’s wilderness.

If Allan’s analysis of this corporate structure is correct, then Enbridge is a bit smarter than the “Keystone Kops” and BC has yet another reason to doubt the wisdom of allowing the construction of the Northern Gateway pipeline.

Share

BC Liberal Government Surrenders to Enbridge, Ottawa

Uncategorized,
Share

The BC Liberals have just offered the sword of surrender to Enbridge and Ottawa as the organ-grinder’s monkey, Environment Minister Terry Lake, made clear in a statement today.

Separating the pepper from the fly shit, the Liberals want more money and more environmental safeguards imposed upon Enbridge, which must be severely monitored by the feds. (With the same enthusiasm the Department of Fisheries and Oceans safeguards our Pacific Salmon, no doubt.)

As I said here recently, Premier Clark has declared that BC is a whore, the only thing to be decided being how much?

Let me place matters on the table once more:

  1. There will be ruptures in this 1,100 km. pipeline by the admission of Enbridge and now conceded as the only possible inference to be drawn from Lake’s statement demanding better clean-up arrangements.
  2. This pipeline goes over two mountain ranges and through a dense wilderness and is inaccessible to any cleanup undertaking. To make this plain to this corrupt bunch, you cannot get to the spills.
  3. Such is the nature of the bitumen to be piped you can’t clean it up even if you could get to it.
  4. The pipeline becomes a permanent serial polluter with one environmental catastrophe following another.

Of course Premier Clark will have her “demands” met.

More money is a slam dunk because there’s a hell of a lot of it available. It will start with offers to build the port facilities at Kitimat – which is sort of like offering to donate your the grave and headstone if you’ll commit suicide. There will be royalty sharing offered along with lots of cash to buy off First Nations.

Of course the feds and Enbridge will meet the demands in the press release which were:

The province wants limits to liability in the event of an oil spill to ensure there are sufficient financial resources to properly address the effects of a spill and it is calling for increased federal government response.

B.C. also wants tougher federal rules requiring industry to provide and replace marine response equipment.

And the province wants a Natural Resources Damage Assessment process to give certainty that a responsible party will address all costs associated with a spill.

The naiveté is breathtaking! Why, I imagine Prime Minister Harper will even say “cross my heart and hope to die” when he makes the solemn pledges!

This is an act of craven cowardice to help the bedraggled, leader challenged BC Liberals for the May 2013 election.

Harper will come up with oodles of safeguards just as the BC government did with fish farms and will pursue them with the same diligence his government and the BC government has with the Fish Farmers.

I don’t mean to be rude, folks, but how do you compensate for lost or badly polluted fish habitat, starving caribou and polluted rivers? How do you put a dollar figure on shattered ecologies? How do you compensate First Nations for lost hunting grounds? How do you compensate the tourist industry for their lost revenues?

Perhaps most importantly, what is the going rate for a province that has just sold its soul?

Premier Clark and her bedraggled, divided gutless cabinet and caucus have sold us out in hopes they can rally the right wing back into the fold and you can bet the ranch that Harper will go easy on the BC government when the HST expires next April as part of this surrender package.

Our provincial government, in place to protect our province’s integrity has, as predicted, sold us out for a mess of pottage in a sorry attempt to save its grubby political hide.

Share

Vaughn Palmer on Christy Clark’s Secret Discussions with Alberta Premier on Enbridge

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Tar Sands, Western Canada, , , ,
Share

Read this column from Vaughn Palmer, suggesting the revelation of a secret visit BC Premier Christy Clark paid to her Alberta counterpart Alison Redford on the Enbridge pipeline reinforces her reputation for indecisiveness. Clark’s “fence-sitting” on the proposed Enbridge pipeline has been “incredibly frustrating”, says Redford. (July 20, 2012)

VICTORIA – For a premier who promised that openness would be one of the watchwords of her administration, Christy Clark cannot have been happy with the front-page story in the Edmonton Journal Friday.

“Why the need for secrecy?” asked the headline atop a piece by columnist Graham Thomson on Clark’s unannounced visit to Alberta Premier Alison Redford to discuss the running controversy over the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway oil pipeline.

The details were embarrassing enough. Clark’s office asking Redford to keep the visit secret. The B.C. premier ducking in and out of a side door to avoid the cameras. The bait-and-switch ruse with two SUVs to throw reporters off the track.

But while Clark was avoiding the media Thursday, Redford volunteered an account of the meeting that was far from flattering to her visitor from B.C. The Alberta premier professed a reluctance to put words into Clark’s mouth even as she proceeded to do just that.

“She feels right now … a fair amount of pressure to be making comment with respect to this,” said Redford, referencing the pipeline. “A lot of what I think she wanted to chat about today was her ongoing concern as the premier of B.C. with respect to what’s going on with Enbridge and what her thinking is about that. She wants to make sure that she’s holding them to some pretty strict environmental standards.”

