Is It Victory For Federal NDP If Trans Mountain Is Killed?

http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/columnists/les-leyne-rail-cars-roll-through-pipeline-fight-1.23267080

Dp

Notley the right wing and and biggest shill for Trans Mountain pipeline.

Keep threatening BC,Notley. You don't have power or jurisdiction you petro SHILL. Sit down and shut up.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/kinder-morgan-puts-brakes-on-tran...

Keep up with the nonesense excuses for her that she is simply showing leadership in protecting Albertan interests. You can't twist that pretzel without then conceding Trudeau is working  to protect Canadian interests.

Notley : "Maybe the government of B.C. feels they can mess with Texas — and who knows, maybe they can. But let me be absolutely clear. They cannot mess with Alberta."

Trudeau : "Canada is a country of the rule of law, and the federal government will act in the national interest. Access to world markets for Canadian resources is a core national interest,"

Yet the attacks on Notley. *crickets* She's just as right wing as any other Alberta politician but she gets a pass for being a New Democrat,which of course she isn't. She's the new leader of the Wild Rose Party in which she has now resurrected.

You can't attack Trudeau without attacking Notley. They are both shilling for the same pipeline with Notley being the biggest cheerleader and hard liner.

If Canada won't stop acting like a constitutional democracy and start asting like  a petro-tyranny Kinder Morgan says it will takje its pipeline and go home.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/alberta-diary/2018/04/kinder-morgan-thre...

progressive17 wrote:

Notley says it is BC versus Canada. My Canada does not include Notley.

Neither does mine. If anyone is an outlier in Canada it's Alberta not BC. I'm happy that Alberta is part of Canada but that doesn't mean they get to dictate to BC or any other provinces. 

Alberta could have had a trillion dollars by now in their Heritage Trust Fund. Which is about the same as the market capitalization of all of the Canadian banks, priced at 280% of book value as they are. Lougheed started that one up nicely. With that kind of money, you could completely obliterate the oil industry, clean it up (reducing it into raw element feedstock), and start producing fresh biological matter which will quite quickly provide environmental compound interest, convert to limitless fuels which emit no carbon, and export just as much of that as they were exporting oil before. With no possible depletion. Plus you could build an advanced post-industrial society based on adding value to people rather than digging things out of the ground. As three-dimensional biological food production uses less land than two-dimensional agriculture, land can be bought up and returned to its rightful owners, who may want to let it turn back into forest or whatever else they want to do with it.

Otherwise, you would have to wait 200,000 years for that poisoned land to become useful again. I don't think it is fair to ask people to wait 10,000 generations for restitution. The longer those tailing ponds sit there ignored, the higher the chance the situation will get much worse.

 Compared to Norway Alberta is a failed state and unfortunately it is only get much worse over time

NorthReport wrote:

So what actually was achieved by this supposedly very significant Trudeau meeting? What actually changed from before the meeting took place to after this morning’s Ottawa meeting that brought Notley and Horgan all the way to Ottawa at Trudeau’s request?

https://www.straight.com/news/1058456/alberta-premier-rachel-notley-calls-kinder-morgan-pipeline-poster-child-cooperative

The two most salient points in the article are:

1: Notley said that her government will establish a "financial relationship" with the pipeline company that "will eliminate financial risk". 

2: Trudeau said Finance Minister Bill Morneau will hold "formal financial discussions with Kinder Morgan" to "remove the uncertainty" around the project.

"Socialization of risk and privatization of profits". Whoever coined that term deserves a pat on the back. 

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/pipeline-protesters-plan-to-ramp-up-activities-following-trudeau-announcement

https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/04/15/kinder-morgan-pipeline-first-nations-block-trans-mountain-indigenous_a_23411828/?utm_hp_ref=ca-news

https://www.myprincegeorgenow.com/72517/a-genuine-sense-of-optimism-horgan-talks-pipeline-in-ottawa/

I thought the provinces had jurisdiction over natural resources. If that is the case, BC has jurisdiction over its land and water, as those are natural resources by definition. If that is the case, they can say what can happen to that land and water, and what cannot. BC is where humans go to exterminate forests and their species, and why should Alberta be allowed to cut into that action, where BC is getting nothing out of the deal?

