Tag Archives: Politics

BC Conservative MP James Moore

Conservative MP James Moore Dumps Enbridge for Kinder Morgan, Needs Refresher on Company’s Record

Share

And so it begins.The spin to jettison Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline in favour supposedly “safer” alternatives.

This narrative will play out in two ways. The first was demonstrated by Conservative MP James Moore on CKNW’s Bill Good Show earlier this week (read the full interview here). After slagging Enbridge for its poor public engagement and safety record, the MP for Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam moved onto what he presented as the superior alternative. 

And I think, you asked the question, who else is there out there? I think if you look at the Kinder Morgan pipeline and the way in which they are very judiciously and responsibly engaging with British Columbia’s First Nations, the way in which they’re taking environmental challenges seriously, they way in which they’ve operated for 60 years without any spill—there’s one on land that had nothing to do with Kinder Morgan, but had to do with contractors who were tearing up the streets in Burnaby. There’s a difference, I think, night and day between a company that gets public engagement, Aboriginal engagement, environmental stewardship and Enbridge, which I think their track record is not one that I think any other company should follow if they want to do business in BC.

Bear a few things in mind when you read these extraordinary statements by Mr. Moore. First, Moore, the Federal Heritage Minister, is a rising young star in the Consetvative Party – particularly in BC.

Second, nobody but nobody in Stephen Harper’s button-down caucus opens his mouth – especially about something so key to the Prime Minister’s agenda, not to mention such a hot button issue – without having first received explicit directions to do so from the very highest echelon. What this clearly means is that Moore has been tapped to do Harper’s Enbridge damage control in BC – and the choice of the Bill Good Show to debut this new framing was as calculated as a Catholic Sunday Mass.

The second alternative to the Northern Gateway Pipeline to Kitimat is one that will only work if Enbridge’s reputation is deemed salvageable – and let’s face it, at a spill a week, that’s looking increasingly doubtful. Neverheless, there may well yet be a move to reroute the Kitimat line to Prince Rupert, dumping the perilous planned port at the end of Douglas Channel in favour of a safer harbour just up the coast.

In many ways, Rupert is the more sensible choice, although the pipeline route itself is potentially riskier in this case, transiting several hundred km down the Skeena Valley – a vital salmon artery, rife with geological instability. It is for this reason the Prince Rupert option lost out to Kitimat back in 2005 when both were still on the table.

No matter the comparative safety of the Port of Prince Rupert, many other concerns about the pipeline, the Tar Sands it would carry and whose expansion it would facilitate, and the dangers of a spill in BC’s rugged coastal waters – particularly in Dixon Entrance and Hecate Strait, which the tankers from Prince Rupert would still transit – remain unchanged in this scenario.

Moreover, Enbridge’s credibility remains a major obstacle no matter what. The choice could be made to switch to a different pipeline company altogether, such as TransCanada or Kinder Morgan (the company from whom Kinder bought the Trans Mountain Pipeline, Terasen, had a rival bid to build a pipeline to Rupert in the early 2000s)…but I wouldn’t bet on the Prince Rupert option, for all of the above reasons.

Rather, as James Moore predictably indicated, the twinned Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline to Vancouver would seem to be the alternative the powers that be will most likely glom onto to salvage their dreams of expanding the Alberta Tar Sands and accessing new Asian markets.

It is for that reason Mr. Moore needs a refresher on Kinder Morgan, the Texas-based energy giant that has indicated it wants to boost its bitumen pipeline capacity through BC from 300,000 barrels a day to 850,000, meaning a five-fold increase in tanker traffic through Burrard Inlet, the Gulf Islands and Strait of Juan de Fuca.

Moore was wrong on everything he told Bill Good about Kinder Morgan’s track record.

First, to his claim of good aboriginal engagement on the part of the company, just ask the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation, in whose territory the pipeline terminus lies and the tankers would transit. They came out last month, along with their neighbours the Squamish First Nation, to sign the “Save the Fraser Declaration”, joining over 60 BC First nations who’ve already declared their opposition to oil pipelines and tankers through BC.

