Last week, BC Premier Christy Clark attacked Federal NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair for raising the economic downside of becoming a petro-state – namely, the phenomenon known as “Dutch Disease”. Speaking to CBC’s Evan Solomon, Clark referred to Mulcair as “goofy” for questioning the unrestrained expansion of the Alberta Tar Sands to new markets in Asia.
Read this story from CKNW on the reaction to the Harper Government’s decision to close Kits Point Light Station without public consultation. (May 22, 2012)
The General Manager of the Jericho Sailing Centre says closing the Kits Point Coast Guard station impacts the safety of all marine recreational users.
Mike Cotter says with 250,000 boat launches a year they have their own volunteer rescue team who could now see their number of emergency call outs double.
Cotter says there was certainly no consulation before closing the coast guard station despite comments from Heritage Minister James Moore.
“I am baffled when I see the Ministers comments that this had broad public consulation before hand, it certainly didn’t. Our facility is putting more individuals out on the water for recreation than any other facility in the Vancouver area and this is the first time we have heard of it.”
He says it is disappointing to see a decision like this made in Ottawa by people who have no idea what local needs are.
“I would like to see them come out to Vancouver and take a first hand look at the situation and not sit back in Ottawa and make a decision that really affects people here, safety here. In the face of growth in recreational boating in the growth of marine tanker traffic through Burrard inlet this makes no sense at all.”
Cotter warns the move will negatively impact safety.
“I would like to invite the Minister {James Moore} to come down to Jericho and I will give him a tour in a rescue boat and he can see for himself because I think from his vantage point he is not getting a clear picture.”
He says the coast guard are also first reponders in the event of an oil spill in Burrard inlet and moving them farther away makes no sense.
Read original post: http://www.cknw.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocal/Story.aspx?ID=170744
Read this blog from TheTyee.ca on the Clark Government’s decision not to proceed with an outright ban on cosmetic pesticides after committing to do so last year under pressure from the NDP. (May 18, 2012)
A year ago British Columbia Premier Christy Clark promised a province-wide ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides. But now the government majority on the bi-partisan committee she appointed on the topic has recommended against such a ban.
“The evidence just simply does not support a recommendation to ban pesticides for cosmetic use in British Columbia,” said Bill Bennett, who chaired the Special Committee on Cosmetic Pesticides.
He outlined the arguments the committee heard both for and against such a ban, saying that on balance he didn’t hear anything that persuaded him the provincial government should overrule Health Canada and the federal scientists who make decisions about what pesticides can be sold and used in the country.
“The majority of the committee believed the government should base as much of their environmental policy as possible on science,” he said. “Since this was a legislative committee and since we were unencumbered by pressures from cabinet and from the premier’s office, and since I was lucky enough to have like minded committee members, we made our decisions on our understanding of the science and the process that everyone gets to in terms of their points of view.”
A year ago the NDP opposition proposed a law to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides in the province and Environment Critic Rob Fleming, who was deputy chair of the committee, today said an NDP government would put such a ban in place.
Read more: http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/BC-Politics/2012/05/17/CosmeticClark/
Read this story from the Globe and Mail on the Harper Government’s expected auctioning off oil drilling rights in the Canadian Arctic. (May 16, 2012)
Ottawa has placed 905,000 hectares of the northern offshore up for bids, clearing the way for energy companies to snap up exploration rights for an area half the size of Lake Ontario. The scale of the offer indicates eagerness in the oil patch to drill for new finds in Canada’s northern waters less than two years after such plans were put on hold following the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico and a major Arctic drilling safety review.
The Arctic exploration auction resumes as the Harper government is promoting greater development of the country’s resources. It has taken steps to speed regulatory approvals for major energy projects such as the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, promising to limit the ability of environmental groups and other opponents to block or delay new developments.
The prospect of further northern drilling fits squarely with that mandate, said Jason MacDonald, spokesman for John Duncan, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, which oversees the northern land auction.
“The bid call reflects the potential that we see for resource development,” he said. “The North is home to world-class natural resources that represent a tremendous economic growth and tremendous jobs potential for northerners – and, frankly, for all Canadians.”
The North is in the midst of change, as melting ice promises more open northern shipping routes, which might help companies bring northern oil to global markets.
The Arctic exploration auction resumes as the Harper government is promoting greater development of the country’s resources. It has taken steps to speed regulatory approvals for major energy projects such as the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, promising to limit the ability of environmental groups and other opponents to block or delay new developments.
The prospect of further northern drilling fits squarely with that mandate, said Jason MacDonald, spokesman for John Duncan, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, which oversees the northern land auction.
