Sign in to follow this  

Important Enough for It's Own Thread.... Energy

Recommended Posts

Some friends who voted for this a-hole are now deeply regretting their decision.

Mind you the same guys voted NDP in the Alberta election.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


As Hypocrite Horgan Opposes Trans Mountain Expansion, The Vancouver Airport Authority Is Building A Pipeline To Import Fuel From Asia




If you thought the hypocrisy and insanity surrounding the B.C. NDP government’s opposition to the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain expansion couldn’t get any worse, then hold on tight.

Even as all attention focuses on Trans Mountain, it turns out that the Vancouver Airport Authority is working on a pipeline that will be used to import jet fuel from Asia.

As reported by BIV last year, “The project involves building a new marine terminal on the south arm of the Fraser River, a tank farm and a 15-kilometre pipeline that will run through Richmond along Highway 99 and stretch west to Lulu Island. The new terminal will be able to receive Panamax vessels, which will allow the consortium to source jet fuel from Asia.”

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Veterans For The Conservative Party of Canada writes.....

“ I feel sorry for the majority of people in BC as this is not their fault, however this needs to happen to crush the socialists/communists and eco-terrorists that have hijacked that province.   I also don't expect that what passes for our federal government will be involved in any meaningful way either as no matter what Trudeau says he and his handler Gerald Butts do not want any pipelines built in Canada on their watch.  They want our once vibrant energy sector destroyed. “


Summer forecast for B.C.: Dry service stations, gas prices of $2 per litre

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 reasons why gas prices are set to go up in Canada — and fast

Pipeline dispute in Alberta in B.C. could make a bad situation even worse

Pete Evans · CBC News · Posted: Apr 20, 2018 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 4 hours ago
Gas prices always go up in the summer, but a confluence of factors could make this year's driving season even pricier than usual. (Ken Ruinard/Associated Press)





The price of filling up a tank of gas is a classic Canadian irritation. But a confluence of factors may soon make that process even more gob-smacking than usual.

Here's a look at five reasons gas prices are soaring. 


A big one is that gas prices always rise around this time of year. "Usually we see a gasoline demand spike in the second week of June,"'s senior petroleum analyst Dan McTeague says.

While few people put any thought to it on a fill-up, the chemical composition of gasoline is different in summer than it is in winter because the fuel is adapted for different weather conditions. Refineries have to calibrate their systems to handle the different makeup, and that normally happens this time of year. Often they shut down for a few days to make the switch, which pushes prices up even more due to the temporary dip in supply. 

Summer is generally a more popular season for driving (think: road trips), so increased demand for gas plus added costs for refiners add up to higher prices at the pump. McTeague says all things being equal, we'd normally see a jump of "anywhere from 5 to 10 cents a litre for summer driving."

But this is no normal summer driving season, partly because of what's happening south of the border.

Blame Americans

Contrary to what many consumers assume, Canada doesn't produce and refine much of the gasoline consumed in the country, so prices here are heavily dependent on refiners in the U.S. And gasoline demand is rising just about everywhere in the world right now, so Canada has to pay more for its share.

"Prices in Canada aren't established in Canada; they're made in the U.S.," says Roger McKnight, chief petroleum analyst with En-Pro. "So whatever happens to the wholesale price in the U.S. automatically hiccups into Canada."

Thanks to recent U.S. rule changes, American refineries are now free to sell their product to anyone. "The offshore market is much more profitable, so to counter that, the refining margins have to go up to make it attractive to supply the domestic market," McKnight says.

"Refiners are not ethical altruists and they go where the buck is bigger." 

Crude prices are rising to their highest level since 2014, and that's obviously being passed on to consumers at the pump. For every $2 increase in the price of a barrel of WTI, Canadian gasoline prices generally go up by about 1.2 cents a litre, McKnight says. But that's not an iron-clad rule because different Canadian regions are priced based on conditions at different parts of the U.S. supply chain.

And there are other issues at enough of those chokepoints that the whole market is feeling it.

Pipeline problems

None bigger, of course, than the current spat between Alberta and British Columbia. B.C. recently started a ruckus by vowing to block Kinder Morgan's pipeline that would take Alberta energy products across the B.C. border to the west coast for export. Alberta has responded by threatening to turn off the taps to B.C.'s domestic market.