BC wins powerful new ally

http://vancouversun.com/news/politics/braid-as-trudeau-starts-to-act-b-c-wins-a-powerful-new-ally/wcm/3b4c95fe-eee4-4948-a691-427b4e1dda2c

What’s really criminal in Canada’s Kinder Morgan debacle

https://www.straight.com/news/1058116/martyn-brown-whats-really-criminal-canadas-kinder-morgan-pipeline-debacle

At the heart of every great fortune is a crime. Ask John D. Rockefeller!

progressive17 wrote:

I thought the provinces had jurisdiction over natural resources. If that is the case, BC has jurisdiction over its land and water, as those are natural resources by definition. If that is the case, they can say what can happen to that land and water, and what cannot. BC is where humans go to exterminate forests and their species, and why should Alberta be allowed to cut into that action, where BC is getting nothing out of the deal?

Read sections 91, 92 and 92A. What you will see is that the links between provinces are Federal responsibility Article 92 Section 10. The constitution provided in Article 92A that each province had the right to its own exploration,development, conservative and management of the reousrces on its territory. It certainly appears that the Federal government is responsible for the distribution links.

There are two questions:

1) How far can each province go with respect to regulation of that line. I suspect that an outright refusal may not be in the provincial jurisdiction.

2) Indigenous lands are in Federal jurisdiction but there is also a constitutional responsibility to protect Indigenous peoples and lands.

On the face of it the shared responsibility that might be found in the first paragraph may not extend past reasonable regulation. I serious do not see that case as being the strongest.

The second is where I think the greatest jeapardy for the Federal position lies. This is where there may be a sound constitutional argument to stop the pipeline.

If you are relying on the first I think the chances of success are very remote. This is why if this is framed as a Provincial-Federal jurisdictional dispute the Pipeline will succeed. However, if this is framed as an Indigenous rights dispute, the Federal Government may yet fail. Indigenous rights are being supported in law increasingly. Old references to Federal-Provincial jurisdiction do not apply as directly to this changing interpretation. It is not clear to me that older references even if positive for the Federal Governemnt will be upheld. This is also the reason why a reference to the Court has foundation as in that past decisions themselves may not provide the most current reading.

Another question is what happens if First Nations along the route are divided. Can one block another -- is it every Nation individually that must provide consent or the collective total? This creates a quesiton of what Nation to Nation means -- with Nation to Nation, I can't see how you can look at a collective relationship but rather a series with each one having a veto. When it comes down to this the Federal Government may try to pit the interests of one Nation against another. The Federal Government may try to claim itself as the arbitrator between more than one Nation -- difficult when you consider the obvious conflict.

I do not see this as simple in terms of the politics or the constitution  -- even though many claim that it is.

Here is a link for those who want to read the distribution of powers:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-4.html#h-17

One would think the right-wing mainstream media would have the word deadlock as part of their vocabulary. But no......

Finally an accurate summation

Deadlock at Pipeline Summit

Horgan to press ahead with court case; Notley, Trudeau pledge pipeline will be built.

The emergency summit between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and British Columbia and Alberta premiers John Horgan and Rachel Notley Sunday failed to end the standoff over Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

Horgan emerged from the Ottawa meeting citing continued concerns over environmental risks in transporting diluted bitumen from Alberta through B.C. to Asian markets.

His government still plans to pursue a reference case to the Supreme Court of Canada on whether B.C. has the right to establish regulations that could delay or block the pipeline expansion.

https://thetyee.ca/News/2018/04/16/Pipeline-Summit-Deadlock/

Arrested pipeline protestors are now facing criminal charges.

Thanks Sean! What a quagmire! Keep fighting!

In the meantime I had some ideas for an acceptable design for a pipeline. Of course, because of all the civil unrest, we have to defend every centimetre of it from a terrorist attack, vandalism, etc. So the enclosure should be made of material that can withstand a direct hit by a small missile, coated on the inside with a Teflon-like substance so if there is a spill inside it, it will bead up nicely for a recovery, as we cannot waste an atom of this precious resource.