The Musqueam First Nation of Vancouver, who also have a big say in the company’s plans, had already signed onto the declaration.

The Tsleil-Waututh have voiced their concern about the lack of consultation they’ve recieved on this matter from the BC Liberal Government and stated in April after the company made its plans official, “We want to make it crystal clear that we will oppose any and all increased oil tanker traffic in the Inlet and we oppose the notion of Kinder Morgan turning Vancouver into an oil port city.”

To Moore’s point that Kinder Morgan wasn’t to blame for the rupturing of its line in Burnaby in 2007, he must not be aware that the company plead guilty in 2011 in provincial court for the spill. The court heard that the pipeline’s owner should have done a better job of monitoring work near the line that tore into it, as this Global TV report shows.

Moore must also be ignorant of or deliberately ignoring the leak of 110,000 litres of oil the company suffered at its Abbostsford tank farm earlier this year.

Moreover, with drastically increased bitumen flow and tanker traffic – up to nearly 400 a year from the company’s port in Burnaby, if it gets its way – comes vastly increased risk; or, as my colleague Rafe Mair and many others remind us, certain calamities. And with such a disaster in the waters of Vancouver or the Salish Sea come enormous consequences, both environmental and economic, as Rex Weyler has illustrated in these pages.

Kinder Morgan may not have faced the same scale of public opposition to its plans as Enbridge has seen – but that’s only because it just made its plans official a few months ago. Campaigns are already developing to target the Texas company (full disclosure: I’m part of one of them) and with the likes of Moore shaping this new narrative – dumping Enbridge for a supposedly “safer” Trans Mountain option to Vancouver – the spotlight will increasingly be on Kinder Morgan.

Either Mr. Moore is deliberately deceiving the public about Kinder Morgan’s track record or he’s simply ignorant of it – and being from Vancouver, frankly, he should know better.

Share
Why isn't Adrian Dix fighting Kinder Morgan like he is Enbridge?

Dix Should be Questioned on his Free Pass for Kinder Morgan

Share

Mike Smyth of the Vancouver Province took on Adrian Dix this morning for not applying the same principles in his stance on the proposed Enbridge pipeline and consequent tanker traffic to the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline twinning.
 
Mike is absolutely right. Dix has shown a political wimpishness which puts him, on this issue at any rate, right there alongside Premier Christy Clark.
 
The proposed lines both go through wild, inaccessible areas of BC, will carry the same gunk (bitumen), with the same certainty of disaster. Bitumen is impossible to clean up at the best of times (see Kalamazoo/Enbridge) and spills will be out of reach of any spill cleanup attempted. As I say, that doesn’t much matter because they can’t be cleaned up anyway.
 
We will have, along side the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline, the same pattern of serial spills, growing with each spill, with the same deadly results.
 
Dix’s cowardice comes out of the recent Chilliwack by-election when he felt it unwise to be against Kinder Morgan because it would look like the NDP was against everything. He came up with the weasel explanation that he hadn’t yet seen the Kinder Morgan environmental plan.
 
Why are those “weasel” words?
 
Because Dix knows as much about Kinder Morgan as he does about Enbridge. The argument has been proved. Both pipelines go through a hugely sensitive environment with fish bearing rivers and streams and Kinder Morgan’s threatens the Fraser River directly. The bitumen is the same, the spills a certainty and impossible to clean up.
 
The tanker traffic is deadly for both.
 
Get your act together, Mr. Dix or, on this issue at any rate, you aren’t much of an improvement over Premier Clark.


The Angus Reid poll on Enbridge published today shows a majority of British Columbians against the project. It must have been commissioned by Enbridge – at least that’s the suspicion when the story in both morning papers emphasizes that 24% might change their minds if Premier Clark gets her demands met. That sounds to me like “if the dog hadn’t stopped to pee he’d have caught the cat.”
 