'You're talking about 60,000 to 80,000 barrels of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel," McTeague says. "That represents anything from 60 to 75 per cent of all the fuel used in B.C."

The pipeline fight between Alberta and B.C. has the potential to raise gas prices across Canada. (Matthew Staver/Bloomberg)

Fears of running dry are leading to predictions of an eye-watering $2-per-litre price for gasolinein B.C. if Alberta makes good on that threat. "But it would mean more than just price hikes," McTeague says. "You'd also see rolling shortages of gasoline.

"It would be quite a disaster from an economic point of view."

Ironically, even Alberta wouldn't be immune: $1.40 a litre is "well within range for Calgary," McKnight says. "But $1.50 is probably out of the question."

Rail strike

Ordinarily, refiners do what they can to pick up the slack when one region is knocked back by a hurricane or some other disaster. And when pipelines are shut, often a lot of that oil gets diverted to the rail system to haul. But the rail system has its own problems at the moment.

Canadian Pacific is facing the possibility of a strike at a time when its network is already at capacity and seeing bottlenecks. (Todd Korol/Reuters)

The major rail companies were already warning about network bottlenecks during the fall and winter, and that was before two unions for engineers at Canadian Pacific this week served the company a strike notice that could go into effect before the weekend.

A major rail company being able to ship even less than it is now will do nothing to help yawning supply imbalances in the energy market.

"If the rail strike goes on, that means you can't get crude out of the province by rail either," McKnight says.

"Things could get very interesting indeed — I think they would probably be legislated back to work by Mr. Trudeau if it's a national situation."


And all this comes on top of another frequent culprit: the Canadian dollar.

No matter where they originate, oil products are priced in U.S. dollars. And the Canadian dollar has been the worst performing major currency against the U.S. buck this year, which means Canadian oil companies are getting less for their product than they would otherwise see.

The pipeline problems outlined above would send the Canadian benchmark oil price known as Western Canada Select even lower, which would drag the loonie down with it. "And if the loonie does a swan-dive, that's going to boost pump prices as well," McKnight says.

McTeague says a wobble of even a few dollars in the price of WCS could push the loonie down several cents, something Canadians across the country would feel each and every time they fill up.

"Anyone who thinks they'd be immune to this would have to think again," McTeague sa

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The title should be. “ Due solely to the failed Political leadership in Ottawa,  5 EXCUSES why the price of gasoline is about to rise in Canada “

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

CORBELLA: Ruling gives Alberta leverage in pipeline spat


  • Calgary Herald
  • 20 Apr 2018
getimage.aspx?regionKey=xtpG7Z1e3oXJIZaVnne1zg%3d%3dSEAN KILPATRICK/THE CANADIAN PRESS/FILES The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of inter-provincial trade barriers Thursday when it ruled against a New Brunswick man fined for transporting beer in from Quebec.

Thursday’s Supreme Court of Canada decision may deal specifically with the inter-provincial trade of booze, but it has interesting implications for Alberta bitumen, too.

The lead lawyer in Regina v. Comeau called the Supreme Court of Canada’s unanimous ruling a sad day for Canada but also said the 46-page decision “bolsters” Alberta’s Bill 12, which could stop the flow of Alberta energy resources into British Columbia as a way to punish the west coast province for stalling the $7.4-billion expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

“This gives Alberta more leverage with regard to Bill 12,” said Ian Blue, the lead counsel representing Gerard Comeau, who took his fight for the right to buy liquor in Quebec and bring it back to his home in New Brunswick all the way to the top court as a test case to push for greater inter-provincial trade freedom.

The case stems from an incident in late 2012 when Comeau was stopped at the N.B.- Quebec border by RCMP and was fined for having 14 cases of beer and three bottles of liquor. Comeau’s purchases were confiscated by the RCMP and he was given a ticket for $292.50 for violating N.B.’s Liquor Control Act, which limits booze purchases (even with a bordering Canadian province) to no more than 12 pints of beer or one bottle of liquor.

“With this decision the Alberta government can just look at Bill 12 and say, ‘Show me where I am imposing a duty at the provincial boundary,’ and B.C. will not be able to do that,” said Blue, senior counsel with Gardiner Roberts in Toronto.

