no pipeline, no tankers, no problem 2

1125 posts / 0 new
Last post
epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

‘New thinking for the British economy’

VIDEO: How to create a democratic energy system (6 min)

The aim of openDemocracy’s ‘New Thinking for the British Economy’ project is to present a debate on how to build a more just, sustainable, and resilient economy. In the project so far we’ve debated policy areas ranging from trade policy and universal basic income, to childcare policy and housing .

But across Britain, hundreds of people are working tirelessly to build a new economy on a daily basis, putting new economic ideas into practice from the ground up. In a new video series, we will be showcasing some of the most exciting initiatives that are already working to replace different aspects of our failing systems with fairer and more resilient alternatives — from housing and finance to food and energy.

Martin N.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

We don’t want bitumen destroying our beautiful coastline - putting our Salish Sea orcas etc in jeopardy - what’s not to understand about that?

 

Of course not but there are better methods of protecting the coasts than an ideological vendetta against one economic concern while granting others a free pass.

The coastal protection strawman hides a lurking ideological attack against Canada's economic order funded by foreign interests. I note that there is no frenzy of protest against foreign oil tankers delivering crude oil to Quebec or tankers in Juan de Fuca Strait bound for Washington state refineries.

Great logic. We already put our marine environment at risk so that means no one should complain when we up the ante to multiple times more tanker traffic with far larger tankers in Burrard Inlet. With that logic I'm surprised you are not advocating to allow lead in gasoline again and stop banning pestiocides and having regulations that restrict exhaust emissions on new cars. After all there is lead being used in other places in our society and since someplaces allow pesticides no municipalities should be allowed to ban them. And as for any kind of pollution control regulations we all know that pollution cannot be eliminated in our modern world so we should not try. Us coast protectors are not trying to ban anything we are trying to stop an expansion of a gross industry in our region.

The SCC seems to think that constitutionally provinces can control their own economies and make rules of general application even if they restrict some types of commerce like provincial cross border shopping. I am sure the lawyers for Burnaby are working up the new brief to incorporate Comeau into their arguments. It would seem that a federal board like the NEB does not have the constitutional authority to override Burnaby by-laws. If that is the case then Trans Mountain will be required to follow all of the environmental impact regulations that other developers are required to follow. Burnaby by the way has a reputation for having one of the most stringent permits department in the Lower Mainland because the counsel that keeps getting releceted decade after decade has said if you don't like our rules go build somewhere else. I am not sure how Trans Mountain gets the necesary permissions from the city after the report from its Fire Department that states it is  a fire hazard that they will be powerless to extinguish if an accident occurs and a fire starts.

What you call a vendetta against an industry looks like prudent risk assessment to anyone else. But don't take my word for it instead read what Engineers and Firefighters have to say.

"I'm hoping this document identifies consequences of the expansion of the facility, both potential and real, and what is actually at stake running the facility in its proposed state on the mountain, so close to the conservation area, so close the population. These risks need to be fully understood by the community, so they know what risks this project presents,"

For 15 years, Bowcock worked as an emergency management consultant and conducted field training for tank-fire suppression and pre-planning in the Alberta oil sands. His report will be entered as evidence in the National Energy Board's hearing on the expansion.

In a media release, Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan called the report "comprehensive and jarring.”

"It is remarkable that Kinder Morgan is even asking the citizens of Burnaby to assume such risks, but even more so that the National Energy Board is willing to consider expanding this storage site in this location - on a hillside near thousands of residents and a busy university, and adjacent to an  urban conservation area," Corrigan said.

http://www.burnabynow.com/news/fire-department-releases-damning-report-o...

“In Kinder Morgan Canada Risk Assessment Trans Mountain Expansion Project – Burnaby Terminal Project, October 1, 2013, Doug McCutcheon and Associates Consulting, wrote; “A toxic impact up to 5.2 km downwind due to SO2 created in a fire and smoke impacts as far out as 43 km”

“Kinder Morgan Canada (KMC) has stated it is expecting a time frame of toxic smoke discharge prior to possible  extinguishment of 1 – 2 days. It is expected that the 1 -2 day burn time would generate sufficient toxic smoke plume discharge to significantly affect the entire Greater Vancouver Regional District, with specifically high concentrations of exposure and respiratory health hazards to all Burnaby, Port Moody, Coquitlam, and New Westminster residents at risk with pre-existing respiratory conditions.”

Highly toxic Hydrogen Sulfide will very quickly, upon facility release, expose residential areas to conditions that are immediately dangerous to life.

Low Concentrations:
• Irritation of eyes, nose, throat and respiratory system
• Breathing difficulties in Asthmatics
Moderate Concentrations:
• Coughing, difficulty breathing, headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, staggering and excitability
High Concentrations:
• Shock, convulsions, inability to breathe, extremely rapid unconsciousness, coma and death

Kinder Morgan’s Emergency Response Limitations

“The detail not present in KMC’s answer to … (partial quotation)… within the existing emergency management programs at Kinder Morgan Tank Farm, KMC has no immediate emergency communication plans, protocols or procedures to notify the community at the first identification of hazard to the community.”

“As the authority having jurisdiction for fire protection approval within the City of Burnaby, the Burnaby Fire Department has recently been advised by KMC on May 30, 2014, that the facility no longer has the emergency response ability to extinguish fire events with internal facility resources, and that additional hydrocarbon specialized firefighting resources from regional facilities are no longer available.”

http://concernedengineers.org/danger-associated-with-a-burnaby-mountain-...

Does Kinder Morgan pay property taxes in Burnaby? Property taxes that include a mill rate for fire protection?

There are industrial facilities everywhere that have complex chemical hazards. Is Burnaby the only jurisdiction that won't provide the protection that KM's taxes have paid for?

Sarcasm aside, I believe your relationship to logic is entirely circumstantial. Logic should dictate at least a rudimentary understanding of both industrial firefighting and marine safety before making such sweeping pronouncements yet you blithely ignore any evidence or fact that counters your wild rhetoric. Extremism is not helpful in determining a lasting resolution to the use of oil and its products going forward.

6079_Smith_W

Actually it was an organization of professional engineers which raised concerns about potential dangers of having a facility like that in a place where it can affect residential areas. They are also the ones who found that it might be impossible to extinguish a fire at that site.

This is about fundamental risk, not just putting out fires. And it certainly isn't as simple as "they pay for it, so it should happen".

