pipeline

Thursday February 13, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday February 13, 2020

Rule of law must prevail in gas pipeline dispute

A common misconception about the blockades and protests disrupting business and travel across Canada this week is that they are taking place with the support of the majority of Indigenous people. Obviously, some people — Indigenous and non-Indigenous — support Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs in their efforts to stop the construction of the Coastal GasLink natural gas pipeline.

February 6, 2020

But to suggest that the chiefs, or their supporters across the country, speak on behalf of Indigenous people in general is misguided.

Consider the situation among members of the Witset First Nation in the area of the pipeline.

All 20 elected band councils along the pipeline route have signed benefit agreements with Coastal GasLink and support the pipeline. Some of the communities held referendums that showed majority support. But, the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs who oppose the pipeline say those councils were established by the Indian Act and only have authority over reserve lands.

CBC’s “As It Happens” interviewed Wet’suwet’en resident Bonnie George who said, in part: “There’s quite a bit of support for this project. But people are afraid to speak up because, in the past few years, people that (have) spoken up were either ostracized … ridiculed, bullied, harassed, threatened, and being called a traitor — a sellout … People are afraid to speak up.”

April 23, 2006

Another resident, Philip Tait, told Global News: “Right now, this is probably got to be one of the biggest job creations in the province here, and we want to be part of it,” he said. “The hereditary chiefs’ office, they don’t speak for the whole clan.”

And yet, here we are. The chiefs’ protest has become a cause celebre across the country, with supporters blockading roads and railways, disrupting service. Some of the consequences are merely inconveniences, but others have serious economic impact. The lack of propane delivery, for example, threatens agricultural businesses that rely on it to heat barns during winter.

The pipeline project has met all environmental requirements. It has all the requisite approvals. It has the official support of Indigenous communities along the route.

And it has the potential to serve an important purpose, aside from the obvious one that it moves liquid natural gas from point A (Dawson Creek) to Point B (Kitimat).

Pipeline cartoons

The natural gas moved through the pipeline will end up at a huge complex in Kitimat. From there, LNG will be moved by ship to markets around the world. Some of those markets will include large nations like China and India that still produce a great deal of their needed energy by burning coal. LNG, while not perfect, is much less harmful to the environment as coal energy. So the LNG that comes from the $6-billion, 670-kilometre Coastal GasLink pipeline has the potential to make a significant impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries.

But for that to work, the gas has to get from its source to market. And the best, safest, way to do that is by pipeline.

Given that construction has all official approvals to proceed, governments were left with little choice but to issue injunctions demanding protesters leave the area. When they refused, RCMP removed and arrested some. RCMP were operating under the rule of law, just as police in other jurisdictions, including Ontario, are doing by following legal direction to remove blockades on rail lines, ports and roadways.

Negotiations with the chiefs are continuing, as they should. But the rule of law must be observed, across Canada. That’s of paramount national importance. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

 

Thursday February 6, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday February 6, 2020

One step forward, another one back: What the Trans Mountain ruling means for Trudeau

In sports, you win some and you lose some. In politics, it’s possible to win and lose at the same time.

Pipeline cartoons

Take, for example, yesterday’s Federal Court of Appeal ruling on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project.

The court ruled unanimously that the federal government had fulfilled its duty to consult meaningfully with a handful of First Nations opposed to the project, clearing a major hurdle in the drawn-out battle to build a second line to carry bitumen from Alberta’s oilsands to Burnaby on the B.C. coast.

The federal and Alberta governments immediately claimed victory, putting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Premier Jason Kenney on the same side for once.

“This project is in the public interest,” federal Natural Resources Minister Seamus O’Regan told reporters shortly after the decision was released.

“We also know that this is a project that can deliver significant economic benefit to Alberta, to Canadians across the country,” added Finance Minister Bill Morneau. “And more importantly, we are going to put that economic benefit back into the environment.”

Their sense of relief was palpable. Ottawa spent around $4.5 billion in 2018 to buy TMX — a last-ditch effort to ensure the pipeline would be built after its owner, Kinder Morgan, announced plans to step away.

That price, hefty as it is, doesn’t include construction costs or any overruns the project has incurred because of the various stop-work orders that have put construction well behind schedule.

But with the victory comes a major setback in relations with those Indigenous groups who continue to oppose the $7.4-billion project, and will no doubt seek to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

“Reconciliation stopped today,” said Rueben George, of the Tsleil-Waututh, his voice cracking with emotion.

The band was one of four Indigenous groups behind the court challenge. It argued that the second, court-ordered round of consultations also failed to respond adequately to their concerns about the impact the project would have on marine life.

“This government is incapable of making sound decisions for our future generations,” George said. “So we will — even for their children — we will take those steps to make sure Canada stays the way it is.” (CBC)

 

 

Saturday September 28, 2019

September 28, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday September 28, 2019

Greta Thunberg meets Trudeau, tells him he’s not doing enough to fight climate change

September 24, 2019

Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg told Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau today he’s not doing enough to protect the environment from the threat of runaway climate change.

Trudeau met the teenage activist ahead of Friday’s mass climate rally in Montreal in his capacity as prime minister. The pair spoke in private for about 15 minutes, shortly before Trudeau joined the rally marching through the city’s downtown.

After the meeting, Thunberg was asked if she had a message for Trudeau. She said that Trudeau is not doing enough — but added that she says the same thing to every political leader she meets.

“My message to all the politicians around the world is the same: just listen and act on the current, best available united science,” she said.

“I try not to focus on the individuals and rather focus on the whole picture because … of course it’s easier to just blame someone and of course he has a lot of responsibility … and he, of course, is not doing enough.

September 20, 2016

“But we need to, because this is such a huge problem. This is a system that is wrong. So my message to all the politicians is the same — to just listen to the science and act on the science.”