Described as maintaining the status quo, the ruling essentially says provinces can pass any law they want that interferes with inter-provincial trade as long as it is part of a broader provincial policy or program.

“The Alberta government has a program to protect Alberta petroleum resources and make sure that they are used in the most efficient way and with the best price possible and to do what is necessary to ensure that happens and, therefore, even though Bill 12 interferes with inter-provincial trade, it doesn’t interfere with the test in the Comeau case for trade barriers,” Blue said.

By contrast, B.C. cannot, in turn, ban the import of diluted bitumen from Alberta because a National Energy Board-approved pipeline is under federal jurisdiction and B.C. doesn’t have the power to control it, Blue explained.

That’s good news for Alberta’s oil industry and, therefore, Canadian coffers.

Indeed, on April 18, the Angus Reid Institute released a survey of 2,125 Canadians and the poll found not only are 54 per cent of British Columbians now onside with the Trans Mountain expansion, but seven-in-10 British Columbians say their government should give in and allow the pipeline to be built should the courts rule that B.C. does not have constitutional jurisdiction or authority to block the pipeline.

Blue and other constitutional experts say B.C. will certainly lose any court fight to stop the pipeline, which has jumped through numerous and rigorous regulatory hurdles.

The Supreme Court case centred on Section 121 of the Constitution Act of 1867 which states that “all articles of the growth, produce or manufacture of any one of the provinces shall ... be admitted free into each of the other provinces.”

Derek From, a staff lawyer with the Canadian Constitution Foundation that supported the case, argues this provision was intended to ensure Canada “would be a single economic unit for internal trade.”

“The Fathers of Confederation were very much aware of the benefits of free trade and repeatedly referred to the benefits of open trade between the four provinces of their new country,” From said.

Blue was critical of the top court.

“I think that the judges are all provincial rights advocates,” he speculated. “No one is thinking about the benefit of Canada as a whole and” the idea that Section 121 should hold a broader interpretation was not only “scotched” by the Supreme Court, but “they squashed it — they squelched it. Rolled right over it. Any attempt to challenge inter-provincial trade barriers by anybody now is probably dead in the water.”

Put that way, it sounds pretty dire. Here’s hoping all provincial premiers will work hard to break down the barriers the court refused to kick down.

“I think it’s very sad for Canada. But I’m a person who believes in federal powers being used to make Canada stronger and better for everybody,” Blue said.

But one person’s misfortune is another’s fortune and pratfalls and benefits can be found in this “status quo” ruling depending on what issue one looks at. How this ruling will appear to our international trading partners could prove problematic, too.

When Canada asks for a break from our major trading partners on, say, supply management of dairy products or how most of our logging takes place on Crown land, “other countries are going to say to Canada, ‘Why should we, you have inter-provincial trade barriers and stupid rules for privileged groups in Canada so why should we give up ours,’” Blue said.

Albertans who lived through the National Energy Program know a too-strong federal government is not always a good thing. As for national unity, the less the feds mess with the provinces, especially Quebec, the better the unity file looks. Time will tell if this ruling will be a blessing or a curse for Canada.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just filled up in Barstow California for $4.99 a gallon, paid $2.57 in Arizona the day before. It's not just Canada that is getting screwed.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites






  • Calgary Sun
  • 22 Apr 2018

This week Trans Mountain pipeline got some good news from a major pollster, some maybe good news (maybe not) from the Supreme Court and some bad news from the company wanting to build the $7.4-billion line, Kinder Morgan.

Let’s start with the good news: After months of controversy, the pipeline is actually more popular with Canadians than it was before. According to the Angus Reid Institute, even a slim majority of British Columbians favour building the project.

Back in February, before the trade war and war of words commenced between the Alberta and B.C. governments, support for Kinder Morgan was at nearly 49 per cent nationwide, compared to 40 per cent opposition.

The rest were unsure.

Now, even despite the heated news coverage, angry protests, wine bans and appeals to courts to reject/uphold the federally approved pipeline, nationwide support for Trans Mountain has risen six percentage points to 55 per cent, while opposition has fallen to 38 per cent. Even in B.C., support has risen from 48 per cent two months ago to 54 per cent now. Support is lowest in Vancouver proper and highest in the Interior, where most of the pipe would be laid. (This latter finding — that 60 per cent or more of residents along the route are in favour is perhaps not surprising since they and their communities stand to benefit the most economically.)