This issue is not going to get any better for the pipeline people as the inevitability of catastrophic ongoing spills and the accumulation of ecological disasters becomes more firmly understood by the public. This will get clearer and clearer as time passes.
 
As I’ve said before in these pages, Premier Clark’s demand for better environmental oversight and money from Alberta are going nowhere. No matter what environmental safeguards are put in place there will be spills on land and sea on a serial basis. And there is no such thing as a “minor” spill of bitumen.

Enbridge’s Kalamazoo disaster turned out to be the biggest land spill in US history.
 
Finally, in my view as on octogenarian native of British Columbia, I say that our wilderness and coastlines are not for sale and I think that’s a view supported by most of us.

Share

BC Liberal Envrironment Minister: Kinder Morgan Faces Same Hurdles as Enbridge

Share

Read this story from The Province on BC Liberal Environment Minister Terry Lake’s statement that American energy giant Kinder Morgan faces the same challenges over the proposed twinning of its existing Trans Mountain Pipeline to Vancouver as Lake’s government has recently outlined for the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. (July 31, 2012)

B.C. Environment Minister Terry Lake says some of the conditions that the province has set out before approving the Northern Gateway project will also be applied to the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion.

The government wants the company to beef up oil-spill prevention and response before it will support the project, he said.

B.C. also wants a larger share of revenue from the company to offset the financial costs of an oil spill.

Kinder Morgan’s expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline, which runs from Alberta to Vancouver, would see an increase in the size and number of tankers passing through Vancouver’s harbour.

Last week, Premier Christy Clark called for more economic benefits from the Enbridge pipeline before it will be approved because B.C. would bear all the environmental risks.

Alberta Premier Alison Redford has rebuffed any suggestion of increased compensation for B.C.

Meanwhile, a group of Burnaby residents who live next to the Kinder Morgan pipeline want to ensure the company can afford to compensate them for the “inevitable leaks and ruptures” from a twinned pipeline.

The 12 residents plus a housing co-operative in the neighbourhood at the southeast end of Burnaby Mountain have applied for intervener status at a public hearing by the National Energy Board.

“As landowners who stand to be affected by leaks, ruptures or explosions along the pipeline right of way … they have a direct interest in the operation” of the pipeline, says a letter filed with the board by Ecojustice, a Vancouver environmental law group representing the group.

Burnaby-Douglas NDP MP Kennedy Stewart, who has also applied for intervener status, said he conducted a telephone poll of 35,000 Burnaby residents and 75 per cent were against expansion of the pipeline.

 

Share

First Nations and Former Government Leaders: ‘BC is Not for Sale’

Share

Read this story from The Vancouver Observer on Monday’s press conference hosted by the Union of BC Indian Chiefs and featuring former federal Environment Minister David Anderson, wherein he and prominent First Nations leaders delivered a strong message to the Clark and Harper Governments regarding the proposed Enbridge pipeline that “BC is not for sale.” (July 30, 2012)

The head of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs said that selling BC’s coast and rivers is not the way Premier Clark should be fighting against Alberta’s oil agenda. Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs spoke  at a press conference today with leaders from BC’s municipal and environmental groups.

“Well, look who just caught up. Premier Clark is right that we need to stand up to Alberta’s aggressive oil agenda, but selling our coasts and rivers out from under us is not the way to do it,” Phillip said in a release.

“First Nations right across BC have vowed we will never allow Enbridge’s pipeline and tankers, and non-Natives are united with us in a growing groundswell of unity to protect all of us from oil spills.” Premier Clark should take “decisive action” in opposing heavy oil pipeline and tanker projects, he said.

Phillip was joined by former federal Minister of the Environment David Anderson and Prince Rupert City Councillor Jennifer Rice. They called for the rejection of Enbridge Inc.‘s Northern Gateway pipeline and tanker proposal following a US-Canada Enbridge pipeline oil leak of over 1,200 barrels (more than 190,000 litres) in Wisconsin over the weekend.

