And just what are "social license obligations"? Please define. Would anyone really expect IPG to not support a business venture? Seems IPG's ability to listen to the public parallels that of Campbell and his liberal cohorts.

This is a bureaucrat paid for with our home property taxes taking a political advocacy position to use blackmail (ie health care and social programs) to push an agenda for a foreign operation that will provide little return in economic benefits to BC and horrendous potential environmental damage... and what is lacking from the Gateway group is not more social license obligations, but rather specifics to the project itself and its implications for the environment.

I don't like my tax dollars preaching to me in an advocacy position for a project that is about feeding international finance and not sustainable Canadian development. IPG should be about facilitating development through streamlining regulatory hurdles, adding value, or advocating the selling features of our economic potential... but to become an advocate for industry itself is beyond what its mandate should be IMO.

The oil tanker traffic ban approved by parliament is entirely justified at this point... registering the opinion of the parliament on this project as the elected representatives of this country.

Oil tanker traffic from Alaska has to stay out of a Canadian exclusion zone... traffic from Vancouver has a sheltered route to sea and a high population center that can handle its own problems... Northern BC coast is the most dangerous in the world without ability to contain any potential spill... justifying the ban. Unrefined tar from Alberta is a far different product than what is currently shipped in the Pacific Ocean.

The question people opposed to the pipeline are asking is not 'what is in it for us', but rather 'how do we protect the environment from catastrophe'.

Those who support export of our hydro carbon resources to Asia/Pacific also support Canadians paying Asia/Pacific market prices for Canadian energy here in Canada. This is the key to their pushing this agenda... to hijack our energy resources to a world market ignoring Canadian sustainability and energy competitiveness in our home markets.

The above article is an example of industry using public financed actors to push industry talking points.

Point well taken Eagleone. Seems the IPG is a front for Industry at taxpayer expense and likes to take credit for taxpayer funded projects like the white elephant runway. It would really be nice to know what non gov't revenue generating businesses have actually located in PG as a result of IPG other than call centers that show up for awhile and once the incentives run out they close the doors.

Eagleone "The above article is an example of industry using public financed actors to push industry talking points."

Please explain your opinion on whether or not you view the NDP and Liberals stance on using the potential environmental damage that may or may not happen as a blackmail to bolster their very visiable advocacy positions underpinning opposition to this project as well as using private member bills in parliament? Surely they are spending public money and using resources of the parliament in their efforts to side with ENGO's and Aboriginal Groups in opposition (although maybe funding from US charities is helping them as well according to Vivian Krause from North Vancouver)?

Also, "to use blackmail (ie health care and social programs) to push an agenda"

Surely you are not one of the delusional folks that think we actually have "free" healthcare and social support programs in Canada do you? Even if you do comprehend that those programs come from taxes, you don't think its all supported on residential property taxes and personal income tax do you? While I suspect that there may not be a tremendous number of long-term, full-time positions, there will certainly be a great deal of revenue to the goverenment in the form of corporate income taxes.

Eagleone "The above article is an example of industry using public financed actors to push industry talking points."

Please explain your opinion on whether or not you view the NDP and Liberals stance on using the potential environmental damage that may or may not happen as a blackmail to bolster their very visiable advocacy positions underpinning opposition to this project as well as using private member bills in parliament? Surely they are spending public money and using resources of the parliament in their efforts to side with ENGO's and Aboriginal Groups in opposition (although maybe funding from US charities is helping them as well according to Vivian Krause from North Vancouver)?

Also, "to use blackmail (ie health care and social programs) to push an agenda"

Surely you are not one of the delusional folks that think we actually have "free" healthcare and social support programs in Canada do you? Even if you do comprehend that those programs come from taxes, you don't think its all supported on residential property taxes and personal income tax do you? While I suspect that there may not be a tremendous number of long-term, full-time positions, there will certainly be a great deal of revenue to the goverenment in the form of corporate income taxes.

Would we have as much objection to the
pipeline and tankers,if they were carrying refined petroleum products like gasoline or diesel?
Just like shipping raw logs or copper concentrate.Shipping crude oil is exporting jobs.
What Canada must do is develop a national energy strategy.So all Canadians can fully benefit from this resource.

We have all the products for having a
worldclass petrochemical industry,along with industries supported by them.

FYI China is planning to increase refining capacity by 50% in the next 5 years.

Eagleone "The above article is an example of industry using public financed actors to push industry talking points."

Please explain your opinion on whether or not you view the NDP and Liberals stance on using the potential environmental damage that may or may not happen as a blackmail to bolster their very visiable advocacy positions underpinning opposition to this project as well as using private member bills in parliament? Surely they are spending public money and using resources of the parliament in their efforts to side with ENGO's and Aboriginal Groups in opposition (although maybe funding from US charities is helping them as well according to Vivian Krause from North Vancouver)?

Also, "to use blackmail (ie health care and social programs) to push an agenda"

Surely you are not one of the delusional folks that think we actually have "free" healthcare and social support programs in Canada do you? Even if you do comprehend that those programs come from taxes, you don't think its all supported on residential property taxes and personal income tax do you? While I suspect that there may not be a tremendous number of long-term, full-time positions, there will certainly be a great deal of revenue to the goverenment in the form of corporate income taxes.