What is surprising is that even among Vancouverites, 50 per cent support building Trans Mountain, versus less than 40 per cent who are against.

British Columbians have concerns — mostly about potential tanker spills.

But if those concerns are adequately addressed, a growing number of West Coasters seem to be OK with tripling the capacity of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline.

This growing public support is probably not enough to push the government of NDP Premier John Horgan over into the “yes” camp. His minority government is still being held in power by a Green party rump that would force an election if Horgan switched positions.

Still support is growing. And that, eventually, should put plenty of political pressure on Horgan and on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to get the line built.

Harder to decipher is Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling on interprovincial trade barriers on beer.

The justices decided unanimously that provinces can erect barriers to goods from other provinces, provided their intent is not to punish other provinces. Experts are divided on whether this a good thing or a bad thing for Alberta and Trans Mountain.

Ian Blue, the constitutional lawyer who unsuccessfully represented the “free-the-beer” side in court, believes Alberta can slow the flow of oil to B.C. because the court only ruled out punitive tariffs — not slowed flow. On the other hand, several other constitutional lawyers believe Thursday’s ruling means B.C. might well be within its rights to reject bitumen from Alberta, if its reason for doing so is safety of its coastline. Of course, hanging over all of this is an announcement this week from Kinder Morgan that despite all the polls, prime ministerial meetings and court decisions, the project still seems “untenable” to investors. Trans Mountain ain’t outta the woods yet.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sask. introduces 'last resort' legislation that would restrict energy products to B.C.

The Saskatchewan government has introduced a law that, if passed, would restrict energy exports to British Columbia.

Alberta also threatening to ‘turn off taps’ through legislation

Saskatchewan Minister of Energy Bronwyn Eyre says the province will only use its bill restricting energy products to B.C. if the federal government fails to get the Trans Mountain pipeline on track. (CBC)

The Saskatchewan government has introduced a law that, if passed, would restrict energy exports to British Columbia.

The legislation has not been voted on, but Premier Scott Moe says he would like it passed before the end of session on May 31.

The government said The Energy Export Act is a response "to the inaction by the federal government to assert its jurisdictional authority to ensure the Trans Mountain Expansion Project proceeds."

The proposed law would establish a permitting process for individuals or corporations seeking to export energy products outside Saskatchewan.

"Our government will always stand up for Saskatchewan and defend the people and businesses that rely on our oil and gas industry," said Minister of Energy and Resources Bronwyn Eyre.

She said the permits are for transport by "truck or track" and include oil, natural gas and refined petroleum products.

The Saskatchewan government's new legislation would require permits for individuals or corporations seeking to export energy products outside the province. (Larry MacDougal/Canadian Press)

Eyre said Saskatchewan's bill will also include fines for those found in violation. She said the legislation is also similar to Alberta with a few exceptions, one of which is a sunset clause that terminates the bill as of Jan. 31, 2019.

"It's very dramatic legislation, which we feel should have a sunset clause in place to make sure that this is really to address this specific issue that we are currently facing in the country."

Alberta moves first, B.C. threatens to sue

The bill is the latest escalation in the fight to get Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline, which would take oil from Edmonton to the B.C. coast, built.

The pipeline was approved by the federal government, but B.C. says it's defending its coast from a potentially catastrophic spill.

For the past several weeks, Moe has said if Alberta "turns its taps off it won't be Saskatchewan filling up the tanks."

Last week, Alberta announced legislation to restrict oil and other energy products to B.C.

In response, B.C.'s Attorney General threatened to sue Alberta if its new law caused gasoline prices in B.C. to skyrocket.

"If they did try to use it, we would be in court immediately seeking an injunction to stop them from using it, but we'd probably have to get in line behind oil companies concerned about contracts that they have with companies in British Columbia to deliver product," said David Eby.

On Monday, Eby said he would be reviewing Saskatchewan's bill and would make sure he was protecting British Columbians.

"We've reviewed the Alberta legislation, and if it's based on that legislation it's as unconstitutional in Saskatchewan as it is in Alberta."

