Every once in a while, Misner, you and I agree and this is one of those times.

I was pretty excited about the rise of a conservative party in the vacuum to be left by the BC Liberal Party, but support for the northern gateway pipeline is a deal breaker for me. That project must not happen.

That leaves me with few options, none of which will be fruitful for this province.

I agree its John Cummings fatal flaw. He’s a credible contender until he is brought under the spotlight for his views on Enbridge’s fronted project for the foreign oil companies more commonly known as Gateway.

I wonder how the conservative party came to this policy decision in support of Gateway? IMO that would tell a lot about what kind of ‘party’ they are.

Though I do not agree with the Enbridge pipe line, it is better that he expresses his support for the project now, instead of saying he is against and then support it if he wins the election. Can anyone say BC Rail.

I concur with the above posts. I suppose I will be not available on election day unless some other contender throws his/her hat in the ring.

Clark has already expressed support for the Pipeline by not opening her mouth.What submission did BC make to the committee? we have everything at stake so why would the BC government not present their concerns and ask the hard questions?can’t sit on the fence on this.waiting for the report after may 2013 oh sure.

At least he’s stated where he stands, for which I’ll give him credit.

But I wouldn’t expect any meaningful change from a BC Conservative government with John Cummins at the head of it.

The best he has to offer is that he’s NOT Christy Clark or Adrian Dix, if we are voting on the basis of personalities. Which is about all we’ll be voting on anyways, since the overall ‘policy’ of all three Parties is fundamentally the same. The only differences being in the method of applying it, and how quickly.

Those of the ‘right’ and ‘centre-right’ will just continue to mount a rear-guard action to delay the advancement of the ‘left’, because they won’t consider any alternatives to benefit ALL the people instead of just their own favoured few.

If BC is to be saddled with that pipeline, which I believe is virtually inevitable, since it’s what the powers of international ‘High Finance’ want, and THEY not we, currently control the purse-strings, the best thing any BC government could do would be to tax every litre of oil that goes through it.

NOT for additions to the general revenue of the government, but to fund an ongoing rebate to every British Columbian on all our fuel purchases. It’s the very least we should get for the inflation its construction is going to cause, and what that will cost us all.

This is a non-issue. If you think for one minute that the premier of BC, regardless of party or stance on Enbridge, has ANY bearing on whether or not this project goes ahead, you are sadly mistaken. Once again, the ignorance of the average citizen on this pipeline process rears its head. This is a FEDERAL project. Meaning ALL land allocated to the pipeline is considered FEDERAL. No province or municipality or first nations will be able to block this project once approved. Support of a premier is a token gesture at best. Watching the process, I haven’t seen any intervenors bring up any meaningful reasons why this project should not be greenlighted. Just the usual eco-terrorist nonsense. Cummins, and all BC premiers might as well support this project – they really have no choice. The NDP will oppose only because their voters want a whiney protest party so I have no doubt they will deliver with all kinds of useless posturing and attacks.

I have never beleived that this pipeline is being built to supply oil to China, or to give us another market for our oil.

Why??? Because the majority of the oilsands ownership and profits are foreign.

Chinese investment in the oil sands for the period 2007 to 2011 was $11.7 billion, which made up about 16% of $73.6 billion in that time period.

71% of the ownership of oilsands production is foreign, while the foreign-based companies controlled 24.2 percent of the sectors production.

Some notably Canadian oil compainies, such as Sunco, Canadian Oil Sands, and Husky, are predominantly owned by non-Canadians.

Oilsands ownership-Companies with foreign headquarters, and ownership.

Statoil 99.83% foreign ownership
Mocal Energy 99.23 %
Murphy Oil 99.23%
Royal Dutch Shell 98.49%
Devon Energy 98.44%
ConocoPhillips 97.83%

Companies with Canadian headquarters but foreign owned.

Petrobank Energy Resources 94.8% foreign ownership.
Husky Energy 90.9%
MEG Energy 89.1%
Imperial Oil 88.9%
Nexen 69.9%
Cdn Natural Resources 58.8%
Suncor Energy 56.8%

So firstly Canadians do not own the Oil Sands, and at best we get Royalties on production, which is substantial, however this revenue goes to Alberta, and the Feds.

