Two explanations are receiving prominent play in the media. These are:

1. Clark’s victory was a referendum on pipelines and her win is a signal that British Columbians are willing to support Kinder Morgan or Enbridge.
2. An NDP victory was torpedoed by Green Party vote-splitting.

While the oil industry, Bay Street, Alberta and Harper’s Conservatives may want to believe Clark’s victory green-lights the two controversial proposals to ship oilsands crude through B.C. ports, British Columbians know better. The overwhelming opposition to both projects still exists and people are even more resolute in making sure pipe is never laid on either project. Meanwhile, B.C.’s First Nations remain opposed and are gearing up lawsuits.

And let’s not forget: not a single pro-tanker MLA was elected on May 14. Ironically, although her “five conditions” were substantively weaker than the NDP’s position, Clark’s rhetoric was stronger. She repeatedly stated she would stand up to Alberta and Ottawa to fight for B.C.’s interests. In fact, in the days leading up to the election, her party took out full-page ads saying it was she (and Jane Sterk) who were “strong enough to stand up for B.C.”

Regardless of what pundits may try to spin now, this is clearly not a party that underestimates the opposition to these pipelines.

We’ll know whether Clark’s five conditions mean anything on May 31 when the new Clark government makes its final submissions to Enbridge’s regulatory panel. Between now and then there won’t be any new information coming forward; but just a couple weeks ago, Clark said Enbridge does not meet her five conditions.

The second explanation for the surprise Liberal victory some pundits are putting forward, particularly those friendly to the NDP, is that Clark won because of vote-splitting between the Green Party and the NDP. While it’s always convenient to point fingers at others, the numbers just don’t substantiate this argument.

Some have said if the NDP had received all the Green Party votes they would have formed government, which is like saying if there was no Michael Ignatieff or federal Liberal party, The NDP would govern Canada.

Short of a pre-election merger, no reasonable scenarios of the NDP capturing some of the Green party vote would have won the election for Dix. Consider the numbers (remember, 43 seats are needed to form government):

• Scenario 1: If every additional vote the Green Party got in 2013 (above what they received in 2009) went to the NDP, they would have one additional seat (34) leaving the NDP seven short of forming government.
• Scenario 2: If every vote the Green Party received above their average vote instead went to the NDP, they would have only won two additional seats (35), leaving the NPD six short of forming government.
• Scenario 3: If the NDP had received half the Green party votes in every, riding they would have six additional seats (39), leaving the NDP four short of forming government.

Regardless of what the NDP may want, the Green Party has now elected its first MLA and is not going away. Furthermore, the numbers show that Andrew Weaver’s victory in Oak Bay resulted from bringing voters from the Liberals, not just the NDP.

The actual voting numbers clearly show the vote-splitting argument is a red herring and if NDP supporters settle on this as the explanation for their defeat, they will overlook more important factors.

So, if these explanations aren’t valid, what does explain the surprise?

The truth is that nobody knows at this point. A lot of factors influence the outcome of elections, so there will no doubt be plenty of speculation in the next few months about what caused the collapse of the NDP. In future blogs, we’ll explore a few of them. Until then, take what you read with a grain of salt.

We can imagine how many of you are feeling right now. Perhaps you’re anxious, disappointed or outright angry. You’re not alone. We need you to turn those feelings into a new sense of determination.

These projects will be stopped by the people of British Columbia linked arm-in-arm with First Nations communities. It will be done through continued political organizing, legal action and the enforcement of indigenous legal bans on oilsands tankers and pipelines. A shortcut to victory was blocked on May 14, but we just have to get back on the main road.

There is no single action or quick fix for us to offer to you. Instead, we need you to commit for the long-haul.

It’s time to hold the new government’s feet to the fire, starting with your newly elected MLA. We’ve called this journey Find Leaders.

A lot of factors influence the outcome of elections and there will no doubt be plenty of speculation in the next few days about what caused the collapse of the NDP. Here’s what we know for sure: the majority of British Columbians oppose the expansion of oil tanker traffic on B.C.’s coast and want leaders who will stand up for our coast. Although the B.C. Liberals have not taken a clear position either way, not a single pro-tanker candidate was elected in yesterday’s election.