David Eby said he would be reviewing Saskatchewan's bill. (Mike McArthur/CBC)

Eyre was asked if she thought the legislation violated trade agreements. She did not answer directly but said "ultimately under the constitution we have the right to protect our energy sector and everybody knows that."

Proposed law touted as last resort

"Increasing pipeline access to tidewater would inject billions of dollars into Canada's economy. We are in this gridlock today because, in the 18 months since the federal government approved the Trans Mountain pipeline, it has failed to ensure that construction could proceed," Eyre said.

She said the government considers Bill 126 a last resort that will be used only if the Trans Mountain pipeline continues to be stalled by provincial obstruction and federal inaction and if the Alberta government acts upon its similar legislation.

The province said lack of access to tidewater cost Saskatchewan oil producers an estimated $2.6 billion and cost the province an estimated $210 million in taxes, royalties and other revenue in 2017.

According to the most recent figures from Statistics Canada from 2014 Saskatchewan traded more than $350 million of refined petroleum products to B.C.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lack of pipelines, refineries will lower Canadian quality of life: analyst

‎Today, ‎April ‎24, ‎2018, ‏‎28 minutes ago | Jonathan Muma

Get ready to pay more at the pump over the next few days. Gas prices have started climbing over $1.30 a litre at stations across Calgary.

A couple of cents may not seem like a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but there are new warnings that everyone’s cost of living will keep going up if Canada doesn’t get some new pipelines and/or refineries.’s Dan McTeague said delays with Line 3 and Line 5, pipelines into the US, are just a couple examples of the risk to Canada’s economy, but the cancellation of Energy East, Northern Gateway and for now, Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Pipeline, can also be added to the list.

“If you don’t like $1.30 for a litre of gasoline, the sky’s the limit if you undermine Canada’s ability to export or refine its products,” he explained.

He believes Canadians need to decide what their priorities are.

“Do we want a sustainable, long-term future for Canada’s energy sector or do we not?” he asked. “Do we want affordable energy prices competitive with our neighbours to the south or not?”

McTeague said the bottom line is environmentalists are putting the Canadian economy at risk, stating if Canadians want to hurt themselves, then continue to let the green elements of the country run the nation into the ground.

“If you can’t build a pipeline, it’s unlikely you’re going to be building a refinery in an environment where the same groups who are protesting Canadian oil are also wanting to reduce Canadian emissions to 30 per cent below current standards,” he said, pointing out no one else in the world is close to that mark.

McTeague added no other nation with resources like Canada has allowed themselves to be hemmed in by a small but determined group of people who are using the courts to undermine the energy sector.

He said those who cheer for an end to the energy sector may want to consider how the country will pay for the social programs it funds or equalization programs that keep Canada together.

“If we are prepared to compromise, or lessen that, we had better be prepared for a significant change in our standard of living and I think most of us would find that is not going to lead to prosperous future but a bleak outlook for Canada,” warned McTeague.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Sensible suggestion from Alberta delegates fails to make cut at party’s convention

  • Calgary Herald
  • 24 Apr 2018
  • DON BRAID Don Braid’s column appears regularly in the Herald twitter: @DonBraid
getimage.aspx?regionKey=%2bCvD2b5EGrdrHJdb1A2cbg%3d%3dTHE CANADIAN PRESS Kinder Morgan is Justin Trudeau’s and his party’s only policy to get oil to tidewater, but many doubt his commitment, says Don Braid.

With the Kinder Morgan pipeline hanging by a thread, the federal Liberals had a chance on the weekend to express support for Alberta and the national economy.

They didn’t.

The party’s annual convention in Halifax voted against a resolution to make “Canadian oil and gas independence” an official policy.

The resolution came from the party’s Alberta section. It was eminently reasonable and responsible. But it wasn’t good enough to become Liberal doctrine.

The winning resolutions focused on a guaranteed minimum income, decriminalization of consensual sex work and the sex trade, pharmacare, a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights and a good deal more.

But the idea that Canadian oil and natural gas should fill all of Canada’s needs for oil and natural gas?

Not a chance.

That would mean new pipelines to the east, through voterich Ontario and Quebec, and on to the Atlantic.

Liberal territory, every inch of the way.

With an election due next year, that applecart would not be upset.