The Northern Gateway is a 1,177 km dual pipeline project transporting 525,000 barrels of heavy oil per day between Edmonton, AB to Kitimat, BC. The project is a proposal from Calgary-based Enbridge Inc., a company specializing in crude oil and liquids pipelines, natural gas transportation and distribution, and green energy.

Over 100 First Nations have banned tar sands pipelines and tankers from their traditional territories.

No amount of money can protect coast, cover damage of oil spill, says former federal environment minister.

“Protecting our salmon streams and our ocean coast from oil spills is not negotiable,” said former BC Liberal Leader and former federal Minister of the Environment David Anderson. “No amount of money can protect our coast, and no amount of money can repair the damage of a spill of heavy Alberta crude oil…Premier Clark should make that clear to the Alberta and federal governments, and then move on to negotiating a Canadian National Energy Strategy based not on increasing production and consumption, but on the fundamental need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all Canadian sources.”

Anderson cited Enbridge’s poor record on environmental and worker safety as the main reason to reject the Northern Gateway project. The US National Transportation Safety Board released a scathing report in early July about Enbridge’s handling of a 2010 oil spill in Michigan, calling the company’s employees incompetent and stating that the company had a “deviant” culture around safety procedures.

Read more: http://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/bc-not-sale-enbridge-northern-gateway-say-aboriginal-and-former-government-leaders

Share
Then-Canadian Trade Minister David Emerson shakes hands with Chinese Commerce Minister Bo Xilai in 2007 (Reuters photo)

Clark’s ‘Tough New Stand’ on Enbridge Not Only Meaningless but EPICly Duplicitous

Share

Here at The Common Sense Canadian, we have established that the BC Liberals have been doing the bidding of the oil and gas agenda behind the scenes while presenting a different story to the people of BC.

In May, we published “The Myth of Liberal Neutrality on Enbridge”, wherein we outlined how compliant mainstream media had been positioning Christy as “neutral” on the Gateway project, despite the many facts to the contrary, in order to provide a political escape hatch for the languishing Premier. More recently, we have seen precisely why they had taken this “neutral” approach as Christy used the political escape hatch they provided in order to kick off her re-election campaign and make her grand debut as a “fighter for British Columbia”.

Had the mainstream detailed her government’s longstanding, non-wavering support for the oil and gas agenda Christy, would not have been able to suddenly take such a position and maintain any credibility all the while claiming she is now putting BC First.

Last week in a story titled “Cross-Border Deals with Alberta Undermine Clark’s Tougher Stance on Enbridge”, we outlined Christy’s new “BC First” positioning as a hollow and baseless facade, given the Equivalency Agreement her government initiated, which leaves British Columbia without any capacity to review, assess or decide the fate of four major oil and gas infrastructure projects, including Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Project. Moreover, we explained how if Christy was to interfere with the flow of oil and gas across the BC/Alberta border in the way she has publicly described, it would expose British Columbians to millions of dollars in fines and penalties as dictated in legislation her own government ushered in when they invoked closure to bring an end to debate on these important details and passed TILMA/NWPTA into law.

Although mainstream media continues to ignore these inconvenient truths, they have clearly illustrated there are various federal laws which also contribute to the now glaring, unavoidable fact that Christy is powerless to deliver on her new tough stance, has absolutely no leverage to wrestle more cash out of these deals, and cannot prevent the federal government from forcing this agenda on British Columbians. They do so with precise detail here at Ipolitics:

To build a robust and effective national energy economy, Harper will be using Ottawa’s constitutional powers under section 91(2), the regulation of trade and commerce clause, and section 121, preventing the taxation of goods across provincial boarders.

And if that was not enough to neuter Christy and her BC First Liberals, there is even more here from Postmedia, where they outline how Harper can “invoke Clause 10 of Section 92 of the British North America Act, which allows Ottawa to assert jurisdiction over interprovincial projects if parliament declares them to be ‘for the general advantage of Canada’.”

