Canadians need and deserve an informed conversation on the merits and relative risks of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project. That is the only way a sensible judgment can be made. Unfortunately, we are once again not being well-served by any political leader on this critical issue.
In the summer of 2010, surrounded by British Columbia MPs Ujjal Dosanjh, Hedy Fry, Joyce Murray, and Keith Martin, Michael Ignatieff announced that, if elected, a Liberal government would legislate a permanent moratorium on tanker traffic off BC’s coast. Although it wasn’t explicitly mentioned, that decision effectively meant that the Liberal Party had taken a firm position against the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project. Without shipping access, there would be no pipeline. For a party that prides itself on being “evidence based”, the move was decidedly free of any analysis or evidence. It was pandering politics in its purest form.
As one would expect, the NDP has stated clearly that it is opposed to tanker traffic and the pipeline. No facts here; only emotion and ideology. Their base wouldn’t have it any other way.
As for the Conservatives, up until now they have been cagey on both tankers and the Northern Gateway, but we know their position on both. They are strong supporters. Last week Stephen Harper and his Natural Resources Minister, Joe Oliver, opened their kimono on the eve of the National Energy Board hearings by appearing to paint opponents as “radical environmentalists”. That, too, is typical is the Harper Conservatives. Theirs is a divisive and polarizing approach and evidence of a George W. Bush “you’re either with us or against us” governing philosophy.
It goes without saying that such rhetoric from all sides is unhealthy and is far from what we need to get at the truth.
Some have entrenched pre-conceived opinions about this. For most others, like me, the shrillness of what passes for “debate” is causing more confusion than anything else. I fear that the propaganda war between opposing sides is once again debasing the quality of discourse. As a consequence, that is leading to a further erosion in the confidence that we must have in politicians and the political process itself. This is not a minor issue. Unless we have trust in both, the fragile basis of our democracy will find itself in peril.
The facts are far from being in. The role and function of the regulatory process is to hear the evidence, listen to stakeholders, commission analysis, and render an opinion. Ultimately, the people of Canada should decide the issue through their elected representatives in the House of Commons and legislatures in Alberta and British Columbia.
For my part, I don’t know what the right answer is. But I do come to the discussion with a few core assumptions.
First, I believe that developing our frontier and leveraging our natural resources to build the national economy is a very positive thing – if done right – and not an inherent evil.
Second, Mr. Harper has a very valid point when he says that the regulatory process is painfully slow and cumbersome. The now deceased Mackenzie Valley pipeline gas project went through a regulatory maze spanning decades. Notwithstanding its relative merits, that ludicrous process cost hundreds of millions, took years, and is a signal to investors that Canada is far from open for business. It tells the world that we are an investment sinkhole. Smart money invests where the rules of the game are clear and stable. Otherwise, investors go elsewhere. And, unfortunately, they are. This process should be fixed so that decisions can be made within reasonable periods of time.
Third, nothing will happen unless and until First Nations of Alberta and British Columbia are onside. Whether proponents like it or not, First Nations have an effective veto on virtually any resource extraction or infrastructure development in these areas. One of the concrete steps that Ottawa and Victoria should take to remove the underbrush of uncertainly is to deal in the first instance with treaties. That impetus is necessary, but has been entirely absent. Ottawa in particular has been asleep at the switch and its negligence has been very costly to Canada’s economy. Refusing to deal in a serious way with treaties is also killing any real prospect that the Gateway pipeline will ever see the light of day. That may be good news for some. It is not to me.
My fourth assumption is that we are hostage to the US market for Alberta oil. That is inherently a bad situation for Canada and our economic sovereignty. The only way to reduce dependence on the United States is to sell our commodities to other markets that want them. As far as I can see, moving those products onto ships from BC ports is the only way that can happen.
There are risks, of course. But are those manageable? What are the probabilities of a disaster and what would be the costs? What contingencies are in place to mitigate them? Are the risks worth it relative to the benefits? And what would those benefits be to Canada’s economy, our standard of living, and our national security?