Party officials point out that the resolution went through several hoops before being included in a list of 30, and then 20 resolutions up for consideration.

It did have some support from members.

But the Alberta plan didn’t make the list of 15 official policies of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s governing party.

Now, governments don’t always pay that much attention to the policies their party members adopt.

But they pay none at all to policies their members do not adopt. Oil and gas independence is a dead idea in Liberal Canada.

I asked for comment on this vote from two Alberta Liberal MPs, Calgary’s Kent Hehr and Amarjeet Sohi of Edmonton, the infrastructure minister.

There was no response Monday.

The Notley government didn’t comment either. You can understand that — with the pipeline at such a crucial stage, there’s no point in annoying the uneasy allies in Ottawa.

United Conservative Party leader Jason Kenney, however, was not reticent.

“Not surprised this wasn’t a priority for the Liberals,” Kenney wrote on Twitter. “After all, Justin Trudeau killed Energy East, the pipeline that would’ve brought western Canadian oil to the rest of the country.”

It is now fixed policy that this country will keep buying oil from crooked and environmentally lax regimes, in preference to western Canadian oil. Hundreds of tankers from overseas and the U.S. will continue to ply the Atlantic coast and the St. Lawrence.

Of all the many weird things about Canada, strangest of all is the anti-tanker opposition to pipelines on the West Coast, and the pro-tanker rejection of pipelines in the East.

In rational terms — which is to say, not Canadian terms — it’s hard to see how any government could reject this resolution. It said, in part:

Canada imported roughly 759,000 barrels and 736,000 barrels of oil per day, in 2016 and 2015 respectively, despite Canada having among the largest oil and gas reserves in the world, capable of meeting all Canadian oil and gas needs; Canadian oil and gas independence would allow Canada to ensure that domestic natural resource extraction and usage would be carried out more efficiently, safely, and sustainably than in countries that export oil and gas to Canada.

The resolution itself asked the government to:

Implement a strategy for oil and gas independence, with particular attention to: strong environmental and safety regulations, and oversight of the oil and gas sector; national job creation and economic growth; and, respect for the rights and interests of Indigenous peoples. Consult with all provinces, territories, First Nations, Metis, Inuit, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and all other relevant stakeholders in developing acceptable infrastructure and pipelines necessary for oil and gas independence.

The Liberals’ answer to all that is “No.” Their clear policy is to build no tidewater pipeline but Kinder Morgan. And they wonder why so many people feel they aren’t even serious about that.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
April 24, 2018 7:15 pm

‘We’ve made our decision’: B.C. First Nation speaks up for Trans Mountain pipeline

simonlittle.jpg?quality=60&strip=all&w=4 By Simon Little Digital Reporter  CKNW
<img class="story-img" src=";strip=all&#038;w=282&#038;h=188&#038;crop=1" alt="About one-third of the Trans Mountain pipeline will traverse Simpcw territory." />;About one-third of the Trans Mountain pipeline will traverse Simpcw territory.

About one-third of the Trans Mountain pipeline will traverse Simpcw territory.


A B.C. First Nation is speaking up in favour of the proposed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project.

Chief Nathan Matthew of the Simpcw First Nation says he wants to address the impression that B.C.’s Indigenous communities are united in their opposition to the project.

LISTEN: The Simpcw are the latest First Nation to voice support for the Kinder Morgan pipeline 

“That’s why we thought it was time to let people know that there are, or there’s at least one First Nation out there that has an agreement that they’re willing to say we have this agreement,” he told CKNW’s Lynda Steele Show.

“Obviously, we have concerns of different kinds, but it’s put into an agreement and we signed that agreement.”

About one-third of the proposed project runs through the Simpcw’s central-B.C. territory.

The community is a part of the Secwepemc — or Shuswap — nation, with territory running from Barriere northeast to Jasper and north beyond McBride.

<img class="story-img" src=";strip=all&#038;w=512&#038;h=288&#038;crop=1" alt="A map of the Simpcw First Nation&#8217;s territory."> A map of the Simpcw First Nation’s territory.

A map of the Simpcw First Nation’s territory.

Simpcw First Nation

The Simpcw began negotiations with Trans Mountain parent company Kinder Morgan about a benefits-sharing agreement in 2015.

