West-East Pipeline

Pondering wrote:

The point of the pipeline is to increase production in the oil sands and access tidewater so the oil, refined or otherwise, can be shipped to foreign markets.

Energy East carries 1/3 more oil than Keystone so it is even worse than Keystone from the perspective of impact on climate change. Energy East also threatens the local Canadian environment much more than Keystone does. I don't want any pipelines at all and I do not support Trudeau supporting Keystone but of all the pipelines contemplated Keystone is the least threatening to Canada. Energy East, the Northern Gateway, and any Arctic exit routes are the worst from an environmental perspective.

That Energy East creates more jobs in Canada is completely immaterial.

Rokossovsky wrote:

Sorry, you haven't followed Mulcair's policy statements on this issue clearly. He proposes an raw material export ban, or restriction. This is the reverse of an import tarriff or barrier. This is what Quebec did with raw lumber exports, something which forces manufacturers to create "value added" production facilities in Quebec, if they want to use Quebec's raw lumber.

This proposal is not addressed by the Council of Canadians statement, nor by you.

In short you could not export Canadian oil to foreign markets, without first refining it. This would mean that greater refining capacity would have to be created, with consequent permanent employment.

You are missing the point. It doesn't matter where the oil is refined. It is still coming out of the ground and being refined somewhere for eventual consumption outside of Canada.

The purpose of stopping pipelines is two-fold.

1) Prevent pipeline leaks as they ALL leak it's just a matter of degree and location. Leakproof pipelines could be built but the oil industry must have concluded it is uneconomical to do so. Therefore, the pipelines being proposed are leaky ones. It is unecomomical for communities to absorb the costs of leaks in exchange for a few temporary construction jobs.

2) Prevent the expansion of the oil sands because of their impact on climate change.

Mulcair's proposals don't cover either of those issues.

Trudeau is taking the position that social licence is required but can be achieved through meeting environmental concerns which is about the same position as Mulcair has only he hasn't been promoting EE the way Mulcair has been for years.

Climate change and the local threat of disaster for communities along the routes of pipelines are the driving forces against pipelines.

In comparison, the promise of jobs for some communities on the east coast and warnings of economic disaster if we don't allow pipelines right through the heart of Canada have become hollow.

Really, what's the worst thing that's going to happen if we don't allow more pipelines, another recession? If pipelines are economical it's only in the very short term. Even 20 years from now we won't be able to use the oil industry as a primary driver of the economy. As a country economic wisdom suggests we need to be planning our transition.  If Alberta wants to get maximum benefit from it's oil it should be refining it at home not trying to pump out bitumen as fast as possible.

Maybe they all have to support oil for electability. Either way, the NDP's current position on pipelines prevents them from claiming the high ground environmentally. The Liberals are no better but neither are they worse.

Pipelines have become the line drawn in the sand. You can't be a little bit better than the next guy. All three major parties are supporting pipelines. The NDP is no better than the other parties on the environmental file.

..first nations issues, pipelines, fracking, environment, trade deals and jobs must be addressed as a whole and not piecemeal or separate. what is being learned in bc and now in quebec and elsewhere is that the resource industry is not going to move forward unless communities involved agree to it. this means consultation in a genuine and meaningful way. this means concerns being addressed. this is not just a theoretical debate where you get to toss out possibilities. where is the consultation with municipalities like burnaby and vancouver. the cons are in the process of removing first nation treaty rights to push forward it's energy policies so where is the uproar from the opposition parties.

..the decision whether or not to support the kinder morgan was postponed by the federal ndp until the neb ruled on it..as in the case of northern gateway. this differed in the case of energy east. who did the ndp consult with before mulcair announced that project was going to be a priority? certainly not the first people downstream from the tarsands contracting cancers. certainly not those suffering in chemical alley that surrounds sarnia, ont. certainly not those affected by the spills happening in alta now. certainly not the victims of the massive mount polley spill. none of these existing problems are being addressed in an acceptable manner now let alone when the troubles related to the possible pipelines begin.