Eagleone "The above article is an example of industry using public financed actors to push industry talking points."

Please explain your opinion on whether or not you view the NDP and Liberals stance on using the potential environmental damage that may or may not happen as a blackmail to bolster their very visiable advocacy positions underpinning opposition to this project as well as using private member bills in parliament? Surely they are spending public money and using resources of the parliament in their efforts to side with ENGO's and Aboriginal Groups in opposition (although maybe funding from US charities is helping them as well according to Vivian Krause from North Vancouver)?

Also, "to use blackmail (ie health care and social programs) to push an agenda"

Surely you are not one of the delusional folks that think we actually have "free" healthcare and social support programs in Canada do you? Even if you do comprehend that those programs come from taxes, you don't think its all supported on residential property taxes and personal income tax do you? While I suspect that there may not be a tremendous number of long-term, full-time positions, there will certainly be a great deal of revenue to the goverenment in the form of corporate income taxes.

Apparently (as far as I can determine) Enbridge is only responsible for the pipeline(s) and any mishaps connected to that part of the project.

The crude oil transport is apparently the responsibility of whoever the carrier is, whoever owns the oil tankers.

Who will pay for the cleanup of an inevitable Exxon Valdez like ecological disaster if the carrier declares bankruptcy?

Take a guess.

If PG is going to weigh in on the pros and cons of major projects like the Pipeline, the real debate should be who they represent.

In my opinion, IPG should represent the Citizens of this City because they are supported primarily through our local tax dollars. Those tax dollars come from industry as well as residents.

IPG is set up to promote PG as a site to locate new businesses and keep existing businesses.

In doing so, they, like Enbridge, need to look not only at the economic picture, but also the social picture.

Thus, I would like to see IPG, as our representatives, to have a position ready as to what "a defined stream of long-term community benefits is provided" would look like. That would do much to improve our local understanding of what we should be looking forward to rather than to provide a comment on what the Canadian Parliament ought to do and not do. That does us little good.

Face up to it, it is what it is.

As to our interest in the benefits from Enbridge, we have many public sessions put on by the City. Why would we not have some sort of forum which would ask us what we are looking for? If this whole thing is as important as it is, I would think that should be done.

Will IPG make a presentation to the JRP? I would think so, but I may have that wrong. Given the credentials of IPG, what are the realities of 10 people from the general public making an impression on the JRP that equals or betters that of an organization such as IPG? How many will it take? 100 people? That is very dangerous because it looks like an organized minority group.

I think IPG needs to make its position re social, economic, and environmental issues know to this City and the people who live here and provide justification for those positions. I know, there is no money there.

Good points, Eagle. I agree completely.

What long-term advantages accrue to this country by exporting a non-renewable resource in basically an unprocessed state to foreign countries?

We might care to remember that prior to World War Two the USA was once one of the world's largest exporters of petroleum, and also one where gasoline and other oil products were 'cheaper' in their domestic markets than in any of the domestic markets of the countries they exported to. They serviced the foreigner, but they looked after 'number one' first.

Is Enbridge, and such like projects going to REDUCE the price of gasoline and other petroleum products WE pay as Consumers here?

Maybe if it did WE might be able to afford to fund our "health care and social support programs" adequately again from our current incomes. Instead of being pushed collectively that much further in debt when the inevitable 'inflation' (that always comes first in the guise of 'prosperity') takes hold if a project like Enbridge were built.

pg250fan... the ndp and liberals in Parliament are elected representatives... so yes they have a right to represent us with our tax dollars.

Your last comment makes no sense... win/lose comparison that does not reflect reality. I support win/win and that does not mean I support this pipeline.

Government revenue comes from many sources... to hold health care hostage to a bad project is the work of perjury politicians and should not be condoned.

Ho Hum. I suspect that Enbridge will really sit up and take notice now that the Citizens of Prince George are on the case.

The bloody pipe line (if it is built) will pass by Prince George on its way to Kitimat, with little or no effect on the City. In addition the Provincial Government, Federal Government, and those people who live on the coast are the ones that decide if tankers will be loading at Kitimat. It certainly wont be decided by anyone in Prince George.

We have thousands of kilometres of pipelines all over Canada, and millions of kilometres in North America. Oil is moved by pipelines all over the world. If you want to move it, then you need a pipeline.

If it doesnt go to Kitimat, then I suspect that it will all be sold to the USA. Actually either way I suspect that the majority of this oil from the Oil Sands will go to the USA.

1. Who the hell do you think owns all the companies who are working the oil sands. While they are internationl I suspect that 80% of the are American owned.

2. Who owns Enbridge. Duhhhhh. Could it be the Americans???

So what are we saying here. That the American Companies in the oil sands, are going to spend billions of dollars on developing this oil, then billions more on a pipeline, and then ship it to China??? More likely it will go to US Refineries in California.

One interesting point about the private members bill that was passed in Parliment 143 to 138 is that the Bloc, party voted to stop the oil tankers, on the West Coast. So we now have separtists telling us how to run our business. I can imagine the hew and cry if we in the West voted to ban oil tankers on the St Lawerence River.