Vivian Krause responds in a letter to the Sun to Horter’s op-ed cited in the post below. As has been my personal experience in talking with her, she attempts to change the subject. Ex.
Trying to discredit me will not make these questions go away.
Horter wrote 907 words of which exactly 12 (“This is a question posed by former fish farm lobbyist Vivian Krause”) referred to Krause’s background – and unless you are incredibly sensitive can’t be construed as an attempt to discredit. “Lobbyist” by definition is someone who is “employed to persuade legislators to vote for legislation that favors the lobbyist’s employer.” Krause is thus – to my knowledge – technically correct that she was not a true registered lobbyist. Technically she was “Corporate Development Manager“. What that is precisely, I don’t know. But given she has penned letters to the media over the years, such as this one to the New York Times, defending fishing farming, I think “spokesperson” would be fair.
But her fish farming background is really neither here nor there*, and by trying to make it about her she is, it seems to me, attempting to deflect from the other 895 words Horton writes.
Since the ban would apply to the north coast but not the south, this isn’t really a tanker ban
Since a full tanker ban is not what Horter characterized it as or advocated for in his article, this is a rebuttal to a point not made.
it’s a trade ban that would landlock Alberta oil within North America
And this is completely illogical. Landlocked? Er…is it not possible to build a pipeline from Alberta to a port the ban does not affect?
and give the U. S a virtual monopoly on Canada’s oil.
It already has a monopoly on Canada’s oil. Canada exports “99% of its oil exports to the U.S” and the Enbridge project would only change that percentage
by a point or two. [Correction: Alberta produced 1.51 million barrels per day in 2008, and plans on producing 3 million per day by 2018. The Northern Gateway pipeline is planned to have a capacity of 525,000 barrels of petroleum per day. If, and it’s a big if, 100% of the pipeline’s capacity goes to Asia, then it’s more than a point or two] Let’s play devil’s advocate: So what? So what if the U.S. has a “virtual monopoly on Canada’s oil”? Is there some sort of compelling geopolitical reason for Canada to ensure, say, the People’s Republic of China has access to it’s oil? As long as the oil is being sold for the market price then Exxon Alberta Canada reaps the economic benefits. And while there’s a lot the United States does that displeases Canadians, and displeases me in particular, they are our most important ally and will be for the foreseeable future. Who better?
Given all this, the only argument that makes sense for Krause’s concerns is not concern for Canada’s sovereignty or economic prospects, but the economic prospects of a particular project – Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline. But she can’t be upfront about that. And, appearances be damned of course, she is not a spokesman for Enbridge. Fair enough.
Horter made some substantive points and asked some pertinent questions. And Krause pointedly ignored them.
*Once again I note with amusement that when faced with my questions on the Georgia Straight, Krause ignored them (and still does) and brought up my background. Oy.
And for the record, as I said there and will say here: I’m not backed, supported or directed by anyone. I don’t volunteer for anyone. I’ve never donated to any political party (or enviromental group for that matter).