..just because the politicos have locked themselves into a system that disrespects life doesn’t mean we should accept their direction. and now, with many many folks speaking out it is up to politicos to convince the very diverse and growing movements opposed to these projects..via real dialog.

KenS wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

If we are ever to have real control over environmental concerns, then it is absolutely paramount that our government have the ability to control the economy, and have say over and above the profit-based motives of the international corporate sector.

Export barriers mean real local control over manufaturing.

Agreed.

So, the export ban on bitumen via the proposed East-West pipeline is essential.

Which is why we need to see Mulcair's own words. Does he elevate the support for a ban to the same status as his support for building the pipleline? 

Here for example, CTV paraphrases the argument:

Quote:

We understand that our resources are a blessing and we can continue to develop them,” Mulcair said.

“But for heaven’s sake, instead of shipping them raw to the U.S., this rip and ship approach that the Liberals and the Conservatives are in favour of, the NDP says why not go from West to East? You create more value-added jobs in Canada, you get a better price for the producing provinces because there’s better royalties there as well, and you’re ensuring you’re taking care of Canada’s energy security for the future.”

As an example, Mulcair referenced Quebec’s decision to ban the export of raw logs in Quebec, which spurred a furniture manufacturing industry in the province.

Shipping natural resources away is a lost opportunity, and the focus should be on developing new technologies for energy development in Canada, he says.

“There’s a common-sense role for government in these kinds of things, because we should have a balanced economy,” Mulcair said.

“We used to ship the logs to the States and buy back the furniture they would make. Now we’re doing that with energy.”

bagkitty wrote:

Of course if refining capacity were actually built in Alberta, and bearing in mind that it would be a multi-year endeavour, the argument that any pipelines MUST be built would be weakened, and might even slow down the frantic pace of development... it is not as if the hydro-carbons have an expiry date built in. But of course that would undermine the Manichean discourse... we couldn't have that could we?

ETA: A couple of years old, but still has an interesting analysis.

Quote:

But NDP energy critic Peter Julian has a different take. He says Canada’s failure to compete in the refining industry has been as much a result of government policy as economics.

“Can we build refineries? Can we build upgraders? Yes we can. We need a commitment from the government to look at policies that favour that kind of construction, and that kind of value-added production,” he told The Huffington Post. “What we have right now is a government that favours the opposite: exporting of raw bitumen.”

KenS wrote:

KenS wrote:

 Which is why we need to see Mulcair's own words. Does he elevate the support for an export ban to the same status as his support for building the pipleline? 

In answer you qoted from an interview with Mulcair:

Quote:

We understand that our resources are a blessing and we can continue to develop them,” Mulcair said.

“But for heaven’s sake, instead of shipping them raw to the U.S., this rip and ship approach that the Liberals and the Conservatives are in favour of, the NDP says why not go from West to East? You create more value-added jobs in Canada, you get a better price for the producing provinces because there’s better royalties there as well, and you’re ensuring you’re taking care of Canada’s energy security for the future.”

As an example, Mulcair referenced Quebec’s decision to ban the export of raw logs in Quebec, which spurred a furniture manufacturing industry in the province.

Shipping natural resources away is a lost opportunity, and the focus should be on developing new technologies for energy development in Canada, he says.

“There’s a common-sense role for government in these kinds of things, because we should have a balanced economy,” Mulcair said.

“We used to ship the logs to the States and buy back the furniture they would make. Now we’re doing that with energy.”

 

Mulcair's support for the pipeline is always unequivocal. He adds the clear qualification "provided proper environmental review is done."

Can you point to any equivalent qualification that his support of the pipeline is contingent on or goes only with an export ban?

Otherwise, those are just nice stories. 

Trans Canada and all the other proponents also alwasy feature national security and replacing the use of imported oil at refineries. They also would like if the refineries would use the bitumen they plan to ship in the pipeline. But they know that is not what the pipeline is about, it is an optional extra.

In real terms, what is different about the way Mulcair puts the possibility of an export ban?

Because the specific solution to creating more capacity, is not written in stone, whether it be an export restriction, or direct investment in infrastructure, or the possibility that increased supply of cheaper oil will spur investment in capacity. All of these types of tools have been floated as part of NDP discussion on this topic. Mulcair's reply to the argument made by CoC has always been that the "assumption is that the capacity will not be built".