Never mind that there have been enough toxic spills where it has been made clear that they don't actually pay for it, and it is not always fixable.

Remember Lac Megantic? Cities and municipalities have the power to decide what is and is not safe in certain areas, and in the wake of that disaster many (including Saskatoon) are reconsidering the safety of having potentially hazardous traffic coming through town.

Martin N.

This facility has been there for 60 years. It isn't new. Any alteration or expansion must address additional protections to meet today's standard. Usually, costs for specialized equipment are shared among users. I cannot understand the message Burnaby is sending since it also has the only substantial refinery in BC in its jurisdiction. Are they saying they can't protect nearby residents of the old Chevron now Parkland refinery either?

6079_Smith_W

It isn't me saying anything; it is engineers.

And this isn't the only case of infrastructure being removed when it is found to be unsafe, or an expansion turned down for the same reason. There are plenty of examples of this.

Can't understand it? The message seems clear enough.

Martin N.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

It isn't me saying anything; it is engineers.

And this isn't the only case of infrastructure being removed when it is found to be unsafe, or an expansion turned down for the same reason. There are plenty of examples of this.

Can't understand it? The message seems clear enough.

 

Mhmm. It is actually 4 retired dudes who do not submit peer reviewed professional engineering, rather they are on an anti KM hobbyhorse.

Maybe you should put your confirmation bias aside and see if this source meets your usually high standards.

QUOTE

CPE is a small group of professional engineers living in British Columbia, Canada. Members of CPE have accumulated decades (over 100 years) of experience in design, construction and operation of large projects for the extraction and transportation of natural resources like coal and oil.

UNQUOTE

Its rhetoric from biased sources, not peer reviewed science. 'Nuff  said!

JKR

Angus Reid: TransMountain troubles: Alberta-B.C. pipeline battle splits Canadians down the middle

http://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2018.02.22-pipelines2.pdf

6079_Smith_W

Four retired engineers whose findings seem to be in line with the "damning" report done by the Burnaby Fire Department.

Please let me know if you have something of substance that offers a different assessment of this.

More substantial than "they pay their taxes, so the city should be able to put the fire put out", that is.

 

 

Martin N.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Four retired engineers whose findings seem to be in line with the "damning" report done by the Burnaby Fire Department.

Please let me know if you have something of substance that offers a different assessment of this.

More substantial than "they pay their taxes, so the city should be able to put the fire put out", that is.

 

 

OK, will do.

6079_Smith_W
Martin N.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Four retired engineers whose findings seem to be in line with the "damning" report done by the Burnaby Fire Department.

Please let me know if you have something of substance that offers a different assessment of this.

More substantial than "they pay their taxes, so the city should be able to put the fire put out", that is.

 

 

  1. Trans Mountain said that the current Burnaby Terminal facility has detection, mitigation and re prevention measures in place for potential res, which include re water reservoir and pump system, xed and portable re- ghting monitors, an inventory of re- ghting foam concentrate, and re- ghting foam trailers. Trans Mountain added that the re- ghting measures would be further enhanced as part of the Terminal expansion design.

    These enhancements would include industry-leading re protection equipment, such as xed tank rim seal and full-surface re- ghting foam suppression systems for each new tank installed to ensure that rim seal and full- surface re suppression systems can be deployed by the push of a button.

    Trans Mountain said that the re- ghting foam suppression systems would be backed up by portable foam and water monitors. Trans Mountain said that the installed re suppression measures would exceed applicable code requirements. These measures, when combined with tank operating procedures to minimize the accumulation
    of water within the tanks as well as the extensive maintenance program, would reduce the likelihood of a re, escalation to a full-surface re or the potential to have a boil over event to an extremely low probability. If all mitigation fails for preventing a full surface re, the company said that it has all the equipment on-site to extinguish a full surface re within the industry standard timeline. Trans Mountain believes that this will prevent a full surface re thus a boil over event. Trans Mountain said that the design of the expanded Burnaby Terminal would ensure safe access from two directions for all possible re locations within the terminal facility. The proposed primary

    and secondary access routes at the Burnaby Terminal will be designed and constructed in accordance with the International Association of Fire Chiefs Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Regulation Guideline. The primary access routes at Burnaby Terminal will be designed so as to allow the movement of emergency apparatus and equipment, and would allow emergency response access from a minimum of two independent directions.

    Trans Mountain said that although the City of Burnaby has not agreed to meet, it is committed to pursuing a mutual aid agreement with the City of Burnaby and to discuss the enhancements for the emergency management program. Trans Mountain also expressed its desire to meet and discuss the design of the re protection system at Burnaby Terminal prior to the design being finalized.

https://docs2.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objId=2969681&obj...

 

It very much appears that the City of Burnaby is being obstructionist as usual and playing silly buggers with residents' safety.

Martin N.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Take as much time as you need.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-january-23-2018-1.449...

I'm very sorry for being the only denizen here with an actual life.

6079_Smith_W

Nice try, considering what you have to go with is SFA.

Kinder Morgan isn't a fire department, and following a manual isn't the same as an assessment of the actual risks of that facility on that site, which is what the real fire department did in one case, and a team of engineers in another.

And pointing out that people are at risk of being trapped on top of that mountail in case of a fire isn't "playing silly buggers with residents' safety", it is quite the opposite, by pointing out a situation of potentially unacceptable risk.

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:

It very much appears that the City of Burnaby is being obstructionist as usual and playing silly buggers with residents' safety.

That report sounds terribly convincing to a layperson like myself, the problem is they all have sounded very convincing and yet terrible accidents continue to happen. When you have lost the public's trust you don't just start fresh with each new project. 

I particularly find the "pipelines are safer than railcars" argument to be tone deaf. 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Don't accuse me of not having a real life. I can do just as much physical work as you, and in an office I will have your job at every opportunity I can take. 

However, I have thought about the oil business, and how it affects Canada, and how we should best take advantage of it, how we deal with the States, and how we develop other realistic sources of energy. 

Any major business project has to get social license for its activities these days. The best way to get social license is to get everyone to buy into it. I think everyone in Canada should buy into it, and everyone in Canada should profit from it. That is done on the basis of one citizen per share, with the 50% of the money put up by the provincial governments on a rep-by-pop basis, and 50% by the Feds. We'll call it the Canadian Energy Corporation or CEC.

The CEC can set up limited life corporations in partnership with private sector interests for development purposes only. The development project is financed, executed, and then wound up with all bills paid. The property returns to the CEC. The CEC would have operations control in all the major population centres. A national operations centre could be anywhere we want.