I have been ranting about oil spills, but only because lost oil means lost profit! However if I am for oil spills, we might be able to privatize water too! Then we can pay off the "government debt" by taxing Nestle!

A metre or two of steel-reinforced concrete might do the job. After all, there is the Evil Empire of the day (is it Russia I think?), and not to mention the Islamic State!

We also do not want to lose a cubic nanometre of this precious Earthly bodily fluid, so we must have a very strong pipe within its battle enclosure. The thickness of the pipe should be same as the diameter of the delivery tube, and made of tungsten-reinforced steel. This way, the pipeline will probably be good for 200,000 years, ensuring an export market for Alberta until the end of time or slavery, whichever comes first.

This will preserve the oil industry's eternally giant profits, and create many jobs in the military manufacturing sector, and spur mining and further development. Hew that wood and draw that water, Canadians! Faster Faster! Vite Vite! Yalla Yalla! Get to work! We have got to get this job finished in 185 days so we can give you long-term sustainable jobs!

Prosperity for all, and let's do it right!

The claim that Canada's facing a constitutional crisis is just politics

The fact the federal and Alberta governments were unable yesterday to reach an agreement with British Columbia on proceeding with the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project does not mean Canada is facing a constitutional crisis.

However, it doesn't preclude one happening eventually.

Nevertheless, it's important to state this clearly because in the next few hours we are likely to hear commentators claim Canada is experiencing a constitutional crisis. Some will do so because they are ignorant. Some will do so because they have an agenda. All will be wrong.

This is a political crisis, not a constitutional crisis.

In a federation like Canada or the United States, a constitutional crisis occurs when a country's supreme law -- its constitution -- does not include the tools to resolve a dispute between jurisdictions, institutions or individual office holders.

The last constitutional crisis in Canada took place a decade ago, in November and December 2008, when the prime minister, Stephen Harper, extracted an agreement from the governor general, Michaëlle Jean, to prorogue the House of Commons in violation of tradition and basic democratic principles to prevent the fall of the Conservative government in a vote of non-confidence.

This was a constitutional crisis because the mechanism by which MPs can bring down a government is not written down in the Westminster system, it is only a "convention," that is, an understanding that is expected to be practiced honourably. Moreover, there's nothing to be done about that because our founding constitutional document says only that Canada will have "a Constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom." In other words, we will be governed through the Westminster system.

That constitutional crisis was resolved in a way that undermined our democracy, but what is done is done.

The present disagreement between the government in Victoria (now supported by the one in Quebec City) and the governments in Ottawa and Edmonton is not a constitutional crisis, as has been claimed by some politicians and pundits, because the Canadian Constitution contains clear mechanisms for resolving such disputes, and a reasonably clear enumeration of what the rules are.

B.C. does not want the Trans Mountain Pipeline planned by Kinder Morgan Inc. to proceed; Ottawa and Alberta insist it is a national priority and must proceed posthaste. For its part, Texas-based Kinder Morgan says it will pull the plug on the project by the end of a May if it can't get an ironclad guarantee the project can be profitably completed.

Yesterday's gathering of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, and B.C. Premier John Horgan, dubbed an "emergency" effort to resolve the impasse, appears to have achieved little. At least fisticuffs did not break out.

After two hours, no one's position had changed. Trudeau vowed to introduce redundant legislation to assert Ottawa's jurisdiction over an area no one disputes is Ottawa's jurisdiction -- and perhaps to try to extend it. Like Notley, he said Ottawa is prepared to provide Kinder Morgan with financial guarantees to ensure its continued interest in the project. Without some role for the two governments in the company’s governance structure, this is not much more than corporate welfare.

Regardless, there is a lack of clarity in this situation because federal and provincial jurisdictions share responsibility for protecting the environment in Canada's Constitution. If any legislation proposed or passed by B.C., goes too far, that will have to be determined by the courts.

And so far, the B.C. government has neither done nor proposed anything that is not allowed by the Constitution. While we may not like it here in Alberta, nowhere in the Constitution does it say, Thou shalt not create uncertainty for business.