At this point, you are probably asking how can Christy claim to be standing up for the rights of British Columbians when her government has signed them all away? Or how can she threaten to stop anything when she has no legal capacity to do so? And how can she possibly ask for more money? She has not a single bargaining chip or any leverage whatsoever as a result of her government’s own actions and the plethora of federal legislative tools designed specifically to stop her from doing so.

The answer is EPIC.

Of course all of this occurs during the height of summer vacation season and at the same time as the spectacle of the Olympics. The few of us left still paying attention have been inundated with a barrage of minutia and detail covering Christy’s tough new stance. We have been literally overwhelmed with all sorts of talk about “Premier Redford’s National Energy Strategy” and how Christy will not “sign off” until her so-called “demands” are met.

Nowhere in all the coverage is there even one mention of the man behind the curtain, David Emerson, the EPIC Chairman and political puppet master who infamously crossed the floor to join Stephen Harper’s Conservatives as Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway, before returning to the private sector in 2008 to work for the China Investment Corporation. EPIC is the Energy Policy Institute of Canada, the organization building the Energy Strategy “Framework” on behalf of a variety of our corporate overlords. The evidence of EPIC’s ability to dominate the agenda was prominent during Harper’s Omnibus disaster where most of what Bill C-38 entailed was written and published by EPIC months before.

This is where we get down to brass tacks.

Redford, Christy and even Harper are political bit players in a much bigger game.

EPIC represents a stunning array of who’s who in the corporate realm that dominates the Canadian landscape and David Emerson is the corporate titan calling the shots from the EPIC command and control center. In fact, he is quite possibly the most powerful man in Canada. Emerson’s long corporate career has stretched his network the world over. He is plugged into Asia in a bold and very public way, but less public are his far-reaching contacts in all of our country’s most important industries outside of banking, not to mention his rolodex of political contacts from his bold stint in public office.

Our current politicians work for EPIC – their job is to grease the skids, do damage control and generally ensure public acquiescence to the EPIC agenda.

Most people are unaware of EPIC. They operate behind the scenes, which also mirrors the now longstanding BC Liberal management of the agenda. It’s all done out of the limelight, away from the public eye. No stone is left unturned and no detail is overlooked by this immensely bold and powerful lobby.

Let’s take a look at their most recent “statement” – note it is not a press release or an opinion piece or even an attempt to influence the “all-powerful” politicians, but rather it is simply a plain statement of the facts, with very bold language that dictates the entire agenda, and although it was publicly released, it was never reported on. Moreover, as you will note, this statement gave the premiers their marching orders and priorities, and even detailed what they must say:

“The Premiers must speak in terms of what is in it for every Canadian.”

When you read between the bold lines it becomes very clear precisely how and why Redford is now standing up to protect “every penny” of her Province’s royalties, while Clark was suddenly able to stop being neutral and start talking about “what is in it” for British Columbians.

But it does not stop there – the EPIC statement goes on to dictate the policy procedure and the roll-out while explaining how they will be “sending to every Premier, the Prime Minister and all Ministers responsible for energy, our recommendations and discussion on key elements for a national energy framework.”

The statement then proceeds to outline their expectations of the lowly premiers and underscores the need for them to “act fast.”

And then there is this gem:

If we fail, we lose as a nation and we give up the jobs, money and environmental management opportunity to other countries that will gladly compete with us.

According to EPIC, other countries will “gladly” accept the “environmental management opportunity” the massive escalation of Tar Sands extraction and natural gas fracking presents.

Really? Environmental Management Opportunity? Well, I guess that is one way of putting it. The day after they released this statement the good folks in Wisconsin had one of their own “Environmental Management Opportunities” as Enbridge’s most recent pipeline spill released an “estimated” 1200 barrels of oil. On that same day Enbridge received approval to reverse line 9b in their “strategy” to move Alberta’s Dilbit east into Portland, Maine for export, offering a whole new region more “Environmental Management Opportunities.”

