Keystone XL: Stimulus for the Conservative party’s internal economy

And Thomas Mulcair meets with Nancy Pelosi


Democrat minority leader Nancy Pelosi pronounced yesterday that “Canadians don’t want the pipeline in their own country” and John Baird is terribly concerned that Thomas Mulcair might be saying bad things about Canada in the presence of Americans.

An NDP source tells me Mr. Mulcair did not tell Ms. Pelosi that Canadians don’t want the pipeline.

Do Canadians want Keystone XL to go through? In November, Abacus found 53% in favour and 47% against. In January, Nanos found that 45.2% had a favourable impression, while 41.7% of respondents had an unfavourable impression.

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports that the Conservative party is seeking donations in response to the NDP’s stance on Keystone.

“Instead of supporting this pro-Canada project, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair traveled to Washington and did what the NDP always do when travelling abroad–attack Canadian jobs,” reads the letter, written by the Conservative Party’s director of fundraising. “Will you chip in $5 or whatever you can afford and stand against Mulcair’s NDP?,” the letter said.

And Bob Rae believes Keystone XL is in the national interest.


Keystone XL: Stimulus for the Conservative party’s internal economy

  1. Dunno if this will be as useful to hoodwink Canadians as the long gun registry was. Their coming for YOUR guns probably has more resonance with your average CPC donor than “they’re gonna stop THE OIL COMPANIES oil”.

    • Wait untill Canada starts sinking in a hole of stagnant growth. Do we want to wait and see who will complain loudest when that happens?

      • We are sinking in a hole of stagnant growth right now. The “recovery” from the 2009 recession was the worst since the Great Depression. The 2000s was the worst decade for economic growth since the 1930s. The anemic 2.5% GDP growth forecast for 2012 didn’t pan out. Now the country is on the verge of slipping back into recession.

        The price of oil slumped a little and now Alberta has a whopping deficit. If Alberta can’t make it off of its bitumen sands how in the h*ll is the entire country supposed to live off it? That is not an Economic Action Plan. It is a dangerous gamble almost certain to fail.

        • Alberta has a spending problem which is what created it’s deficit. Kinda like Ontario…..now Saskatchewan, under Brad Wall is doing just fine (oil revenues included)

          • Canada has a GDP problem: without economic growth debt becomes more burdensome (since its measured in debt/GDP.) The 2000s was the worst decade for GDP growth since the Great Depression. The recovery from the 2009 recession the worst recovery. Without solid GDP growth, which brings real prosperity and puts Canadians to work in decent jobs, debt will continue to be a problem. And austerity measures in a slump are self-defeating because they kill GDP growth, create recession and put people out of work. (As is the case in Greece, Spain, the UK, etc.)

    • Yes resources are the worst for business opportunities and jobs. How many Ma and Pa bitumen extracting companies are their? Who wants to get shipped off to the middle of nowhere to work in an open-pit mine? We need a diverse value-added economy that focuses on innovation and information-based technologies. That creates the best business ventures and good-paying skilled jobs for people across the country.

      • I wish I could give that post more than one thumbs-up!

        • Why EmilyOne, why not go out there and create some of those jobs Ron Waller is talking about? Tweedly thumbs don’t create anything.

          • And yet here you sit, squawking out replies to dozens of posts.

            Or are your thumbs somehow less tweedly?

          • I’m not the one posting that better paying jobs and so forth must be created in Canada; Ron and Emily are. I’m just wondering why they are idle about it all if they want something done about it. Or do they think that it is always up to others to provide good paying jobs?

            See, even you are thinking that EmilyOne cannot get things done on her own; here you are, defending her instead. Good for her to have things done for her.

          • Congratulations !
            i don`t know how you did it but you are the first person that I have seen that has been able to shut up the troll known as Emily.
            It would have been perfect except one of her widdle followers ( Cook ) had to step up and defend her.

