Pipeline politics: where the parties stand

[Oscar]

Pipeline politics: where the parties stand

[ http://canadians.org/blog/pipeline-poli ... ties-stand ]

September 16, 2015 - 1:51pm

Pipeline politics has been on the uptick in recent years. From sit-ins outside the White House to canoe flotillas, from days of actions to legal challenges, rallies, numerous reports, blockade, town halls, letters and petitions.

The federal election is no exception. 350.org’s call to birddog federal leaders has seen a number of gate crashers holding climate and tar sands signs at Harper, Trudeau and Mulcair events. Most recently, Yan, a local North Bay activist (literally) rubbed shoulders with Harper before unveiling a Water not Harper T-shirt (a spill from Energy East would devastate North Bay’s drinking water). [ http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/yan-robert ... 10878.html ]

These efforts are effectively challenging and stalling tar sands export pipeline projects, with big name corporations scrambling to repair their image and seek social license. At the heart of this opposition are three core concerns: respecting Indigenous rights including the right to say no, the threat of a tar sands diluted bitumen spill in water, and the climate implications of tar sands expansion.

Here is where the federal parties stand on four major proposed tar sands export pipelines.

TRANSCANADA ENERGY EAST

The biggest pipeline proposed yet, carrying 1.1 million barrels per day (bpd) and spanning six provinces. The pipeline would transport oil including tar sands crude from Alberta and Bakken fracked crude to a new export port in the Bay of Fundy. In 2014, TransCanada was forced to drop their controversial Cacouna port located beside a beluga habitat, pushing their construction start times back to 2017, with the project operational by 2020. The pipeline crosses over 1000 waterways including the drinking water sources for millions of Canadians. [ http://canadians.org/energyeast-waterways ] Filling the pipeline threatens to unleash 30 to 32 million tonnes of carbon pollution every year and an up to 40 per cent increase in tar sands production. [ http://www.pembina.org/media-release/2520 ]

Conservatives: Support all pipeline projects getting tar sands crude to market. Under the Harper government, the 2012 omnibus budget bill dramatically weakened environmental laws including shifting pipeline reviews to the industry friendly National Energy Board, and restricting who can participate in the process. These changes mirror the lobbying demands of the energy industry as revealed in documents obtained through freedom of information legislation. [ http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/energy- ... -1.1346258 ] Harper has endorsed Energy East, pending National Energy Board approval. [ http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013 ... posal.html ]

NDP: The NDP tabled, and was the only party to bring forward and support a motion against the controversial Cacouna oil export port. [ http://canadians.org/blog/cacouna-port- ... nergy-east ] Mulcair has vocally supported the concept of west to east pipelines, which initially had media suggesting the NDP supported the project. [ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e16736888/ ] Mulcair and the NDP have since emphasized the failures of the current pipeline review process and a need for projects like Energy East to be evaluated fairly. [ http://www.ndp.ca/news/growing-economy- ... nvironment ] This has led to some confusion as captured in this Richochet exclusive. [ https://ricochet.media/en ] Most recently, Mulcair stated projects like Energy East would not be approved under the current NEB process, [ http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/09 ... ate-change ] leading to questions of how this could impact TransCanada’s current application. Mulcair has stated the new review process (we await details in the platform) would include an evaluation of their climate impacts. As highlighted by Greenpeace’s Keith Stewart, Mulcair has further said projects like Energy East must be proven compatible with Canada’s commitments for climate pollution reductions. [ http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/blo ... log/53875/ ] This is significant and a project killer for Energy East which would dramatically increase tar sands production, which is incompatible with our current climate change commitments.

Liberals: Trudeau and the Liberal party are also walking a fine line on Energy East. Trudeau emphasizes the need to get Canadian oil to market, including by pipeline. He has also said that Energy East has failed to earn social license to operate in Quebec. [ http://ipolitics.ca/2014/12/16/liberals ... ergy-east/ ] The Liberal platform outlines a number of changes they would make to ‘restore credibility to the environmental review process.’ This includes assessing climate impacts, but as Keith highlights, this is not directly linked to an overall climate pollution reduction plan. [ http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/blo ... log/53875/ ] It also remains unclear to what extent these changes proposed in their platform would impact existing projects like Energy East that have already been filed with the NEB. [ https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/resto ... sessments/ ]

Stay tuned for further potential changes from the Liberals and NDP on Energy East during the election. The majority of Quebec residents are against the project and Quebec is a hotly contested battle ground for both parties. [ http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-n ... t-pipeline ]

Green Party: Oppose all tar sands export pipeline projects transporting unrefined diluted bitumen. In favour of upgrading and refining in Canada of existing tar sands production. [ http://www.greenparty.ca/en/platform/bo ... ate-action ]

Bloc Québécois: Oppose the Energy East pipeline because of it's climate and water implications while seeing little economic benefit for the province. Only Quebec's independence would give the assurance to the Quebec nation that it would get the power to decide what could or could not pass through its territory.

MORE:

[ http://canadians.org/blog/pipeline-poli ... ties-stand ]