However it is done, the NDP clearly advocates government intervention to build home grown refining capacity. as part of its platform.

Quote:

Conservative neglect doesn’t end there. Even with synthetic crude oil from Alberta trading for as much as $41 a barrel less than imported Brent crude oil on the east coast, Conservatives have continued to pull out all the stops to promote the export of raw resources while ignoring the potential for increased pipeline capacity from west to east.

Within a framework of sustainable development — including a cap-and-trade system and thorough environmental assessments — New Democrats would prioritize our own energy security and with it the creation of high-paying, value-added jobs, refining and upgrading our own natural resources right here in Canada — just as other resource-rich developed nations like Norway already have.

Building a balanced, sustainable energy future -- Thomas Mulcair

KenS wrote:

KenS wrote:

Trans Canada and all the other proponents also alwasy feature national security and replacing the use of imported oil at refineries. They also would like if the refineries would use the bitumen they plan to ship in the pipeline. But they know that is not what the pipeline is about, it is an optional extra.

In real terms, what is different about the way Mulcair puts the possibility of an export ban?

Rokossovsky wrote:

Because the specific solution to creating more capacity, is not written in stone, whether it be an export restriction, or direct investment in infrastructure, or the possibility that increased supply of cheaper oil will spur investment in capacity. All of these types of tools have been floated as part of NDP discussion on this topic. Mulcair's reply to the argument made by CoC has always been that the "assumption is that the capacity will not be built".

However it is done, the NDP clearly advocates government intervention to build home grown refining capacity. as part of its platform.

Quote:

Conservative neglect doesn’t end there. Even with synthetic crude oil from Alberta trading for as much as $41 a barrel less than imported Brent crude oil on the east coast, Conservatives have continued to pull out all the stops to promote the export of raw resources while ignoring the potential for increased pipeline capacity from west to east.

Within a framework of sustainable development — including a cap-and-trade system and thorough environmental assessments — New Democrats would prioritize our own energy security and with it the creation of high-paying, value-added jobs, refining and upgrading our own natural resources right here in Canada — just as other resource-rich developed nations like Norway already have.

Building a balanced, sustainable energy future -- Thomas Mulcair 

New Democrats would prioritize energy security and creation of high paying jobs, but there is no direct linkage in that long piece to the East-West pipeline.

It says this: "Conservatives have continued to pull out all the stops to promote the export of raw resources while ignoring the potential for increased pipeline capacity from west to east."

Your general points are a little to deterministic for my liking, markets change. For example, the market is changing right now with the increasing tensions in Eastern Europe and ongoing instability in the mid-east. Even now the EU is thinking of changing the designation of Canadian oil, so that it can reduce supply dependence on Russia.

Moreover, past discussions have included actual refining in Ontario for export to the USA. At the very least reducing dependence on imported crude to feed refineries in New Brunswick is not a bad thing from an economic perspective.

It may be that market incentives are not going to do the trick, as you said, I would never rely on such a mechanism myself, but the point remains that the NDP have clearly stated they are committed to increased upgrading and refining capacity, even going so far as to suggest, as Thomas Mulcair has said, export restrictions on raw materials.

This is the argument that the CoC fails to address -- you are doing a better job of making an argument on point about capacity.

Moreover, the reference to the Alberta Federation of Labour statement on the West-East pipeline seems a little cherry-picked, since it basically argues the point about "value added" production that Mulcair has repeatedly endorsed since he took over the leadership. My sense is that the Alberta Federation of Labour agrees more with Mulcair than it disagrees, citing the Premiers of Alberta and New Brunswick, and the lack of commitment to increased refining capacity, and "rip and ship" economics:

Quote:

We raise these points in an effort to encourage the public and media to look more closely at the claims being made by proponents of the pipeline, including the Premiers of Alberta and New Brunswick. Despite all the rhetoric and the spin, it’s clear that Energy East is not a ‘nation building’ project. Instead, it is yet another in a long line of projects aimed to perpetuating the ‘rip-it-and-ship-it’ approach that has characterized Canada’s resource sector for too long.

