How does a campaign promise, with wide-spread public support, turn into an election-year tug of war? An apparently long settled convention, agreed to by more than one country and international maritime organizations since the 1970's, to be codified into Federal law. Seems like the last step in formalizing what is accepted reality, doesn't it? Not when there are political advantages to be manufactured.

Bill C-48 seeks to make practice into procedure regarding oil tanker traffic along the Pacific coast of British Columbia from the Alaskan border to the northern tip of Vancouver Island. This exact action was a campaign promise of 2015 and a big part of the Oceans Protection Plan of the Trudeau government. The bill was crafted and made its way through the House of Commons in relatively short order but has been before the Senate for over a year where it has become just another example of what can happen when partisanship, regional priorities and profit (real or imagined) becomes the driver over sound policy.

Despite there being zero port facilities currently, zero port facilities under construction and zero supplies of fossil fuels being delivered to this region of coastline, the lure of the same old touted but non-existent "future markets" has divided governments, First Nations, and citizens. To repeat, there is nothing in this bill that deviates from how things have been for the last 4 1/2 decades. There is nothing in world markets or global predictions as far as demand or profitability go that indicate any change in this convention being worth pursuing. But yet here we are. Polarization and viewpoint being driven by the usual culprit. Money. Or more accurately, the promise of money.

The View Up Here looks at the different sides in this drama and their seeming motivations.

Bill C-48 - Campaign Promise To Political Football To Profitability Position

Share

Embed