“The bid call reflects the potential that we see for resource development,” he said. “The North is home to world-class natural resources that represent a tremendous economic growth and tremendous jobs potential for northerners – and, frankly, for all Canadians.”
The North is in the midst of change, as melting ice promises more open northern shipping routes, which might help companies bring northern oil to global markets.
Read this story from Alberta Oil Magazine on BC Premier Christy Clark’s idea that BC could share in resource revenues from Alberta Tar Sands to help compensate the province for risks associated with piping and shipping bitumen across BC and down its coast. (May 14, 2012)
British Columbia Premier Christy Clark is becoming a particularly uncomfortable thorn in Alberta’s side.
In a wide-ranging interview with Brian Hutchinson at the National Post, the B.C. Liberal Party leader suggests – without explicitly saying so – that her government will not lend its support to Enbridge Inc.’s $5.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline without first seeing a commitment to oil sands royalty sharing.
“Because at the moment, what we know about it is, we’re moving an Alberta product through British Columbia, with no value added in our province, and we’re taking 100 per cent of the risk,” she said.
Clark is understandably reluctant to back the Pacific-bound oil sands pipeline. With a provincial election on the horizon, Hutchinson notes, polls show the B.C. Liberals trailing a resurgent New Democratic party. Adrian Dix, the NDP leader, is blunt about his party’s opposition to the Gateway scheme.
From an April 30 caucus letter submitted to the Gateway Joint Review Panel:
We believe that the NGP will cause significant adverse economic and environmental effects and is not in the public interest. Therefore the NGP should not be permitted to proceed.
Against this backdrop, Clark has wholeheartedly endorsed plans to liquefy and ship tanker-loads of super-cooled natural gas to many of the same markets targeted by Enbridge.
The B.C. premier is so enthusiastic about LNG that she is prepared to alter the western province’s climate-change policies to take credit for greenhouse-gas reductions in countries that import B.C. gas, Justine Hunter reports at the Globe and Mail.
Overlooked in her zeal for natural gas – a jobs plan calls for three LNG terminals to be built by 2020 – is the fact that a good deal of B.C. exports currently pass through Alberta (via the Alliance Pipeline) en route to the Chicago market.
Read more: http://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2012/05/b-c-premier-floats-oil-sands-royalty-sharing/
Read this blog from CBC.ca on BC Premier Christy Clark’s recent dismissal of Federal NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair’s concerns about the net economic impacts of unchecked Tar Sands development on Canada’s economy is simply “goofy”. (May 12, 2012)
B.C. Premier Christy Clark is firing back at federal NDP Leader Tom Mulcair, calling his stance on the oilsands “goofy.”
Clark told CBC Radio’s The House that Mulcair’s comments about the negative economic impact of Western Canada’s resource sector on provinces that rely heavily on manufacturing don’t make sense.
“I really thought that type of thinking was discredited and it had been discredited for a long time. It’s so backwards,” Clark said. “I think that’s just goofy.”
Clark was responding to an interview with the NDP leader on CBC Radio’s The House last week. Mulcair told host Evan Solomon that the resource sector in Western Canada is driving up the dollar artificially and straining the manufacturing sector in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.
The Opposition leader compared Canada’s economic realities to “Dutch disease,” referring to the collapse of the Dutch manufacturing sector in the 1960s after oil-industry development raised the country’s currency.
Clark said that comparison isn’t accurate.
“The NDP talk their gobbledygook, but really … they want less economic development,” she said. “We all know it’s a recipe for disaster.”
Clark said British Columbia is stepping up investment in mining and forestry and that Mulcair’s perspective clashes with the province’s philosophy on economic development.
“What I hear him saying is ‘you know Western Canada, we don’t want you to make that big contribution anymore. It distorts our ability to be able to do things in Eastern Canada,'” she said.
“I’m sorry, that is not what this country is built on.”
Clark isn’t the first premier to criticize Mulcair’s comments. Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall said earlier this week that Mulcair’s take on the oilsands is divisive.
“It’s a concern for people out West,” Wall said. “I think his economics are wrong. And there’s a lack of recognition there that the resource strength for Western Canada is a strength for the whole country.”
Clark was set to leave for her second trade mission to Asia on Saturday. She has made exporting Canadian resources to Asia a priority and the route for the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, which would ship crude from the oilsands to the Pacific coast, passes through British Columbia.
Read original post: http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/politics/story/2012/05/12/christy-clark-tom-mulcair-the-house.html
Read this story from the Vancouver Sun on BC NDP Leader Adrian Dix’s decision to seek legal counsel on stopping the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. (May 13, 2012)
B.C. NDP leader Adrian Dix is predicting a “businesslike” relationship with Prime Minister Stephen Harper if the NDP wins next spring’s provincial election, even though he’s investigating ways to challenge a critical component of Harper’s economic plan: Enbridge Inc.’s Northern Gateway pipeline megaproject.
