Trudeau cabinet approves Trans Mountain, Line 3 pipelines, rejects Northern Gateway
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
The Liberals play a dangerous game by going along with the eco-activists
The assertion by eco-activist pipeline opponents that Canadians lack confidence in the National Energy Board (NEB) has been accepted unconditionally by the Trudeau government. But is it true?
Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr – the cabinet member responsible for the quasi-independent agency – certainly believes it is.
There is even talk of taking energy infrastructure review away from the NEB. He’s said he’s undertaking reforms to environmental assessments that are “designed to restore public confidence in the process,” according to Carr.
Where is the evidence that public confidence in the NEB needs restoring?
Frankly, there isn’t much.
And the recent approval of Trans Mountain Expansion and Line 3 pipelines demonstrates that, outside of groups adamantly opposed to any new oil and gas projects, the NEB review process still possesses public legitimacy and support.
A March poll from EKOS Research, commissioned by the CBC, asked a single question about confidence in the NEB, on their confidence “in how Canada approves and regulates pipelines to carry oil and gas across the country?”
Only 10 per cent of respondents answered, “a lot of confidence” and 33 per cent told pollsters “some confidence.” A full 50 per cent had little or no confidence.
I would bet that not one Canadian in a hundred has an informed opinion of what the NEB does and how well it does that job — including many people who work in the oil and gas industry.
People formed their impressions of the NEB from news coverage of the Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain Expansion protests over the past five or six years.
Eco-activists have systematically demonized the regulator, claiming the NEB is broken, in the pocket of industry, doesn’t include climate change in its assessment, etc.
Take this Nov. 7 press release from a variety of environmental groups that conducted their own poll within Quebec. It found that “89% of Quebecers support a complete reform of the federal environmental assessment before any further evaluation of the Energy East project.”
The poll was taken shortly after it was revealed that NEB board members met with TransCanada lobbyist and former Quebec Premier Jean Charest, a meeting pipeline opponents claimed was evidence the NEB is “captured” by industry. The three-member board quickly resigned to protect the integrity of the agency, but that didn’t slow down the political or media narrative.
“The poll results show that Trudeau’s government cannot restore public trust in the NEB by appointing a couple of new heads,” said Karel Mayrand, senior director for Quebec of the David Suzuki Foundation.
“Quebecers no longer trust this institution and demand a truly independent process that allows citizen and indigenous communities participation and relies on climate science.”
There you have it, folks, the eco-activist strategy laid bare.
Do everything possible to break the pipeline review process (e.g., have thousands of “intervenors” register for public comments, far more than can be handled), criticize the NEB in the shrillest tones possible in media comments, then demand a new review process based upon considerations far more favourable to First Nations and eco-activist concerns than engineering and technical issues.
The strategy is brilliant and it has worked perfectly.
The Liberals have accepted the premise that the NEB is broken and embarked upon a “modernization” that will at the very least deliver part of what the opponents are asking for.
The Trudeau approach is a bad one, according to Gaetan Caron, a former NEB chair and currently an executive fellow with The School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary. He’s also one of the few industry supporters who will publicly defend the national regulator.
“I’m unable to find a flaw, a mistake, an error that the NEB made in dealing with the Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain Expansion projects,” Caron said in an interview.
“Name me a flaw that requires attention to fix the NEB. My list is empty.”
Back in June, after the Federal court of Appeal threw out the Northern Gateway approval because the Harper Government failed in its “duty to consult” aboriginal peoples, Caron wrote an op-ed for the Financial Post in which he noted the judges’ praise for the NEB review.
“According to the court, what is required is a reasonable process, not perfect consultation,” Caron wrote.
“The net effect of the court’s ruling is that the existing environmental assessment and regulatory process has been found to be acceptable and not flawed. Coming from one of the highest courts in the land, a guardian of our democratic values as codified in our Constitution and our Charter of Rights, this is a very significant vote of confidence.”
Carr has said it’s his government’s responsibility “to move our natural resources to market sustainably.”
If so, why roll the dice and open up the Canadian environmental review process based not upon data or science but the political talking points of groups that for the most part oppose natural resources exports?
Why risk having those very same groups try to hijack the NEB “modernization” the same way they did the Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain assessments?
The Liberals are playing a very dangerous game. Given that the Canadian economy is still driven by natural resource extraction, let’s hope they play to win.
The Liberals play a dangerous game by going along with the eco-activists | Financial Post
The assertion by eco-activist pipeline opponents that Canadians lack confidence in the National Energy Board (NEB) has been accepted unconditionally by the Trudeau government. But is it true?
Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr – the cabinet member responsible for the quasi-independent agency – certainly believes it is.
There is even talk of taking energy infrastructure review away from the NEB. He’s said he’s undertaking reforms to environmental assessments that are “designed to restore public confidence in the process,” according to Carr.