There is a big opportunity to extort the Americans for oil. All we have to do is wait. We should make a determined effort to get top dollar for the oil. I think it could go north of $300 if the US depletes it supply, which it seems to be doing at a rapid rate. The other good thing for us, is that they are destroying aquifers and farm land, so they will need to pay top dollar added value products like food from us. The USA is burning itself away. The climate of Kansas is going to move to Manitoba while the climate of Arizona is going to move to Kansas.

The CEC's job will be to bring all energy sources to market without discrimination. If you develop an energy source, we will bring it to market. In the case of oil and gas, that means pipelines. In the case of nuclear and renewable power, that means a much better transmission grid than we have now. The CEC will make a determined effort to get energy into northern communities, because with energy, they can make food. As food is the most important energy of all, the CEC will also get that to market as well. If you are a farmer, we will get your crops to market. We will build export terminals, as we don't need to import anything in this respect. It should generate a nice stream of foreign currency with which we can use to buy producer goods, and any food imports we need. All corporations have to do is worry about exploration, development, and exploitation of the energy source, whether it is an oil well or a bank of solar panels. We would be like the DoE in the States. It seems like we have to have something like the DoE or we will not be able to compete with the States. If this works properly, all of Canada will reap the benefits of very cheap energy indeed. As this is a geographically huge Empire, we need it.  

OK for the first tranche. Alberta needs about $8 billion for the former Kinder Morgan pipeline. I am guessing Alberta has about 10% of the population of Canada or something close. That means we do other (probably sustainable) energy projects in the other 90% of Canada of say X Megawatts for say $72 billion. At this time, 10% for oil and 90% for sustainable is fair. So long as the sustainable actually works. We know that solar works, and we know that batteries can be made to work on a large scale. There are also hydroelectric designs which exploit running water, but do not need dams. They will go up and down a bit with nature, which would all feed into the batteries. We will set up factories here to build large-scale transmission and storage equipment. If our profits from oil are completely obscene, maybe we could build a refinery and sell it for $20 a litre, but not in my back yard, please. Over the top of this energy infrastructure large scale electric vehicles can run both passengers and freight, and power local transit systems, both rail and bus.

We absolutely have to emulate the US Department of Energy if we are to stand a chance.

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

It very much appears that the City of Burnaby is being obstructionist as usual and playing silly buggers with residents' safety.

That report sounds terribly convincing to a layperson like myself, the problem is they all have sounded very convincing and yet terrible accidents continue to happen. When you have lost the public's trust you don't just start fresh with each new project. 

I particularly find the "pipelines are safer than railcars" argument to be tone deaf. 

In what regulatory environment do you think terrible accidents can be avoided? Hint: none. Best practices can mitigate such concerns to an acceptable degree only.(yes,yes, I know only nothing is 'acceptable').

The safety measures employed in oil and gas facilities are mind boggling. Google refinery fires (yes, they happen) and find out for yourself. Burnaby has a full diaper.

6079_Smith_W

Martin N. wrote:

In what regulatory environment do you think terrible accidents can be avoided? Hint: none.

Glad you recognize that. The solution is to not build a terminal like that there, and in fact to reconsider the presence of the existing one.

 

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

It very much appears that the City of Burnaby is being obstructionist as usual and playing silly buggers with residents' safety.

That report sounds terribly convincing to a layperson like myself, the problem is they all have sounded very convincing and yet terrible accidents continue to happen. When you have lost the public's trust you don't just start fresh with each new project. 

I particularly find the "pipelines are safer than railcars" argument to be tone deaf. 

In what regulatory environment do you think terrible accidents can be avoided? Hint: none. Best practices can mitigate such concerns to an acceptable degree only.(yes,yes, I know only nothing is 'acceptable').

The safety measures employed in oil and gas facilities are mind boggling. Google refinery fires (yes, they happen) and find out for yourself. Burnaby has a full diaper.

Then "best practices" isn't good enough for something we can so easily do without. Alberta can continue exporting at current rates. If Alberta wants expotential growth it will have to settle for Keystone and/or refineries. It isn't like there aren't any other alternatives. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

In B.C., defendants face fines for protesting oil pipeline

"Does a criminal contempt of court mean I now have a criminal record?" the woman asked B.C. Supreme Court Justice Kenneth Affleck. "So, when I go to volunteer at my granddaughter's school, I have to say I have a criminal record?"

"Does a criminal contempt of court mean I now have a criminal record?" the woman asked B.C. Supreme Court Justice Kenneth Affleck. "So, when I go to volunteer at my granddaughter's school, I have to say I have a criminal record?"

"I'm not in a position to give you legal advice," Judge Affleck answered.

Some similar cases in the past did not create criminal records for those found guilty, he added.

Had his answer clarified things for her, he asked. She was still confused, she said.

quote:

B.C. Prosecution Service lawyer Trevor Shaw told the court that a $500 fine should be applied to protesters found guilty of criminal contempt of court. He referenced the precedent set by the 1993 Clayoquot Sound and Eagle Bluff Ridge protests, which saw penalties from $250 to $5,000 and "significant jail time" depending on the protester's involvement.

Shaw suggested that 25 hours of community service under the direction of a probation officer would suffice, if a defendant couldn't afford the fine. Shaw's statement was met with laughter by the court's audience.

Martin N.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

In what regulatory environment do you think terrible accidents can be avoided? Hint: none.

Glad you recognize that. The solution is to not build a terminal like that there, and in fact to reconsider the presence of the existing one.

 

You need to address that solution to Mr Dress Up. It makes sense to use federal funds to assist KM out of Burnaby altogether but.... too little, too late.

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

It very much appears that the City of Burnaby is being obstructionist as usual and playing silly buggers with residents' safety.

That report sounds terribly convincing to a layperson like myself, the problem is they all have sounded very convincing and yet terrible accidents continue to happen. When you have lost the public's trust you don't just start fresh with each new project. 

I particularly find the "pipelines are safer than railcars" argument to be tone deaf. 

In what regulatory environment do you think terrible accidents can be avoided? Hint: none. Best practices can mitigate such concerns to an acceptable degree only.(yes,yes, I know only nothing is 'acceptable').

The safety measures employed in oil and gas facilities are mind boggling. Google refinery fires (yes, they happen) and find out for yourself. Burnaby has a full diaper.