This all coincides with our Energy Minister’s taxpayer funded junket to London (one of the destinations for exported dilbit from Portland), to meet with his old buddy Gordon Campbell, who arranged yet another “energy meeting” – this one coinciding with the Olympic kick-off and, as it just so happens, Coleman’s vacation schedule. However, Coleman is bound under confidentiality agreements with the likes of Shell and Petro China, so it is unclear exactly what he will be able to discuss with Mr. Campbell and Premier Redford, except for the fact that those companies just applied for an export license (on the very same day as the Enbridge spill and Christy’s debut as tough new fighter for BC – what you missed it?) to ship 1 million tonnes a year of LNG for 24 years.   

That is one hell of a lot of Fracking natural gas and it all makes you wonder what’s left to strategize about. In fact, if Christy was serious about talking money for British Columbia, this is what she should be talking about while ensuring BC sees a respectable royalty regime in place for this massive liquidation of our resources.

Regardless, the EPIC statement below goes onto explain how they will be “helping” out governments by “releasing comprehensive details for the roll out of the national energy strategy”, which will dictate “how governments will implement their role in the strategy.”

In case you are wondering, this is what a petro-state looks like. Corporations drive the agenda and politicians comply while distracting people from the real issues and deflecting attention away from the things that matter. All the while twisting the narrative to improve their electoral fortunes. This is what we now deem good “leadership” in today’s petro-political environment.

Read the full EPIC statement here

Now you know why Ms Clark’s tough new stance is not only hollow and meaningless but EPICly duplicitous.

She is simply doing what she is told and all she has to do is continue her government’s complete capitulation to the agenda and she will overcome all the laws and restrictions that render British Columbia powerless to negotiate better returns. She will do so with her continued passive compliance – not a “tough stand” – and she will be rewarded by Emerson, who will give the nod for more money to be loosened up while ensuring the corporations he represents meet her “demands”, as unsubstantial and meaningless as they are.

This is how Christy Clark puts BC First, right behind EPIC, and a multitude of now longstanding agreements that limit the Province’s ability to realize responsible returns on our resources.

Share

First Nations Outraged by Clark Government’s Latest Position on Enbridge Pipeline

Share

Read this story and watch a video from The Vancouver Sun on the reaction of a number of prominent  First Nations leaders to BC Premier Christy Clark’s recent posturing on improving BC’s take from the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. (July 30, 2012)

First nations opposed to the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project are accusing B.C. Premier Christy Clark of selling out British Columbians and putting a price tag on the future of aboriginal people.

The Yinka Dene Alliance, a group of five first nations in the B.C. Interior, issued a statement Saturday, saying it rejects Clark’s “sales pitch.”

The B.C. government said last week it won’t support the $6-billion Enbridge project until five environmental and fiscal conditions are met, including B.C. getting a much larger share of economic benefits, such as resource royalties or other tax revenue.

Another condition was that legal requirements for aboriginal and treaty rights must be addressed and first nations be allowed to benefit from the project.

However, the aboriginal groups said the premier is bargaining with land that will never be for sale at any price.

“It is absolutely unacceptable for our premier to play a game of The Price is Right while putting our lands, our waters and our futures at risk to devastating oil spills,” said Terry Teegee, tribal chief of the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council.

“This is our lives, the well-being of our families that she is playing with. We won’t let her sell our lands out from under us.”

Chief Martin Louie of the Nadleh Whut’en First Nation said the government can’t “put a price tag on our future,” adding the alliance is committed to fighting the project.

“Clark has admitted that B.C. will take 100-per-cent of the risks from tankers and most of the pipeline risk. For her to turn around the next day and start bargaining for royalties — that’s knowingly trying to sell all British Columbians out,” said Louie.

On Friday, Clark refused to sign on to any national energy strategy until B.C.’s dispute with Alberta and the federal government over the Northern Gateway oil pipeline is resolved.

The Enbridge project would carry oilsands crude, or bitumen, from northern Alberta to Kitimat, for shipment to Asia.

Share

Harper Helping Mulcair’s Political Fortunes?