Secondly the decision as to where this oil is sold will be made by the Oil Companies, not by Alberta, or the Federal Government.

The Federal Government has the responsibility for approving the pipeline to the West Coast, and allowing the shipping of oil along the BC Coast only.

The major oil refineries in the USA are in California, around the Los Angeles, and San Francisco areas. California has a population of over 30 Million people and has a huge need for gasoline and diesel.

Why would American oil companies sell their oil to China, when they have a huge need for this product in their own Country??

They wouldnt. The pipeline option is easier to sell if you have the scenario that it gives Canada an alternative customer base for this oil. However when you look at who owns the oil, the rational falls apart.

The majority of this oil is going to the USA (California) via ship. That is what this is all about. Failure to build the pipeline, will mean that the Americans would have to build a pipeline through California, at a huge cost, and face much more resistance than they will get from BC.

Keep your eye on the ball. Remember that it is a rare day indeed when large corporations, or Governments tell you the truth. No need to think they are this time.

gamblor: “This is a FEDERAL project. Meaning ALL land allocated to the pipeline is considered FEDERAL. No province or municipality or first nations will be able to block this project once approved.”

I’m surprised people forgot about this so quickly. Even Adrian Dix had to admit on Meisner’s radio show that he didn’t think there was anything he could do if he was in power, but he ‘was looking into it’. That was some time ago.

socredible, I like your point of view.
We do need a gov’t that works for the majority of the people, not just the left or the right.

What ever Gambler. The constitution clearly states that natural resources and crown land are sovereign to the provinces. Its why natural resource royalties go to the province and not the fed. The Belfour Declaration makes this clear. The fed can grant interprovincial approval, but they can not force BC to accept this law, only BC can consent to final approval of the pipeline.

I read a book called the Balfour Declaration. It was about the creation of the state of Israel starting during the First World War. Nothing about our Fed vs Provincial rights in our Constitution in that book.

I think it’s pretty clear at this point that the BC Liberals would like to see the pipeline go throgh. A lot of their communicatiosn to their membership hints positively at the project, but they don’t dare publicly state it, knowing full well it would be political suicide.

If First Nations groups and/or a Provincial Government wanted to, could they not tie this whole thing up in the courts long enough for Enbridge to conclude that it was no longer economically feasible to continue?

Were First Nations adequately consulted as to the impacts to their traditional lands? Perhaps the courts could interpret that.

Does the Province have any claim to not allow the pipeline on their lands, given the potential environmental risks that could occur should the said pipeline rupture (that the Feds would not be responsible for)? Perhaps the courts could chew on that one for a while.

The Feds may have the legal authority to approve the pipeline, but does the Province have the authority to not allow access roads to be be built on Provincial lands so that the pipeline can be built and serviced?

Would the BC Ministry of Transportation not issue the permits that would allow the pipeline parts to be trucked in for the construction? What if those regulations were changed just in time to coincide with the start of construction?

What if Provincial WCB was onsite doing work inspections every single day that the construction was in progress and they shut the thing down for any infraction?

I’m sure if the Province got creative there would be plenty of legal ways for them to halt this thing in its tracks. Perhaps they just need to think outside of the box a little bit :)

curmudgeon: “I think it’s pretty clear at this point that the BC Liberals would like to see the pipeline go throgh. A lot of their communicatiosn to their membership hints positively at the project, but they don’t dare publicly state it, knowing full well it would be political suicide. “

You say that as if the Liberals have a chance next election. Actually, it is their lack of leadership on many issues, and this is just one of them. The NDP will be no better, but as long as they continue to run on the ‘anybody but the Liberal’ ticket, the next Provincial election is theirs to lose.