“It took two years of understanding what the pipeline is about, and the way it was going to be built, and the various risks that were going to be associated with it, so we were able to do our own environmental studies and to address anything that we thought was important in the agreement, and we did that,” he said.

“And we had community involvement… and we got to a point where we thought, ‘Well, we agree given the conditions we negotiated into the agreement.'”

READ MORE: Indigenous leaders in B.C. say PM Trudeau has ‘failed’ to protect their interests

According to Trans Mountain, of the more than 133 Aboriginal communities and groups with an interest in the pipeline or interests potentially affected by it, 43 have signed benefit agreements. Thirty-three of those groups are in B.C.

The Treaty Alliance Against Tar Sands Expansion has a list of 53 First Nations in B.C. that are against the project, including the Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh who have vocally led opposition on the South Coast.

Matthew said in addition to a direct financial consideration written into the deal, his community expects to see other economic benefits from the pipeline.

Simpcw members would be in line for construction work, training and the opportunity to bid on contracts, he said.

READ MORE: B.C. Premier says no ‘majority rule’ needed for Indigenous support of Trans Mountain expansion

“If the project doesn’t go, there would be quite a number of contracts… and people wouldn’t have the opportunity to work or contract to all of the different pieces of the construction,” he said.

As for the province’s handling of the project, Matthew said he believes Premier John Horgan has “handled it in the way that his party has determined to be appropriate.”

Matthew said in setting its own conditions on the project, the B.C. government has found itself in a political conflict with Alberta and Ottawa, however, he said that was a problem for Horgan and other politicians to solve.

“We’ve made our decision, and we’ve followed a process that we’ve followed in other natural resources in our territory,” he said.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last year the buzz was: 


Published Monday, January 2, 2017 4:22PM EST

Ontario’s cap-and-trade program was expected to push gasoline prices up by 4.3 cents/litre and Alberta’s carbon tax was expected to push prices up 4.5 cents/litre. At some gas stations in Toronto and Calgary, prices went up more than five cents a litre overnight on Saturday.

Prices rose nationally by 2.4 cents over the past week from 112.0/litre to 114.4/litre, according to Natural Resources Canada.

And now in 2018, never thought we would see prices this high pre summer in Calgary. 


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess hell has frozen over.

Premier calls on public to show support for pipeline


  • Calgary Herald
  • 25 Apr 2018
getimage.aspx?regionKey=aFAM2bkeuSxANWOrsyDfOg%3d%3dED KAISER Premier Rachel Notley spoke to the Sherwood Park & District Chamber of Commerce — the community where the Kinder Morgan pipeline originates and has operated for decades — about the public’s role in reinforcing the government’s commitment to the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion.

SHERWOOD PARK Premier Rachel Notley reiterated her pro-pipeline message Tuesday in the province’s industrial heartland, where she called on Albertans to shore up support for the Trans Mountain project.

“Not far from here is where the Trans Mountain pipeline originates, and where it has operated safely for decades,” she said in a speech to the Sherwood Park and District Chamber of Commerce.

“I need you to get on the phone and to get online .... Get the phones ringing in Ottawa, fill up those inboxes.”

Kinder Morgan Inc.’s $7.4-billion pipeline expansion was cast into doubt earlier this month when the company stopped non-essential spending and imposed a May 31 deadline to restore shareholder confidence.

Notley has repeatedly said she would do whatever it takes to get the pipeline to tidewater built, including buying the project outright.

She recently met with B.C. Premier John Horgan and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who said the federal government would start formal financial discussions with Kinder Morgan to remove uncertainty around the project.

Notley said she was pleased by Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe’s show of support. On Monday, he introduced legislation to bring in a permitting process for corporations to export energy outside of Saskatchewan. The Energy Export Act followed a similar move by Notley’s government, which introduced a bill to give the energy minister final say over crude oil, natural gas or refined fuels leaving the province.

“It underlines the fact this is an issue that matters to all Canadians ... It’s certainly helpful to get that indication from Saskatchewan,” Notley told reporters Tuesday after her speech.

She told the audience that support for the pipeline continued to grow and further entrenched her position, arguing the only outcome to the political feud with B.C. is for Trans Mountain to break ground.

