07.28.2012 12:00 AM

In Sunday’s Sun: the Western separatist

In a business dominated by hucksters, charlatans and snake oil sellers, Christy Clark stands apart. In a field populated by hypocrites and phonies, the erstwhile B.C. premier takes duplicity — and recklessness — to an entirely new level.
Meet Christy Clark, nation-wrecker.

She’s a Liberal, but she pretended to be a conservative. Nobody in B.C. believed it. She ran for the B.C. Liberal leadership claiming to be an “outsider,” even though she had previously been deputy premier. Nobody believed that, either. She promised to lead the B.C. Liberals back to government, but she instead piloted the party into last, or nearly last, place. Nobody thinks she’s going to win the next election.

But now, finally, Clark — consistently rated by pollsters as one of the most unpopular premiers in the country — has seized upon an issue that may resuscitate a political career that for the past year or so had been deader than disco. Now, Clark has seen the path to political salvation.

And if it rewrites the rules of Confederation, if it sets off an inter-provincial trade war, costs jobs and destabilizes the country — well, that’s apparently fine with Christy Clark.

87 Comments

  1. MoS says:

    Well, Kinsella, you seem to be a proponent of bitumen trafficking. Yes, Clark is a sow, but she has thrown a wringer into the Northern Gateway for a little while. You were in B.C. just long enough to lose an election against a dim witted Reformer but you seem to have a weak grasp on this province or its people. Shipping dilbit by tanker through the Hecate or Dixon Entrance is a disaster waiting to happen. If you think my province should take that in the name of jobs or stabilizing the country, we’re all better off you left B.C.

  2. DJ says:

    Nice try, Christy, but people are quite done with you. People may agree that BC should get more money if the pipeline goes through , but no one is prepared to give you any points for an issue that you have come to so late.

  3. bigcitylib says:

    Outside of B.C., the pundits have bitched. But that’s all I’m seeing. Note that Charest and McGuinty said nothing. Why? I betcha the premiers of the two biggest provinces are looking at their own polls and not seeing an anti-B.C. backlash. In fact I would suggest the opposite.

    This is pay-back for two decades of Alberta’s politics of thuggery. Suggest a gas tax to save the planet and they fire their guns into the ceiling and start making plans for a Western Republic. They’ve been more than happy to “destabilize the country”, in other words, and those now in power in Ottawa have been willing to support them. Turnabout is fair-play. Let em whine.

    • Brammer says:

      “…and they fire their guns into the ceiling …” LOL perfect metaphor.

      This is lose / lose for Harper. If he does nothing, he is “not a leader”. If he rams it through in the “national interest” he is supporting the oil companies at the expense of killer whales and the rainforest.

      Reap and sow, etc.

    • bigcitylib…..Alberta has a carbon tax. B.C. has a gas tax that the NDP fought tooth and nail. Stood on street corners with their silly “Axe the Tax” signs.

  4. WDM says:

    I don’t know enough about energy issues to know whether this pipeline is a good idea. That being said, behaviour such as Clark’s isn’t all that unique. Premiers bicker. They look out for their own province. Doesn’t mean I agree with it all the time, but it is what it is. That’s why it’s so important that a Prime Minister be able to, regardless of their partisan stripe, rise above it on matters such as this. I worry that the current Prime Minister’s approach to federal-provincial relations isn’t helping matters, and is making these issues (not specifically Northern Gateway, but all inter-provincial quarrels) worse. It’s not about hand-holding sessions in meetings, but is about dialing down the rhetoric on these issues, something the current government hasn’t done.

    • Ottawa civil servant says:

      And as soon as the PM opens his mouth, it’s a game of ‘Ottawa telling us what to do.’ No, there is a law governing this type of trade and it has worked since confederation. When BC does this, why not tax the horrible risk of all those tractor-trailers crossing the prairies with their imported cargoes from China? After all, how many Canadians have to die on our highways before Clark owns up for her province’s actions?

