Helping Bring Alberta Oil to Market

Why we need to bring Alberta Oil to Market

I am 100% in favour of helping Alberta move its oil to market. BC is part of Canada and we cannot simply tell our neighbouring provinces that we object to their resources and so won't help them. At a high level, we must help them because:

1. Canada has people and natural resources, these are our greatest strengths. But we can't realize their value without a market for our resources and jobs for our people.  
   
2. Currently the USA is our greatest market. This is good as long as they remain strong, but if the USA fails, then, because we are tied to them, we will fall with them. They have not failed yet, so we think they never will. This is foolish. The US economy is showing signs of cracking and their debt has exceeded their GNP. Due to the size of their economy we have a number of years yet, but if they do not take steps to correct the problems they have, they will collapse.  In light of this, Canada MUST diversify now. We have time to do it but we don't have time to do nothing.  
   
3. BC is part of Canada. We cannot ignore the needs of the rest of the country without consequences. Even if we do have options to oppose pipelines through our province, what good would an inter-provincial economic conflict do for our nation? Many people think that because they are personally opposed to oil (even though they still use it every day) that they can hold our country hostage to their agenda. Maybe they can to some degree, but the result of that strategy will be to impoverish Canada and in so doing impoverish BC as well. Just as a rising tide will lift all boats, a falling tide will leave us all stranded on the reef.  
   
4. The only way to protect our environment is from a fiscally strong base.  As our economy weakens, our ability to manage our environment weakens. How many third world countries make environmental protection their top priority?  Environmental protection is a luxury of the rich. We need to protect our land and our sea but it must be done hand in hand with our economic growth. A move to limit our ability to grow our economy is ultimately a move to destroy our environmental protection.

How we proceed with environmentally sensitive projects

However, that does not mean that we should be in favour of a pipeline just because it promises prosperity. We must make sure that it is being done sensibly and with environmental protection in mind.  

• A large part of any assessment should be a review of the corporation that is proposing it. A good plan in the hands of a sloppy corporation equals a bad plan.   
  
• Also part of any assessment should be the route. The route should be selected so that the risk is minimized.   
  
• Also we need to evaluate past assessments. We have a moratorium on oil tanker traffic off the central and north coastline. We must evaluate the reasons why that was put in place and how the current plan mitigates those concerns.

I believe we must work with our counterparts to find the right way to move ahead rather than finding reasons to stop. But it must be the right way or else we will be forced to stop until something changes.

This is the fundamental difference between the BC Conservative position and the NDP position. The BC Conservatives are looking for how we can proceed and the NDP are looking for how we can stop.  The BC Liberal’s still have no position. For them the development is ‘take it or leave it’, whichever way the wind is blowing.

What we need to do in the specific instance of the Northern Gateway Pipeline

So, to move ahead, how should we work together to find the correct way to bring Alberta’s oil to market:

1)  We should have been involved in the environmental assessment process instead of deciding to only take intervener status. This was done so as to avoid taking a public stance but it meant that we had NO INPUT into the

• “Successful completion of the environmental review process.”
• putting in place of “World-leading marine oil spill response, prevention and recovery systems for B.C.'s coastline and ocean to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines and shipments”
• putting in place of “World-leading practices for land oil spill prevention, response and recovery systems to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines”
• process whereby “Legal requirements regarding Aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed, and First Nations are provided with the opportunities, information and resources necessary to participate in and benefit from a heavy-oil project”

We could have been involved but we sold out our rights on those 4 areas. 

2) Even as intervener we could have raised the issues. We should have done this before the Dec 22, 2011 deadline or before the Jan 2012 extended deadline.  But again, we sat on the sidelines and said nothing.

3) We should not have made the first 4 demands that are already being addressed in a process that we chose not to participate in. At this point we should go behind closed doors with our concerns on these 4 points and apologize for missing the deadlines and ask to be heard anyway. Let’s quit embarrassing ourselves on the national stage. I believe we could get the rules bent if we tried and still be allowed to be involved in a meaningful way in the ongoing process that to date we have snubbed.