The AFL does not have that common ground with Mulcair that you hypothesize.

Their position has nothing to do with any national goals.

They have not given up on having more Alberta bitumen processed into synthetic crude. [Their hope is a little more realistic than waving a wand and talking about increased refining capacity in Central or Eastern Canada, but that is not the point here.]

More upgraders were on the horizon, until the price tags started coming in. The likelihood of a revival looks ever more remote, since it got no renewed traction at all, even with the long term discounting of Alberta bitumen.

But that price spread is all the AFL has for hope to hang on to. It seems to be dissapearing anyway, but Keystone XL, Nothern Gateway, or East-West would kill off what little chance remains.

Rokossovsky wrote:

Your comments on the environmental issue are fair enough about the general picture, but the NDP is also making an economic argument.

My point is to be progressive on this issue means not supporting any pipelines. The NDP (to me) is the worker party not the "social justice party" or the "progressive party". As "the worker party" the NDP supports big business as long as it creates union jobs.

The NDP's economic argument is immaterial to people concerned for the environment.

Obviously we are going to disagree on this one. Mulcair, and the NDP have proposed a series of initiatives to address the economic back end of this pipeline. See above where they critique the cancellation of an 11b investment in upgraders for oil cancelled by Harper.

More importantly, in fact no, you actually have to address the economic issue in its entirety. The biggest mistake of the mainstream environmental movement is to ignore the economics, and time and time again they are trapped in the mode of thinking that environmental issues are somehow above "partisanship", or "left and right", and its from this fallacy that we get the naive belief that issues of the environment are going to be solved through neo-liberal market incentive formulas such as "cap and trade", and "revenue neutral" carbon taxes.

Even worse, the biggest weakness of those trying to promote climate change awareness are these areas of economics, where the direct impact of environmental reform is born by the lower classes, which in turn creates an predictable backlash against cost downloading. Mark Carny is all for "revenue neutral" carbon taxes, since ultimately its a Green Trojan Horse for replacing progressive income tax and corporate taxes with consumption taxes. "Cap and trade" is an obvious boondoggle. So, you get direct economic impacts on the lower classes (including the middle class) accompanied by control mechanisms that are so ill-defined that it is obviouse they are permeable to plain corruption that it is easy for people to see them as a deliberate rip-off.

An sustainable future, must also be politically sustainable, and this will never happen if you increase social stresses through impoverishing people in the name of environmental reform, where you create a plutocrats paradise, where they fly and drive and everyone else has to deal with underfunded, and barely functional public transit.

Tar Sands Devastation Unveiled outside Canada Europe Energy Roundtable

Tuesday November 18th, 2014. A coalition of climate and social justice organizations and artists held a silent presence and unveiled a large landscape which depicts the devastation caused by Canadian tar sands outside the Canada Europe Energy Roundtable this morning.

“Communities from across the UK have come together to make this banner to show our solidarity with those communities on the front lines of tar sands who have lived for generations in close relationship with the land” said Amanda Cid, a community artist “it is important to make visible the animal species and cultures that are being pushed to extinction because of decisions being made behind closed doors between industry and government.”....

Put that simply:

One should never underate the power of sticking to "We cannot do that to our home and planet."  (period)

Well this is unfortunate:

[url=https://ricochet.media/en/207/former-ndp-staffer-leads-pr-campaign-for-e... NDP staffer leads PR campaign for Energy East pipeline[/url]

Quote:

The revolving door between Parliament and the private sector has swung open once again, as a leaked report from U.S. public relations firm Edelman, prepared for Transcanada as part of a broader strategy to sell its Energy East pipeline project, makes clear that links between Canada’s New Democratic Party and the pipeline company’s PR firm are closer than previously imagined.

The document, titled “Grassroots Advocacy Vision Document,” reveals that Erin Jacobson, the former deputy director of strategic communications in official opposition leader Thomas Mulcair’s office, has been acting as “Canadian program lead” since joining Edelman’s Energy East team to “provide Canadian-specific advocacy counsel” on June 1, mere days after she left the NDP. Ms. Jacobson has been acting as vice-president of digital public affairs at Edelman, the world’s largest private public relations firm.