We also know that on May 31, the B.C. Liberal government has to file its final position with the panel reviewing Enbridge’s oil pipeline and tanker proposal. Given the Liberals recently said Enbridge is not meeting their five conditions, we are hopeful the next government will stand up for B.C. and say no to Enbridge.

And we know if they don’t, citizens will rise up once again to force the government to take action.

You ought to be proud of all you’ve done. For the past two years you’ve applied relentless pressure to provincial politicians. You organized yourselves block by block. You bought up radio ads and sponsored volunteers, taking ownership of this campaign ten and twenty dollars at a time.

Two years ago, most people didn’t believe the battle for B.C.’s coast would be a provincial election issue — and yet it turned out to be a major one.

As we move on to the next step in this journey, we know British Columbians are more dedicated than ever to protect our coast. Together, against all odds, we will outfight the richest industry in the world. Commit for the long-haul today.

This is the No Tankers message we're saturating the airwaves with between now and election day:

Our job is far from done though. The polls keep tightening up — the latest one indicates just a four-point gap between the two major parties — and the future of our coast hangs in the balance.

More than 3500 people have pledged to Vote For Our Coast. If you haven’t added your name to the pledge yet, please do so right now!

http://www.organize.notankers.ca/vote_for_the_coast

While other party leaders have been clear about what their parties would do on this issue if elected, B.C. Liberal leader Christy Clark has not been. Last fall Clark’s Liberals announced five conditions upon which to base further consideration of heavy oil proposals by Enbridge, Kinder Morgan and others.

But after months of hearings, and hundreds of hours of evidence, 17 days after the election the newly elected B.C. government needs to submit their final argument to the federal panel reviewing the Enbridge proposal. Approximately 18 days after that the new government has to sit down before the panel and present their final submissions. The unanswered question is: what would a Clark government say?

B.C. NDP leader Adrian Dix asked this question during the debate, but Clark dodged it. Clark loves to refer to her five conditions, but here is the thing: all the evidence is in, nothing new will be presented between now and when the B.C. government (whoever is Premier) makes its final submissions. So has Enbridge met Clark’s five conditions or not?

Only Clark can answer that question, but the people of British Columbia deserve to know before the election.

This is where the legacy of the HST comes in. Will this be the second election in a row that a Liberal leader keeps a major decision on a controversial subject to him or herself, only to let British Columbians in on the secret after the vote is counted?

And if Clark says she doesn’t have all the information she needs to make a decision, exactly what more information does she need? And how does she propose to get it in the 17 days after the election before final submissions to the review panel are due?

British Columbians deserve to know.

Surprisingly, the media — despite wall-to-wall coverage of the oil tanker issue — has not yet been pressing Clark for an answer. They should.

Let’s be clear: punting is not an option. If Clark hides behind the five conditions and fails to take a 'Yes' or 'No' stance during the final submissions to the review panel, she is choosing to leave the decision to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his cabinet. That is unacceptable to most British Columbians, including most federal Liberal and Tory voters.

Although I never thought I’d recommend any leader follow George W. Bush’s example, I suggest Clark emulate one of his more notorious quips: Christy, you are the decider. Decide what you think is best for B.C.

NDP Leader Adrian Dix, Green leader Jane Sterk and Conservative leader John Cummins have each decided and announced their decisions. Christy Clark, now it’s your turn.

Are you talking about more than oil tankers this election?

Nope. We think the issue is big enough and important enough to get our undivided attention. Are there many, many other important issues for voters to consider? Yes, but we'll concentrate on providing accurate, non-partisan No Tankers information.

What kind of information?

We’re going to let voters know where their candidates stand in relation to stopping the expansion of oil tanker traffic on B.C.'s coast. Right now, the two most prominent proposals are Enbridge's Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain expansion, so we're letting voters know where their candidates stand on those two projects specifically.

What counts as a stance?

That's a really important question. Should we just parrot whatever line the parties are giving? Should we tell voters  the B.C. Liberals have announced 'five minimum conditions upon which to base further consideration of heavy oil proposals' and explain the conditions? There’s a lot of complex information out there on this topic and we think our role should be to cut through as much of the rhetoric as possible and pare things down to the basic factual distinctions. What do most people really want to know? We think they want to know who is firmly standing up to these oil tanker plans and who is not. That's what we've put on our election leaflet.

