so ppl think the NDP saying nononono before all submissions are in was good, but the liberals, who won a bigger majority, saying as it currently stands are saying no because the NEB is winding down, the Liberals could have said yes, remember that bigger majority they won. so here they stuck to what they stated, didn’t meet their conditions, they had to make a decision for the NEB and they did, but don’t think Enbridge is behind the scenes trying to appease the government, and like I said there is the rail option which needs no ones permission but the federal governments
Well pointed out.
Now point out the handful of anti-Enbridge “leaders” in every community along the route who are being blindly accepted and the one leader who had all the facts, knew the extent of the opposition, yet wouldn’t voice it during the campaign.
Matter of fact, won that campaign largely on the fact the NDP did state it’s opposition to pipelines and tanker traffic.
Nice move to grab all the pro-energy vote and then stab them in the back.
Know what I really am pissed about? Where’s the Party, the 'leadership" that says this is vital to the national interest, this is Canada’s economic Manhattan Project and we’re going to DO IT. And we know you don’t like it but it’s getting done and we’ll try our best to smooth things over along the way. That doesn’t exist, it won’t step forward. Instead of the simpering whining ‘baw they won’t LET us’ approacg that exists.
Where’s the Brian Mulroney - the country needs a GST you’re getting a GST, I’ll stack the bloody Senate and humiliate the Queen to get a GST and you can call me an asshole all you want.
how did Christy Clark stab them in the back? she won in anti-pipeline ridings as well. the whole center and eastern ridings went to the liberals and quite a few of those ridings are anti-enbridge, hell she even won Vancouver where alot of the anti-pipeline ppl are. at least she didn’t say NO NO NO without getting all the facts straight. the Liberals could have just said ok you met our conditions and allowed it afterall she does have a big majority and a mandate for whatever decision she makes on the pipeline, since she campaigned on not saying no to the pipeline unless the conditions they set out aren’t met.
Good God what does it take to penetrate some people’s milk-like perceptions?
3 months ago she’s on the all-Canadian shitlist because every politican in Canada knows ahe wants a bigger slice of the pie.
3 weeks ago she’s wearing a hard hat, standing in a refinery and chanting pro-energy slogans and Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Those enviro-weenies are gonna run us into the Stone Age, we’re your only hope!
Soon as she wins, it’s ‘the environmental condition’ they oppose it on - not a goddam thing has changed with then Enbridge situation for a year, the House hasn’t even sat yet. A handy excuse and not even the pretense of proper process is needed.
The so-called conditions weren’t met before the election
They run a campaign implying a fair process and collect the pro-pipeline vote as the other guys are clearly against JUST ON THE ENVIRO ISSUE
As soon as they’re elected they reject it themselves GIVING THE SAME REASON
What is unclear? What?
In the Liberals re-election platform they never were using the NGP as part of their job plans. Sure she was in the north wearing hard hats but it had nothing to do with Enbridge. LNG is what they are hoping for in their job creation plans.
so of all those communities from the west coast to the alberta border that are against the oil pipeline, the majority of them voted Liberal, even when the liberals didn’t say they opposed the pipeline. does that mean those communities now support the oil pipeline? or does it mean that they support the building of LNG plants in our province? my point is there is no wishy washy during the election by saying we won’t prejudge it until we hear everything, and to saying no to the pipeline after the election, the liberals won a big majority, they could have said yes to the pipeline regardless of the opposition, who is going to oppose them in the parliament? so what would be the purpose of the liberals, according to you, to reject the pipeline now instead of during the election? plus they left the door open for enbridge to come back with something better.
Aside from what is being said in the media and on this site; did anyone actually read the submission letter to the JRP Panel. There are lists of things that need to be clarified and many more data acquisitions made in order for the BC gov’t to endorse this line.
The Letter
env.gov.bc.ca/main/docs/2013 … 130531.pdf
BC Gov’t News Release
newsroom.gov.bc.ca/2013/05/b … panel.html
The bottom line
"In April 2012, the Joint Review Panel released 199 potential conditions that could form part of an authorization for the Northern Gateway Pipeline project if it received federal approval. In preparing the final argument submission, the Province’s legal and technical experts analyzed the conditions and determined that they must be strengthened to meet B.C.'s interests and requirements.
The position adopted by B.C. on the Northern Gateway Pipeline project as currently proposed is not a rejection of heavy-oil projects. All proposals - such as Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion or the Kitimat Clean project - will be judged on their merits. The Province’s five conditions would still apply."
yep they had to make a submission against it because it was the last time they could, the panel is winding down. they didn’t reject it outright, enbridge can come back and make more proposals to appease those conditions
Not that Ezra Levant is someone we have to listen to but I always enjoy when right wingers take on people other than left wingers.
He doesn’t see what the difference is now compared to three weeks ago. Calls Dix an “anti-industry extremist” but “he at least had the courtesy to flip flop during the campaign.”