  5. Lisa says:

    I think Clark’s concerns are valid. 58% pf the pipeline will go through BC and it’s only a matter of when, not if, their will be a spin. But I think her problem is with Enbridge, not Alberta. She should be negotiating with them.

    And we need to start asking why the pipelines are only built to ship the oil to other countries, and their refineries. If the PM, and Alberta, really cared about Canada, they would create a trans-Canada pipeline so this oil could be refined in Ontario and Quebec, BC and other provinces, not just shipped to other countries.

    But this is only about Alberta getting their way, and the rest of the country bowing down to the mighty oil producers, as they destroy the environment.

    • Warren says:

      Then Redford should be able to impose duties on BC lumber and fish and manufactured products? That work?

      • Steve T says:

        Exactly! Clark is a political opportunist – nothing more. She is using an alleged environmental “concern” to blackmail another province, and look like a hero to every special-interest group in B.C..

        If she really has such fundamental opposition to this project, then just reject it without conditions. No matter how much money is thrown at her, she rejects it. You think that’s likely to happen? If not, then her true agenda is revealed.

      • Austin So says:

        Yeah…I’m sure Alberta can sustain itself with all the 3 headed fish from their tail ponds, not to mention all those trees that are thriving…and what about the pot?

      • deb says:

        well sure that would seem fair…if either of those industries had the capacity to destroy ecology completely in other provinces. We cant lump this situation in with all the other industries that might travel by truck, train or plane thru canada. Not the same at all….the fed laws used to impose this tanker onto the BC people and their environment is a natural disaster waiting to happen. Is Alberta, Enbridge, Redford and Harper going to pay to clean up? Sure they probably say there is contigency plans in place…but see how well it works where spills have happened!

      • deb says:

        yes it would be just fine…esp if they had to build a pipeline that could spill toxic fish guts or poison other provinces with wood chips and if any of the industries could destroy ecology for decades! Where this pipeline is to be built and the area surrounding it …would be destoyed for generations when the spills start happening.

      • The Zaphos Institute says:

        Agreed premier Clark is being an opportunist. But, if Alberta does figure out a way to conduct an inter-provincial trade war; then thanks to NAFTA – BC can ship their products to the rest of Canada via the United States duty-free. This is already happening to a degree, except that the US still does not have a transcontinental railroad, so transit times suffer. However if Alberta tries it, the only ones who would suffer are CN and CP who lose haulage dollars to US rivals.

        BTW, I’m interested to know if premier Charest (or a future PQ government) would agree with the concept of Ottawa forcing *nationally important* energy infrastructure projects through Quebec? Newfoundland would like to pile on that one too.

        Finally, I agree with BCL and others here that this situation is largely the fault of Harper & the Reformatories. This is what provincial sectarianism (hello Alberta) yields as opposed to a pan-Canadian vision (hello P.E.Trudeau). Gutting environmental law and trying to steam roll over the First Nations is the stupidest way to go about building an oil pipeline. Just ask ex-Conservative environment minister Jim Prentice.

      • Tim Sullivan says:

        Are there royalties from fish? Are provinces treating fish like petroleum? Are fish transported on a separate, exclusive transport system like a pipe? That big fish spill nowhere ever, sure wrecks the environment.

        Or, shall we compare apples to apples?

        • deb says:

          Exactly, well said Tim!
          … the argument from this POV of tankers, oilpipelines versus other provincial industries…its faulty.
          Lets stop pitting the provinces against each other and lets start realizing the oil industry need some special covenants in place to save the ecology whereever they might be doing their business, the federal govt might need to step that up instead of dialing it down (ie Harper reduced waiting times for the environmental assessments, by minimizing them.)
          …so yeah when Ontario or BC lumbertrucks start destroying watersheds or surrounding residences while they ship their materials to other parts, we will happily let the provinces chose whether trucks are allowed on the federal roads or take bushel fulls of money instead of enviromental security:P
          the truth about this whole affair is the majority of BC and coastal regions are against this pipeline, and have intention of letting it proceed.
          The feds, and Clarke know it…they just plan on getting it done anyway possible and with Clarke she wants a pay off, my guess is Harper will have a special federal place (senate seat for her good deeds and hard work)for her to reside when she gets voted out. This whole dog and pony show is a media distraction meant to make the rest of canada hate BC:P