Share

Read this editorial in The Globe and Mail on the rise of NDP Official Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair’s rising political fortunes on the back of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s series of foibles. (July 20, 2012)

Can Stephen Harper pull it off again in 2015? That’s the question many Canadians are already asking themselves. The Conservatives’ winning strategy was to define the election as a choice between “the stable, familiar, competent economic management of the Conservatives and the instability and economic ruin that would follow from a Liberal-led coalition backed by socialists and separatists,” as outlined by Woolstencroft and Ellis in The Canadian Federal Election of 2011. The Harperites have been smugly confident they can repeat 2011’s majority against the even more vulnerable “socialists” of Thomas Mulcair.
Or were so until last week’s huge setbacks to the credibility of this strategy. While pretending to enjoy the Calgary Stampede, the Conservatives were actually enduring two very significant reversals in  key areas for them.

The first was the huge hole blown in their single most significant economic initiative – unwavering support for Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific. The second was the blow to their vaunted managerial efficiency that was to be demonstrated by a modernized Canadian military machine, central to the warrior culture the government wants to make a cherished Canadian value.

In each case, the week’s bad news happened to be the fourth in a series of bad stories that have begun to undermine these two major projects. Oil pipelines received the most coverage, all of it damning. Enbridge’s very public humiliation at the hands of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, for a serious pipeline rupture in Michigan in 2010, reminded Canadians that no fewer than three large oil spills had taken place in Alberta itself just the previous month. That in turn evoked unwelcome memories of last year’s massive spill near Peace River, Alta., which then led to reminders that besides the Michigan disaster, 2010 also saw an average of two pipeline failures every day in Alberta. No one, it seems, had remembered this distressing record – until now.

Suddenly, the existing political equation was turned on its head. Instead of the Harper-led attacks on opponents of the Northern Gateway pipeline project as radicals, Canadian politicians and oil interests were now falling all over themselves to insist they put safety first. The villains had become, in the words of one American regulator, Enbridge’s “Keystone Kops.” And instead of Mr. Mulcair being characterized as the mindless arch-enemy of an ever-expanding energy sector, he seemed increasingly credible as a voice of elementary commonsense, as polls indicate.

Putting the safety of Canadians and their environment ahead of the self-interest of Big Oil hardly seems radical now. Secondly, questioning an economic strategy that sends Canada deep into the 21st century as primarily an exporter of unprocessed and semi-processed non-renewable resources and that worsens regional imbalances and disparities seems the very definition of responsible opposition.

By a complete coincidence, at the very same time last week the government was reeling from its fourth consecutive fiasco in procuring new equipment for the armed forces. Strengthening the military, was a major plank in Mr. Harper’s 2011 election platform. But the serious, multibillion dollar matter of buying new planes, trucks and combat vehicles has proved entirely beyond the competence of the Harper government, as they’ve proved repeatedly since 2006.

Read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-tories-are-doing-mulcairs-work-for-him/article4431208/

Everyone knows of course of the most notorious “debacle,” as The Globe described it: The never-ending story of the government’s failure to justify, acquire or credibly cost new F-35 stealth fighter jets. Critics of the program were labelled unpatriotic or ignorant. During last year’s election, Mr. Harper personally guaranteed that their cost would not exceed $14.7-billion, although the Parliamentary Budget Officer had insisted the cost would be double that. In April, Auditor-General Michael Ferguson revealed that the government was in fact aware the program would cost more than $25-billion when it was approved four years ago. But as Canadians long ago began to recognize, the government was either incompetent or deceitful; in either case, its figures couldn’t be trusted.

Share

Bread and Circuses

Share

The Roman empire faced an unexpected internal problem as it reached the peak of its power and wealth in the second century CE. Plunder and tribute filled its coffers, widening the gulf between rich and poor. Meanwhile, cheap slave labour was powering farms and mines, together with the construction of buildings, bridges, aqueducts and roads. Many Roman citizens were left unemployed, bored, hungry and restless. This was a politically dangerous situation.