          • If you think being on my ‘ignore-as-stupid’ list is a good thing, you are in worse shape than you know, cuz I generally talk to everybody.

      • Those big truck drivers earn about $150-$200K per year with a lot of time off. A lot of people.

        A lot of people commute from the Maritimes to work in Northern Alberta. The Maritimes hardly noticed the global recession because of oil sands commuters spending their salaries in the Maritimes.

        And just wait until a huge refining industry re-emerges in Montreal and New Brunswick, exporting refined products to Europe and the eastern seaboard.

        • Um….the maritimes are poor, and the companies fly people home. Truck driving isn’t much of a life for anyone wanting to be healthy.

          However neither are the oilsands….and 2 years of commuting is about as long as it lasts.

  2. Fear usually gets Cons to cough up a donation…..and they are the most scared bunch of people I’ve ever seen.

    • Radical conservatives are motivated by the worst of human nature. They are misanthropic nihilists at heart.

      • Yeah, everybody is ‘evil’, or out to get them or keen on stealing and murdering. It’s a weird pov.

  3. Who wouldn’t pay the $5 for supporting to stand up against Thomas Mulcair? Hell, much cheaper than buying a bus ride for doing a worthless demonstration on the streets!

    • Since you asked, I wouldn’t.

  4. So, the polls are indicating that more Canadians are in favor of the Keystone pipeline than are opposed to it. Good to know.

    • Sure, but imho that’s mostly because the tally of Canadian supporters for Keystone includes all the people in B.C. who support a pipeline through Nebraska because it lessens the possibility of a pipeline through B.C. (ditto for whatever support Keystone has in Quebec).

      I think Pelosi’s point is pretty clear. The majority of Canadians may support building Keystone through the U.S., but that’s because of the large number of Canadians who want to ship the oil through the U.S. so it doesn’t have to cross Canada.

  5. There’s more to Canada than Alberta’s tar sands. There’s more to our economy than dirty energy. Canadians want real jobs close to home; they don’t want to get shipped off to the middle of nowhere like migrant workers to dig holes in the ground. This is the 21st century for God sake!

  6. Mulcair’s made it pretty clear that he doesn’t want the pipeline, so why wouldn’t he tell Pelosi that Canadians don’t want the pipeline? Doe he think Canadians want the pipeline, but opposes it for other reasons?

    • Pelosi was drawing her own conclusions. I think its pretty obvious she’s referring to the Northern Gateway pipeline that would pump bitumen to tankers on BC’s pristine coastline. It would appear most Canadians are against that pipeline. West-to-East pipelines, which Muclair (among others) favors, are only theoretical at this stage of the game.

  7. Don’t think it’s going to be hard to sell the proposition that it’s better to keep the refinery jobs and home rather than shipping them to the Gulf of Mexico. And send the oil to Eastern Canada where it can benefit the whole economy. And the idea that we as a country can’t afford new refineries in Alberta is nuts. Where’s John A when you need him?
    Concerns about the environmental impact of the oil sands will be lessened if we all get something out of it. And we’re more apt to spend the money needed to make it cleaner if we get the profits and benefits here.

    • “Where’s John A when you need him?”

      What do you think Sir A would have done if the Indians had blocked the building of the railroads?

      • Well at least he had a vision to move our wealth east/west. If we had a vision now we could make something out of this oil sands.

        • Ah, why don’t you ask Quebeckers to share some of their hydro power with you? Much cleaner energy source, which is what Mulcair wants, and the Quebeckers are big on sharing.

          • Electricity can not be stored.
            It’s all on a big grid so it is used as efficiently as possible.

          • So Quebec’s hydro power can make it over the border into the US but the very same power cannot be shared east west in Canada? Must be some strange power. A power with its own mind. Kinda like Quebec itself. How very interesting.

          • I could be wrong, but I don’t think it’s economical to transport electricity over great distances such as coast to coast. You end up losing more energy off the lines than it’s worth.