    • Tim Sullivan says:

      What other obligation does the premier have other than the provincial economy and power. It is not shameful that a politician practices politics. I would expect it, in fact.

      • Tim Sullivan says:

        Just because Ralph Klein was a moron doesn’t mean Clark is on the wrong track to extract some benefit, or at least some compensation for taking on the ecological risk.

        Who says the money has to come from Alberta, anyway? The company which needs to transport the stuff may want to contribute something. It is their hard work, after all, having put the stuff in the ground 100 million yrs ago.

  6. MCBellecourt says:

    Not sure where you’re posting from but if you get the chance, take a drive from Prince George up Highway 16 west and actually go and see some of the gorgeous countryside they’re so willing to put at such risk–and for so little, really. Not. Worth. It.

    China gets the biggest bennies, Albeeria gets some royalties (like, BFdeal), and we, in this area, get pretty much nothing except a huge bill **when** (not if) there’s a spill. Just ask the good people of Kalamazoo how helpful Embridge was after that disaster.

    And, BTW, do you think the Chinese, out to buy that oil company, are going to hire Canadians when all they’d have to do is bring workers from China on one of those megatankers? Harper’s made it easy with his 15% pay cut to temp. foreign workers.

    Everyone has missed the point here.

    Harper has been suckhole-ing to China under the radar, and who knows what other concessions he has made while we weren’t paying attention?

    As much as I dislike Christy Clark, the destabilizing force has not been her, Redford, or anyone else.

    It was Harper all along. He has been forging ahead with promises to China while letting the premiers try to second-guess him. Do any of the premiers know for certain what Harper’s been up to?

    Betcha not! And you can be absolutely sure that Harper doesn’t give a shit about BC’s north.

    • Bill says:

      Bullshit, stop with your fear mongering. With out Alberta’s energy, Canada is fucked. Manufacturing is dying and will continue to do so. The loaded labor rate in Canada can not compete with Mexico, China, Eastern Europe, etc. The reality is we need this pipeline for Canada to continue to grow. You libs need to pay attention and understand that with out Alberta’s oil Canada has a huge problem, your kids will have very little opportunity. The ability to work and provide for your family has always and will continue to trump all other bullshit concerns (environmental, etc).

      • Austin So says:

        What a load of horseshit, Bill.

        If Canada focuses only on oil as its economic saviour and the tar sands in particular, and develops only that industry at the expense of all others, it will truly be fucked.

      • MCBellecourt says:

        Another spill in Wisconsin. CTV has deets. Bullshit thrown backatcha.

  7. dave says:

    It is a good idea to continue to harp about who gets the money, about our constitution, about the way that confederation works, and free trade and the economy and what not.
    That keeps everyone from noting that the ice cover in Antarctica and Greenland keeps doing what it is doing, that the weather seems to be acting in extreme ways further here and there threatening food production, that the Arctic ice keeps doing what it is doing, that he methane on the Russian and Scandinavian Arctic seabed keeps doing what it is doing, that the sea life in our oceans keep doing what it is doing, and that we continue subsidizing to a greater extent the most subsidized activity on the planet so that they can dig out more fossil fuels that people will pay them for so that the fuels can be burned up.
    Clark has always been a huckster, bitumin sinks into the ground when spilled there, all the contracts and work are foreign owned, the feds have legislated caps on industry liability(one of the many subsidies), …depressing, but we will continue to focus on petty politics and who gets a few more peanuts.