Not content to provide a summary of her B.C. counterpart’s concerns — consultations with first nations and making sure there were stringent protocols to deal with spills — Redford then proceeded to offer some “if I were in her shoes” advice.

“I would be trying to set in place a set of conditions that from my perspective would allow the project to go ahead but that would work with industry, not just Enbridge but other companies that are looking at pipelines in B.C., to try to come up with a framework that makes sense to let that investment come into the province. And I think she’s sorting that out.”

Redford framed her disappointment with Clark — “it’s incredibly frustrating to me” — as having arisen out of the B.C. government’s continued fence-sitting on the pipeline. But I have to think those frustrations were also conditioned by Clark’s recent critical comments about Enbridge.

For Clark is sounding increasingly hostile to the proposal, a point that she reinforced in an interview this week with Jason Fekete of Postmedia News: “Based on what we know now, I don’t think British Columbians think the balance of risks and benefits is an acceptable one.”

 

Share

CTV Video: Harper’s Environment Minister Says Support for Enbridge Unchanged in Wake of Scathing US Report

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western Canada, , , ,
Share

Check out this video news story from CTV on the Harper Government’s decision to ignore the damning report out of the US on Enbridge’s poor pipeline safety record. Environment Minister Peter Kent maintains his government’s support for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline is unchanged as the company is roundly criticized for is disastrous spill into the Kalamazoo River in 2012 – even though he acknowledges he hasn’t read the report in question. (July 18)

VANCOUVER — A scathing report out of the United States that criticized just about every aspect of Enbridge Inc.’s response to a pipeline spill in Michigan won’t change the Canadian government’s support for the company’s proposed Northern Gateway project, the federal environment minister said.

A report by U.S. investigators released last week concluded Enbridge (TSX:ENB) bungled its response when millions of litres of oil began to pour in and around the Kalamazoo River in July 2010, comparing the company’s handling of the spill to the “Keystone Kops.”

The report has provided fuel for critics of Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway project, which would carry crude oil along 1,170 kilometres of pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia’s coast. Even B.C.’s premier has demanded answers.

But the report won’t change the opinion of the federal Conservative government, which has hailed the Northern Gateway pipeline as important for the country, said Environment Minister Peter Kent.

“Pipelines are still, by far, the safest way to transport petrochemicals in any form,” Kent said in an interview Wednesday.

Kent said he had yet to read the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board report.

Share

Rafe: Clark has BC Behaving Like a Prostitute on Enbridge, Only Dickering Over Price

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western Canada, , , , ,
Share

I wonder how many of you have come away from making a speech – perhaps the toast to the bride, being presented an award or perhaps just an after dinner speech and said to yourself, “damn … I should have said etc., etc.? I must admit that I’ve often felt that way and, even worse, I suppose, I’ve said to myself, what an idiot I was to say that!
 
In my recent blog on The Common Sense Canadian, I wrote about Premier Clark’s slow turnaround on the Enbridge pipeline case and in a moment I’ll tell you what I should have added.
 
The inadequacies of Clark’s leadership are exposed once more; she cannot bring herself to talk about the tanker traffic in the Inside Passage from Kitimat – or the close to 400 tankers a year through Vancouver harbour and the Salish Sea through the Straits of Juan de Fuca that would result from the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion. Clearly the tanker issue must be dealt with at the same time as Enbridge since, as the song says, “You can’t have one without the other.”
 
Clearly, Premier Clark just doesn’t have the courage to have a position on the issue as a whole.
 
It is not as if this was a complex issue. We know by Enbridge’s own admission that we will have spills from pipelines and common sense and statistics tell us that there will be tanker spills.
 
In the face of these certainties, Premier Clark is talking about insufficient financial benefits, on the assumption that money will compensate us for huge, ongoing tragedies over the 1,100 km of the pipeline and tanker spills – in short, our very soul is at stake and Clark is talking money.
 
Here comes the line I should have used…Premier Clark reminds me of the story where a man asks a lady if she will go to bed with him for $100,000 and she hems and haws, speaks of her needy children and, with apparent reluctance agrees.
 
The man then asks, “Will you then go to bed with me for $100?”
 
The lady is outraged and asks, “What do you think I am, a common prostitute?”
 
“We’ve already established that, ma’am,” says the man. “Now we’re dickering over the price.”
 
Thus the missing line: Premier Clark has declared British Columbia to be a common prostitute and is now ready to dicker.

Share
BC Premier Christy Clark - pictured here with Alberta Premier Alison Redford - has softened her support for Enbridge this past week

Rafe Responds to Liberals’ Shifting Position on Enbridge: Clark Still Missing the Mark

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western Canada, , , , ,
Share

I would be delighted to report that Premier Clark’s recent musings about the proposed Enbridge pipeline were a positive step but unfortunately must report that she misses the point – badly.
 
Her position evidently is that BC is not benefiting sufficiently from the pipeline.
 