“Just last week, we saw polling out of B.C. that confirmed what we all know — an increasing majority of the residents of B.C. support this pipeline,” she said in her speech.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Malcolm said:

Premier calls on public to show support for pipeline

Meanwhile the public calls on the Premier to do something instead of just talk.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fido said:

Meanwhile the public calls on the Premier to do something instead of just talk.

To be fair, she has done much more than Justin.  eg. legislation to suspend  / reduce petroleum exports to BC if needed. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The legislation was not needed. She could have told her energy minister to not sign any export permits for two weeks or more.

The Dippers do not get a let there at all.

Edited by Fido

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Fido said:

The legislation was not needed. She could have told her energy minister to not sign any export permits for two weeks or more.

The Dippers do not get a let there at all.

And what about Justin?

by the by I would and have never voted for NDP.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets see.  ProChoice = no summer federal job money but anti pipeline = federal funding.  Hmmmm

Federal program funds summer job to help 'stop Kinder Morgan pipeline'

The federal government's summer job program is providing funding for a position with a B.C. activist group that aims to stop the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion. The group says such positions have been funded under both Liberal and Conservative governments.

B.C. citizen activist group hiring student to help scuttle the project

Catherine Cullen · CBC News · Posted: Apr 25, 2018 1:48 PM ET | Last Updated: an hour ago
Opponents of the Trans Mountain pipeline project protest outside a Liberal Party fundraising event in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, April 5, 2018. One of the groups opposing the project has received funding from the federal government's summer jobs program - despite the government's support for the pipeline. (Ben Nelms/Reuters)

As Prime Minister Justin Trudeau continues to vow that the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion "will be built," his government's summer jobs program is funding a position with an activist group working to stop the project.

A call for applications for an "organizing assistant," posted online by the non-profit group Dogwood B.C., says the job involves working to help the group's network "stop the Kinder Morgan pipeline and tanker project." It notes the position is funded by the federal Canada Summer Jobs Program.

The temporary full-time job is open to students. It pays $15 per hour for 9 to 12 weeks of work and is based in Vancouver.

But according to the organization receiving the funding, this kind of political push-and-pull is nothing new.

Group got funding from Harper government as well

Dogwood B.C. said it has received funding for such positions since 2010, under both the Trudeau and Stephen Harper governments. The organization even got the funding when it was fighting the Enbridge Northern Gateway project, which Harper supported.

Kai Nagata, Dogwood's communications director, said the group isn't certain yet how many students it will hire with the help of federal funding this year. He said that in past years, students have worked on other projects as well, including one to prevent U.S. thermal coal exports from moving through Vancouver.





"The federal government has never thought to impose its political agenda on kids canvassing in B.C. on environmental issues," said Nagata, who previously worked as a reporter for both CBC and CTV.


In social media postings, Dogwood refers to Kinder Morgan as a "greedy, dangerous corporation." The group has organized a campaign to pressure Trudeau to not put public money behind the pipeline expansion.


In a statement, Labour Minister Patty Hajdu's office said the federal program funds nearly 70,000 summer positions with about 29,000 employers.

"These workplaces will represent an enormous variety of industries, causes, and types of work, none of which are taken into account in the application process, so long as the employer can confirm that the core mandate does not undermine human rights," said spokesperson Emily Harris.




'Discriminatory and fascist'

The Canada Summer Jobs Program has been the subject of considerable controversy this year. The government required applicants to check a box saying they support the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including women's reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights.

Some religious leaders called the requirement an "ideology test" that is both "discriminatory and fascist."

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has also questioned whether the requirement is constitutional.

Asked Tuesday about objections raised by some faith-based groups and other employers to the charter attestations, Hajdu said that "hundreds and hundreds" of faith-based groups still applied.

Her office said in March that, out of a total of 41,031 eligible applications received, 1,561 applications had been rejected — an increase of more than 1,300 over the previous year.

Hajdu's office did not say how many of those rejections happened because the applicant refused to attest support for reproductive or LGBTQ rights.



About the Author


Catherine Cullen

Parliamentary Bureau

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fido said:

I wonder if Alberta will go back to not electing ANY Lieberals

After being dumb enough to vote in a NDP government ........ I hope that too is a lesson learned.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don’t think Canadians are getting screwed...think again !!



Edited by Jaydee

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this