  8. que sera sera says:

    Clark has basically told the Canada what she really is and now she’s just haggling over the price – all without a mandate from her provincial constituents to “negotiate”.

    Interesting that there is no takers. Essentially the people of BC are doing some very serious research & burning their politicians, and their politicians credibility, in the process.

    Politicians are a dime a dozen, and totally expendable. BC’s pristine wilderness and coastline are not.

    Well done, BC! Bye bye Christy.

    • MoeL says:

      In my opinion, Clark is the least of Harper’s worries. If public opinion in BC is so dead against the pipeline as I think it is, he has to be far more worried about his 21 BC MP’s. They read polls too. Why do you think Clark is taking this position? If he loses just 6 to the other parties, he’s left with a bare majority of 2 MP’ and would then be forced to cater to the Reformers in his party. Can’t wait to see how this ends up!

  9. Andy says:

    “Here’s why. Lots of other occasionally controversial products are transported across B.C. to market. Saskatchewan uranium. Quebec mining resources. Ontario lumber. Will Clark demand now a share of the royalties for those products, too? Will she threaten to keep those provinces out of B.C. if she doesn’t get her way? Why not, if not?”

    Oh, Warren…do you not think there’s a bit of a hazard difference between bitumen and it’s enabling chemicals, and lumber? Even your “nation-wrecking” argument goes down the toilet on your misread of risk…

    • Tim Sullivan says:

      Who knew that uranium was transported by pipe? Who knew uranium (essentially rock) could not be picked up when spilled from its pipe. When by truck, the rock that spills is limited to the product on THAT truck.

      Who knew royalties are being taken by provinces for mined minerals and elements?

      Not me.

  10. deb says:

    Rex Murphy, Kelly McP and the other right winged pundits keep talking about how this sets a dangerous legal precedent and all the other provinces are going to have their hands out with transport and industry….well change the laws then. Because why should a province be forced to take on a pipeline that will destoy its environment…hmmm I will then pass along the idea that is it okay for BC to start poisoning water supplies across the country….in the name of profit? no…its a ridiculous argument posed across such a dangerous environmental disaster…the BC people dont want the stinking profits from Alberta or Redford…Alberta can keep it…we dont want the pipeline and the tanker traffic…regardless what Christy Clarke says…keep the money we will keep our ecology…thanks!

    linked below is a good article detailing who will pay for the spills….and apparently it isnt the companies gaining profit.
    http://islandtides.com/assets/reprint/oil_20120726.pdf

  11. fred says:

    Two years after the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico:

    “”I’m probably the only mayor in America picking up tar balls, 60 pounds worth, every day,” Camardelle said. “We still have oil we can see in our back bays and oil we can’t see in our wetlands. I’m getting the runaround and Louisiana is getting the runaround.”

    Would the politicians of Alberta and the pipeline owners agree to be publicly executed if the pipeline ruptures?

  12. Bruce says:

    This women is no Liberal and if she really is, then the Party is about to become the Dead Parrot sketch.

  13. Jon Evan says:

    Christy Clark has lost most (all) of her conservative support. She pretends she is for free enterprise but kills a job creating pipeline! This show is for the left BC voters who have largely gone over to the NDP. She is hoping to woo them back. Won’t happen. Northern Gateway was never a reality for many reasons. This is all a play by PMSH to get the Americans to quickly approve Keystone. Look we don’t need two pipelines! When the jobs start for Alberta with Keystone and the BC exodus for jobs to Alberta begins at the start of the BC election campaign in the spring, Christy Clark will have nothing to show as a free enterprise party which will become the joke which it presently is!!

  14. ottawacon says:

    It is at least a little odd to see the punditry decry the structural threat to Confederation caused by BC wanting to take advantage of the precedent set by Quebec’s stranglehold on Newfoundland’s electrical generation for decades….without even a figleaf of cover for environmental concerns.