Nevertheless, yesterday Horgan pledged to both the prime minister and his Alberta counterpart, in the words of the Globe and Mail, "that he will stand down if the court rules against his government."

The political crisis arises because -- entirely for political reasons -- the governments in Edmonton and Ottawa have concluded they require an announcement that the pipeline expansion is proceeding in a hurry to achieve success in looming general elections.

Constitutional solutions, alas for the federal Liberals and the Alberta NDP, take a certain amount of time to resolve because, in the absence of agreement, they must be adjudicated by the courts.

Tactically speaking, therefore, that is unquestionably an advantage for the government of British Columbia -- which suspects Kinder Morgan is looking for an exit strategy. It is obviously to the disadvantage of the Alberta NDP and federal Liberals because, as 2019 nears, they can both hear the inexorable ticking of the election clock.

Nevertheless, the claims we have been hearing that this is a constitutional crisis are nothing more than political spindesigned to create a sense of urgency, paint Horgan as a constitutional villain if he can't be stampeded, and justify unconstitutional measures against his province to force his government's compliance with the Trudeau-Notley agenda.

This is not to say that the Alberta-Ottawa program is not in the country's interest, only that the constitutional winds don't seem to favour it on what its proponents consider a reasonable time frame.

Well, all's fair in love and politics -- and the oil business, obviously -- but the claim this is a constitutional crisis is simply ... politics.

It will only become a constitutional crisis if someone tries to force the issue according to an accelerated schedule by, say, inappropriate and unnecessary use of the Emergencies Act or some other potentially unconstitutional means, as has been both advocated and speculated.

Note that the only people calling for this approach support the position taken by the Alberta and federal governments, an apparent elite consensus in those two jurisdictions that includes the conservative opposition parties in both.

Quebec's recent opposition to shoving Kinder Morgan’s pipeline up B.C.'s nose, which has a roused such hysterical condemnation in conservative circles here in Alberta, is entirely consistent with the position on such issues taken by that province since Confederation -- and the same as the position historically taken by Alberta. So no one should be astonished by this, or offended.

While we are not in a constitutional crisis now, any attempt to bypass the constitution to speed expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline will likely result in one.

If that happens, I dare say, it will strengthen separatist sentiment in Quebec and possibly create it in British Columbia, and not without good reason. Long term, as has already been argued here, it may also provide a precedent for some future federal government to interfere in Alberta's affairs in ways we do not much like.

In the short term, one would think, that would create more uncertainty for Kinder Morgan, not less.

Que sera, sera, but if there is a constitutional crisis, it needs to be made perfectly clear to all who actually provoked it.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/alberta-diary/2018/04/claim-canadas-faci...

Kinder Morgan case ignores fragility of the B.C. coast

SHAREADJUSTCOMMENTPRINT

Is Canada’s national interest best aligned with a Texas pipeline company? The suggestion of bailing out U.S.-based Kinder Morgan and investing tax dollars to access public assets in a sunset industry, while momentous questions of Canadian law are still before the courts, is nothing short of absurd.

Kinder Morgan and the province of Alberta have manufactured a crisis in which the goal is to pressure the federal government to force-feed British Columbians the Trans Mountain expansion. The putative emergency is also designed to pressure the courts and judges that have yet to rule on nine legal challenges to the project’s approval.

The ensuing hysteria has drowned out pertinent facts and legitimate concerns with regard to the B.C. coast. Above the political clamour, what remains is this:  1) The expansion will push endangered killer whales closer to extinction and risk further declines in wild salmon populations already in crisis; 2) The mantra of “world class oil spill response, prevention and recovery,” is an empty platitude; and 3) The National Energy Board process leading to an affirmative recommendation, and subsequent approval by the federal cabinet, was not based on evidence or science, nor was it rigorous or fair.

The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project will deliver 890,000 barrels of diluted bitumen from Alberta to Vancouver daily, and ship it through the Salish Sea to offshore markets. The implications of Kinder Morgan’s plans are enormous for the Salish Sea, a region already suffering intense pressures from growth. Chronic oiling, spills and the underwater noise from more shipping traffic will only intensify the declining health of an ecologically fragile region.