Dix said Friday he’s assembling a legal team headed by Vancouver lawyer Murray Rankin, a specialist in aboriginal, natural resource and environment law, to consider his legal options to oppose the controversial $5.5-billion pipeline proposal now before a federal review panel.
Dix said the legal team is looking at various legalities surrounding the issue, including the federal legislation and the Harper government’s approach to the joint review of the Enbridge proposal by a panel drawn from the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
One matter they’re looking at is a 2010 deal in which the B.C. government said it accepted that a federal environmental review would be equivalent to a B.C. process.
The agreement notes that the federal review will “take into account” the views of the public and first nations. Dix said there may be questions about whether Ottawa has fulfilled that commitment.
The NDP leader had tough words for Ottawa’s handling of environmental reviews of two controversial natural resource projects: Calgary-based Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline and Vancouver-based Taseko’s New Prosperity gold-copper mine.
The Harper government is aggressively championing the pipeline, tabling legislation certain to ease the project through the regulatory review process despite aggressive opposition from many B.C. first nations.
The project is also the centre-piece of Alberta Premier Alison Redford’s so-called national energy strategy, which is seeking cross-Canada approval for infrastructure to get natural resources – especially oilsands crude – to key markets like China.
Read this story from The Canadian Press posted on The Tyee about a new report calling into question the aboriginal treaty process in BC. (May 7, 2012)
VICTORIA – Ottawa needs to consider a flexible exit strategy for British Columbia First Nations frustrated and debt-challenged by slow-moving treaty negotiations, says a special report prepared for federal Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan.
The 47-page report by former Campbell River, B.C., mayor James Lornie, appointed Duncan’s special B.C. treaty representative last year, states First Nations treaty negotiations debt now tops $420 million, which is insurmountable and an unsustainable barrier to reaching treaties.
The report doesn’t suggest dumping the treaty process after more than 20 years of negotiations, but states First Nations need the option to leave the table without feeling intense pressure to pay off debts and with nothing to show after years of talks.
First Nations should also be allowed to return to negotiations at a later date, it adds.
“I consider that the single most important response that the federal government can make is to re-commit to treaty-making as a federal priority, and to commit to that priority at every level of the federal system,” stated Lornie in the report.
Read more: http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Aboriginal-Affairs/2012/05/07/BC_Treaty_Talks/
Check out this new cartoon from Gerry Hummel. Christy Clark says she isn’t taking a position on the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines – but as we revealed this week, this BC Liberal “neutrality” is a myth. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is quite conspicuously throwing everything but the kitchen sink at opponents of the pipeline, causing the mainstream media to begin questioning his tactics.
“The Development of Nothern Gateway is job one.”
– Christy Clark shorty after becoming Premier
“With respect to northern gateway, let me say our government is pro pipeline,” says the Premier of British Columbia.
Christy Clark made this claim in question period last week. She did so while berating the NDP for opposing the project on the grounds that they are doing so prematurely and without adequate information to make an informed opinion.
This is the definitive moment that marks the turning point in the now long standing myth that the BC liberals are “neutral” or have chosen to take “no position” on the Northern Gateway Pipeline. And it was done with the stunning Liberal hypocrisy we have been forced to endure for too long.
By now anyone following the Joint Review Panel on the Northern Gateway Project is well aware that the process is deeply flawed, politically driven and resembles more of a dog and pony show than anything remotely close to an extensive review of the pertinent environmental and economic issues.
The BC Liberals have proven that they do support pipelines, no matter what the cost, just as the Premier admitted in Question Period. They have done so for a long time and with little if any understanding of the far reaching economic and environmental ramifications. And the only reason they cling to a false front of neutrality is to maintain the now long standing cover up of their complicity in advancing pipeline projects.
The myth that they maintain a neutral stance dominates the mainstream barrage of coverage. This is done in order to provide the political escape hatch this government may require in order to cling to power. It also is done to perpetuate the “mass deception” governments, oil and media have undertaken, according to Robyn Allan former ICBC CEO, who has worked to uncover the misdeeds of government and industry boosters.
The time for the Liberal myth of ‘neutrality’ and so called ‘respect for public processes’ has come to an end. This will happen in large part due to the effort of concerned and informed citizens who, at great risk, have not only fully explored the issues but have also uncovered reams of data supporting their claims including unseemly bilateral agreements, extensive economic analysis and strategic components of the proposals that have been kept from the public. The now retired former CEO of ICBC Robyn Allan outlines some of these major concerns in this presentation and her recent open letter to the Premier.