    • Philip says:

      Absolutely agree with you. Quebec screwed Newfoundland for a long, long time over the Churchill’s Falls project and not one federal politician lifted a finger to held. A lot of people from both the Liberals and Conservatives wear this one. Provinces should be able to reach world markets with their products despite having to cross into other provinces to access those markets. That’s ultimately good for Canada as a whole and the source province. That said, the province those products/materials/services transit through should get a piece of the action, particularly if it has environmental or other costs involved in that transit.

      This is where a strong federal presence is required. Either to knock some heads together and get a deal done or to step up to the plate and craft a new deal for inter-provincial trade. This requires leadership at the highest level, something Canadians have yet to see from Harper. Letting both sides do their own thing isn’t leadership. Reaffirming the power of the federal government to regulate inter-provincial trade is.

  15. tf says:

    What a fabulous assortment of comments!
    So many issues, all complicated – but whatever Christy is trying to do, she’s wrong.
    It’s not about getting a share of the royalties, it’s about protecting our waters and rivers, and natural resources.
    British Columbia has been raped of it’s forests and it’s fisheries; and previous-premier Campbell tried to sell-off our water.
    Now Christy has willingly offered up our land, rivers and coast for a price. In other worlds that’s called prostitution.
    Ultimately, the answer is no: we’re really sorry Alberta that you are landlocked and are digging up all this oil that someone across the ocean wants to buy. But the fact is, there’s no safe way to get it there. China will have to find a way in their own backyard to power their development and Alberta will have to learn there’s a limit to how much land you can destroy to find oil. They’ll have to find other businesses in which to invest.
    Thanks Warren for the forum; I’m glad you’ve finally seen the light about the leadership qualities of Christy Clark.

  16. deb says:

    Andrew….that sounds all so reasonable, I really enjoyed reading such clear rational thinking and at least you mentioned how Harper and his crew gutted the scientific inudstry…and the consultation process has been minimized.
    You are correct it could be done safer…however there doesnt seem to be an incentive to do so …the oil industry dont get dinged enough when there are environmental disasters and they dont seem to have the technology in place to clean them up efficiently or thoroughly…( or if they do…they arent pressured to do so)
    plus the taxpayer seems to be on the hook for both subsidies, lowered taxes and ecological disasters…???? ( prove me wrong…please I hope im just being overly pessimistic)
    so yes oil industry will continue and us lefties are living in lala land…but perhaps the conservatives and those in the industry can understand why past mistakes are still fresh in our minds…its not spilt milk…its a major disaster when it occurs!

    • deb says:

      I get what you meant Andrew…im just wondering …or maybe I being a tad pessimistic…but the regulation with teeth part…its on obvious one, and would be an ideal strategy. The idea that we could have stronger regulation to help if disaster occurs or stem it from happening as often…heres the thing…its rational, sound, reasonable, affordable…so why havent the politicians put it place. Seems like a win/win…yet oil companies seem to control the govt…so that regulation plan…more stringent control…just aint going to happen. In fact Harper has decided that environmental assessments impede business too much, they are being eradicated…im guessing any more regulation will have to wait until harper and crew are gone.

  17. smelter rat says:

    You’re dreaming in technicolor. Just look st Enbridge’s recent track record.

  18. Tim Sullivan says:

    Why is this one pipeline the be all and end all of national economic prosperity? Will the petro industry stop receiving hand-outs when this pipe is erected? Will the price of fuel go down for Ontario and Quebec mfg?

    Canada has been doing quite well without this particular pipe.

    Here’s an idea … let’s create some value -added to this oil and stop sending it crude-style to foreigners. Let’s make gasoline HERE, in Canada. Let’s make plastic, HERE, in Canada. Let’s send the oil to Ontario and Quebec and keep the resource, its value-added components, all the taxes it generates, and all its uses HERE, in Canada. We could charge world prices, and reap all the benefits, take all the risk, and be energy secure.

    Just a crazy, socialist idea. I’m sure the oil companies actually CARE who they sell our oil to, so long as it is not Canadians.