So in 140 CE, the Caesars began creating make-work projects and distributing free grain. Over the next two centuries, writes Alice Schroeder in The Danger of Living on Bread and Circuses (Bloomberg.com, June 1/11), subsequent “emperors added holidays until, eventually, the Romans spent half their days attending gladiator games, public executions and chariot races. Disgusted, the satirist Juvenal accused his fellow citizens of selling out for bribes of ‘bread and circuses’ [panem et circenses]“.

This strategy of appeasing and distracting was successful in Rome – at least until 410 CE when the Visigoths sacked the city. And the strategy has been used elsewhere in history with limited success: in Spain with “bread and bullfights”, in Russia with “bread and spectacles” and today with “bread and games”. The “bread” of history, Schroeder reminds us, has been replaced with fast food restaurants, big box stores and warehouse wholesale clubs. The “games” have multiplied. Professional sports now occupies huge amounts of the public’s attention: football, hockey, baseball, basketball, golf, tennis, cycling – anything competitive that can entertain by arousing tribal loyalty and passion.

The electronic and digital ages have simply magnified this trend. “When entertainment dominates a society, it changes more than the culture; it also reshapes the economy,” Schroeder notes. “You can see that circuses are where the money is from the rise of digital entertainment, which has steered enormous amounts of discretionary income toward digital content and the devices that run it: laptops, televisions, gaming consoles, smart phones.” The problem, she suggests, is that this circus atmosphere shifts labour and energy from production to service, weakening the foundational economic structure of cultures.

Entertainment also reshapes the character of cultures, increasing their internal political vulnerability by drawing attention from important social and environmental issues to wholly manufactured and artificial distractions – the well-being of society is rarely improved when the public gets exercised by one team defeating another on a playing field or a hockey rink. But valuable attention and energy are diverted from matters that are important.

The “circuses” that presently distract from the important work of society are not a contrived and co-ordinated effort by the entertainment industry and corporations working in collusion with government. The professional sports industry makes money. The sponsoring corporations advertise and profit. The politicians have fewer people pestering them about matters of governance. The process is more inadvertent than engineered; it simply persists because it suits the interests of the few and it entertains the many. So it becomes a cultural habit that is deemed to be normal. The Olympics are only special because of their infrequency and the marketing acumen that promotes them.

The spectacular “circus” of the Olympics is so blatantly elaborate, extravagant and expensive that it should be its own worst advertising. The costs are staggering. Montreal spent 30 year paying off its $1.5 billion debt for hosting the 1976 games. The financial burden is a factor in Greece’s present financial crisis. The 2012 London Olympics are a similar exercise in outrageous superlatives, with overall costs expected to be $17 billion.

London’s security costs alone are approaching $1 billion. This will include, as a sample, 24,000 to 49,000 security personnel (the total, of course, is a secret), a helicopter gun-ship carrier on the Thames, a surface-to-air missile system in the city, 1,000 armed diplomatic and FBI agents, 55 dog teams, and an 18 km electric fence of 5,000 volts costing $125 million. The cost of protecting each of the 17,000 athletes for the 17 days of the London Olympics will be $92,500. This, however, is a bargain compared to the $15 billion Greece spent on the 2004 Athens Olympics, at a security cost of $140,000 per athlete. Fortunately, Beijing could afford its security costs of $6.5 billion. As The Guardian Weekly (March 30/12) duly concludes, these costs show that the modern Olympics are “society on steroids”.

This profligate spending on the Olympics could be dismissed as merely expensive indulgence if human civilization didn’t have critical structural and environmental challenges that need urgent attention. If societies everywhere could rouse themselves to give as much impassioned energy to the litany of social, economic and ecological problems plaguing the planet as they do to the Olympic gatherings, then our future would look more promising.

If our international environmental gatherings in Kyoto, Stockholm, Cancun and Rio were measured against the standards of the official Olympic games, they would be deemed abject failures, marked by the collapse of nearly all the sprinters within a few metres of the starting line. The comparison would not be so disquieting if we had not done all this before – back in the Roman Empire.

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

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

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

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