But isn't that an oversimplification?

At the end of the day, the fate of these oil tanker plans has always come down to a straightforward political decision about whether they are worth the inescapable, potentially devastating risk to our communities, economy and environment. We're not going to advertise all of the different ways the parties say they'll come to a decision, or the mechanistic nature of the decision (Environmental Assessment certificate vs. other permits vs. electricity provision vs. new legislation or pure politics). We're just interested in whether they've made a decision yet.

Yes, but don't you have to cut them some slack for needing to get all the information before making a decision?

It sounds totally reasonable doesn't it? That a party can't decide on something like this before they see a technical application or go through a thorough review? The fact is the parties have more than enough information to make a transparent, defensible decision to either entertain these proposals or not. Governments often make early screening decisions before technical reviews. For example, previous B.C. governments have made categorical screening decisions against nuclear power, uranium mining and coastal drilling.

Prior to NDP leader Adrian Dix’s announcement that he is against turning the Vancouver region into an oil tanker export port, your election materials clearly showed the Green Party as the best. Weren’t you basically just pushing people to the Greens?

That's where the minds of some partisans tend to go, but this view inaccurately assigns us a motive we don't have. Remember, we're non-partisans. Our loyalty is to the struggle, not to parties or candidates. If a candidate or party wants the benefit of our conversations with voters then they should get to work securing the best position and record protecting our coast from oil tanker plans. When the NDP strengthened their position, this was immediately reflected in our election materials.

Did our previous materials give people a reason to vote Green? Yes, but that was simply the natural consequence of them having the best position. This effect gave the NDP another concrete reason to strengthen their position, and that is the intended effect of our non-partisan approach. We can’t build power over the long term if we hold back on our efforts in an attempt to appease one party or another.

But it sounds like you were initially splitting the vote.

We don't split votes, party positions on important issues do. If voters are worried about vote-splitting amongst people who they see as sharing their values, then they have a choice. They can attempt to vote "strategically" or they can vote on principle. We leave that up to them. Both serve a purpose, both send a message. It’s up to political parties to negotiate cooperation agreements in the lead-up to an election if they want to combine their forces, as it were. That’s not up to us.

Have you considered formally endorsing candidates who have the best factual position?

Yes, we've considered it. There are ways to endorse without being partisan (e.g. Conservation Voters of B.C. does this) and endorsements are clearer when you're trying to distill positions and performance on many issues at once. However, we choose not to formally endorse for two main reasons: 1. It decreases our credibility in our conversations with voters. If it appears like we're just picking sides then the factual distinctions we are trying to communicate have less effect. 2. We don't have to. We can quickly communicate the pure factual distinction on our single issue.

Ok, but what about the nuanced character of the candidates? I mean, on this issue you've still got your friends and you've got your enemies, right?

Well, we've got candidates who we think will be more helpful and some who we think will be less helpful, but part of being non-partisan during elections is not seeing things in terms of friends and enemies, and simply seeing candidates. We evaluate candidates first on their current public positions and then, when two candidates have the same public position, on any concrete action they have taken to stop the expansion of oil tanker traffic on our coast.

What does that method actually look like?

For example, in the previous federal election we were working in Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. At that time, our campaign was focused on getting a ban on oil tankers through B.C.'s north coast (we weren't yet campaigning against Kinder Morgan). On the north coast issue, the federal Liberal, NDP and the Green candidates all supported a ban on oil tankers through that area. They were tied when it came to their public positions. However, the NDP candidate Randall Garrison was the only one of the three who had ever taken concrete action on the issue (as an Esquimalt counicllor he sponsored and helped pass the first local government motion in B.C. against expanded oil tanker traffic). So at the door and on the phone, we told people that Randall was factually the strongest candidate.

During the same election, in the riding of Vancouver-Quadra, where there was also a positional tie, we told people Liberal candidate Joyce Murray was the strongest candidate because she was the only one who had taken concrete action by sponsoring private members' bills to ban north coast oil tankers.

In this year's provincial election, it wasn’t until recently that a basic positional tie emerged between the NDP and Green party (on Enbridge and Kinder Morgan) and we don’t have the capacity to now do thorough research on concrete records across the province, so we’re sticking to communicating the positional tie.

What if a candidate's party is muzzling their true stance?