    • Tim Sullivan says:

      I’m sure you don’t mean to be a moron, a real moron, or a fucking moron, but perhaps you can re-read my post.

      1) Subsidies and grants from government ie my taxes. Why are they available to the most profitable industry?

      2) We are doing better than others, and I’m still eating 3 squares. How much better will we all be doing because of the one extra pipeline? Not much. If we keep Harper in, however, I’m afraid his deficit spending will get the better of us and we will be in trouble.

      3) Who said “made in Canada” price. I said world price. So, you can take my words, change them to something completely different, but please don’t say it is what I said. And don’t say “next you’ll be saying …” That is the straw man argument, and it is what morons, idiots and conservatives (whom we know are none-too-bright as a rule) do. I’ve never said the oil patch is evil. Profit is not a problem. Not paying the bills, relying on externalities, is a problem.

      4) Again, WTF do you mean about a made in Canada price? Are you thinking of something no one said? What part of “We could charge world prices, and reap all the benefits, take all the risk, and be energy secure” do you have trouble understanding?

  19. deb says:

    Christy Clarke is not a liberal. She is a socred/party of business/faux conservative…the liberal party in BC was hijacked decades ago and the last liberal leader was Gordon Wilson.
    She has no support for what she is doing.
    Am I the only one who thinks this whole media storm is a Harper hatching a plan to get exactly what he wants ( albeit a tad more expensively). Christy Clarke is probably following orders from Harper …why would she throw herself in the front of the political bus unless she is moving elsewhere in politics….she reads her polls in BC…she knew once her term is over …she is back to a radio show unless she gets a better offer elsewhere.
    so is there a reason why Harper might want to break up the canadian constitution…hmmmm smart spin doctors out there probably see it better then me. But the papers are a bunch of non stories. Harper needs this pipeline to happen so ….he is going about it in another way. Forcing BC probably thru some legal BS…but he still has to get the first nations on board and im not sure how he will do it…but im sure he has a strategy. Harper is quite a crafty politician and has a hidden handbook written before anyone sees him coming:P

  20. smelter rat says:

    I nominate Terrance for this week’s Tulk Award!

    • Tim Sullivan says:

      A propos of nothing, JamesHalifax seems to be on vacation.

    • Jon Adams says:

      Given the condescending belligerence, name-calling, huffing and puffing, random accusations, non sequitur links, etc., I’d say he’s in the Top 5 for “Honorary JamesHalifax.”

      Mashing down the period key for seconds at a time in a ham-handed attempt to use ellipses instead of common commas or endstops would put him over the top.

  21. smelter rat says:

    Well, since Greepeace is a non violent organization, it seems to me the RCMP should forget worrying about them and concentrate on cleaning the murderers and thugs out of their own system.

  22. frmr disgruntled Con now Happy Lib says:

    Death of the Enbridge Gateway Pipeline by a thousand wounds……http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/minor-spill-bad-news-for-enbridge-as-northern-gateway-fight-escalates/article4448205/

  23. deb says:

    Its strange…the amount of ontarians who seem to know BC politics soo well. I was born and raised in Ontario and moved to BC( 10 years in Vancouver…eastside commerical not DTES:P 12 years now residing in the gulfislands), there is no way you can gain an understanding of BC politics by using Sunnews corp as a reference guide! Just an FYI…and sure theres simlarities between provinces, but I read all the really knowledgeable, intellectual, considerate political opinions on this and other pages…and they still miss the mark, unless they have lived it:P.
    This deal that Christy Clarke is working on for us, its not what BC wants…its BS…the polls that have been fudged to show that there is support…bogus…the majority of folks, right, left and center…know this pipeline is a major disaster in the making…the pundits havent bothered to research the coastal waters, or ask the professionals…its crazy!
    I wonder if we get to hold a referendum on this…oh wait…NO, because its not our decision, apparently:P And if any of us protest we get thrown in jail for being radical environmental terrorists. Harper has already set up the gameplan, his strategy is being executed, and BC is going to pay the price.