This article seems to have just appeared, but I think the story has been kicking around at least a couple days.

Former NDP staffer leads PR campaign for Energy East pipeline

Quote:

The document, titled “Grassroots Advocacy Vision Document,” reveals that Erin Jacobson, the former deputy director of strategic communications in official opposition leader Thomas Mulcair’s office, has been acting as “Canadian program lead” since joining Edelman’s Energy East team to “provide Canadian-specific advocacy counsel” on June 1, mere days after she left the NDP. Ms. Jacobson has been acting as vice-president of digital public affairs at Edelman, the world’s largest private public relations firm.

... and click on the document link in the quote. A chilling read.

KenS wrote:

This article seems to have just appeared, but I think the story has been kicking around at least a couple days.

Former NDP staffer leads PR campaign for Energy East pipeline

Quote:

The document, titled “Grassroots Advocacy Vision Document,” reveals that Erin Jacobson, the former deputy director of strategic communications in official opposition leader Thomas Mulcair’s office, has been acting as “Canadian program lead” since joining Edelman’s Energy East team to “provide Canadian-specific advocacy counsel” on June 1, mere days after she left the NDP. Ms. Jacobson has been acting as vice-president of digital public affairs at Edelman, the world’s largest private public relations firm.

... and click on the document link in the quote. A chilling read.

 

I don't know, its got some upside's to it, as well, such as these observations:

Quote:

• Permanent, persuasive, nimble and well-funded opposition groups

• Pipeline projects being used as proxies for the broader "off-oil" public debate

• Record low levels of public trust in government, meaning regulatory approval is no longer sufficient to successful project implementation.

Fair enough to say that it is a stretch of the actual information being used to accuse the NDP of hypocricy.

But you place an overarching defence of everything about the NDP's defefence on a thin base of some things that can be called overstatements.

Lets allow it is not out and out hypocricy. The whole thing still does not pass a basic smell test.

Jacobsen did not have anything to do with policy. But that she could go from a "nuanced" support of the East-West to working for TransCanada's global counter-attack on oppenents says something. She isn't working on nuances anymore. She is beating the bushes to create some 'advocacy' for TransCanada's whole corporate agenda.

And getting back to the NDP itself, here is as kind and friendly a criticism as you could ask for. From here in Halifax.

You can’t lead on climate and support Energy East. Catherine Abreu of the Ecology Action Centre writes: “At this point, it is an either/or choice: either we invest in clean energy infrastructure or we continue down the road of fossil fuels.”

KenS wrote:

Fair enough to say that it is a stretch of the actual information being used to accuse the NDP of hypocricy.

But you place an overarching defence of everything about the NDP's defefence on a thin base of some things that can be called overstatements.

Lets allow it is not out and out hypocricy. The whole thing still does not pass a basic smell test.

Jacobsen did not have anything to do with policy. But that she could go from a "nuanced" support of the East-West to working for TransCanada's global counter-attack on oppenents says something. She isn't working on nuances anymore. She is beating the bushes to create some 'advocacy' for TransCanada's whole corporate agenda.

And getting back to the NDP itself, here is as kind and friendly a criticism as you could ask for. From here in Halifax.

You can’t lead on climate and support Energy East. Catherine Abreu of the Ecology Action Centre writes: “At this point, it is an either/or choice: either we invest in clean energy infrastructure or we continue down the road of fossil fuels.”

It's not a "defense" of their position. Its a correction on the facts of the NDP position, which were being misrepresented.

So I think we agree that to say that the NDP was never "against pipelines". And there is no flip-flopp on the issue, with an additional point that there is not much that the NDP can do about subordinate PR people, taking their skills, and moving on to the corporate sector. That is a matter of Jacobsen's conscience, and doesn't reflect on the the NDP, no more than Nick Kouvalis appearing as the campaign manger for Rob Ford, then Christie Clarke, and then John Tory, reflects on any of those parties, despite the fact that they are nominally in different camps, and even in opposition to one another at times.