Most recently Ms. Allan has completed a report entitled “Proposed Pipeline and Tanker Spill Risk for BC.” In this exhaustive report Robyn shines the light on how these pipeline proposals have been designed to “low ball” the pipeline capacity in favour of adding additional capacity in the future. This strategy allows for a 60% increase in the daily flow of diluted bitumen in the case of Enbridge’s proposal and in so doing does an end run on exhaustive environmental assessments that would be required had they originally proposed the full capacity. The following is from her report:
There is no reason to believe that the true environmental risk represented by the Northern Gateway Project is being—or ever will be—adequately addressed. The current JRP process has excluded a significant portion of the project’s actual capacity and its implications for pipeline spill and marine spill, while in the future, there is no statutory obligation to do so. All indications from the Federal government suggests there will be no political will either.
Ms. Allan goes on to demand that BC regain its statutory right to a final decision on the Northern Gateway Project:
The government of British Columbia [needs] to take action and protect BC’s statutory right for final decision for this project by removing Northern Gateway from the Equivalency Agreement with
the NEB.
As a result of the fine work of Ms. Allan and others like her, the national and provincial mainstream media has been forced to cover the duplicitous nature of the Liberal stickhandling of this issue despite having moved mountains to maintain the delicate mythology that the liberals have “not taken a position on the issue.” And the blogosphere has lit up (too many to link to) revealing this documentation that proves the Liberals are not only far from neutral but have taken outstanding measures in order to ensure that the pipeline projects proceed virtually unhindered by issues in the best economic interest of British Columbians and our environment.
People concerned about the future of our Province should view Robyn’s presentation and support her recent request for Cabinet to revoke the nearly two year old Equivalency Agreement which diminishes our ability to influence major projects in our Province. Also take the time to read her most recent report and follow up on her request to bring these issues to the attention of the Premier.
And, while we are at it we should encourage the environment Minister to explain why he delegated his Ministerial powers as outlined in section 27 of the act, onto senior staff which enabled the “Equivalency Agreement”, that forfeits our sovereign ability to properly review, participate and influence not just the Northern Gateway Project but four major proposed infrastructure developments. All of which will alter the very fabric of our Province and set BC on a course to a very bleak future. The relevant act clearly outlines the Minister has the right to enter into these agreements, not staff. It seems this was done in order to avoid political scrutiny while greasing the skids for major projects not necessarily in the best interest of British Columbians.
Furthermore, the Equivalency Agreement was absolutely unnecessary as there already was a long-standing agreement in place that would have allowed for Joint Review Panels to be established in order to prevent duplication. Indeed this was the entire purpose of this long standing, renewable agreement. The Minister should explain why he delegated his power to staff to establish the Equivalency Agreement, under what direction and for what purposes given the fact it was entirely unnecessary in order to “avoid duplication” or “streamline” the already entrenched agreement.
Equivalency Agreements were at one time an administrative tool used exclusively by Alberta to allow for that Province to undertake reviews and avoid duplication by the Federal Government. In recent highly contentious legislation, the use of Equivalency Agreements was forwarded by the Harper government to remove the Federal review components on so called “minor projects” making the Provinces sole arbiters. Given that Taseko’s Fish Lake project was rejected by the Federal process but passed the provincial assessment we gain insight into why Harper made these adjustments.
However, in the case of the Equivalency Agreement in British Columbia the exact opposite is occurring and the Province is being cut out of the process in order “to avoid duplication.” This stands in stark contrast to both the traditional application of these agreements and how they are being currently utilized by this government. Our environment Minister needs to clarify why. Otherwise, it seems that not only are they using it to remove the Province from the equation but they are doing so against the grain of the common application of these agreements, while at the same time ignoring the act which dictates the Minister makes these arrangements, not staff.
We should also be asking our Environment Minister when and where the required public notice for this Equivalency Agreement occurred, because in order for an Equivalency Agreement to be enabled it requires notice and a 60 day time period for input on behalf of stakeholders and interested participants.Furthermore, after the 60 day period is complete, the agreement is supposed to be published by the Minister, or put in the Gazette. None of which occurred.
These striking anomalies just scratch the surface of the evidence that the BC Liberals have had an agenda for many years which involved a multi-faceted approach designed to set the legal and administrative stage for the successful development of exhaustive infrastructure projects in order to export Alberta’s Dirty Dilbit. It was done so by intentionally removing the capacity of British Columbian stakeholders to influence the decision making and outcomes while ensuring we had no significant leverage or capacity to negotiate beneficial economic arrangements.
Its time to end the deception and mythology surrounding the future of British Columbia and the oil and gas agenda and start planning a future that benefits all British Columbians.
Kevin Logan was a Ministerial Assistant to former Premier and Minister of Energy Mines and Northern Development Dan Miller.