BC has become a BANANA REPUBLIC: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything

BC has become a BANANA REPUBLIC: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything

Natural resources and Crown land are Constitutionally sovereign to the Provinces, but the Federal government has the right to expropriate any land for any purpose it deems in the ‘national interest’. It has already indicated it views the Enbridge pipeline to be in the national interest. Because the pipeline is inter-provincial it will fall under Federal jurisdiction.

Likely the best this Province could do would be to sue for adequate compensation for loss of use of the land involved. Which, based on the value of the right-of-way alone wouldn’t amount to much. We couldn’t sue for compensation to cover damages from an oil spill until an oil spill actually occurs.

What is virtually certain, in fact it’s one of the main reasons why there is such a strong desire to build the pipeline, is that its construction will induce higher prices here in BC. Our political masters again mistake what is, in fact, pure inflation, with the illusion of renewed prosperity.

It’s really anything but ~ in an inflation EVERYONE is losing, as the purchasing power of each dollar you have or earn continually diminishes in terms of what it will buy. That is neither in the national interest, nor BC’s interest, nor in the interest of every citizen as a consuming individual. And anyone who believes differently needs their head examined.

If all three of those interests are to be properly served, WE should be getting LOWER PRICES on all the petroleum products we consume as a result of the construction of this pipeline. This isn’t what’s going to happen. Unless we insist it DOES happen.

That a tax be applied to every litre of oil that goes through that pipe and that it rises proportionally with every increase in fuel prices to consumers here in BC, and that the proceeds of that tax be rebated directly to BC consumers as a reduction in the price of all petroleum fuels we purchase.

This isn’t a demand from the ‘left’, nor one from the ‘right’ of the political spectrum. It’s apolitical, just as was the demand to repeal the HST. And if it was made that way, and kept that way, it would be something that would benefit EVERY British Columbian, no matter what their choice of Party or leader. And I believe ALL those Parties, and their leaders, in office or out, Federal or Provincial, are composed of people intelligent enough not to ignore such a demand.

“It has already indicated it views the Enbridge pipeline to be in the national interest.”

The question is why is the pipeline in anybody but Alberta’s interest?

Show us the financial flow of money to the Maritimes and Manitoba, those provinces, other than Newfoundland, who “need” the money and those others who want some of the benefits.

I mean, it could even be detrimental if gas prices were to rise as a result of selling oil to other than the USA.

In fact, has anyone looked at what would happen if we were NOT to sell to the USA? What are the full economic, social, and environmnental consequences of this particular route for the bitumen?

How can the benefits be maximized for ALL of Canada since it is in the national interest?

Seems to me this is where Trudeau got stuck. So now we have Harper and he has free rein?

Harbinger… it would be the second Belfour Declaration. The one from the Imperial Conference of 1927… essentially confirming that all Dominions remain equal in their association to the ‘Crown’ meaning land and resources.

“autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.”

As far as the British were concerned they made the law and they were the court of final say. Legally Canada had no standing above that of the provincial responsible governments as British colonies. This opinion was made law in the Westminster Act of 1931 where it was agreed Britain would remain Canada’s sovereign because the provinces couldn’t accept the federal government changing our constitution if the feds had the powers. The Supreme Court of Canada in 1981 upheld the provincial right to consent to any changes to the constitution.

The repatriated constitution in 1982 for the first time allowed the Canadian federal government to become a true sovereign. Quebec would argue that it wasn’t legal. It remains to be seen how far Harper would push federal sovereignty over historic provincial sovereignty, but one should remember Harper was the one that called for provincial firewalls as a reformer.

Also BC still has the right to call its own environmental review with 30-days notice if it sees the need to do so. A BC environmental review could kill the project, but for now the BC liberals signed away the right for BC to do its own review by playing a wait and see on the federal review process.

If BC has no objection to the federal review outcome or process, then that is a decision that is made by the BC liberals. Clearly at this point they support the foreign owned Gateway incorporated (ie no liability) project otherwise they would be exercising BC’s sovereign rights.

Time Will Tell

It’s deemed to be in the ‘national interest’, Gus, because this country, like ever other modern industrialised country firmly believes it has to import some other country’s ‘money’, (not their actual goods and services that they may export or provide us), to continue to live. No matter where in the country that ‘money’ eventually ends up being distributed.