It might say something about the culture of Jack Layton's office, given that Jacobsen's career was solidified there. It is certainly an interesting move.  Perhaps her stint there will teach her something about what the corporate sector is all about.

Having said that I guess we can get back to discussing the actual policy, which was where I entered into this discussion with the Council of Canadians statement in this thread, and on this one the NDP has been remarkably consistent, so to spin it as if the NDP once "against" pipelines is false, even if those who are critiquing Meaghan Leslie want to impose the definition that it must be an "either/or choice" is one that the NDP continue not to accept. As a demand it is fair enough, and I certainly support those who want to emphasize and pressure any and all parties along these lines.

The point Catherine Abreu even more interesting in its original context, where she says:

Quote:

It is true that we will continue using fossil fuels for a while longer. It is also clear that fossil fuels are becoming more difficult and costly to extract. Plus, there’s that whole business of our addiction to fossil fuels propelling changes in the climate that will obliterate our coastlines and dramatically shorten the lake hockey season.

The era of fossil fuels is drawing to a close. It must end if we are to safeguard the health of future generations, and it can end because present generations have developed the alternatives.

Transition takes time and those alternatives won’t entirely replace our fossil fuel-based systems in the next decade. They will, however, dominate the global energy and electricity landscapes of 2050.

At this point, it is an either/or choice: either we invest in clean energy infrastructure or we continue down the road of fossil fuels. The future can not afford for us to have it all.

And this more clearly engages the problem that Mulcair is addressing in the issue of governance. So, its great to call for "investment" in sustainable energy, but its another thing to propose where that "investment" is going to come from, particularly in an political environment, where the existing government is on the one hand hollowing out the financial ability of government to "act" proactively as an "investor", while on the other shredding the ability of local government to rein in corporate projects.

Mulcair insists that if Enbridge wants to run the pipeline they will have to pay for the environmental costs.

Quote:

“It’s two very different things. If you’re internalizing your environmental costs; if you’re enforcing legislation then you can continue to develop,” said Mr. Mulcair, later adding that “I was very clear that I was never going to preach against developing the oil sands. What I was saying was that you have to include the environmental price in the way you’re doing it.”

And, just to note, it is not strictly true that pipeline is "new" infrastructure, the great majority of the Energy East pipeline, is refurbished existing infrastructure.

So, unlike that other parties, in Mulcair you actually have a politician who is engaging these issues from an environmental perspective, as policy, with a very clear objective of maintaining local control and power of government to intervene in the process, and seeking benefits to make transition to a more sustainable future that are economically tenable. And this is of utmost importance because sustainable future must be economically sustainable, or it will be politically untenable.

It would seem that Mulcair would aim to minimize the damage, by refitting existing infrastructure, asserting the right of government to intervene, and allowing for greater input from affected communities, and directing energies toward building a stronger manufacturing economy by keeping as much of the production "in house", and rejecting wholesale development of entirely new infrastructure, elsewhere, which will have next to no redisdual benefits at all, and greater global impact since that development will be entirely outside of the control of the Canadian government, ala Keystone XL, or floating Bitumen laden tankers along the BC coast to China.

In his usual careful manner Mulcair's operative word was "preferable", in reference to the other available options of dealing with the tremendous "sunk costs" of the pell mell rush to develop the tar sands. That Harper must strip all the teeth out of environmental regulation says volumes about how those regulations act as a deterrent on the financial viability of the whole tar sands project. I think the point is to strangle the beast through regulation, incrementally, while recovering investment.

Great article - thanks for the link, NR!

Ontario, Quebec sign deals on electricity, climate change

The premiers of Ontario and Quebec signed a joint agreement to work together to share electricity and to advance their climate change agendas after a combined meeting of their cabinets today.

The statement makes a direct reference to the pipeline projects planned to carry Alberta oil through Ontario and Quebec....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ontario-quebec-sign-deals-on-electricity...

Looks like they might have to refine in Alberate, which will probably please the AFL.

