Public forum on pipeline and energy strategy at SFU held by Terry Beech > Over 250 citizens voice their concerns in Burnaby over Trans Mountain Pipeline Kevin Rey The Peak “ Fes show the project should be rejected.” So said economist Robyn Allan of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project on September 7 at SFU’s Diamond Alumni Centre. She made the statement at a public forum organized by Burnaby North-Seymour MP Terry Beech, the most recent in a series that began in July. Allan and a panel of experts from pipeline-related fields spoke to the over 250 citizens who came to voice their concerns about the pipeline expansion. During the introduction to the event, Beech made it clear to the attendees that the experts were invited in response to public feedback from previous events, and that their presentations were not vetted by any approval process. Allan appeared to take full advantage of the freedom, explaining emphatically to cheers and applause that not only the pipeline, but the pipeline approval process was flawed. She questioned the arguments supporting the pipeline’s construction, accusing the National Energy Board (NEB) of “betraying” Canada by recommending conditional approval of the project on May 19. The Trans Mountain Pipeline transports oil from Edmonton to Burnaby, and the proposed expansion would triple its capacity. During the NEB hearings, many environmental and community groups criticized the project for posing a risk to the environment and public safety, and tabling aboriginal rights. There was also criticism of the NEB itself, which reportedly did not consider some environmental impacts in its assessment, and had a former oil industry consultant appointed to its ranks by the Harper government. A common argument against the pipeline is that a catastrophic oil leak or spill would cause billions of dollars in damage to British Columbia’s economy, impacting fisheries, tourism, and local water supplies. Michael Lowry of West Coast Marine Response Corporation explained that there are many resources in place to rapidly combat an oil spill, but critics insist that the measures are insufficient. The local environmental group Stand argued in a media statement that “the best way to prevent oil spills is not to increase tanker traffic.” The NEB report on its decision explains that $1.3 billion has been set aside by various oil Photo by Kevin Rey companies and international bodies, but a UBC study said that Vancouver alone could lose up to $1.2 billion in the event of a spill. There was also some controversy during the forum about whether spill responders could clean up the diluted bitumen in the same way as conventional oil. Another recurring theme of the evening was the sentiment that the Liberal government has already struck a very different tone from its predecessor since its election in October 2015. Canada-Asia expert and UBC professor Paul Evans explained that “[former prime minister] Joe Clark often talks about our new Liberal government [...] as, he’s never knowna government that has tried to do more things more quickly and with more consultations.” Beech was also praised widely by MPs Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra), Joe Peschisolido (Steveston—Richmond East), and audience members for organizing the public events. However, attendees voiced concerns throughout the evening that the Trudeau government’s approach to the environment and energy seemed to be out of sync. “I don’t think we yet have an energy strategy,” Evans said, explaining that Canada’s relationship with China is currently undergoing rapid change. The capacity increase to the pipeline has been marketed as a way for Canada to sell more oil to the Asian superpower. This past August, in Montreal, protesters marched into the NEB meeting room for the Energy East Pipeline that would carry tar sands oil from Alberta to New Brunswick. Two NEB meetings were cancelled in response. During the response period, some members of the audience expressed that same defiant attitude, with one explaining that the government could choose to not approve the project in December, or things would have to be done “the hard way.” Alberta to raise minimum wage to $15 per hour > The Fight for 15 in both of Canada’s western provinces Jamal Al-Bayaa Staff Writer he Alberta NDP is on its way to achieving their goal of a $15 minimum wage. The decision comes amidst times of crisis in the province, with the Albertan economy devastated by a crash in the oil and gas industries. Employment is at a record low. This month, Alberta’s unemployment rate is at 8.4 per cent—up from 6.1 per cent last year—making it the highest it’s been in 30 years. One reason the minimum wage increases taking place in Alberta have been controversial is the possibility of further unemployment. During a period of explosive job growth in Seattle, the city implemented a minimum wage hike of 10 per cent and still grew between the day of implementation and today. However, according to the report on the policy, minimum wage increases were responsible for a one per cent reduction in employment growth. If Seattle was in economic standstill— or deficit, like Alberta—then that one per cent drop would have been a one per cent increase in unemployment. Long term invalidity as an economic strategy is the second controversy surrounding Alberta’s minimum wage hike. Products are priced at the rate that people Image via www.metronews.ca are willing or able to pay, rather than desired or past prices. Changing income levels simply doesn’t guarantee that product price won't increase in response. The $15 wage is largely based on the morality of poverty, and yet many argue it does a poor job of making various social services more accessible to the low wage worker, on top of doing nothing for the thousands of Albertans collecting employment insurance. However, the strategy can be beneficial, as it could improve the standing of the province as a whole, although exactly how is uncertain. For those who do get wage increases, quality of life will likely increase, at least for a fixed period of time. Although a wage hike doesn’t address the problems presented by the oil crisis, it would be one step closer toa solution on poverty as a whole, especially if followed by an increased availability of necessary goods and social services. During the 2017 BC provincial election, the BC NDP will also be calling for action in regards to a minimum wage hike, appealing to that 83 per cent who believe that being in poverty while working a full time position shouldn't happen. Also supporting the idea of a $15 minimum wage will be the BC Federation of Students (BCFS). Simka Marshall, chairperson of the organization, was excited to hear that the province was implementing that kind of plan. It aligns with her own organization’s goal of increasing the availability and affordability of education for BC students. “It’s good to see the [Alberta] government putting an end to poverty wages. We're hoping that the BC government will see that and do the same,” said Marshall. During the provincial election, the BC Liberals will be continuing their minimum wage plan, increasing it to $11.75. Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver has chastised both the BC Liberals and the BC NDP for their positions on the minimum wage and poverty issue. Weaver said that while the small increase in wage proposed by the Liberals is too low, the NDP’s $15 strategy is more of a talking point than a plan. “How do you know $15 an hour is the right minimum wage?” Weaver said. “It’s just a number that’s round.”