He thinks Clark has flip flopped on Enbridge, and at the end calls her a liar.
sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/sear … 1213887001
We have yet to see how Christy Clark will manage as a premier. All she has done the past two years is campaign and effectively so. She obviously has a brilliant team. I am not sure what her reasons are for the early announcement on Enbridge (less than a month before the hearings wrap up) but I am guessing there is a strategy behind it. Maybe she is making sure she hasn’t completely alienated the environmentalists during her by-election or maybe she is hoping to wring something out of Enbridge, Alberta, or the federal government. Or maybe she knew all along what she was going to do and was just smarter than Dix and kept her mouth shut. Who knows with her.
Boy, that is sure grasping at straws when a lefty quotes Ezra Levant.
I don’t know what people can’t grasp here. Last year Clark made 5 conditions for her support of the Northern Gateway. The project is a federal matter, but obviously provincial support makes things smoother. If you read the demands, it is easy to conclude that they are very difficult to meet, and this looked like a good way to say “we support pipelines in general, but we have very high standards”. If you remember the comments coming from Alberta and other parts of Canada at the time, this seemed like a deal breaker. She also said, the Kinder Morgan twinning proposal would face the same scrutiny.
It was Dix who said NO to Enbridge, and NO to Kinder Morgan. He wasn’t going to hear them out, or negotiate, or set a standard. He said NO and that lost him an election.
Whatever you think of her, Clark is no dummy. It was a very hot political topic and she played it very well.
As I said, yes she did. Garnered never every voter who was pro-Enbridge with a faint-hope campaign. Didn’t matter if she knew before hand the constituents were against, play that card later.
Good P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S.
If Adrian Dix had STFU he’d be premier. But the NDP position was clear.
Now I offer the NDP some advice from when I helped on the Harcourt campaign. We told each other every day - “No more MORAL victories.”
[quote=“herbie_popnecker”]
As I said, yes she did. Garnered never every voter who was pro-Enbridge with a faint-hope campaign. Didn’t matter if she knew before hand the constituents were against, play that card later.
Good P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S.
If Adrian Dix had STFU he’d be premier. But the NDP position was clear.
Now I offer the NDP some advice from when I helped on the Harcourt campaign. We told each other every day - “No more MORAL victories.”[/quote]
Christie was clear that the project had to meet five conditions. Those weren’t met… End of story. Also, for every faint hope pro-Enbridge vote received you can bet there was a vote for the NDP because the Liberals refused to give an outright no to the project. That pissed off at least as many ( and Id bet more) people that it pleased.
the government had to state its position because the panel was winding down for presentations, if i’m right, this week. so far Enbridge has not provided good enough assurances on oil spills on land where they are responsible, on the water they are not responsible so no clear answers on that yet either. Clark did not lie about the governments position at all, they still say enbridge could get their approval even after the NEB decides yes or no, as long as they meet the conditions set out by the government, especially to the environment.
again Herbie where is she being contradictory from when she announced the government is saying no to enbridge as it is now, to her statements during the campaign? they did not meet the government conditions for them to say ok you have our support. The Liberals won a big majority so she could have said yes they met our conditions, but instead she said they haven’t met them yet, the door is open for more negotiations, and not to rehash the election but Dix was on his way to losing anyways, once ppl got to know him better on the election trail, the only reason he came out against Kinder Morgan is because he was trying to win the environmental votes, ie he was desperate, for I bet their internal polling were showing them dropping, after all Dix himself was saying the election was closer then the media polls were showing…
here is my advice for the NDP, get rid of Moe Shiota, and Dix, make Mike Farnworth the new Leader and clean house.
I think you are confusing being pro-Enbridge and being pro-Process, herbie. Clark made the news in the fall because of the conditions she wants Alberta to meet in the name of environmental risks to BC. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I never thought that when all was said and done with the Panel that the BC Liberals or any other party would be in a position to unconditionally support to the pipeline.
Of course they can’t the majority’s been clearly opposed for over a year. But as much as 40% support the pipelines. Do any of you have any idea how much crap I heard from people down South? YOU PEOPLE… live in wilderness… against ANY progress… SO WHAT if there’s a spill in the Big Empty…
I would hazard to guess a year ago the majority of southern BC was pro-Enbridge. They’d rather dirty someone else’s back yard, ahead of any expansion in through Vancouver.
So what’s smart politically? Go after 0% of those people or just by keeping silent and making slight implications by saying “jobs” instead, grab some of those votes? The NDP were dumb asses and threw away 100% of that vote demographic.
And kiss off with the FIVE FUCKING CONDITIONS. Ask anyone in any other province in the whole country. Or half the people in BC. Only one matters, Christy wants THE MONEY.
$1M to reopen the Kits Coast Guard base, $2M to expand the Rupert or a new Kitimat base maybe the Feds guarantee cleanup cost coverage, and a couple billion somehow flowing to Victoria and suddenly the tune will change.