..press release

Edelman and TransCanada agree to end collaboration on the Energy East Pipeline project

TORONTO, Nov. 26, 2014 /CNW/ - Over the last week, attention has moved away from the merits of TransCanada's Energy East Pipeline project.  As a result, and in the best interests of the project, Edelman and TransCanada have mutually agreed not to extend Edelman's contract beyond its current term.  The contract concludes at the end of December, but Edelman will support the transition of work.

The communications strategy for the Energy East Pipeline is "to drive an active public discussion that gives Canadians reason to affirmatively support the project."

We stand by our strategy. It was both ethical and moral, and any suggestion to the contrary is untrue.

Unfortunately, the conversation about our efforts has become so loud in certain areas that it is impossible to have an open and honest conversation about the Pipeline project.  The project is too important and a thoughtful, deliberative conversation is needed more than ever.  For that reason we feel that selection of a new partner for the project is necessary at this time so a new conversation on the merits of the project can begin.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1453435/edelman-and-transcanada-agree-to...

[url=https://ricochet.media/en/217/quebec-vs-energy-east]Quebec vs. Energy East[/url]

Quote:

Sunday night, on the most watched television show in Quebec, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois — who is, in full disclosure, a weekly columnist for the French edition of Ricochet — announced he would be donating the $25,000 Governor General’s Literary Award he received for his first book, Tenir tête, to the fight against pipelines.

...

Quote:

Nadeau-Dubois made an appeal for Quebecers to match his donation through a crowdfunder launched concurrently with the show. He asked for $25,000.

In 24 hours, he raised almost $300,000 and counting. All of the money raised will be donated to Coule Pas Chez Nous, (It will not flow here), a coalition of regional community groups from all parts of Quebec. It will be used to help organize grassroots resistance to Energy East and the reversal of Line 9B (Quebec’s other incipient pipeline project).

Based on the dollars raised in the first 24 hours, it is the most successful crowdfunder in Canadian history. It is also a game changer in the fight against pipelines.

...

Quote:

That’s right, we said menace. The editorial position of this media outlet, unlike most other outlets in Canada, is to accept the work of the Nobel-prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations Environment Program and 97 per cent of all climate scientists. According to them, we must leave most of the tar sands oil, and other fossil fuels, in the soil to avoid catastrophic climate change.

We cannot do that if we build these pipelines. Not Northern Gateway, not Kinder Morgan, not Keystone XL and certainly not Energy East. It isn’t a question of picking the least worst pipeline, as Tom Mulcair and Justin Trudeau have framed it. We cannot allow even one to be built, not while staying within the carbon budget our scientists agree we must in order to stave off disaster.

This didn't seem to make the grade for this thread -- Council of Canadians: Liberals and Conservatives support Energy East oil terminal on the St. Lawrence River

Quote:

The NDP put forward a motion in the House of Commons that states, "the proposed Port of Gros-Cacouna oil terminal, which will be used for the sole purpose of exporting unprocessed Canadian oil, will have a negative impact on the Canadian economy through the loss of well-paid jobs, will constitute an unacceptable environmental threat to the St. Lawrence ecosystem, including the beluga whale population, and therefore, is not consistent with the principle of sustainable development, and must be rejected."

At 6:55 pm on Monday, the House voted 94 in favour, 175 opposed to this motion.

Glum? Who is glum?

The NDP has never supported the Northern Gateway Pipeline. You seem to be implying that Thomas Mulcair's failure to make an appearance in Burnaby, indicates that he does, and he is avoiding the issue?

In fact, the reason he supports the general West-East pipeline idea, without the terminal in Quebec, is because he believes that it is superior to the Northern Gateway Pipeline. They consistently oppose anything that involves shallow water shipping. That is the whole point, I think:

Tom Mulcair's NDP firmly against Northern Gateway pipeline

Quote:

"Allowing super tankers into the Douglas Channel is madness, and it should not take place," Mulcair said. Aside from the risk of spills, Mulcair said the federal government has failed to consult First Nations that would be impacted by the project. "The pipeline itself suffers from one major flaw, which is the fact that we're not dealing with First Nations a nation-to-nation basis," Mulcair said.

You think not showing up in Burnaby indicates a shift in his position?

They also don't support shipping in the St. Lawrence either.