4) Early on, we should have engaged the parties involved, (Enbridge, Alberta, Ottawa) to negotiate benefits for BC like; Sharing the right-of-way; training British Columbians; export taxes; maybe even refining in BC, etc. We should have known what we wanted and collaborated to ensure

• “British Columbia receives a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits of a proposed heavy oil project that reflects the level, degree and nature of the risk borne by the province, the environment and taxpayers.”

We are off to a very bad start but we can still engage in a collaborative discussion on this one.

5) We should not however, pick a fight with Alberta over royalties to pretend to achieve the 5^th demand!   This position has dubious legal ground to stand on. It appears to have only been done once, in 1969 when Quebec put the screws to Newfoundland and Labrador over their Hydro project. That only worked because Ottawa looked the other way when they could have stopped Quebec.

The BC Liberal position was NOT taken to get BC its fair share. It was done solely to provoke a fight so that the BC premier could be seen as championing the rights of British Columbians. We should stop the games and back out of that as gracefully as possible. Then engage in some real negotiations.

MLAs and Community Development

Some people in Salmon Arm have asked me to comment on the situation of the Smart Center coming to Salmon Arm and I believe my attempts to clarify my position have not been completely successful. I have decided to lay out what I see as the process. This involves many aspects and levels of government and what I believe my role would be at each step, if I were your MLA. I will go through the process in general but use the Salmon Arm Smart Center as my example.

I am pro business and development in general, but when an opportunity for new business presents itself to a community, I see 3 stages that must be gone through before it can become a reality.

1. Democratic Decision:
   

   Does the plan fit into the vision that the community has for itself? I affirm the community's right to self determination and would govern my actions with that foremost in mind.
2. Regulatory Approval:
   

   Does the plan conform to all social regulations? I support the regulatory process to ensure that business is conducted in a responsible manner.
3. Legal Challenge
   

   Does the plan negatively impact anyone who would contest it in court? I support the right of any individual or group to bring their case to court.

In general, at each of these stages, I would comport myself the following ways:

1) Democratic Decision:

In order to affirm the community's right to self determination, as an MLA I would not insert myself into a community's decision making process and indeed I believe that even if I live in that community, as I do in Salmon Arm, it would be wrong to use my provincial influence to attempt to direct the outcome of a community visioning process. I am pro business and will seek to bring business opportunities to the Shuswap but I would do so in accordance with the local community plans. If, as an MLA, I was able to encourage a specific business to come to a community in my riding, I would facilitate talks with the local government there to present the opportunity. I would then back out of the process until the community had decided if they wanted it or not.  This is primarily why I have not given my opinion on the Smart Center, because I affirm the community's right to self determination.

There are a number of ways that we elicit input to the democratic process including public hearings, referendums and elections. In the Smart Center case, we did have a long set of hearings and we did have an election where the community voted for leaders that were clear on what they would do in this regard. The result is that the city of Salmon Arm has approved the Smart Center plan as fitting into the vision for the city. I support this decision 100% as a democratically arrived at local vision.

This brings us to the regulatory stage.

2) Regulatory Approval:

In this stage, I would support the regulatory process to ensure that business is conducted in a responsible manner. The plan is looked at to determine if it meets the broader regulations that we as a society have chosen to adhere to. This includes zoning, safety, environment, etc. and will likely hit on municipal, provincial and federal jurisdictions.

Regulations and assessments are a 2-way contract. They are a contract with the people of British Columbia that the government will manage their land responsibly. But they are also a contract with the businesses seeking to work here. They promise that if a business meets the standards then they will be allowed to operate within our province. If we do not honour this then no company would invest in BC. Why would they spend millions to meet our codes only to be told that the public doesn't like it so they can't continue. The average business spends 15% of the start up costs to get to the green light. That is a lot of money to risk without a concrete goal line. However, if the plan does not meet regulations, then it cannot continue until it is adjusted to do so, period.