The myth of “world class oil spill response, prevention and recovery” is just that, a myth. Estimates of open-water recovery by mechanical equipment recoup only 10 to 15 per cent of the oil from a marine spill at best; in other words, a very low bar exists to achieve so-called world-class status. As we have learned from previous spills, no response is possible in rough weather, high seas and dangerous conditions. All oil recovery options are futile in more than one knot of tide, winds and waves – routine conditions on Canada’s west coast.

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/genovali-kinder-morgan-case-...

progressive17 wrote:

Thanks Sean! What a quagmire! Keep fighting!

In the meantime I had some ideas for an acceptable design for a pipeline. Of course, because of all the civil unrest, we have to defend every centimetre of it from a terrorist attack, vandalism, etc. So the enclosure should be made of material that can withstand a direct hit by a small missile, coated on the inside with a Teflon-like substance so if there is a spill inside it, it will bead up nicely for a recovery, as we cannot waste an atom of this precious resource.

I have been ranting about oil spills, but only because lost oil means lost profit! However if I am for oil spills, we might be able to privatize water too! Then we can pay off the "government debt" by taxing Nestle!

A metre or two of steel-reinforced concrete might do the job. After all, there is the Evil Empire of the day (is it Russia I think?), and not to mention the Islamic State!

We also do not want to lose a cubic nanometre of this precious Earthly bodily fluid, so we must have a very strong pipe within its battle enclosure. The thickness of the pipe should be same as the diameter of the delivery tube, and made of tungsten-reinforced steel. This way, the pipeline will probably be good for 200,000 years, ensuring an export market for Alberta until the end of time or slavery, whichever comes first.

This will preserve the oil industry's eternally giant profits, and create many jobs in the military manufacturing sector, and spur mining and further development. Hew that wood and draw that water, Canadians! Faster Faster! Vite Vite! Yalla Yalla! Get to work! We have got to get this job finished in 185 days so we can give you long-term sustainable jobs!

Prosperity for all, and let's do it right!

I think this security question is interesting becuase it shows an example of what cannot be planned for. Even if one could claim a perfect pipeline based on existing natural events, it is still vulnerable. However, this does not change the consitutional situation in my view. I think this argument is more rational for First Nations than it is for the province given the responsibilities and jurisdiction.

I think it is a mistake to make this Federal-Provincial by any who oppose the pipeline.

The jurisdiction question is really about who gets to decide not if it is a good idea when it is betweeen the Feds and the Provinces but with resepct to Indigenous land rights it is about the risk and merits which seems to be a more compelling argument on the no side.

Politically it may also be more compelling since concern for First Nations rights may be a big share of potential Liberal voters. And that is a two avenue apporach -- on the one hand to make the Liberals reconsider on political grounds and the other on legal grounds. The issue of regulation --is a factor if not the major one given that the povince is certain to make the regulatory issue become as difficult as possible even if they cannot stop it.

Does anyone know how pipelines are built to withstand earthquakes or even if that is possible?

NorthReport wrote:

Norm Spector was just interviewed on CKNW. He said it was very astute of Horgan to contact Quebec over this, which resulted in their comments on Saturday, and also Trudeau is full of it, when he infers that BC does not have jurisdiction over the environment such as protecting the BC Coast, as the word ENVIRONMENT does not appear anywhere in Canada's constitution.  

Spector shared that during his interview this morning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure pipelines are safe. NOT!!!

Paramount Resources pipeline leaks 290,000 litres of oil and saltwater in Alberta

https://globalnews.ca/news/4147946/paramount-resources-pipeline-leaks-29...

http://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/thomas-sisk-science-is-a-casualty-of-the-trans-mountain-pipeline-debate

Trudeau seeks talks with Kinder Morgan to get pipeline to Pacific built

The dispute has become one of Trudeau's biggest challenges during his tenure as Prime Minister

http://ottawacitizen.com/commodities/energy/trudeau-seeks-talks-with-kin...