07.26.2012 07:31 AM

Canada Live, July 25: Christy Clark, nation-wrecker

As I speak on Krista’s show, Christy Clark is observed lurking behind the set.


  1. Lib observer says:

    Warren, I am totally amazed at the response to all this BC vs.Alberta crap. For some 60 years, Quebec has blantantly refused to allow Nfld to transport its hydro power across Quebec to other markets in North America. So where has the outrage been on this particular matter? I guess 75 seats in Parliament trumps 7 seats.

    So give me a break with all the crocodile tears about Confederation etc, etc, blah,blah,blah blah!!!!!!

  2. Anne Peterson says:

    What is that sort of political strategy called? When the question begins as, ‘Do we want a pipline to our western coast that would result in some sort of terrible environmental accident?’ and suddenly becomes, ‘What demands will we make to allow this pipeline?’ Is this brilliant politics on her part or the usual conservative strategy for confusing the people, because lets face it BC liberals are really conservatives, or just plain dumbness.

    When conservatives get thrown out in BC they rise again under another name (Alberta does that too) and they will even call themselves liberals if they have to.

    I live on the way to the Arctic from that mess so I oppose everything about it, but when I think of the beautful treasure that is the BC coast and interior polluted with that stuff I shudder. If that even happens there are people who should be thrown in jail for life. Amend the criminal code with mandatory 25 year sentences for oil spills say I..

  3. Dan says:

    Come on, Warren. If Alberta wants to ship its oil westward, they can pay the shipping cost and use the same highways that “Ontario forestry products” use. This isn’t just about transportation, it’s about construction. I think that if Ontario wanted to build a “forestry-only superhighway” across the country, most of the rest of the country would be wondering why they get such special treatment.

  4. wilson says:

    All Redford succeeded in doing was make Albertans look like greedy rich anti-enviro bullies,
    which we are not.
    Where was she when Chichita Banana attacked our oilsands…. Redford defended Chichita Banana.
    Both Premiers are putting on quite the show, eh.

    NFld signed a deal with Quebec ( which stood up to court challenges) a deal that Albertans will not sign with BC.
    We live thru the NEP, not gonna go there again.

    But BCs jurisdiction stops at the coastline. The Supremes decided that in 1969.
    Canadians own the waterways and seabeds up and down the Pacific coastline,
    BC has jurisdiction only over the Georgian Straits.

    If we can get our bitumen onto tankers, it’s clear sailing from there.

    • smelter rat says:

      Who is the “we” you are referring to? What do you mean by “our” bitumen?

    • frmr disgruntled Con now Happy Lib says:

      Given the track record of Endbridge’s pipeline safety of late, I dont think you will be getting “your” dirty bitumen onto tankers via any Northern route pipeline anytime soon……..

    • Marlowe Johnson says:

      There is no such thing as a free lunch. this is power politics pure and simple. The feds might have jurisdiction over the pipeline, but B.C. has jurisdiction over the building permits. You heard it here first. Warren you need to up your game. You’re coming across as a whiny Albertan. I’m almost ashamed to call you a fellow Beacher.

    • Dan says:

      Who is this “we”? What I know is that foreign investors are profiting from our resource boom, and that investment is raising up our dollar value, which is killing export-related jobs all around me.

  5. william smith says:

    This move by Crusty is a crass and obvious political move of desperation. Unfortunately she is right in demanding a better deal for BC. It is the timing of this move that smacks of a “hail mary” for the upcoming election.

  6. Tiger says:

    Rent-seeking by the BC government — sadly not at all surprising.

    It can be done — Quebec did it to Newfoundland over power from Labrador…

  7. Anne Peterson says:

    But Wilson, if it all belongs to Canadians then part of it belongs to me. And I don’t want your oil there. There are Canadians out here, you know, who do not live in BC AND are not Albertans. Hard to believe. I once was an Alberta but as I watch the environmental devastation and the highway robbery by the oil companies from across my border, I can only feel sorry for those who still are. Read the Tyee series on how to handle your oil riches and weep, Albertans.

  8. KP says:

    The great thing about all this is Alberta needs us (BC) a whole lot more than we need them in this situation. If they want to allow a company with a dubious safety record the ability to build a pipeline across environmentally-sensitive land, it’s time to open the cheque book.

    Right now all we’re seeing is the same Alberta bluster and attempt to bully BC into accepting something the citizens clearly don’t want – check the polls, people who live here are strongly opposed – for very little benefit, few long-term jobs and loads of risk.

    I still suspect the feds will find a way to ram this project through – given they seem to govern from Calgary rather than Ottawa – but in doing so will obliterate any chance they have at another majority.