Harry Swain, a former federal deputy minister of industry and a fellow at the University of Victoria, has written very thoughtfully about some of these questions. One of them is why has Enbridge chosen Kitimat as its port? He reminded us that “200 tankers a year would cross the shallow and stormy waters of Hecate Sound, duck behind Banks Island, follow the narrow Principe Channel for 120 km, turn east through Otter Channel, cross the track of many Alaska cruise ships at the south end of Granville Channel, and ascend Douglas Channel, another narrow fiord, a further 100 km to Kitimat. Altogether, this is about 300 km of tricky navigation in waters distinguished by fog, storms, and quite amazing tidal currents. Whole volumes have been written about shipwrecks on the B.C. coast, end even with today’s modern navigation systems, ships run aground and sink.”
Why was the Port of Prince Rupert not chosen? Swain correctly points out that this already established industrial port provides direct access to open ocean and a pipeline route there would be much safer from an environmental perspective, although it is 200 kilometers further. If this pipeline is in the national interest, will Ottawa and BC contribute to making this financially viable for Enbridge? Should Enbridge be asked to share the financial risk with Trans Canada, its competitor?
The bigger and more fundamental question I have is the real crux of the matter – at least for me. What is the long-term impact of oil sands development on the global environment? If only three percent of the oil sands capacity is being exploited today, what will more intense extraction mean for our water and air quality? What are the current and projected cumulative implications for Canada’s carbon footprint and what does that mean today and in the future? What are the costs to the Canadian economy if we don’t proceed? What are we doing to make the oil sands cleaner? What are we doing to develop alternative sources of energy? Why aren’t we building refineries in Canada to turn our resources into petroleum products? And what does governmental support for a project that is clearly a major polluter mean for our national credibility and stature in the global fight against climate change?
I have an open mind. My bias is that I want to develop the Canadian economy and am ready and willing to give the concept the benefit of the doubt. But I want us to build in a sustainable, responsible and safe way. At this juncture, there are far too many unanswered questions for any of us, I think, to draw meaningful conclusions. And the inflammatory rhetoric on “foreign” influences is a sideshow, nothing but an embarrassing diversion, and a fake debate. The fact is that both sides of this issue are packed with foreign influences. Opponents are funded by many foreigners and so too are proponents.
Once again, we find ourselves in a circumstance where responsible leadership can and should play a vital role in educating us so Canadians can make an informed and rational decision. Tell me, is that too much to ask?
Original Article
Source: iPolitico
In the summer of 2010, surrounded by British Columbia MPs Ujjal Dosanjh, Hedy Fry, Joyce Murray, and Keith Martin, Michael Ignatieff announced that, if elected, a Liberal government would legislate a permanent moratorium on tanker traffic off BC’s coast. Although it wasn’t explicitly mentioned, that decision effectively meant that the Liberal Party had taken a firm position against the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project. Without shipping access, there would be no pipeline. For a party that prides itself on being “evidence based”, the move was decidedly free of any analysis or evidence. It was pandering politics in its purest form.
As one would expect, the NDP has stated clearly that it is opposed to tanker traffic and the pipeline. No facts here; only emotion and ideology. Their base wouldn’t have it any other way.
As for the Conservatives, up until now they have been cagey on both tankers and the Northern Gateway, but we know their position on both. They are strong supporters. Last week Stephen Harper and his Natural Resources Minister, Joe Oliver, opened their kimono on the eve of the National Energy Board hearings by appearing to paint opponents as “radical environmentalists”. That, too, is typical is the Harper Conservatives. Theirs is a divisive and polarizing approach and evidence of a George W. Bush “you’re either with us or against us” governing philosophy.
It goes without saying that such rhetoric from all sides is unhealthy and is far from what we need to get at the truth.
Some have entrenched pre-conceived opinions about this. For most others, like me, the shrillness of what passes for “debate” is causing more confusion than anything else. I fear that the propaganda war between opposing sides is once again debasing the quality of discourse. As a consequence, that is leading to a further erosion in the confidence that we must have in politicians and the political process itself. This is not a minor issue. Unless we have trust in both, the fragile basis of our democracy will find itself in peril.
The facts are far from being in. The role and function of the regulatory process is to hear the evidence, listen to stakeholders, commission analysis, and render an opinion. Ultimately, the people of Canada should decide the issue through their elected representatives in the House of Commons and legislatures in Alberta and British Columbia.
For my part, I don’t know what the right answer is. But I do come to the discussion with a few core assumptions.