Then "best practices" isn't good enough for something we can so easily do without. Alberta can continue exporting at current rates. If Alberta wants expotential growth it will have to settle for Keystone and/or refineries. It isn't like there aren't any other alternatives. 

Easily do without? No solution will ever satisfy you. Try using that misplaced logic throughout your day. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

TRADE UNIONS AND JUST TRANSITION

The Search for a Transformative Politics

In late 2015, after more than a decade of tenacious lobbying of government negotiators, union representatives led by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) succeeded in getting the phrase "Just Transition" into the preamble to the Paris Climate Agreement negotiated at COP21. The text affirmed "the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with nationally defined development priorities."

quote:

"Social Dialogue" or "Social Power"?

In this eleventh TUED Working Paper, we argue that, in order to effectively achieve this full range of aims, the international trade union movement must collectively formulate and pursue a comprehensive, integrated approach. Doing so requires a sober examination of the origins and current state of debates over Just Transition.

Unions at all levels recognize that a broad transformation of our economy and society is urgently necessary. But the insistence on keeping "Social Dialogue" at the center of such discussions holds trade union debates captive to the narrative of the liberal business establishment, and to a very narrow and de-mobilizing interpretation of Just Transition. Anchored in the particular realities of post-war Europe, Social Dialogue has in recent years been asserted as an official ideology for the international trade union movement---one that is increasingly out of step with both the challenges facing workers and their organizations, and the pressing demands for action posed by the climate and ecological crisis more broadly.

This paper makes the case for a different and more expansive trade union conversation—one that can address worker-focused concerns while advancing deeper socioeconomic transformation. We call this the "Social Power" approach. This approach is guided by the belief that a Just Transition cannot be accomplished without a deep restructuring of the global political economy, and current power relations must be challenged and changed. If this does not occur, then the vast majority of the world's working people will never see anything vaguely resembling a Just Transition.

The paper offers examples from around the world that illustrate how this new approach is cohering within day-to-day trade union struggles, as well as at the level of ideas across the political left.

Download the full paper here.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..37 days left

Martin N.

Spamming 80,000 messages is a good thing? Governance by whomevers' trainees seals clap the loudest? 

What exactly does 'social license' mean?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Government insiders say Trans Mountain pipeline approval was rigged

Chief Maureen Thomas was skeptical as she walked out of Canada’s main Parliament Building on a brisk but sunny morning in autumn.

It was Nov. 28, 2016, and she had just given Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr four major reports highlighting extensive warnings about Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

Thomas, chief of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation in British Columbia, said the project would harm her territory for generations to come.

“At the end of the day, it comes right down to water, food,” she said in an interview after her meeting. “When you keep depleting the natural resources — the health of them — it’s going to gradually flow out to everything else and that is really dangerous to our community and the surrounding area.”

She said she couldn’t help feeling that the government was just going through the motions — “checking off a box” on the list of legal obligations it needed to fulfill before officially approving the pipeline.

More than a year after the pipeline’s approval — and a major trade blowout between the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta — government insiders say she was right.

Speaking on the condition of anonymity with National Observer, they say a high-ranking public servant instructed them, at least one month before the pipeline was approved, “to give cabinet a legally-sound basis to say ‘yes’” to Trans Mountain. These instructions came at a time when the government claimed it was still consulting in good faith with First Nations and had not yet come to a final decision on the pipeline.

Legal experts interviewed by National Observer say these instructions could be a significant matter reviewed by the courts to determine if the government’s approval of Trans Mountain was valid....

 

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:

Easily do without? No solution will ever satisfy you. Try using that misplaced logic throughout your day. 

The solution is that eventually Alberta will have to accept "no" for an answer. Alberta does not have the power to force the other provincies to bend to its will. Alberta rules Alberta. Nothng more. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..more from the above piece #726

quote:

The government would neither confirm, nor deny that public servants were given these instructions to find a way to approve the project. But it described the allegation as “unsubstantiated” information.

It ultimately rejected all four of the reports submitted by Thomas — more than 150 pages in total — in less than a day, and approved the Trans Mountain project a few hours later.

Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr assured National Observer in an April 19 interview that the government had fulfilled its duty to First Nations through a “considerably broadened and deepened consultation” designed to address mistakes made by the previous Harper government in its reviews and oversight of major energy projects.

Sources from within different federal departments, however, provide a different perspective about how the Trans Mountain review happened.

Their allegation is serious: that the process was rigged following lobbying by Kinder Morgan.

According to the federal lobbying registry, the Texas company’s Canadian affiliate, Kinder Morgan Canada, reported lobbying federal officials in the government more than three dozen times in 2016 before Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that he was approving the Trans Mountain expansion project.

In January that year, the company lobbied the top public servant in Carr’s department, then-deputy minister Bob Hamilton, twice. An internal memo from January 14, 2016 revealed that its Canadian president, Ian Anderson, had requested a phone call to discuss the project, National Observer reported.

A subsequent email circulated within the department that suggested the company wanted to avoid delays in the federal review process. This in turn triggered concerns at the highest levels of the Trudeau government that the Texas energy giant might withdraw its multibillion-dollar project.

Following these industry discussions, the government decided to shorten the timeline on an expanded review of the pipeline, promised by Trudeau’s Liberals during the 2015 election campaign.

Government insiders say the instructions given a few months later — to find a way to approve the expansion — were explicit. Public servants were never asked to prepare for the possibility that the government might reject the pipeline, they explain, or restart the federal review using a new and improved process that Trudeau himself had promised.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

quote:

Three legal experts on Indigenous law contacted by National Observer said the instructions given to public servants about approving the pipeline project are troubling.

The lawyers all warned that these internal orders cast doubt on whether the government was sincere in its efforts to consult and accommodate First Nations on Kinder Morgan’s project — a matter now being reviewed by the Federal Court of Appeal.

The government has a legal duty to consult First Nations on any decision that could impact their land, water or rights under Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution.

Based on this requirement, the courts have the power to reverse the government’s approval of Trans Mountain and force it to restart its efforts to consult affected First Nations. It’s a process that could drag on for months or years, leading Kinder Morgan to cancel its project. The company has already threatened to abandon the pipeline after May 31 due to ongoing uncertainty about opposition it faces from the B.C. government.