In a news conference announcing a proposal to plant trees to combat climate change, Trudeau called Thunberg a “remarkable” young person who is driving the conversation forward.

“She is the voice of a generation of young people who are calling on their leaders to do more and to do better, and I’m listening,” he said.

Trudeau was asked about a June 19 tweet from Thunberg in which she questioned Canada’s decision to declare a climate emergency one day and say yes to expanding the Trans Mountain pipeline the next.

April 11, 2018

“This is shameful. But of course this is not only in Canada, we can unfortunately see the same pattern everywhere,” she said.

Trudeau defended his government’s actions.

“We have a national climate plan that will reduce our emissions and hit our 2030 targets in a way that also includes getting a better price for our oil resources that allows us to put the profits directly into the fight against climate change,” he said.

Trudeau had a large security detail surrounding him and his family as they joined the crowds on the streets of Montreal for the climate rally. Some in the crowd chanted slogans attacking Trudeau’s embrace of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. (CBC)

 

Justin meets Greta from r/worldpoliticalhumour

 

Thursday June 20, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday June 20, 2019

Scheer’s climate pledge is nonsense, just like Trudeau’s

Conservative leader Andrew Scheer’s long-awaited climate change plan means the Tories will now join Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberals in lying through their teeth leading up to the Oct. 21 election.

May 2, 2019

Scheer’s 60-page plan released Wednesday, which does not include a carbon tax, says the greenhouse gas reduction targets agreed to by Trudeau under the Paris climate accord in 2015, “are Conservative targets and our plan will give Canada the best chance at reaching them.”

Scheer has to say that because Trudeau’s targets used to be Stephen Harper’s targets and Scheer previously said he supports the Paris accord.

But in the real world Scheer’s plan, containing 50 initiatives, has as much chance of hitting the Paris targets as Trudeau’s, meaning somewhere between slim and none and slim just left town.

This as evidenced by the fact Scheer’s plan contains no timeline or deadlines for actually achieving the Paris target of reducing our emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.

That means Trudeau and Environment Minister Catherine McKenna will spend the election denouncing Scheer for not having a plan to meet the Paris targets.

Of course, they will ignore the fact the federal environment commissioner, nine of 10 provincial auditors general, the United Nations, the federal government’s own studies and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, say the same thing about Trudeau’s plan. (Toronto Sun)

April 11, 2018

Meanwhile, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is an icon of progressive politics who has promised to “put a price on pollution”. Last week, to much applause, he proposed a ban on single-use plastics. On Monday night, his government declared a national “climate emergency.”

He is also now the public face of a Canadian plan to expand a pipeline that would triple the amount of crude oil that moves from the Alberta tar sands to the Pacific Coast for shipment around the world.

Such is his dilemma — and Canada’s.

Trudeau’s Liberal government announced Tuesday it will push ahead with the stalled Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion, $5.5 billion project that has long pitted the country’s energy sector against the concerns of environmental and some indigenous groups.

December 1, 2016

Trudeau, announcing the decision at a news conference in Ottawa, pledged that every dollar earned from the pipeline will be used to fund projects to power Canada’s transition to clean energy.

“We need to create wealth today so we can invest in the future,” he said. “We need resources to invest in Canadians so they can take advantage of the opportunities generated by a rapidly changing economy, here at home and around the world.”

The move will be welcomed by the country’s struggling oil sector and the many Canadians whose fortunes are tied to it. Landlocked Alberta produces four-fifths of Canadian crude but struggles to get it abroad, and so must settle for selling at steep discounts against global benchmarks — hitting the province hard.

But many Canadians have protested the expansion proposal out of concern for oil spills and the continuing promotion of climate-changing fossil fuels. They question whether this is the moment to increase Canadian shipments of oil.

Trudeau has been left to walk a tightrope between the two sides, taking heat from both as he limps toward a federal election this fall. (Washington Post) 

 

Friday June 14, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday June 14, 2019

Time for Moe, Kenney to cool their jets on national unity talk

Is this where politics is taking our nation?

This is not to suggest Bill C-49 and C-69 isn’t a problem for western oil.

December 7, 2018

Nor is it to suggest for a moment that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government haven’t been oblivious to western concerns or that there isn’t legitimate frustration over idiotic notions like Quebec Premier Francois Legault suggesting western oil is no longer socially acceptable. Why there would be different rules for oil tankers on the East Coast than on the West Coast needs to challenged.

And if Trudeau is condemned this October to the inglorious fate of a one-term prime minister, it will be difficult to argue it was undeserved. A government fuelled by the frivolous image politics of its leader is now running on fumes. Its engine is clogged with SNC-Lavalin debris.

But none of this justifies the bizarre and divisive hysteria we are now hearing. Premiers and others are inflating into a national unity crisis pieces of federal legislation addressing changes to the National Energy Board and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and changes to how major infrastructure projects are reviewed and approved.

October 12, 2016

Remember when a national unity crisis was actually about a national unity crisis, like when a quarter of the country was voting to separate?

Let’s be clear: This not the 1980 or 1995 Quebec referendum. It’s not even the National Energy Program of the elder Trudeau of the late 1970s, although, for partisan political reasons, one suspects certain politicians would love to see Bill C-69 raised to that level.

This is 2019 and we’re still just talking about a bill affecting pipelines. How much effect it will have is a subject of legitimate debate, but consider two pertinent questions: What happens to the notion that Bill C-69 stops all pipeline development, if the Trudeau government goes ahead with approval of Trans-Mountain pipeline as early as next week? While we surely need and should have more pipelines, shouldn’t we do our utmost to ensure there aren’t future spills like the Husky spill of three years ago? (Leader-Post)