I hope you had the chance to check out Maclean鈥檚 national leaders鈥� debate last week.
Although nothing major and unpredictable happened during the debate, the leaders certainly provided Canadians with a clearer indication of where they stand on key issues (well, at least some of them).
It also became clear that, when it comes to pipelines, their position is not as straightforward.
Pipelines remain a contentious issue in the country, especially in British Columbia. A recent poll conducted by Insights West suggested that more than half of British Columbians - 52 per cent - are currently opposed to Enbridge鈥檚 Northern Gateway project while 41 per cent of B.C. residents support it.
At the start of the debate, I still had lots of questions about the leaders鈥� positions on pipelines. And as it turns out, the leaders also seemed to have lots of doubts about each other鈥檚 positions. Throughout the debate they accused each other of being inconsistent when it comes to supporting pipeline projects.
Liberal leader Justin Trudeau accused NDP leader Thomas Mulcair of saying different things in different languages.
鈥淚n English he鈥檒l say that he supports the Energy East pipeline; in French he said that it鈥檚 out of the question,鈥� said Trudeau about the Energy East pipeline - a 4600 km pipeline proposed to carry 1.1 million barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries in Eastern Canada.
Shortly after, Prime Minister Stephen Harper accused Trudeau of doing the exact same thing.
鈥淵ou go to one part of the country, Atlantic Canada, you鈥檙e for Energy East; you go to Quebec, and you鈥檙e against it,鈥� said Harper.
Green Party leader Elizabeth May takes a much more straightforward approach, saying the Green Party opposes every single one of the proposed oil pipelines.
鈥淓very single one of these raw bitumen, unprocessed oil pipeline schemes are about exporting Canadian jobs,鈥� she said.
Mulcair said both Harper and May鈥檚 current approach to pipelines is flawed.
鈥淥pposing these pipelines systematically in advance is just as wrong as supporting them in advance because; in both cases, what you need is an objective study,鈥� said Mulcair.
Although Harper was accused of blindly supporting all pipelines, he defended himself by saying the conservatives take a 鈥渟cientific expert evaluation of every project鈥� before deciding to proceed, adding that he fully trusts the government鈥檚 environmental assessments.
鈥淎ll of these parties have opposed all of these [pipeline] projects before we鈥檝e even had environmental assessments,鈥� said Harper. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 not the responsible way you do things.鈥�
Trudeau鈥檚 position on pipelines has been much less predictable than May and Harper鈥檚. Trudeau has openly rejected Enbridge鈥檚 Northern Gateway project, saying the pipeline places an unacceptable level of risk on B.C.鈥檚 coastal economy and environment. Meanwhile he has consistently supported the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline - a proposed 1897 km crude oil pipeline beginning in Alberta and extending south to Nebraska.
Mulcair, on the other hand, opposes Keystone XL, but his position remains unclear about Kinder Morgan鈥檚 Trans Mountain expansion project. Kinder Morgan proposes to triple the bitumen-carrying capacity of its existing Trans Mountain line by building almost 1000 km of new pipe between Edmonton and Burnaby.
During the debate, May put Mulcair on the spot, asking the NDP leader if he would join the Green Party鈥檚 fight against Kinder Morgan鈥檚 鈥渞isky pipeline鈥� and tanker expansion.
鈥淲ill you help us defend our coastlines?鈥� May asked. Mulcair provided a general response, saying all pipeline projects would have to be 鈥渟tudied and looked at objectively with thorough, credible environmental assessment processes.鈥� 鈥淪o you take no position,鈥� said May defiantly.