But it’s not known whether the courts would consider any new evidence on appeal.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..this will be my last quote from this important read

quote:

By late October 2016 — one month before the project’s approval — a high-ranking public servant, then-associate deputy minister Erin O’Gorman of the Major Projects Management Office (MPMO), convened more than a dozen public servants from multiple departments to a special meeting to discuss the last steps in the project review. The MPMO is an interdepartmental office set up by the former Harper government in 2007 to speed up the federal review of major projects and make them more efficient.

The meeting took place on Oct. 27, 2016 in the boardroom of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. Officials from the port authority were invited, as were public servants from Environment and Climate Change Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Health Canada, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and Natural Resources Canada, according to emails released through access to information legislation.

“I also think she just wants to rally the interdepartmental team a bit as we draw down the clock on the existing timeline for decisions,” wrote a Crown consultations lead in an Oct. 26, 2016 email to colleagues regarding O’Gorman’s invitation.

Right before their internal meeting, federal officials met with Tsleil-Waututh representatives and told them that the government still hadn’t made a final decision on the project. But in the second meeting for government staffers only, public servants who were in the room said O’Gorman’s instructions were explicit.

“We have to give cabinet a legally-sound basis for saying yes,” O’Gorman said, according to people at the meeting.

Personal notes taken by one meeting participant, released through access to information legislation, indicate that the public servants discussed the issue of accommodating First Nations at the meeting, but also that the government was not going to change its ongoing process for consultations.

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Easily do without? No solution will ever satisfy you. Try using that misplaced logic throughout your day. 

The solution is that eventually Alberta will have to accept "no" for an answer. Alberta does not have the power to force the other provincies to bend to its will. Alberta rules Alberta. Nothng more. 

If the majority of BC says yes, why does Alberta "have to accept "no" for an answer"? Who is stating "no" and under what authority?

 

JKR

Martin N. wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Easily do without? No solution will ever satisfy you. Try using that misplaced logic throughout your day. 

The solution is that eventually Alberta will have to accept "no" for an answer. Alberta does not have the power to force the other provincies to bend to its will. Alberta rules Alberta. Nothng more. 

If the majority of BC says yes, why does Alberta "have to accept "no" for an answer"? Who is stating "no" and under what authority?

 

This most recent poll shows BC'ers supporting the BC government's position, 58 - 42%.

Angus Reid: TransMountain troubles: Alberta-B.C. pipeline battle splits Canadians down the middle

http://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2018.02.22-pipelines2.pdf

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Easily do without? No solution will ever satisfy you. Try using that misplaced logic throughout your day. 

The solution is that eventually Alberta will have to accept "no" for an answer. Alberta does not have the power to force the other provincies to bend to its will. Alberta rules Alberta. Nothng more. 

If the majority of BC says yes, why does Alberta "have to accept "no" for an answer"? Who is stating "no" and under what authority?

We don't know what the majority of BCers say as there hasn't been a referendum on the topic. There are two authorities that matter. The courts and government. The courts have not yet ruled. We have a stand-off between governments.

Assuming at some point both the courts and governments are all on board there is yet one more hurdle. Protesters can coerce governments to back down if opposition is determined enough. 

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Easily do without? No solution will ever satisfy you. Try using that misplaced logic throughout your day. 

The solution is that eventually Alberta will have to accept "no" for an answer. Alberta does not have the power to force the other provincies to bend to its will. Alberta rules Alberta. Nothng more. 

If the majority of BC says yes, why does Alberta "have to accept "no" for an answer"? Who is stating "no" and under what authority?

We don't know what the majority of BCers say as there hasn't been a referendum on the topic. There are two authorities that matter. The courts and government. The courts have not yet ruled. We have a stand-off between governments. Last week, you were adamant that the government and other authorities held no sway over 'the people'. Now, you change your tune.

Assuming at some point both the courts and governments are all on board there is yet one more hurdle. Protesters can coerce governments to back down if opposition is determined enough. 

Ah! 'The people' or 'social license' only count if they are protesters, huh? 

What if 'the people' are in support of KM? What if the supporters of KM hold the 'social license'? Are you saying the minority should attempt mob rule to get their way?

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:
 Last week, you were adamant that the government and other authorities held no sway over 'the people'. Now, you change your tune.

I never said that. I did say the government serves only with the consent of the people. 

Martin N. wrote:
Ah! 'The people' or 'social license' only count if they are protesters, huh? 

What if 'the people' are in support of KM? What if the supporters of KM hold the 'social license'? Are you saying the minority should attempt mob rule to get their way?

If the majority of people really do support KM then the government will have the social licence to be heavy-handed against protestors. On the other hand, they may decide the political price of heavy-handedness is too great. 

Personally I think sentiment against heavy-handedness will be stronger than support for the pipeline. 

Peaceful protests are not "mob rule".  

progressive17 progressive17's picture

I still think it is worth way more in the ground than being pumped at this time. Oil is going to run out, and just before that will be the best time to sell it.

However, it's not my call.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Trudeau goes on offensive after being questioned in House of Commons about 'rigged' Kinder Morgan process

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau sidestepped questions raised in the House of Commons on Tuesday about whether he was aware of secret instructions delivered in 2016 to public servants working on the federal review of the Trans Mountain expansion project.

NDP Parliamentary Leader Guy Caron raised the questions after National Observer published a report detailing how a high-ranking federal official urged public servants from multiple departments to find a legally-sound way for Trudeau's cabinet to approve the west coast pipeline project, proposed by Texas-based Kinder Morgan, four weeks before the government announced its decision.

quote:

"We now have a media report claiming that the process to approve Kinder Morgan was rigged, following lobbying from a Texas oil company," Caron said in the Commons. "The government rushed the review process and instructed staff to find a 'legally-sound basis to say yes to the Trans Mountain pipeline.' Was the prime minister aware that members of his government pressured officials to rush the review and produce a positive result for Kinder Morgan?"

The federal government has a legal duty to consult First Nations about decisions that may affect their rights, their land and their way of life under Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution. As a result, the courts could overturn Trudeau's approval of the Trans Mountain project if they determine federal consultations with First Nations weren't done in a meaningful way.

quote:

Trudeau targets NDP and Tories

Trudeau responded by accusing New Democrats and Conservatives of trying to force the government to choose between either the environment or the economy.

"We got elected on a commitment to both grow the economy and protect the environment at the same time, because, quite frankly, 10 years of the previous government not proecting the environment actually left us with the lowest economic growth rate since the depths of the Great Depression," Trudeau said.

"We are moving forward on both building pipelines and bringing in protections for the environment at the same time. It is what Canadians expect of our government, and it is what we are delivering."

