'Cagey' Christy Clark's
Pipeline Prevarications
| BC Premier Christy Clark - what's my pipeline? |
Tuesday May 15, 2012
By Bill Tieleman
By Bill Tieleman
"With
elections maybe a year away, you're still pretty cagey, frankly, on this
Northern Gateway Pipeline."
-
CBC Radio's Evan Solomon to B.C. Premier Christy Clark
One
British Columbia political party opposes the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline
proposal that would ship Alberta oil sands bitumen through B.C. to Asia.
The
B.C. New Democrats say building the pipeline through northern B.C. to Kitimat
and then sending bitumen to Asia via giant tankers down B.C.'s coastline would
be too environmentally risky.
"Under
the Enbridge proposal, British Columbia would assume almost all the project's
risk, yet would see only a fraction of the benefits. By any measure, such a
high-risk, low-return approach simply isn't in B.C.'s interests," NDP
leader Adrian Dix said
in formally registering opposition with the National Energy Board's Joint
Review Panel.
Agree
or disagree, Dix is clear.
Another
provincial party supports the Enbridge pipeline on the basis of economic
development -- the B.C. Conservatives.
"We
believe and support the notion of the Enbridge pipeline. We think it would be
good for British Columbia, good for Canada to get a better price in the world
market for our oil," B.C. Conservative leader John Cummins says in an
Integrity B.C. online video.
But
our governing party -- the BC Liberals -- won't take any understandable
position on the pipeline.
All
over the pipeline map
In a
CBC Radio interview Saturday with host Evan Solomon on The House, Clark was all
over the map on Enbridge.
Clark
says if the pipeline goes ahead B.C. "would get as many benefits as Nova
Scotia," and that "it would create almost no jobs in British Columbia."
Sounds opposed.
But
then Clark tries to have it both ways.
"Evan,
I'm pro-pipeline... we're enabling the construction of three pipelines from the
Peace River country... Those are going to be liquefied natural gas... It's
going to mean $60 billion in revenue to the province. So we're very much
pro-economic development." Sounds in favour.
But
if Clark is actually "pretty cagey" on Enbridge, it hasn't stopped
her from publicly attacking federal NDP opposition leader Tom Mulcair for
expressing concerns about the impact of oil sands exports on Canada's economy,
by inflating the value of the dollar and negatively affecting the manufacturing
sector.
"I
really thought that type of thinking was discredited and it had been
discredited for a long time. It's so backwards. I think that's just
goofy," Clark told
CBC.
"The
NDP talk their gobbledygook, but really... they want less economic development.
We all know it's a recipe for disaster."
What
Mulcair actually said was also clearer than Clark’s views.
"The
Canadian dollar is being held artificially high, which is fine if you're going
to Walt Disney World, [but] not so good if you want to sell your manufactured
product because the American clients, most of the time, can no longer afford to
buy it," Mulcair said
May 5.
"We've
hollowed out the manufacturing sector. In six years since the Conservatives
have arrived, we've lost 500,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs," he
added.
Mulcair
compared oil exports increasing the world value of Canada's dollar, making
manufacturing exports more expensive, to the "Dutch disease"
of the 1960s, when the Netherlands developed huge offshore natural gas deposits
and its manufacturing sector was severely damaged by the higher value of its
currency.
And
Mulcair said in a substantive Policy Options magazine article in March
he does not oppose oil sands development but wants it done in a sustainable
manner that includes oil companies paying the costs of environmental impacts.
Which
is it?
Clark,
not surprisingly, hasn't explained why she believes Mulcair is wrong --
preferring to fire off insults than debate economics.
But
some of her comments about Enbridge may be more alarming to its proponents than
the NDP.
After
all, Enbridge and its supporters strongly argue
it will bring major benefits to B.C. through jobs, investment and tax revenue.
So
this telling exchange between Clark and Solomon about Enbridge may rankle them:
Clark: "If it goes ahead, at the
moment, British Columbia would get as many benefits as Nova Scotia."
Solomon: "I don't understand that --
what do you mean by that?"
Clark: "Well, it would create almost
no jobs in British Columbia but we would be a net beneficiary just as any other
province is from the royalties that go to Canada."
Solomon: "This is interesting. Building
the pipeline doesn't really create jobs for B.C.?"
Clark: "It creates some jobs in the
construction phase but there are almost, there are very few long term jobs that
would be left in the province after that."
"So
for us it's really a balance of risk and benefit. Evan, I'm pro-pipeline. We're
building three pipelines, we're enabling the construction of three pipelines
from the Peace River country in the northeast right across British Columbia to
the north west in Kitimat and Prince Rupert."
"Those
are going to be liquefied natural gas... It's going to mean $60 billion in
revenue to the province. So we're very much pro economic development."
Hmmm.
"Goofy gobbledygook" seems an appropriate description all right, but
for Clark's confused views on the Enbridge pipeline, not Mulcair's.
.