          • Perhaps not coast to coast, but I don’t think the east-west pipeline Mulcair is suggesting will be running from Vancouver to Halifax either.

            If Quebec hydropower can run all the way into NY state and beyond, I am sure the very same power could be brought deep into Ontario. Wouldn’t that be going east-west?

            In any case, I don’t think Mulcair will want to mess with Quebec’s hydro power the way he is messing with Alberta’s sources of revenue for energy. I mean, it is ok to sell our clean energy to the States. It all makes sense when buying into Mulcair’s logic. So full of holes, his logic.

          • See above. Quebec DOES send power to Ontario. To New Brunswick too.

          • See above. Quebec DOES send power to Ontario. They send power to New Brunswick too.

          • Certainly true as far as the difficulties of sharing electricity across long distances, but nonetheless, Hydro Quebec’s system does already have connections to Ontario, New Brunswick and Labrador.

          • Hydro Quebec already has a connection to Ontario, and already sells Ontario electricity. They’re planning a new connection to Windsor as well, I believe. The also send power to New Brunswick.

            Frankly though, when it comes to Ontario, energy traders can sell power to Quebec for more than they’d get for it Ontario, so while Ontario does import power from Quebec, we also export power to Quebec (kinda like how Canada still imports a fair amount of oil even though we’re a net exporter, because energy markets are complicated)

            If you look at Hydro Quebec’s system map, you’ll see 9 interconnections with Ontario, 3 with N.B. and one with Labrador.

          • And none of Alberta’s oil goes east west?

          • And none of Alberta’s oil goes east west?

            Who said that?

          • I’m trying to figure out what Mulcair is trying to accomplish. If he says that we should be concerned first of all about moving oil from west to east. But apparently, some oil is already moving from west to east. So, he obviously wants to increase the movement of oil from west to east. Fine, but what about moving more of the Quebec hydro power from east to west? Why is Mulcair only singling out the oil and not other resources of energy?

          • Moving generic “oil” east to west is different from moving bitumen from east to west. I admit, I’m not sure, but is there ANY oil sands bitumen moving east to west (as in, to the coasts)?

            Moving ELECTRICITY east to west is EXTREMELY different from moving either oil, or bitumen from east to west. There are RAPIDLY diminishing returns, as you lose more in transmission than is worth it over long hauls. Also, while I’m certain that Quebec hydro power is currently being moved to the neighbouring provinces where it can be moved (though more is always nicer if it’s economically feasible, and makes sense) I’m not certain AT ALL that the bitumen is flowing beyond Alberta’s immediate neighbours, and it could be (in a way that electricity can’t with current levels of technology).

            All that said, I guess you arguably have a point. It would seem that Mulclair is more focused on supporting the sale of Alberta’s bitumen to other Canadian markets than he is to supporting the sale of Quebec’s electricity to other Canadian markets. Besides the issues of feasibility, is this not simply a reflection that Mulcair’s base of support is in Quebec, and so supporting the creation of more export markets for Alberta’s bitumen is more politically advantageous for him than supporting more export markets for Quebec’s hydro power. (Also, I wouldn’t assume that he’s not doing both, Alberta’s bitumen transport is just in the news more because of the scale of the projects, and the involvement of the Americans).

          • it’s impressive you put the time and energy into this futile endeavour, LKO!

          • LOL

            I’m bored, it’s kinda cold out (though nice and sunny… I should suck it up) and The Walking Dead doesn’t come on until 9:00.


        • Well we’ve had vision aplenty, but Albertans got cranky about it. Quebec and Ont have a deal on hydro…..but with Alberta everything is like pulling teeth.

      • He probably would have had two belts of scotch instead of one.

  8. ‘A spokesman for Mr. Mulcair said the NDP leader didn’t make a case for or against Keystone while in Washington because he said it would ultimately be up to policymakers in Washington to decide.

    “But it is always flattering to see Conservatives so concerned with our
    travel plans,” the spokesman said.’


Sign in to comment.