Ask me, in my opinion given the BC Liberals history of political incompetence this ‘smart’ move might not even have been intentional. Stumbled on by coincidence, and milked afterwards.
The five conditions.
-
Successful completion of an environmental review process. In Enbridge’s case, this means a recommendation by the Joint Review Panel that the project proceed.
-
World-leading marine oil-spill prevention and response systems to protect our coastlines and ocean. With the Enbridge project, British Columbia is taking 100 per cent of the marine risk. We need to make sure we improve our response and resource capacity. That means the federal government and industry are at the table and prepared to step up their support.
-
Enhancement of our on-land spill response to world-leading standards. We have looked at different models in different jurisdictions that include an industry- or polluter-pay principle to help offset any costs borne by the taxpayer in case of a spill. Again, this is important in the Enbridge context because nearly 60 per cent of the 1,172-kilometre pipeline would run through B.C.
-
Legal requirements regarding aboriginal and treaty rights must be addressed and first nations must be provided with opportunities to benefit from these projects. In B.C., we have led the way in working with first nations to ensure new developments are a win for communities, industry and the province.
-
B.C. must receive its fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits of the Enbridge project and other proposals for heavy oil pipelines.
The first condition may or not be met when the JRP makes its final decision later this year when the hearings finally end in a week or two. If they wanted to be fair and not say no until all the evidence had been heard, should the government not have waited until the hearings had been completed before announcing that they are opposed?
What has changed over the last three weeks when it comes to world class marine and land spill responses and the requirements regarding treaty rights? Could they not have made the same statement three weeks ago during the election that they are making now. Of course that would have been foolish from a political standpoint, but I think that might be what is confusing some people. Nothing has changed, so why the timing now instead of waiting until after the whole process has been completed in a couple of weeks.
Why not wait a couple of weeks until all the evidence has been presented and then make a statement before the panel begins to write its report.
Are they hoping for some last minute guarantee of some kind from Enbridge, Alberta, or Ottawa? or are they really truly opposed and probably had their minds made up several weeks/months ago?
It might be political, but if that’s what it takes to govern the province properly, then I guess that’s why that annoying political opportunism is so effective. If only Adrian Dix had seized his opportunity, but he didn’t. Thus the (as CBC declares) crushed NDP leave Clark and the Liberals free to present their opinion on their own terms, and not at a convenient time for the floundering New Democrats.
a good part of the opposition for enbridge also came from the lower mainland, why do you think Adrian Dix said no to enbridge during the panels review, not to try to win up here but to win the enviromental vote in Vancouver. why do you think alot of the editorials in the Sun and Province were reminding ppl where jobs are created by encouraging oil and gas exports.
This is a quasi-judicial process. The schedule is set by the Panel. The Province does not get to say whatever it wants, whenever it wants to suit political considerations.
The Province did not make a “statement” before the Panel. It made a submission, more specifically a 99 page written “Argument”, which should make for some interesting reading for those so inclined < env.gov.bc.ca/main/docs/2013 … 130531.pdf >
The Argument was prepared and submitted by the Province’s lawyers. The Argument is consistent with political statements made by the government before, during and after the election, but makes a detailed case for the Panel’s consideration. Not surprisingly the submission was completed after the Final Hearings for the Questioning Phase ended on May 1 (Enbridge’s evidence was submitted months ago; since then it has been responding to questions about that evidence).
The Province’s submission was made in advance of the the Oral Argument Phase, which begins on June 17 in Terrace. That too is appropriate, because it gives Enbridge time to prepare responses to the Province’s written Argument. The Province’s lawyers have advised the Panel that they will be making oral arguments as well during that phase.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
This is a quasi-judicial process. The schedule is set by the Panel. The Province does not get to say whatever it wants, whenever it wants to suit political considerations.
The Province did not make a “statement” before the Panel. It made a submission, more specifically a 99 page written “Argument”, which should make for some interesting reading for those so inclined < env.gov.bc.ca/main/docs/2013 … 130531.pdf >
The Argument was prepared and submitted by the Province’s lawyers. The Argument is consistent with political statements made by the government before, during and after the election, but makes a detailed case for the Panel’s consideration. Not surprisingly the submission was completed after the Final Hearings for the Questioning Phase ended on May 1 (Enbridge’s evidence was submitted months ago; since then it has been responding to questions about that evidence).
The Province’s submission was made in advance of the the Oral Argument Phase, which begins on June 17 in Terrace. That too is appropriate, because it gives Enbridge time to prepare responses to the Province’s written Argument. The Province’s lawyers have advised the Panel that they will be making oral arguments as well during that phase.[/quote]
Thanks. I guess that makes some sense. Given what you have just said and having read more of that submission, do you still believe this…
[quote=“BTravenn”]
I have a queasy feeling that it isn’t dead yet.