If we were betting, we'd put good money on the fact many candidates don't think any plans to bring more oil tankers to our coast are worth the risk. We know that at times some of them have basically contorted themselves to 'wink-wink' hint at their true feelings. But they won't come right out and say it clearly and strongly because that act would contradict the party line and risk long-term exile to the back bench far from party power.

We understand! However, we can't show up at voters' doors with speculation. Imagine if we interpreted a candidate's 'wink-wink' as a strong current position, told voters to trust our instincts and then the candidate got elected and did the opposite. The joke would be on us and we'd have compromised our integrity and credibility.

In situations like this, the candidate has made their choice first to run as a member of a political party and then to toe the party line. So they've got to wear it. The only positions we'll pass on to voters are public positions.

So you're saying a candidate could choose to take a stronger public position than their party and get points for that?

Yes. If a candidate comes out with a clear public position that differs from their party we'll change our materials and conversations to represent that.

Do you say anything else to voters at the door and on the phone?

We ask them if they'd like to sign our No Tankers petition and then we ask them if the election was held today, who they would vote for.

What do you do with that information?

People who sign our petition are kept up to date on the campaign and on opportunities to do more to help. For people who say they are intending to vote for a candidate with a No Tankers position (these include all candidates opposing Enbridge, Kinder Morgan or both), we'll follow up with them during our 'Get Out The Vote' effort. Once people have made up their minds about who to vote for, we view the persuasive phase of our work over. After that, we're interested in increasing turnout as much as possible in ways that don't work against our cause, because higher voter turnout brings a healthier democracy.

So you'll help get out the Green and NDP vote, but not the Liberal or Conservative vote?

That's generally right. Both the Green Party and NDP are opposed to proposals by Enbridge and Kinder Morgan to bring more oil tankers to our coast as have some independent candidates and one BC Conservative.  The BC Liberals haven't clearly stood up against either major project and the BC Conservative party position is in support of more oil tankers on our coast. For the sake of our democracy, we hope turnout is high across the board and we're not going to actively work against our cause by getting out the Liberal or Conservative vote (outside of Skeena). We haven't yet determined where to focus our Get Out The Vote efforts, but where we have sufficient volunteers it will be done in a non-partisan manner.  

Which ridings are Dogwood Initiative focusing on this election?

We've gone back and forth over this question quite a bit actually. Generally, you want to focus on the tight races where there's a strong candidate on your issue (or a particularly problematic candidate) — someone who stands a chance of winning, because this is where your issue can have the most impact both at a riding-level but also on the overall result. And hopefully some of these places are near your HQ or other places of existing strength. 

This election is different for Dogwood though. First, we're experimenting with an organizing model that could allow No Tankers volunteer teams to be active in all 85 ridings at once. At this scale our efficacy is almost wholly dependent on the number, skill and effort of our volunteers.

Secondly, if polls are to be believed, a single party is set to win a decisive victory. If that's the case, individual riding results are less important than establishing an overall mandate for strong action on the issue. Mandate is a vague and slippery concept, but one calculation you could make if you want a strong mandate is to shoot for breadth of effect versus depth in any one place.

Overall for the May 2013 B.C. election, we're focusing in ridings where strong volunteer teams emerge and saving some discretionary resources to supplement especially strong teams and especially tight races or strategic places. We started off with a bit more of a concrete short list, but we've pulled back from that to empower our volunteers.

Sounds like there's still some mystery there.

Sometimes a little mystery is a good thing! We have volunteer teams signed up across the province. Our most active teams are currently in Burnaby North, North Vancouver-Lonsdale, Oak Bay-Gordon Head, Comox Valley, Vancouver-Hastings, Cowichan Valley, Nanaimo-North Cowichan, and Victoria-Beacon Hill.

The goal is wherever we have someone willing to go door-knocking or willing to make calls, to give them what they need and hook them up with others in their area.

I’ve heard that groups are being muzzled this election? How are you able to speak out?

B.C.’s Elections Act, while somewhat vague for third party advertisers like Dogwood Initiative, provides plenty of room to get the facts out there about where candidates stand on important issues. We’ve registered with Elections BC as an ‘election advertising sponsor.’ Furthermore, Dogwood Initiative is not a charitable organization, so we are not subject to federal rules limiting political activities to 10% of our overall work.