  9. Tiger says:

    I’d say that there should be some public musings from Edmonton about how a pipeline to Churchill MB might actually make sense, or a pipeline up to Tuktoyaktuk.

    See whether BC then starts to worry about jobs forgone and whatnot.

    • KP says:

      Given how few long-term BC jobs this pipeline would actually create, I’d be all for that. Put it over flyover country but keep it the hell out of my province.

    • smelter rat says:

      Shipping bitument to a port that is open for 3-4 months of the year isn’t likely going to be discussed seriously.

    • Jon Adams says:

      While Brad Wall and Greg Selinger have oodles more savvy than their hapless BC counterpart, I’d think that the pipeline backers would encounter much the same resistance going east or north.

      Also, if we’re playing the caption game with Sun screen-grabs, my nomination is, “not pictured: Tom Servo, Crow T. Robot.”

  10. Greg from Calgary says:

    Ms Clark needs votes, she has found a cause.

    • KP says:

      Hardly. She – and her party – is extremely unpopular and is primed to be unseated as the government next spring. If anything, all she did was placate the wolf at the door as she’s looked spectacularly incompetent – this coming from a BC Liberal supporter – since taking the Premier’s job.

    • The Doctor says:

      Ms Clark is toast, politically speaking. This move on her part will do next to nothing to fix that. The only thing that would save her politically would be if the entire BC Conservative Party were arrested for mass child molestation and thrown in jail.

  11. MCBellecourt says:

    Regardless of Clark’s future, the harsh facts are that, BCers opposed to this pipeline are in the majority. Adrian Dix has made it very clear that his party will do everything to stop it.

    Look at the trouble they’re having cleaning up that spill in the Red Deer area. Dilbit (diluted bitumen) is proving to be almost imposssible to clear away from what has been shown to be relatively ‘easy’ territory. How in the hell does anyone think that a clean up will be possible at all in those wilderness areas they want to lay it on?

    We get mudslide, avalanches, earthquakes and really, really serious snowstorms. Oh, and by the way, those really, really, serious snowstorms have a lot to do why we BCers have an abundance of water in the first place (duh).

    And wasn’t there yet another “small leak” (sic) just yesterday, in Alberta, courtesy of good ol’ Embridge? Sure as hell doesn’t give this BCer any confidence in their track record–and they have repeatedly demonstrated that they really don’t give a fat rat’s ass about the destruction they leave in their wake.

    Now let’s talk about the jobs bit. Face it folks, we’re screwed in that department too. Remember that Tubby The Robot has made it so that temporary foreign workers can come here and get paid 15% less than a Canadian. Also remember that he has had meetings with Chinese officials under the radar, and we have so far gotten scant information from the media about those meetings because they have been bought and paid for by corporate interests that aren’t even from here!! Not to mention the bid to buy out that Calgary-based oil company by a Chinese government interest.

    There aren’t going to be enough jobs to even come close to justifying the risk to some of the most beautiful and unspoiled regions of CANADA.

    Now note, I said, CANADA. Before Redford continues spouting off her big yap about national energy policies while greedily saying mine all mine where the dirty oil is concerned, perhaps she should stop and think about who those wilderness areas belong to. Those areas first belong to BC, but when you stop and think, they belong to Canada, too.

    A dilbit spill on flat land is severe damage that could take a generation to repair, but a dilbit spill in Northern BC and on that coastline will be FOREVER.


  12. lance m says:

    I wsh BCers would be as opposed to things already happening in their provine I.E. site C dam project, to flood 13,000 acres of prime class 1 farmland, heritage sites and wildlife habitats. Oh yeah we seem to think ectricity is green so never mind.

  13. SF Thomas says:

    Warren I have to disagree about what you described for several reasons. Clark isn’t stopping the entire transportation of all oil from the oil sands to the west coast, they can still use existing methods with tanker trucks or rail freight, she is stopping the use of one particular method, which is the pipeline.

    I am personally against the Northern Gateway pipeline because this is an environmental disaster just waiting to happen. It goes through and extremely isolated area in the BC mountains, which massively increases the risk factor and will make any fix/cleanup efforts if their is an accident extremely difficult. The port at Kitimat is in an area which is going to be difficult for tankers to navigate, is in a sensitive environment and again is fairly isolated complicating any clean up efforts if there is a spill.

    While I agree she is probably opposing this in part for political gains, the rationale is still true. BC is assuming most of the environmental risk for a project which is very likely to be accident prone. The oil companies, especially BP and Enbridge do not have good safety records and have constantly understated the risks and potential environmental impact. BC just doesn’t have enough assurance that this is worth the risk for it to go forward.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.