As an MLA, I would work to ensure that the process was allowed to proceed without being unduly delayed and without unfair interference from either side to skew its outcome (both sides may have input but without interference). And I would uphold the outcome of a fair process, whatever decision was made. This is also why I would not give an opinion. I support the process and the decision it comes to.  I would be more than happy to help in any way possible to find solutions, if a proposed plan could not met the regulations (i.e. find ways to adjust the plan, not ways to adjust the regulation), but in general, the process should be allowed to run its course.

In the case of the Smart Center, the process worked fairly smoothly. All assessment permissions, permits and zoning have been given with the only thing outstanding being a permit with the ministry of transportation for the design of the off ramp. I support this outcome 100% as showing that the Smart Center Plan is compliant with the regulations in our community, province and country and should therefore be allowed to move to the next stage.

3) Legal Challenge:

In order to support of the right of any individual or group to bring their case to court, once a plan is in place and the regulations have been met, I would not stand in the way of any legal action.  Individuals or groups that believe that the proposal will negatively impact them in some way have a right to seek legal recourse. If there was an opportunity to negotiate an out-of-court settlement of any issues, I would aid that any way I could, but if that is not forthcoming, I would wait on the legal process to run its course and uphold its ruling.

This kind of action generally arises near the end of the regulatory process because it is not relevant if the project is re-directed during that process. As frustrating as this is in the delays and costs that it entails, we are a people that govern ourselves by the rule of law and that is more important than any given business opportunity.

As an MLA, again, I would not insert myself into a legal case once it has begun, though if I had relevant information and was called on to participate I would do so within those limits. It is up to the courts to listen to the evidence and decide what the correct outcome should be. A legal challenge may be used by those who do not like the decision made in the regulatory stage. They may argue, for example, that the environment will indeed be damaged. That is their right, although they would have to prove that there was some reason to disbelieve the results of the assessment process. 

Currently, the Smart Center is in this stage and as an MLA I would not interfere with the due process of law. If the courts uphold the findings to date, I will be among the first to welcome the Smart Center to Salmon Arm. If the courts find that the Neskonlith band has or will suffer harm, then I hope, as I would for all such cases, that a workable solution can be arrived at. I trust that the Smart Center, which the City of Salmon Arm has said they want and the Regulatory process has affirmed, will be able to move forward soon, in a way that upholds the final decision that the courts will make.

Summary

I believe that the principles I have outlined here are integral to how an MLA should comport themselve and I will strive to act in this way on behalf of the people of the Shuswap.

• Affirming  the communities self determination without influencing the direction it takes.
• Upholding our regulatory process for the protection of our land and the encouragement of investment and development.
• Upholding our legal system and courts so that all people have access to justice.

Why I still care about the BC Rail Scandal

Just before all the details of the BC Rail sale were about to come out, the 2 men on trail changed their pleas to guilty and 6 million dollars were illegally paid to cover their costs, they were given house arrest rather than hard jail time and put under a gag order to not say anything ever about what happened.  Since then, enormous effort and additional money has been expended by the government to keep all the details buried. 

I think a 10 year old can figure out the plot here. If there is nothing to hide then you don’t waste effort hiding things.  Anybody who cares to look at this knows that it stinks. If Christy Clark and other Liberal leaders are not guilty, then who are they protecting? The only thing we don’t know for sure is the details and who is being protected?

I have talked with a few dozen people about this and I have only heard 2 opinions. Most of the time, I hear that we must have an inquiry, get the details and move on. Sometimes however, I talk with people who say there is no sense because all politicians and parties are corrupt and we just have to accept it.  I have never met anyone who thinks there is nothing to hide.

This resignation to accept that our government cannot be held to account is why I believe we MUST have an inquiry. This is not a vendetta against any person or persons involved. It is much more important than that. An inquiry is required to restore voter confidence in our democracy and public process.