• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

NDP introducing bill to ban tankers off BC coast

C

CougarKing

Army.ca Fixture
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
360
The NDP and their provincial counterparts continue with the fear-mongering about oil tankers:

Global BC

NDP introduces bill to ban supertankers off B.C’s coast

By Amy Judd  Global News

VANCOUVER – The NPD’s federal finance critic has introduced a private member’s bill today aimed at banning supertankers off the coast of B.C.

Nathan Cullen unveiled the bill this morning in the House of Commons as part of his party’s plan for the country’s energy future.

The legislation would ban supertankers off the north coast of British Columbia. This is not the first time a bill to ban oil tankers off B.C.’s coast has debated. Back in 2011 Liberal MP Joyce Murray put forward a similar bill.

(...SNIPPED)
Click to expand...
 
Follow it up with a ban on gas stations too!  Ain't life grand in the opposition?
 
Infanteer said:
Follow it up with a ban on gas stations too!  Ain't life grand in the opposition?
Click to expand...

Yup!  Life must really be idyllic in that alternate universe that they live in.
 
Nathan Cullen is not an idiot and I have dealt with him when he has called us in the past re concerns with his constituents including resource industry. There is a voluntary offset zone off the coast of BC that the Supertankers take, based on the drift rates of the tankers and the time it will take a Rescue tug to reach them. 
Have not read this bill but it's likely aimed directly at Endbridge. I doubt it will cover LNG carriers as even the NDP knows that it will need that revenue if they get in here. There is already tanker traffic on this coast and in and out of Vancouver Harbour.
 
It's Bill C-628.  Full text as at First Reading is here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6699473&File=24#1

The bill targets oil tankers only.

I live in BC, and I think that there would be much popular support for such a bill.  A common opinion is that the risk posed by even one oil tanker accident is so severe to the environment and the associated communities and industries, that no acceptable level of "risk mitigation" can be achieved.  The Exxon Valdez and Queen of the North incidents are still fresh in the minds of people in BC.
 
As all tankers since the Exxon Valdez spill are required to be double hulled, the possibilities of spills have been drastically reduced.
 
Yes, but "drastically reduced" isn't enough for many people, recognizing that the effect of a spill could be catastrophic.
 
Privateer said:
..... A common opinion is that the risk posed by even one oil tanker accident is so severe to the environment....
Click to expand...
It wasn't tabled as an environmental bill, but as "part of his party’s plan for the country’s energy future." 

Insisting that oil moves only via pipelines,* but only after considering the extent to which the pipeline is expected to have an impact on employment in upgraders, refineries and petrochemical complexes within Canada" [ <---economic impact, not environmental]  ....and then, only after
"consultations have taken place between the Government of Canada and all provincial, territorial, municipal and First Nations governments whose lands or waters will be affected by the pipeline and take into account the position of those governments on the issuance of a certificate in respect of the pipeline.  (including a "summary of those positions and specify how the Board took each position into account")

.....it's obvious that the NDP energy "plan" is for nothing to get accomplished.


* - Unless of course, you live on the coast, which is apparently the most at-risk location of a ship-borne oil spill, then the Bill specifies "it is prohibited to transport oil in an oil tanker in the areas of the sea adjacent to the coast; the prohibition does not apply in to "oil that is intended for use in coastal and island communities in Canada."



 
If the LNG moves ahead, BC does not need the oil export. The LNG will provide more jobs at less risk and more revenue to the BC Government. The risks are mostly on BC part and the revenue is most in Alberta. Do you think it would be different if the roles were reversed?
 
The bill is aimed squarely at Enbridge in that it says nothing about movements off of Vancouver Island and the Juan de Fuca.

What this means is that Vancouver Harbour is going to see more tankers and more congestion will occur in the Straits..... thus more risk of collision....

On to another point....

So the NDP recognize native property rights but they don't recognize my property rights?
The NDP is quite at peace with expropriating that which I possess but do not own but will not do that to the natives?

What the PUCK?

Time to get my check book out again - Uncle Steve is still the least of three evils.  >:(

Preamble

Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the duty of the Crown to obtain prior consent from First Nations affected by resource development projects on their territories;
Click to expand...

Text

(2.1) Before submitting a report under subsection (1), the Board shall ensure that consultations have taken place between the Government of Canada and all provincial, territorial, municipal and First Nations governments whose lands or waters will be affected by the pipeline and take into account the position of those governments on the issuance of a certificate in respect of the pipeline. The report shall include a summary of those positions and specify how the Board took each position into account in deciding whether or not to recommend the issuance of a certificate in respect of the pipeline
Click to expand...

I sense cake being eaten and not disappearing here.

Which is it?  The Natives get a veto denied to everybody else?  Or will they just be consulted the way they are just now?

My sense of the amendments are that they wouldn't prevent an NDP government issuing the same permits they are complaining about the Conservatives issuing.

 
I think, with only one reading of it, that the bill is poor policy but very good politics. I can see no real downside for the NDP and it will, quite likely, force young M. Trudeau's hand.
 
The bill would affect Northern Gateway (with the planned terminal in Kitimat), which Mr. Trudeau has already said he does not support.  Note that the bill would not affect oil tankers servicing the Kinder Morgan terminal in Burnaby (next to Vancouver).  I do not know whether the portion of the bill addressing NEB procedure would effect the extant application of Kinder Morgan for its upgrade.  It is my understanding that Mr. Trudeau agrees in principle with the Kinder Morgan upgrade, if it is done in a suitable manner.
 
LNG tankers are safe. If they get holed (unlikely) they just go 'pfffffffffffft' , pretty much.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/02/ngt/quillen.pdf

These people are idiots, of course, because their traditional support group (workers in heavy industry) stand to gain a lot from increased tanker traffic.

If they're gunning for the 'youth vote' on a environmental platform they are doomed, because young people don't vote.
 
While agreeing with Privateer, I still think M. Trudeau is a, probably the target. He's gotten, essentially, a free ride on pipelines. He went to Alberta in 2013 and said, roughly: "I'm for pipelines, I'm just against Northern Gateway because it's Stephen Harper's favourite pipeline." I think the NDP wants to force him into taking real positions which will, of necessity, be contradictory. The Conservatives don't care about this, they are 100% opposed, point by point, line by line, and nothing will change them.

The works for both the provincial and federal NDP.

 
We could ban all petroleum exports entirely, the see how Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick et al likes the loss of huge annual equalization payments.
 
Rifleman62 said:
We could ban all petroleum exports entirely, the see how Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick et al likes the loss of huge annual equalization payments.
Click to expand...

Add to that that Quebec and New Brunswick are already heavily dependant on oil tankers in the waters off their major cities. That's how oil gets from the international market to the refineries in Montreal and Saint John.

Is oil being imported by boat somehow safer or more environmentally friendly than oil being exported by boat?
 
It's all about the headlines.  When (not if) the bill is defeated, they'll read "Harper hates environment /natives having 'voice' /BC...."  :boring:
 
Journeyman said:
It's all about the headlines.  When (not if) the bill is defeated, they'll read "Harper hates environment /natives having 'voice' /BC...."  :boring:
Click to expand...

Yep.  I'll even save your post so I can trot it out when it happens.
 
Dimsum said:
Yep.  I'll even save your post so I can trot it out when it happens.
Click to expand...
Like I need help patting myself on the back.....    ;D
 
They're reporting on radio this morning that all the uncertainty with respect to pipelines is having a detrimental effect in Alberta.  Two major multi-billion dollar upgrader projects for the oil sands have been shelved for the foreseeable future.  The Greens, at the very least, must be estatic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top