Caron persisted, suggesting that Trudeau hadn't understood the question. The NDP MP also alluded to other details uncovered by National Observer which revealed that high-ranking federal officials sped up the timeline for completing the Kinder Morgan review, following a phone call from Ian Anderson, president of the company's Canadian affiliate.

"It's as if the CEO of Kinder Morgan has a direct line to the minister of natural resources," Caron said. "How can the prime minister continue to expect people to believe there was a balanced process, when it becomes clear that the dice were loaded from the start?"

quote:

"What's interesting with the NDP, is that New Democratic Party members and their leaders don't agree about this project," Trudeau said in the Commons, responding to Caron. "On one hand, their leader says he could accept this project, while on the other hand, the MP for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie (Alexandre Boulerice) says that his party would never accept it. We took a decision that was in the national interest that included a world-class plan to protect the oceans, since we know that the environment and the economy go together. While the NDP is searching for a position, we're acting in Canada's national interest."

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh told National Observer in an interview on Feb. 18 that Canada would only be able to move forward with the Trans Mountain project if "it’s subject to an environmental assessment that was modernized, that’s science-based, that had all the concerns around the environment addressed."

Trudeau declined to address Caron's questions directly.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Facts about Kinder Morgan Canadian Taxpayers Need to Know

Due diligence required before we sink money into a corporation with poor stock performance and repeated legal violations.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has instructed Finance Minister Bill Morneau to begin a series of discussions about a bailout for Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain project that will take place in Calgary, Toronto, Houston and New York, but the talks “won’t happen in public.”

Kinder Morgan, which has invested approximately $1 billion in the expansion of the project to date, stopped all essential work on the project on April 8 citing delays and uncertainty about the project’s economic future due to sustained legal, economic and political opposition.

Trudeau’s decision to invest in the $7.4-billion project with the object of “de-risking” the expansion to move diluted bitumen to the coast has been derided by both project proponents and critics alike as “a terrible idea.”

In contrast investors have noted that it won’t be the end of the world if Kinder Morgan pulls out of the project.

quote:

History: an Enron spin-off

Kinder Morgan, which runs what founder and Texas billionaire Richard Kinder calls an “unsexy, dirty business,” started off as an offshoot of the U.S. corporate giant Enron in 1996. That’s when a pair of senior Enron executives, Richard Kinder and Bill Morgan, joined up to purchase a couple of pipelines from Enron. Kinder and Morgan parlayed that investment into a North American pipeline empire while Enron collapsed in a spectacular fraud scandal in 2001.

To this day Kinder rarely speaks about the Enron scandal even though Kinder Morgan’s senior management team includes many prominent Enron executives, including Jordan Mintz and Steve Kean.

Kinder Morgan works like a utility and makes its money by charging shipping fees or tolls for moving gas, oil, CO2 and other petroleum products on its pipeline network. The company has pipelines extending to every major shale oil and gas field in North America and is a major mover of condensate, an essential diluent for bitumen, to Alberta’s oil sands. The company has a vast footprint and owns an interest in or operates approximately 137,000 kilometres of pipelines and 152 terminals.

quote:

Poor stock performance

The company has been in the financial doldrums for years due to poor earnings (the smallest dividend yields in the industry) and high debt.

Originally structured as a master limited partnership, which doesn’t pay corporate taxes, the company restructured in 2014 and became a corporation. In recent years master limited partnerships have been big money losers “as the energy crash has exposed earlier excesses in terms of leverage and bad investments,” explained a recent article in Bloomberg.

Due to high debt levels ($37 billion, or nearly a third of the value of the company) and low oil prices, the company has lost half of its stock value since 2015. Analysts credit the company’s poor stock performance to “poor business execution and way too much debt.”

There have been other issues. In 2013 Kevin Kaiser, a Wall Street analyst at Hedgeye Risk Management, accused the company of failing to properly maintain its pipeline infrastructure while boosting stock prices. Kaiser even described the firm as “a house of cards, completely misunderstood and mispriced.”

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
 Last week, you were adamant that the government and other authorities held no sway over 'the people'. Now, you change your tune.

I never said that. I did say the government serves only with the consent of the people. 

Martin N. wrote:
Ah! 'The people' or 'social license' only count if they are protesters, huh? 

What if 'the people' are in support of KM? What if the supporters of KM hold the 'social license'? Are you saying the minority should attempt mob rule to get their way?

If the majority of people really do support KM then the government will have the social licence to be heavy-handed against protestors. On the other hand, they may decide the political price of heavy-handedness is too great. 

Personally I think sentiment against heavy-handedness will be stronger than support for the pipeline. 

Peaceful protests are not "mob rule".  

Pretzellogic doesn't count. If the legitimate authority as defined by the CA and tested in the courts makes its decision, supported by the majority of 'the people', the 'protesters' put the lie to any legitimacy for 'social license'. It will be seen for what it is: another ruse to give authority to anarchists.

Peaceful protest is legal but peaceful protest isn't enough to stop anything and one can assume criminal elements plotting ways to "cry havoc' in order to draw a response.

it is interesting that more and more supporters are going public including the Cheam, Musqueam and  Simpcw (Shuswap) because they fear their voices being misappropriated by anti- pipeline zealots.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Court injunction to protect UK Oil and Gas threatens our rights to protest

Campaigners against the oil and gas industry in the South East of England took to the High Court last month to defend their right to protest against oil exploration in their area. Five local residents, including actress Sue Jameson, offered to stand as defendants against UK Oil and Gas (UKOG) who operate several sites across the Weald Basin of Surrey and Sussex. Weeks before, UKOG had served an injunction against ‘persons unknown’ which, if successful, would curtail freedom to oppose the potential industrialisation of the countryside.

The draft orders included actions already covered by criminal offences, such as trespass or criminal damage, but also mentioned the common protest tactic of ‘slow walking’, sometimes facilitated by police.

They also sought to prohibit other lawful acts by campaigners where the ‘predominant intention’ is to injure UKOG’s ‘economic interests’. But this could mean anything from talking to neighbours about the industry, handing out leaflets and sharing information online.

UKOG are building upon a similar injunction granted as an interim measure last year against local communities opposing fracking in Yorkshire – brought by the multinational petrochemical company INEOS. This is being appealed by anti-fracking campaigner Joe Boyd and Agent Provocateur founder Joe Corre who said of the UKOG case, “This is a copycat of the INEOS injunction with added bells and whistles. Make no mistake it’s a full frontal assault on our fundamental human rights to protest....