  24. deb says:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/07/30/bc-enbridge-northern-gateway.html
    this is more like it, at least this article focused on how BC people feel about this crazy project:P

    but strangely enough I also agree with James H…if its forced down our throats…make the oil company pay into a contingency fund….of course when a spill happens…Im not sure any amount of money could fix the problems we would face:P

    • que sera sera says:

      Why would anyone be foolish enough to believe a “contingency fund” would help? That’s like saying about 9/11, let’s just make sure we have more firefighters on hand for the next time.

      Twenty years after the Exxon Valdez you have your evidence about how good compensation and clean up works. And it ain’t fucking good or pretty. Ditto with the BP and the Gulf of Mexico. How many more coastlines do you want to destroy servicing the oil industry?

      • deb says:

        I dont know…if not a contingency fund, and not better clean up…then thats my point( and I stated clearly that I dont think any amount of money would fix the problems we as a province would face)…back to NO…so how in the world is BC supposed to move foward…if were going to have this ridiculous pipeline forced on us…shouldnt we arm ourselves with some sort of regulation and insurance. TBH…were( BC) hoping the first nations can stop this crazy idea…were held hostage by the feds and by Christy Clarke trying to score political points and good will. Christy Clarke is in harpers back pocket…remember Gordon Campbell and he rammed the HST thru and ruined himself politically…he is now in a cushy fed post in England. IN BC the corruption is insane!
        BC has had to deal with olympics financial corruption, HST bs, this pipeline issue…and if thats not enough were already on the hook for cleaning up pacific as Japans debris floats in…whats next:P Were kinda overtaxed as it is…so a major pipeline disaster would finish us:P so Quesera sera…to answer your question…I and millions more BC’ers dont want anymore coastline spills…so thats why Enbridge can piss off IMHO:P

        • deb says:

          quesera sera…sorry about the rant…I read that you are in BC (previous post)and therefore you know what we are facing. Were actually pretty much on the same side…I say NO to tanker traffic…but I fear that Harper has a few tricks up his sleave that will legally impose this deal down BC’s throat…and if he does I want the Oil companies to be on the hook for everything…not the taxpayer. I am sincerely hoping we are allowed to block the pipeline!

    • frmr disgruntled Con now Happy Lib says:

      Thanks for posting!……God Bless David Anderson……one of the few Federal Environment Ministers who actually gave a shit about his portfolio……

  25. Dan says:

    Christy Clark IS an opportunist. Which is about par for a brand that used to be symbolized by Pierre Trudeau, and has been steadily eroded by opportunists like Paul Martin, Jean Charest, and Michael Ignatieff.

    Having said that…

    The last thing this country needs is more foreign investment in oil. More outsiders taking control of our raw resources, preventing us from creating value-added jobs here. More foreign money, driving up the value of our dollar, killing any Canadian exports other than oil.

    If a few rich Albertans really wants to sell more oil to China, they can use our federal highway system, instead of expecting other provinces to give them special privileges for very little in return (let alone the environmental and economic damage caused by an oil-dependant economy). Until we measure the REAL long-term cost of this oil, any economic case in favor of the pipeline is based on flawed methodology. Even the Alberta Liberals believe we’re not measuring the real cost.

    Framing opposition to the pipeline as an attack on the nation is a new low, Warren. If anything is destabilizing this nation, it’s the “oil uber alles” attitude of Steven Harper. We need a value-added, diversified economy, from West to East.

  26. deb says:

    another article…somewhat more balanced and I stand corrected …a pipeline does cross into alberta but I am guessing not in a sensitive ecological area.

    http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Time+leaders+sheath+swords+pipeline+palaver+Harper+Clark+Redford+need+down+craft+solution+Northern+Gateway+conundrum/7015439/story.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*