First, I believe that developing our frontier and leveraging our natural resources to build the national economy is a very positive thing – if done right – and not an inherent evil.
Second, Mr. Harper has a very valid point when he says that the regulatory process is painfully slow and cumbersome. The now deceased Mackenzie Valley pipeline gas project went through a regulatory maze spanning decades. Notwithstanding its relative merits, that ludicrous process cost hundreds of millions, took years, and is a signal to investors that Canada is far from open for business. It tells the world that we are an investment sinkhole. Smart money invests where the rules of the game are clear and stable. Otherwise, investors go elsewhere. And, unfortunately, they are. This process should be fixed so that decisions can be made within reasonable periods of time.
Third, nothing will happen unless and until First Nations of Alberta and British Columbia are onside. Whether proponents like it or not, First Nations have an effective veto on virtually any resource extraction or infrastructure development in these areas. One of the concrete steps that Ottawa and Victoria should take to remove the underbrush of uncertainly is to deal in the first instance with treaties. That impetus is necessary, but has been entirely absent. Ottawa in particular has been asleep at the switch and its negligence has been very costly to Canada’s economy. Refusing to deal in a serious way with treaties is also killing any real prospect that the Gateway pipeline will ever see the light of day. That may be good news for some. It is not to me.
My fourth assumption is that we are hostage to the US market for Alberta oil. That is inherently a bad situation for Canada and our economic sovereignty. The only way to reduce dependence on the United States is to sell our commodities to other markets that want them. As far as I can see, moving those products onto ships from BC ports is the only way that can happen.
There are risks, of course. But are those manageable? What are the probabilities of a disaster and what would be the costs? What contingencies are in place to mitigate them? Are the risks worth it relative to the benefits? And what would those benefits be to Canada’s economy, our standard of living, and our national security?
Harry Swain, a former federal deputy minister of industry and a fellow at the University of Victoria, has written very thoughtfully about some of these questions. One of them is why has Enbridge chosen Kitimat as its port? He reminded us that “200 tankers a year would cross the shallow and stormy waters of Hecate Sound, duck behind Banks Island, follow the narrow Principe Channel for 120 km, turn east through Otter Channel, cross the track of many Alaska cruise ships at the south end of Granville Channel, and ascend Douglas Channel, another narrow fiord, a further 100 km to Kitimat. Altogether, this is about 300 km of tricky navigation in waters distinguished by fog, storms, and quite amazing tidal currents. Whole volumes have been written about shipwrecks on the B.C. coast, end even with today’s modern navigation systems, ships run aground and sink.”
Why was the Port of Prince Rupert not chosen? Swain correctly points out that this already established industrial port provides direct access to open ocean and a pipeline route there would be much safer from an environmental perspective, although it is 200 kilometers further. If this pipeline is in the national interest, will Ottawa and BC contribute to making this financially viable for Enbridge? Should Enbridge be asked to share the financial risk with Trans Canada, its competitor?
The bigger and more fundamental question I have is the real crux of the matter – at least for me. What is the long-term impact of oil sands development on the global environment? If only three percent of the oil sands capacity is being exploited today, what will more intense extraction mean for our water and air quality? What are the current and projected cumulative implications for Canada’s carbon footprint and what does that mean today and in the future? What are the costs to the Canadian economy if we don’t proceed? What are we doing to make the oil sands cleaner? What are we doing to develop alternative sources of energy? Why aren’t we building refineries in Canada to turn our resources into petroleum products? And what does governmental support for a project that is clearly a major polluter mean for our national credibility and stature in the global fight against climate change?
I have an open mind. My bias is that I want to develop the Canadian economy and am ready and willing to give the concept the benefit of the doubt. But I want us to build in a sustainable, responsible and safe way. At this juncture, there are far too many unanswered questions for any of us, I think, to draw meaningful conclusions. And the inflammatory rhetoric on “foreign” influences is a sideshow, nothing but an embarrassing diversion, and a fake debate. The fact is that both sides of this issue are packed with foreign influences. Opponents are funded by many foreigners and so too are proponents.
Once again, we find ourselves in a circumstance where responsible leadership can and should play a vital role in educating us so Canadians can make an informed and rational decision. Tell me, is that too much to ask?
Original Article
Source: iPolitico
No comments:
Post a Comment