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..finally from the above piece

quote:

Then, in a dramatic U-turn last week, UKOG announced it was dropping the most draconian part of its proposed injunction, and no longer asking to outlaw campaigners ‘combining together using lawful means where the predominant intention is to injure the claimant’s economic interests’. Plus, there is no reference in the new order to exclusion zones outside the site entrances, where previous versions wanted campaigning restricted. Markwells Wood in the South Downs has also been removed from the list of sites under the proposed injunction, leaving Broadford Bridge in Sussex, Horse Hill in Surrey, plus their headquarters in Guildford.

UKOG said it had listened to communities’ concerns and was not trying to silence lawful protest, just asking for protection solely from what it called unlawful activity. Yet locking-on and slow walking are named in the new proposed injunction as prohibited acts of civil disobedience, despite being widely-used for decades to affect change.

Lorraine Inglis for Weald Action Group, said:

“UKOG have climbed down. This is a victory for democracy. No way should a company’s economic interests trump human rights. But the revised draft still retains many elements that would severely restrict our right to legitimate protest – attempting to control activities on public highways and suggesting we are not even allowed to ‘watch’ the activities of the company and its suppliers. We shall continue to challenge them every step of the way. We can’t let what we feel are bullying tactics stifle our right to defend our environment.”

If companies are taking campaigners to court to stop lawful protest or decide what it lawful or not, our democracy really is on shaky ground. We have to stand up and oppose it.

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:

Pretzellogic doesn't count. If the legitimate authority as defined by the CA and tested in the courts makes its decision, supported by the majority of 'the people', the 'protesters' put the lie to any legitimacy for 'social license'. It will be seen for what it is: another ruse to give authority to anarchists.

Peaceful protest is legal but peaceful protest isn't enough to stop anything and one can assume criminal elements plotting ways to "cry havoc' in order to draw a response.

it is interesting that more and more supporters are going public including the Cheam, Musqueam and  Simpcw (Shuswap) because they fear their voices being misappropriated by anti- pipeline zealots.

No pretzel logic required. I consider it a feature of democracies that takes into account strength of feeling. Our elected governments are quite good at knowing what they can and can't get away with. For example even though 80% of Canadians were against Bill C 51 Harper went ahead with it and Trudeau voted in favor. He got away with it because strength of feeling wasn't powerful enough to impact his ability to get elected. 

Business lobbies government all the time. Protests are a citizen's means of lobbying the government. It will be up to the government to decide how much and how strong the support is for the pipeline and govern accordingly. 

If you and Angus Reid are correct and there is broad strong support for the pipeline the government will have the social licence to use whatever force is needed to get it through. I don't think support is that strong. So I think the government will stop short of using the military. I think Trudeau under-estimated the level of opposition.  

Pondering

Line 3 going down!

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/industry-news/energy-and-resour...

An administrative law judge (ALJ) late on Monday rejected Enbridge’s preferred route for its Line 3 pipeline replacement, citing shifting energy demands and concerns over the company’s plan to abandon the existing line in the ground.

Judge Ann O’Reilly said Line 3 should proceed, but only on condition Enbridge removes and replaces the aging line along its existing right-of-way – an option the company had previously dismissed as impractical and cost prohibitive.

“The abandonment of the old Line 3 and the creation of a new corridor leaves open the possibility of thousands of miles of Enbridge pipelines someday being abandoned in-place when they are no longer economically useful to [the] applicant,” Judge O’Reilly wrote.

“This is particularly true in a carbon-conscious world moving away from fossil fuels; a move that Minnesota aspires to follow.”

The recommendation is a blow to Enbridge that threatens to further delay and heap additional costs on the $9-billion project, seen as critical to the company as well as Alberta’s beleaguered oil sands industry.

That's the oil industry. Leave taxpayers to take out the rotted pipelines. Ball is in their court. Are they going to take out the old pipeline? If they do, then it isn't that they couldn't afford to, they just didn't want to. Maximizing profits was more important. If they refuse, that means taxpayers will likely be saddled with the cost of removing them. 

If that is the case we should seize them now and collect the profits to pay for their removal. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Release the Secret Kinder Morgan Records, Prime Minister Trudeau

After explosive revelations from whistleblowers this week, Federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh and MP Guy Caron just challenged the Trudeau government to release all the secret cabinet records related to its Kinder Morgan review. Send your own message to Trudeau and Cabinet:

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Martin N. wrote:

Does Kinder Morgan pay property taxes in Burnaby? Property taxes that include a mill rate for fire protection?

There are industrial facilities everywhere that have complex chemical hazards. Is Burnaby the only jurisdiction that won't provide the protection that KM's taxes have paid for?

Sarcasm aside, I believe your relationship to logic is entirely circumstantial. Logic should dictate at least a rudimentary understanding of both industrial firefighting and marine safety before making such sweeping pronouncements yet you blithely ignore any evidence or fact that counters your wild rhetoric. Extremism is not helpful in determining a lasting resolution to the use of oil and its products going forward.

Thank you for making my point that you have no valid points to raise.  This is an EXPANSION of a highly dangerous facility in a major urban area. Please enlighten us how this is a good thing for anyone living in the area. If you could try to do it without the vitriolic personal attacks all the better.

The tank farm in that location is from another era and needs to be phased out now that it is no longer primarily for the purpose of storing crude until it can be refined in Burnaby for the Lower Mainland market. That is the economic model that allowed a tank farm to be built in that area. Now it is proposed that it should be expanded so that tar sands gunk can be shipped to Asia by a Texas company for the benefit of foreign owned  oil companies. WTF don't you get about risk and reward for the residents of Burnaby?

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Pretzellogic doesn't count. If the legitimate authority as defined by the CA and tested in the courts makes its decision, supported by the majority of 'the people', the 'protesters' put the lie to any legitimacy for 'social license'. It will be seen for what it is: another ruse to give authority to anarchists.

Peaceful protest is legal but peaceful protest isn't enough to stop anything and one can assume criminal elements plotting ways to "cry havoc' in order to draw a response.

it is interesting that more and more supporters are going public including the Cheam, Musqueam and  Simpcw (Shuswap) because they fear their voices being misappropriated by anti- pipeline zealots.