The first and fatal flaw is that she doesn’t include tanker traffic, for if Enbridge goes through it must be accompanied by tanker traffic or the whole exercise is pointless.
 
The second and also fatal flaw is that the Premier puts the argument in monetary terms. Enbridge itself admits that it will have leaks in the same way an airplane company will have crashes. This is the critical point, for to say we’re not getting enough money from Enbridge says that we’re OK with a spill here and there as long as we’re adequately compensated. This will result in Enbridge, the government of Alberta and Ottawa coming up with a compensation package suitable to the Clark government.
 
Let’s remember three things: there will be spills, they will be in places no clean-up crew can reach, and there is no way bitumen, freed from the condensate which allows it to be piped, can be cleaned up anyway.
 
Never mind the terrible response by Enbridge to its Kalamazoo spill – the message there is that clean-up, even in a readily accessible location, can never happen. To that gloomy fact, add the admission by Enbridge and remember that there will be many spills over the years and, because cleanup is impossible, we will have more and more of our wilderness destroyed. We’ll be looking at Enbridge, a serial polluter, with the only questions being when and how bad.
 
I, for one, care about our land and the ecologies it supports, such that to me money doesn’t even enter the discussion.
 
What Premier Clark is doing is looking for a price for our wilderness and I say that this is irrelevant – no price is enough.

Share

NHL Hall of Famer Mike Richter Speaks Out Against Enbridge

Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, , ,
Share

Check out this new 3 min video from Pacific Wild and Damien Gillis, featuring NHL Hall of Fame goaltender Mike Richter sharing his once-in-a-lifetime experience in Canada’s Great Bear Rainforest – threatened by the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and supertankers. The video is the first in a new series titled, “Voices for an Oil-Free Coast”

 

Share
BC NDP Leader Adrian Dix has tools available to him to stop the Enbridge pipeline (CP photo)

Dix Can Reclaim Control Over Fish, Pipelines and Tankers from Harper

Canada, Energy and Resources, Fisheries, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western Canada, , , ,
Share

Dear Adrian Dix,
 
You and your party have taken a strong stand against the Enbridge Pipeline and tanker issues, for which I applaud you. I think you should broaden this policy, but first some background.
 
Stephen Hume has a fascinating article in the Saturday July 14 Vancouver Sun in which he quotes a man from Kitimat who, with the assistance of a man with mathematical training, vetted by a Mathematics professor at Thompson Rivers University, assessed the risk of spills, ruptures, etc. from the Enbridge Pipeline and tankers out of Kitimat, using Enbridge’s own figures. The results are scary, to say the least. By all means, read the article, but the bottom line is that over 50 years there is an 87% chance of a major spill on land or sea.
 
Here, Mr. Dix, are two other major factors – we know that getting any sort of cleanup on land is virtually non-existent due to the terrain and all but impossible at sea, AND, as Kalamazoo teaches us, there’s very little that can be done to clean up these spills. Very quickly after a spill on water, the bitumen is freed from the condensate which permits it to be piped, and it sinks like a rock.
 
There is one other new factor the BC government must face – almost nil protection of fish and their habitat by The Department of Fisheries and Oceans thanks to Bill C-38.
 
We have a jurisdictional clash here, for under The Constitution Act, federal power over fisheries is paramount but the Provinces have control over “Property and Civil Rights”.
 
Now we get into sticky ground here, but there’s no question in my mind that the Province can and should legislate so as to protect all wildlife, which is its clear right. Hunting laws are provincial as are fishing laws over those which do not go to sea. The dangerous ground is that if the “pith and substance” of your laws was to deal in fisheries over which Ottawa has jurisdiction it might be struck down by the courts.
 
There is absolutely no need to be concerned about that if you proceed properly.
 
Dealing with the pipeline, there is an unquestionable provincial right to protect all fauna and flora. Properly done, this would not be a ruse or look like a ruse to trample on the Federal jurisdiction over fisheries but a legitimate effort to protect our trees and our wildlife. Moreover, how could the feds be heard to complain that the matters under their jurisdiction are being protected?
 
The same argument applies to the coast, where birds and bears depend upon a pristine climate within which to live and eat.
 
Now, what I suggest Mr Dix, is that your legal beagles go to work and prepare draft legislation which could be tabled as a private member’s bill at the next sitting of the legislature – assuming there is one – and made public in the meantime. From a strictly political point of view, I can think of nothing more useful than having the Feds challenge the constitutionality of your position.
 
You should go one step further – return to the local governments their power to permit development in their bailiwicks as they had before the Campbell/Clark government took it away. They did that for the Ashlu private power plant. We know from the result of that project that the fish died in ponds because too much water was sucked out of the river. The Ashlu River would still be free of impediments to fish had the Squamish-Lilloett Regional District’s jurisdiction been honoured.
 
You have spoken loud and clear Mr, Dix – it’s time to put it in writing.

Share