Where is the evidence that public confidence in the NEB needs restoring?
Frankly, there isn’t much.
And the recent approval of Trans Mountain Expansion and Line 3 pipelines demonstrates that, outside of groups adamantly opposed to any new oil and gas projects, the NEB review process still possesses public legitimacy and support.
A March poll from EKOS Research, commissioned by the CBC, asked a single question about confidence in the NEB, on their confidence “in how Canada approves and regulates pipelines to carry oil and gas across the country?”
Only 10 per cent of respondents answered, “a lot of confidence” and 33 per cent told pollsters “some confidence.” A full 50 per cent had little or no confidence.
I would bet that not one Canadian in a hundred has an informed opinion of what the NEB does and how well it does that job — including many people who work in the oil and gas industry.
People formed their impressions of the NEB from news coverage of the Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain Expansion protests over the past five or six years.
Eco-activists have systematically demonized the regulator, claiming the NEB is broken, in the pocket of industry, doesn’t include climate change in its assessment, etc.
Take this Nov. 7 press release from a variety of environmental groups that conducted their own poll within Quebec. It found that “89% of Quebecers support a complete reform of the federal environmental assessment before any further evaluation of the Energy East project.”
The poll was taken shortly after it was revealed that NEB board members met with TransCanada lobbyist and former Quebec Premier Jean Charest, a meeting pipeline opponents claimed was evidence the NEB is “captured” by industry. The three-member board quickly resigned to protect the integrity of the agency, but that didn’t slow down the political or media narrative.
“The poll results show that Trudeau’s government cannot restore public trust in the NEB by appointing a couple of new heads,” said Karel Mayrand, senior director for Quebec of the David Suzuki Foundation.
“Quebecers no longer trust this institution and demand a truly independent process that allows citizen and indigenous communities participation and relies on climate science.”
There you have it, folks, the eco-activist strategy laid bare.
Do everything possible to break the pipeline review process (e.g., have thousands of “intervenors” register for public comments, far more than can be handled), criticize the NEB in the shrillest tones possible in media comments, then demand a new review process based upon considerations far more favourable to First Nations and eco-activist concerns than engineering and technical issues.
The strategy is brilliant and it has worked perfectly.
The Liberals have accepted the premise that the NEB is broken and embarked upon a “modernization” that will at the very least deliver part of what the opponents are asking for.
The Trudeau approach is a bad one, according to Gaetan Caron, a former NEB chair and currently an executive fellow with The School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary. He’s also one of the few industry supporters who will publicly defend the national regulator.
“I’m unable to find a flaw, a mistake, an error that the NEB made in dealing with the Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain Expansion projects,” Caron said in an interview.
“Name me a flaw that requires attention to fix the NEB. My list is empty.”
Back in June, after the Federal court of Appeal threw out the Northern Gateway approval because the Harper Government failed in its “duty to consult” aboriginal peoples, Caron wrote an op-ed for the Financial Post in which he noted the judges’ praise for the NEB review.
“According to the court, what is required is a reasonable process, not perfect consultation,” Caron wrote.
“The net effect of the court’s ruling is that the existing environmental assessment and regulatory process has been found to be acceptable and not flawed. Coming from one of the highest courts in the land, a guardian of our democratic values as codified in our Constitution and our Charter of Rights, this is a very significant vote of confidence.”
Carr has said it’s his government’s responsibility “to move our natural resources to market sustainably.”
If so, why roll the dice and open up the Canadian environmental review process based not upon data or science but the political talking points of groups that for the most part oppose natural resources exports?
Why risk having those very same groups try to hijack the NEB “modernization” the same way they did the Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain assessments?
The Liberals are playing a very dangerous game. Given that the Canadian economy is still driven by natural resource extraction, let’s hope they play to win.
The Liberals play a dangerous game by going along with the eco-activists | Financial Post
Environmentalists have impoverished First Nations, pro-pipeline chief says
Chief Jim Boucher, from Fort McKay, Alta., told the Assembly of First Nations' gathering in Gatineau, Que.
that his community has seen a financial windfall from its involvement in oil and gas extraction. Photo by: CBC News
Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline has been vehemently opposed by many First Nations groups, but voices on the other side of the divide emerged Wednesday to launch a strong defence of the oilpatch.
Chief Jim Boucher told the Assembly of First Nations' gathering in Gatineau, Que,. that his community has seen a financial windfall from its involvement in oil and gas extraction, and that environmentalists should be ignored because they are to blame for widespread poverty in Canada's north.
His community of Fort McKay, north of Fort McMurray, the epicentre of the oilsands, has an unemployment rate of zero, an average annual income of $120,000, and financial holdings in excess of $2 billion, thanks to its willingness to do business with Canada's oil and gas companies, Boucher said.
That money has been pumped into education, long-term care homes for seniors and other infrastructure projects.
