Stephen Harper, Alison Red-ford and Christy Clark need to arrange a conference call to review several hard realities in relation to the Northern Gateway pipeline.
. First, B.C. is legitimate in demanding greater fiscal benefit from what's widely viewed in the province as an environmentally risky, politically unpopular project.
British Columbians feel bombarded with requests for piping from Alberta's oilsands, especially since plans are afoot to expand Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain Pipeline into the Lower Mainland.
Aside from the business com-munity, people here would be happy to see the Enbridge proposal - even with its associated construction jobs - disappear. They, of course, fear oil spills that will be as inevitable as rain, and don't trust oil companies to properly carry out spill-response plans or grant adequate financial compensation when mishaps occur.
They also don't want to see a legal dogfight, which surely will ensue with B.C. aboriginal groups opposing the project.
Further, many regard Enbridge's choice of Kiti-mat as a port for oil exports as egregiously irresponsible when Prince Rupert, while more costly, is obviously the sounder environmental choice, positioned on the Pacific coast.
. Second, B.C. has a strong bargaining position in the dispute, which accounts for Premier Clark's bold statements last week at the premiers' conference.
Clark knows public opinion is against the pipeline, with many not wanting it at any price. She's acting to save her own political hide, with the more popular B.C. NDP, headed by Adrian Dix, pledging to stop Northern Gateway should it win power in an election set for next year.
Also, Clark recognizes B.C. has the power to thwart Gate-way through a provincial permitting process. Pipelines must comply with conditions imposed in permits issued by a province, conditions that can't be overruled by Ottawa.
Through permitting, B.C. could impose all manner of operating fees and taxes.
. Which suggests Clark may be misfiring in asking Alberta for royalties as compensation for risk.
That is, Clark ought to be negotiating with Enbridge, seeking appropriate benefits for B.C. through the permitting process.
This may not be easy, how-ever, since an Enbridge spokesman last week dismissed the current controversy as "a government-to-government issue."
. Alberta also has cards to play. It can point to two natural gas pipelines from north-eastern B.C. that cut through Wild Rose country en route to markets elsewhere in Canada and the U.S.
For that matter, what about other B.C. products transiting Alberta by rail and road? Less risk, to be sure, but the principle is the same: use of one province's infrastructure for another's benefit.
And might Alberta threaten to stop shipping oilsands product to B.C. consumers through the existing Kinder Morgan pipe-line to Burnaby?
In fact, it's only practical and reasonable that goods and ser-vices be permitted to travel unfettered across Canada.
. Finally, the federal cabinet cannot afford to line up behind Alberta, as might be Harper's political preference and as MP for Calgary Southwest and cabinet ministers John Baird and Jason Kenney in fact did last week. The PM's party already owns all but a single seat in Alberta, whereas its position is a lot more tenuous in B.C.
In the 2011 election, Conservatives won 21 seats in B.C. to the New Democrats' 12.
Early-July polling by Ekos Research reveals significant provincial support has since shifted to Tom Mulcair's party, which is opposed to Northern Gateway. Conservative sup-port - 45 per cent in B.C. in the 2011 vote - is now down to 28 per cent.
Moreover, it's in Harper's and Redford's interest to find an early compromise with Clark rather than waiting to do battle with a hostile "Premier Dix."
The three political leaders, individually, each have compelling reasons to scale back the rhetoric.
Original Article
Source: vancouver sun
Author: Barbara Yaffe
. First, B.C. is legitimate in demanding greater fiscal benefit from what's widely viewed in the province as an environmentally risky, politically unpopular project.
British Columbians feel bombarded with requests for piping from Alberta's oilsands, especially since plans are afoot to expand Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain Pipeline into the Lower Mainland.
Aside from the business com-munity, people here would be happy to see the Enbridge proposal - even with its associated construction jobs - disappear. They, of course, fear oil spills that will be as inevitable as rain, and don't trust oil companies to properly carry out spill-response plans or grant adequate financial compensation when mishaps occur.
They also don't want to see a legal dogfight, which surely will ensue with B.C. aboriginal groups opposing the project.
Further, many regard Enbridge's choice of Kiti-mat as a port for oil exports as egregiously irresponsible when Prince Rupert, while more costly, is obviously the sounder environmental choice, positioned on the Pacific coast.
. Second, B.C. has a strong bargaining position in the dispute, which accounts for Premier Clark's bold statements last week at the premiers' conference.
Clark knows public opinion is against the pipeline, with many not wanting it at any price. She's acting to save her own political hide, with the more popular B.C. NDP, headed by Adrian Dix, pledging to stop Northern Gateway should it win power in an election set for next year.
Also, Clark recognizes B.C. has the power to thwart Gate-way through a provincial permitting process. Pipelines must comply with conditions imposed in permits issued by a province, conditions that can't be overruled by Ottawa.
Through permitting, B.C. could impose all manner of operating fees and taxes.
. Which suggests Clark may be misfiring in asking Alberta for royalties as compensation for risk.
That is, Clark ought to be negotiating with Enbridge, seeking appropriate benefits for B.C. through the permitting process.
This may not be easy, how-ever, since an Enbridge spokesman last week dismissed the current controversy as "a government-to-government issue."
. Alberta also has cards to play. It can point to two natural gas pipelines from north-eastern B.C. that cut through Wild Rose country en route to markets elsewhere in Canada and the U.S.
For that matter, what about other B.C. products transiting Alberta by rail and road? Less risk, to be sure, but the principle is the same: use of one province's infrastructure for another's benefit.
And might Alberta threaten to stop shipping oilsands product to B.C. consumers through the existing Kinder Morgan pipe-line to Burnaby?
In fact, it's only practical and reasonable that goods and ser-vices be permitted to travel unfettered across Canada.
. Finally, the federal cabinet cannot afford to line up behind Alberta, as might be Harper's political preference and as MP for Calgary Southwest and cabinet ministers John Baird and Jason Kenney in fact did last week. The PM's party already owns all but a single seat in Alberta, whereas its position is a lot more tenuous in B.C.
In the 2011 election, Conservatives won 21 seats in B.C. to the New Democrats' 12.
Early-July polling by Ekos Research reveals significant provincial support has since shifted to Tom Mulcair's party, which is opposed to Northern Gateway. Conservative sup-port - 45 per cent in B.C. in the 2011 vote - is now down to 28 per cent.
Moreover, it's in Harper's and Redford's interest to find an early compromise with Clark rather than waiting to do battle with a hostile "Premier Dix."
The three political leaders, individually, each have compelling reasons to scale back the rhetoric.
Original Article
Source: vancouver sun
Author: Barbara Yaffe
No comments:
Post a Comment