No pretzel logic required. I consider it a feature of democracies that takes into account strength of feeling. Our elected governments are quite good at knowing what they can and can't get away with. For example even though 80% of Canadians were against Bill C 51 Harper went ahead with it and Trudeau voted in favor. He got away with it because strength of feeling wasn't powerful enough to impact his ability to get elected. 

Business lobbies government all the time. Protests are a citizen's means of lobbying the government. It will be up to the government to decide how much and how strong the support is for the pipeline and govern accordingly. 

If you and Angus Reid are correct and there is broad strong support for the pipeline the government will have the social licence to use whatever force is needed to get it through. I don't think support is that strong. So I think the government will stop short of using the military. I think Trudeau under-estimated the level of opposition.  

In my opinion, social license does not enter into decisions in crowd control. That is police jurisdiction and is based on lawful responses to escalating danger to persons and property. If the police loose control, it becomes a matter for the provincial attorney general to enact Emergency Measures in order to request federal assistance.

The people of BC have polled at 80% for BC to stand down if the Court of Appeal rules against them. I do not believe protests will turn violent in BC although the professional grievance-mongers will certainly attempt some incendiary tactics to encourage a response. The RCMP can handle it and the hope that the military will respond is simply an activist wet dream for more media attention.

I also think you misjudge Trudeau. He has been called out personally and his ego will not allow him to back down. Inside that calm progressive exterior is a vain individual who is capable of vicious infighting to get his way. Ask the MP he elbowed in the .....Commons or Admiral Mark Norman or former MP Brasseau.

Martin N.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Does Kinder Morgan pay property taxes in Burnaby? Property taxes that include a mill rate for fire protection?

There are industrial facilities everywhere that have complex chemical hazards. Is Burnaby the only jurisdiction that won't provide the protection that KM's taxes have paid for?

Sarcasm aside, I believe your relationship to logic is entirely circumstantial. Logic should dictate at least a rudimentary understanding of both industrial firefighting and marine safety before making such sweeping pronouncements yet you blithely ignore any evidence or fact that counters your wild rhetoric. Extremism is not helpful in determining a lasting resolution to the use of oil and its products going forward.

Thank you for making my point that you have no valid points to raise.  This is an EXPANSION of a highly dangerous facility in a major urban area. Please enlighten us how this is a good thing for anyone living in the area. If you could try to do it without the vitriolic personal attacks all the better.

The tank farm in that location is from another era and needs to be phased out now that it is no longer primarily for the purpose of storing crude until it can be refined in Burnaby for the Lower Mainland market. That is the economic model that allowed a tank farm to be built in that area. Now it is proposed that it should be expanded so that tar sands gunk can be shipped to Asia by a Texas company for the benefit of foreign owned  oil companies. WTF don't you get about risk and reward for the residents of Burnaby?

As I have previously stated, I agree that KM should have moved completely out of Burnaby and Vancouver harbour. But, since the powers that be prefer devolving the project into a complete flustercluck rather than taking advice from concerned individuals, here we are.

In politics especially the decisions are not between good and better, they are always between really bad and just as bad. Political cowardice, foreign funded agendas, competing agendas, opportunists and rent-seekers add nothing but grief to the mix.

 

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:
 In my opinion, social license does not enter into decisions in crowd control. That is police jurisdiction and is based on lawful responses to escalating danger to persons and property. If the police loose control, it becomes a matter for the provincial attorney general to enact Emergency Measures in order to request federal assistance. 

Occupy took over parks across Canada for months. Politically the optics would have been bad if they were heavy-handed so they weren't. Politicians can and do tell police what to focus on. So yes, social licence matters. 

Martin N. wrote:
 The people of BC have polled at 80% for BC to stand down if the Court of Appeal rules against them. I do not believe protests will turn violent in BC although the professional grievance-mongers will certainly attempt some incendiary tactics to encourage a response. The RCMP can handle it and the hope that the military will respond is simply an activist wet dream for more media attention. 

It won't look better if it is the RCMP. If the numbers are fairly small it won't be a big deal. But if the numbers are large it will be a different story. The who and where will also matter. Arresting indigenous grandmothers and great-grandmothers on unceded territory is worse than arresting people blocking the terminal expansion. 

Trudeau's hands are tied. There is nothing he can really do right now. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..there are several points of view in this piece. here is one.

The Real Reason Canada is in Crisis Over the Kinder Morgan Pipeline

quote:

Trudeau’s broken promise to re-do Trans Mountain review

Federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May says the Liberals made a huge mistake in not fulfilling their campaign promise to re-do the Trans Mountain pipeline review if elected.

“I think they don’t understand how bad the National Energy Board study was,” May said. “They seem to have forgotten.”

Instead of starting the process over, Trudeau appointed a “ministerial panel” to fill in the gaps that’d been missed by the National Energy Board process.

The 58-page report submitted in November 2016 to Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr, concluded by posing six incisive questions to cabinet, including: “can construction of a new Trans Mountain Pipeline be reconciled with Canada’s climate change commitments?” and “how might Cabinet square approval of the Trans Mountain Pipeline with its commitment to reconciliation with First Nations and to the UNDRIP principles of ‘free, prior, and informed consent’?”

“That review panel asked some thoughtful questions that they thought should be answered before the project was approved,” Boyd said. “And of course those questions were never answered.”

In a prescient moment, the panel also acknowledged the controversy likely to be created by the pipeline: “The issues raised by the Trans Mountain pipeline proposal are among the most controversial in the country, perhaps in the world, today: the rights of Indigenous peoples, the future of fossil fuel development in the face of climate change, and the health of a marine environment already burdened by a century of cumulative effects.”

The panel did not, however, make any recommendations on what to do about all those thorny issues. That got punted back to the federal government, which — rather than acknowledging the inevitable controversy of a decision of this magnitude — has chosen to ignore all that complexity in favour a single talking point: “This pipeline will be built.”

On top of that, the federal government has now entered financial negotiations with Kinder Morgan.

“I don’t think we would have seen this coming out of Harper,” May said. “This is a manipulated crisis. We’re being played for country bumpkin fools by Texas.”

progressive17 progressive17's picture

May is not in a position to receive a phone call from an emotionless monster in the City or on Wall St. to explain the facts of life. She has no idea what Rachel Notley has to go through, and it looks like she never will.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..you seem to have an idea 17 and i believe i do. so why not may?

..she understands this:

“I don’t think we would have seen this coming out of Harper,” May said. “This is a manipulated crisis. We’re being played for country bumpkin fools by Texas.”

Pages

Topic locked