"When it comes to pipelines and oilsands development, it's clear from our perspective that we need to do more," he said, during an open session on energy policy at the special assembly. "We're pro-oilsands; if it weren't for the oil my people would be in poverty right now."
The chief said his community is truly self-governing — only four per cent of its revenue comes from the federal government — and other First Nations can follow the same path to prosperity if they take a stake in the development of natural resources on their land.
Change of heart
Boucher said he wasn't always a strong supporter of the oilsands, but had a change of heart after the fur trade became unviable in the 1980s.
"Please don't buy into the environmentalist argument," he said to his fellow chiefs. He noted it was environmentalists and animal rights activists who lobbied the European Union to ban fur imports.
"They're the ones who, at the end of the day, were successful in creating poverty in northern Canada, right across the board. That's why we see all the communities impoverished."
He said ending oilsands development would be devastating and would put his people back on social assistance, "where we really don't want to be," adding he thinks some environmentalist groups have co-opted First Nations communities as part of their fight to put the fossil fuel industry out of business.
Dean Manywounds, vice-chair of the Indian Resource Council, a group formed by chiefs from oil and gas producing First Nations, said chiefs want their communities to be economically self-sustaining, as they were prior to contact with European peoples.
"We have to find a way to build a successful future for our people and our kids."
Pro-pipeline chiefs reluctant to talk
Chiefs supportive of Trans Mountain have avoided the media this week at the special assembly.
National Chief Perry Bellegarde has said these chiefs are afraid to speak for fear of being "stigmatized."
"There's a stigma now attached to supporting economic development. There's a stigma that somehow you're not a First Nations person, if you support a pipeline," he told CBC News before the assembly's start.
More...........
Environmentalists have impoverished First Nations, pro-pipeline chief says - Politics - CBC News
Chief Boucher deserves a lot of credit standing up for his principles as he did while those who also support pipelines stand silently by on the sidelines.
Chief Jim Boucher, from Fort McKay, Alta., told the Assembly of First Nations' gathering in Gatineau, Que.
that his community has seen a financial windfall from its involvement in oil and gas extraction. Photo by: CBC News
Chief Jim Boucher told the Assembly of First Nations' gathering in Gatineau, Que,. that his community has seen a financial windfall from its involvement in oil and gas extraction, and that environmentalists should be ignored because they are to blame for widespread poverty in Canada's north.
His community of Fort McKay, north of Fort McMurray, the epicentre of the oilsands, has an unemployment rate of zero, an average annual income of $120,000, and financial holdings in excess of $2 billion, thanks to its willingness to do business with Canada's oil and gas companies, Boucher said.
That money has been pumped into education, long-term care homes for seniors and other infrastructure projects.
"When it comes to pipelines and oilsands development, it's clear from our perspective that we need to do more," he said, during an open session on energy policy at the special assembly. "We're pro-oilsands; if it weren't for the oil my people would be in poverty right now."
The chief said his community is truly self-governing — only four per cent of its revenue comes from the federal government — and other First Nations can follow the same path to prosperity if they take a stake in the development of natural resources on their land.
Change of heart
Boucher said he wasn't always a strong supporter of the oilsands, but had a change of heart after the fur trade became unviable in the 1980s.
"Please don't buy into the environmentalist argument," he said to his fellow chiefs. He noted it was environmentalists and animal rights activists who lobbied the European Union to ban fur imports.
"They're the ones who, at the end of the day, were successful in creating poverty in northern Canada, right across the board. That's why we see all the communities impoverished."
He said ending oilsands development would be devastating and would put his people back on social assistance, "where we really don't want to be," adding he thinks some environmentalist groups have co-opted First Nations communities as part of their fight to put the fossil fuel industry out of business.
Dean Manywounds, vice-chair of the Indian Resource Council, a group formed by chiefs from oil and gas producing First Nations, said chiefs want their communities to be economically self-sustaining, as they were prior to contact with European peoples.
"We have to find a way to build a successful future for our people and our kids."
Pro-pipeline chiefs reluctant to talk
Chiefs supportive of Trans Mountain have avoided the media this week at the special assembly.
National Chief Perry Bellegarde has said these chiefs are afraid to speak for fear of being "stigmatized."
"There's a stigma now attached to supporting economic development. There's a stigma that somehow you're not a First Nations person, if you support a pipeline," he told CBC News before the assembly's start.
More...........
Environmentalists have impoverished First Nations, pro-pipeline chief says - Politics - CBC News
Chief Boucher deserves a lot of credit standing up for his principles as he did while those who also support pipelines stand silently by on the sidelines.
You also don't want to see a pipeline make it Nova Scotia, sorry to burst your bubble but the tankers are not going to be banned.
GYFHAS ن @GYFHAS If you think the liberals opposed Keystone out of concern for the environment, think again.