The only present alternative would be a rapidly increase in overall national indebtedness internally, and a complete collapse of the present financial system. Since it would very quickly become apparent that what we were ‘borrowing’ could NEVER be totally repaid. Which it can’t even now, but that’s not so readily apparent so long as exports exceed imports and international credit converted by the Bank of Canada into Canadian ‘money’ makes up the difference.

It is really an impossible situation to continually sustain ‘financially’ (let alone ‘physically’ ~ because if you continue to export more than you import your country is becoming physically poorer in actual real wealth not richer), since it is impossible for every industrial country to always have a so-called ‘favourable’ Balance of Trade internationally. When they can’t win a ‘trade war’, historically some country or countries will try to “pursue the same policy by alternate means”, i.e. have a real war.

It’s a problem that bedevilled Trudeau going one way (National Energy Policy, based on the failed prescriptions of socialist ‘re-distribution’), just as it is going to fall far short of producing any real ‘prosperity’ for ALL Canadians under Harper. The common ground between the two of them will be the INFLATION we WILL get, as either the purchasing power of our incomes fall from more taxes, or rising prices, or both.

whine all you want. The feds can will take whatever they need to make this happen and it has been done in the past.

I laugh when people whine about the people and government not owning natural resources. Wake up! That’s how its ALWAYS worked. Resources are owned by the people with the means to extract them. If we left resource extraction up to all the armchair political scientists, we’d be a 3rd world country!

Being in the “national interest” sounds like a concept that the Supreme Court may be interested in debating, LOL :)

Maybe so, NMG. But a previous (Liberal) Federal government didn’t hesitate to expropriate the seabed at Nanoose Bay on Vancouver Island, along the shore of which is a Canadian Forces torpedo testing facility regularly used by the US Navy to fire and recover their latest ‘fish’, back when former Premier Glenn Clark made some noise about stopping that activity there. I don’t recall the Supreme Court being asked to rule on that. At the present time, I doubt the Supreme Court would rule in favour of the Province if there was a conflict with the Fed’s over whether Enbridge is in the ‘national interest’ or not. The Fed’s will simply play the “It creates jobs” card, and “We need the money”, and on that latter they could easily prove that as a nation we do, so long as our financial system remains as it is.

That’s a simplification. Clearly Quebec is watching what will happen in this ‘national interest’ debate. If the feds think they now have the power to remake the constitution and over rule the sovereignty of the provinces, than that is fuel for the separatist movement in Quebec.

Maybe Harper wants to secretly break up Canada so he will play hard ball with BC to try and set a horrible precedent that Quebec can not accept, and the vocal opposition will use for their slogans?

Maybe the BC liberals want to break up the country as well and feel only if the country is seen to be pushing a bad pipleine risk on BC, and closing coastal search and rescue, and eliminating oversight for salmon destroying fish farms… only then would BC become receptive to separation? To date this seems to be the BC liberal motive.

I don’t think Harper would give Nathen Cullen a political win to save the country… so I imagine the conservatives will just write off Quebec and possibly the country if they can’t get their oil buddies a pipeline deal.

BTW what kind of precedent does that set where BC liberals are more than willing to give up provincial sovereignty over environmental reviews using Gateway as its poster child. Our fore fathers saw the danger in a powerful centralized government with the power to change the constitution on its own and disregard provincial sovereignty… that leads to tyranny. Canada was well served having provincial crown sovereignty and a constitution that could not be amended by a central power. Harper would like to dismantle all of that with his new philosophy of ‘Enlightened Sovereignty’ where as he sells Canadian sovereignty in free trade deals and continental harmonization deals… and downloads costs to lower levels of governments all the while claiming their sovereign rights so as to negotiate those away internationally.

At the end of the day this pipeline will touch on core issues central to Canada’s very fabric… to say nothing of the native treaty issues, which will also bring the issue back to core issues of Canada’s very fabric.

