The B.C. ministry responsible for jobs says the province has been clear on its job numbers. Yeah, clear as mud.
I'm sure The Vancouver Sun's spotty coverage of the polling debate has much more to do with a lack of resources and the rush to get stories online than it has to do with the millions of dollars Enbridge and the oil industry spends with Postmedia -- but the optics aren't good.
Both the people lauding the refinery proposal and those condemning it miss the point. In tying pipeline development to the building of a heavy-oil refinery in B.C., MLA Andrew Mr. Weaver is not so much accepting a reasonable compromise as he is floating still another costly, lengthy, prerequisite to new pipelines.
More and more often, we are reading in the news about the federal government and various intelligence and law enforcement agencies allegedly "spying" on aboriginals and pipeline opponents. I am both of those things. I have no idea whether strangers are picking up shards of information from my emails and text messages. I have no idea what kind of beautiful stained-glass mosaics their imaginations might create.
It's time to get politics out of environmental policy and serious environmental policy into politics. After all, the environment really doesn't care which political party you belong to.
The U.S. State Department said Keystone XL would actually be better from a climate perspective than the alternatives. While there is a logic to this line of argument it rests on an illogical assumption. That assumption is that ongoing development of the conventional fossil fuel sector is inevitable. It is not.
This pipeline project will not survive public scrutiny. Enbridge and Kinder Morgan do not have, and will not have, our permission. We will stop these pipelines and the Harper regime would be smart to listen or at least get out of the way. A government can only hide the fact that they do not represent the values of the people of their country for so long before people wake up to it and show them the door.
Activists in British Columbia have responded to the National Energy Board's approval of the Northern Gateway oil pipeline with threats of illegal activism reminiscent of the 1990s. Civil disobedience has an honourable history; the question is whether a particular group on a particular matter is justified in such actions. Where people's rights are systematically violated, where they are denied recourse to the courts, or to their elected representatives, the case for civil disobedience is clear. But the Northern Gateway Pipeline proposal does not represent such a violation.
Not even a month has passed since the federally-appointed Joint Review Panel (JRP) released its official report recommending approval of the Northern Gateway pipeline, pending the fulfillment of 209 conditions. Yet already two separate suits have been filed against the integrity of the report, with groups requesting that the federal cabinet delay a final decision on the pipeline project until the Federal Court of Appeal can assess the complaints.
The government didn't open its ears on telecom on its own. It took Canada's largest-ever online campaign and sustained, widespread, solutions-based engagement to make it happen. We'll need that to continue, and we'll need to bring that energy to privacy, free expression online, and other issues of the day.
By the end of this month the federal pipeline regulator, the National Energy Board (NEB), is expected to approve Enbridge's proposal for its 38-year old Line 9 oil pipeline in Ontario and Quebec, which would carry shale oil -- known for its propensity to explode as it did in North Dakota. With that in mind, the province of Ontario must hold its ground on Line 9 and ensure its demands for a safer pipeline are met.
With your help, we'll produce and distribute a provocative film that will go beyond the issues, to the very DNA of change, and encourage constructive discussion across all points of view. It's the only way we're going to find the innovative solutions we so badly need. This is an amazing moment. KeystoneXL pipeline, Enbridge's proposed pipeline, and Kinder Morgan's pipeline expansion, hang in the balance.
The basic argument goes like this: A barrel of oil sands crude currently trades at a lower price than other global oil benchmarks. That price gap means Canadians are losing money on every barrel sold. Access to world markets will fetch higher prices, elevating our collective prosperity. It's a persuasive story, tickling the part of the brain associated with loss aversion. No one wants to bleed money day after day. At the same time it paints a picture of one nation, our fortunes rising and falling in unity. It's good politics. But the reality is more complex.
Too much is to be gained from the energy sector to expect that the federal government will be anything but aggressive in the fulfillment of contracts and quotas and grand business ambitions, and the opposition be damned. What is troubling is the heavy-handed manner in which the operation has been brought forward.
Premier Christy Clark set out five conditions for pipeline development in British Columbia. The Premier has been firm on these conditions and has repeated many times that pipeline projects will not be allowed in British Columbia if her conditions are not met. So, why is Kinder Morgan dilbit currently being transported through the Salish Sea? And why hasn't the provincial government stepped in to stop it?
The federal government might wish to consider the message it would send if it failed to uphold Enbridge's right to conduct lawful business in Canada, as approved by the National Energy Board, after extensive consultation and public involvement.