Well, take it to the Supreme Court, then. The Quebec separatists were once urged to press their case for separation there, by Walter Kuhl, former Social Credit MP for Edson, Alberta, who did copious research on the original intent of the BNA Act of 1867, and had developed a reasonably credible case that the Statute of Westminster of 1931 actually granted full sovereignty in all areas of jurisdiction to the Provinces.

The separatists declined. So maybe the evidence wasn’t as solid as Kuhl believed. Or maybe they thought the ‘deck was stacked against them’ if the case were going to be heard in an institution that would be effectively abolishing itself if it decided that the Statute actually did grant full sovereignty to the then nine Provinces instead of one united Dominion.

But more likely than either, is the FACT that the Quebec separatists have NEVER called for a separate Quebec dollar, or a Bank of Quebec to replace the Bank of Canada. How ‘independent’ would their new Republique actually be when it doesn’t have sovereignty over its own ‘money’? And the answer to that? Just about as ‘independent’ as ANY country, including this one, would be when it has to kow-tow to international high finance and beg permission from it not only to live life more abundantly, but to continue to live at all.

“How ‘independent’ would their new Republique actually be when it doesn’t have sovereignty over its own ‘money’?”

Do you still find this to be a credible argument in the day of the Euro?

Absolutely, Gus. Just look at Greece, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and any other now financially errant country that surrendered its sovereignty over its own currency.

That’s not to say these countries could do some of the things the Greeks have been accused of doing, and undoubtedly did, and not get into trouble financially even if they’d retained their own currency.

But they have surrendered sovereignty over their own individual national ability to correct what is wrong with ‘money’ itself as it relates to the’price values’ of goods and services EXPRESSED in ‘money’ in favour of a system that is flawed, and over which they now have no control individually whatsoever to try to correct.

Funny you should select those countries rather than the more “stable” countries.

I fail to see the difference between the disparity of states and provinces in federal unions such as the USA and Canada.

Are you, therefore, suggesting that PEI on one side of the present scale and Alberta on the other side sould be better off if they had control over their own currency?

Or are there actually other reasons why they find themselves at opposite ends of the economic spectrum that has nothing to do with currency control?

You seem to be so tied up with this artificial and very flexible measure of value called currency which can change at the whim of politicians. In my view there are much more powerful forces at play which lead to countries and regions to be successful at one point in history and not so successfull at other points in history and politicans have very little control over some of those.

Gus;-“Are you, therefore, suggesting that PEI on one side of the present scale and Alberta on the other side could be better off if they had control over their own currency?”
——————————————
No, not unless they were prepared to make the necessary changes to better make the whole financial system as it operates within their borders better reflect reality
——————————————

Gus:-“Or are there actually other reasons why they find themselves at opposite ends of the economic spectrum that has nothing to do with currency control?”
—————————————–
There are obviously “other reasons”. Alberta has oil, and considerable other natural resources that PEI doesn’t have, and so it is a physically richer jurisdiction.

Be that as it is, what they BOTH lack, as does Canada as a whole ~ (the Federal government of which would be loathe to give up any control of currency to ANY Province ~ and the Quebec separatists know full well that if they ever moved to take over THAT Federal area of responsibility as a pre-cursor to independence, or even unilaterally afterwards, the Canadian Army would be enforcing martial law and direct rule from Ottawa there before the week was up)~ is a proper means of macro-economically relating ‘Costs’ that continually flow through into ‘Prices’, and ‘Incomes’ which now form only a PART, and a declining part, of those ‘Costs’ ~ yet are expected to be able to FULLY liquidate them through those ‘Prices’.

They can’t. And so we currently have two alternatives if we want to be able to fully ‘consume’ what we have ‘produced’, or its exchange through the export/import process. Export an ever increasing amount of our production and get international credit (not alternate production from elsewhere)in exchange for it. Or go increasingly into debt overall, which will never, in its totality, ever be capable of being fully repaid.

Gus:- “You seem to be so tied up with this artificial and very flexible measure of value called currency which can change at the whim of politicians.”
——————————————-
It changes at the whim of a power which transcends that of any elected ‘politician’. That power is resident in the whole apparatus of international High Finance. What gives that apparatus and those who work it at the apex of its pyramidal structure such power is a flaw in the way the rules and conventions of double-entry cost accounting relate ‘macro-economically’ to money itself. That flaw could be corrected, and without such correction, we will only continue to run on a treadmill to nowhere, exhausting copious amounts of natural resources wastefully, and engaging fruitlessly in a tragedy of human effort in the process.

Gus:- “In my view there are much more powerful forces at play which lead to countries and regions to be successful at one point in history and not so successfull at other points in history and politicans have very little control over some of those.”
—————————————–
The modern trend is to ‘monopoly’, to ‘centralise’, to try to solve every apparent problem by expanding its boundaries. But if a local economy won’t work properly because the ‘accounting’ doesn’t properly reflect reality, will a provincial, or national, or continental, or even a global economy, work any better with that problem still uncorrected?

There are too many areas that I can respond to, but this one caught my eyes and interest:

“….. ‘Costs’ that continually flow through into ‘Prices’, and ‘Incomes’ which now form only a PART, and a declining part, of those ‘Costs’ …. “

I do not believe that incomes form a declining part of costs at all.

I think you forget that all “goods” are extracted by labour, all machinery designed to improve the extraction or making of goods are made by labour, all increase in services are provided by labour. All transportation is supplied by labour. There is not a single thing on this earth which is made by Martians.

As people were freed up from keeping the home operating by sheer human labour, they went out to sell their labour to get more goods and services for their use.

I think where you are making the mistake is you are not looking at the supply chain required to produce the end product and service.

Perhaps the real leakage is the credit system advanced by the banks and supported by the central government who control the money supply you speak of.

Gus you seem to get what Socred is talking about in the last paragraph. But I thought it was common knowledge that an increasing cost across all sectors of the manufacturing economy is the debt servicing costs. Debt was used to inflate prices and corporate values with the harvesting of the balance sheets by high finance. We seen it first hand in the forest industry. Now debt laden industry increasing works to service debt, rather than produce profits, higher wages, and saving/investments from the limited value it can get out of a dollar in costs.

In Canada alone 11,000+ Canadian corporations have been sold to foreigners since the Canada US Free Trade deal and almost all of it was financed by debt that the newly acquired companies had to service.

Socred wants social credit… monetary inflation paid to the people. The problem is it would just compete with the monetary inflation by the banking industry and at best cancel out the tax on real savings generated by an unregulated banking industry.

The only solution IMO is to have tighter regulation on finance and start to tax its excesses. If we are to have a central bank it should be fully accountable and responsible solely to national stakeholders through the government and not influenced by private bankers. But even more important than that is how banks create money through valuation manipulations using the power of insider knowledge, fractional reserve banking, debt, derivatives, and out right ponzi schemes. Banks need to be accountable for their actions or their greed and knaveing ways will never cease. It will likely be the defining issue in coming generations if freedom is not snuffed out by then.

IMO I am all for provincial currency to account for very different economic conditions unique to each jurisdiction. Canada is to big for a one size fits all monetary policy… all it does now is insure monopoly capitalism.

Socred makes a good point about calling Quebec separatists bluff. I think that was the general consensus of the western provinces was to call their bluff. I really don’t think the talking head and the English Canada ever did or even does today understand the politics of Quebec. Ignorance is rife as national policy. The Quebec student protests shows this holds true to this day.

I think if Quebec had the 50%+1, then yes they would be an independent sovereign today… I think what would happen is Canada would revert back to the Westminister Act of 1931 and once again the provinces would have their sovereignty recognized. To ensure the political union of Canada was to remain we would likely go back to a foreign power (ie Britain) holding veto power over constitutional changes. I don’t think Quebec ever intended to have their own currency or completely separate North Korean style from Canada.

I think if Quebec separatist vote was successful than they would have allies in places like BC and Alberta in reverting to the Westminster Act of 1931 realities and starting a redo from that genus towards a new Canada facing 21st century realities.