How are you paying for your election efforts?

We are raising all of the money for our election work from individual donations, most of which are from British Columbia. So far, we have raised about $21,000 of our $30,000 goal.

How would you sum up your approach to politics and elections?

We’ve adopted this non-partisan model so that we can be tough but fair.

The upcoming provincial election in British Columbia is such a time. It’s not only your vote that has power; your words have power, too. What you say to your candidates and to your friends and family before May 14th will help shape the agenda for our next government.

Our mission is to make sure the threat of oil tankers and pipelines is as high on the agenda as possible. To that end, the best we can do here at Dogwood Initiative is spread the facts in a non-partisan way about where our parties and candidates stand.

Here is an explanation of where the parties stand.

The B.C. Liberals have avoided making a decision for or against oil tanker proposals, first by giving away B.C.’s power to conduct its own environmental assessment to the federal government, then by pointing to the deeply flawed federal review process and then coming up with five conditions upon which to base further consideration – all without actually making a decision. With the final phase of the Enbridge hearings coming to a close in May, including final arguments made by the B.C. government, Premier Christy Clark still has not announced a clear stance on either major project. So no check marks for them. An in-depth look at the B.C. Liberals' stance on oil tankers can be found here.

The B.C. NDP have declared firm opposition to Enbridge’s oil tanker and pipeline proposal and have promised to take back the right for B.C. to conduct its own environmental assessments of these projects. On April 22, NDP leader Adrian Dix announced his party’s opposition to Kinder Morgan’s proposal to turn “Vancouver into a major oil export port” and said it would also undergo a made-in-B.C. review. Two check marks for them. An in-depth look at the NDP's stance on oil tankers can be found here.

The B.C. Green Party has long been in favour of halting the expansion of bulk crude oil tanker traffic on our coast, including proposals by Enbridge and Kinder Morgan, and they’ve been public about it. So they get double check marks.

The B.C. Conservative Party’s leader John Cummins has announced support for both Enbridge and Kinder Morgan’s proposals, qualified by an intent to make sure they are as safe as possible. Of course our view is ‘as safe as possible’ inevitably includes accidents, and all it would take is one accident for lives and livelihoods to be ruined, so the party gets no check marks. However, at least one candidate, Mike Brousseau of Skeena, has broken ranks with the party and declared his opposition to Enbridge.

Independent candidate Bob Simpson in Cariboo North is firmly opposed to both Enbridge and Kinder Morgan's oil export plans, seeing them as not in the best interests of B.C. Independent candidate Vicki Huntington in Delta South is opposed to Enbridge's proposal for the north coast but has not taken a position on Kinder Morgan's plans for our south coast.

If you hear of any individual candidates straying from the party line, please post a comment to this blog.

Did you find this information helpful? We need your help to spread the word. Dogwood Initiative has registered as an official election advertising sponsor and we're counting on volunteers to get these facts out. Share the graphic on social media.

Now that you have all the facts, we need you to Pledge To Vote For The Coast. It’s vital that we commit to getting out to vote for candidates who will stand up for our coast. Please help seal the deal by pledging to Vote For Our Coast today.

For starters, the B.C. Liberals signed away B.C.’s power to conduct its own environmental assessments to the federal government. Then they tried deflecting questions to the federal review and by emphasizing the role of science in assessing the project.

Around the time Enbridge was called out for gross incompetence in handling their oil spill in Kalamazoo, Michigan, the B.C. Liberals announced a series of conditions upon which to base further consideration of heavy oil proposals by Enbridge, Kinder Morgan and others.

Next, Premier Christy Clark instigated a public conflict with Alberta Premier Alison Redford in what was widely interpreted as an attempt to look tough without actually making a decision.

In the fall of 2012, the B.C. Liberal government sent representatives to the Enbridge Joint Review Panel hearings and asked some good, tough questions of the company. Afterward, Environment Minister Terry Lake was critical of Enbridge’s response and went so far as to state that Enbridge was not meeting the government’s conditions. Simultaneously, the government launched a process to come up with a better land-based oil spill response regime.

However, with the final phase of the Enbridge hearings coming to a close just after the election, including final arguments made by the B.C. government, Clark still has not announced a clear stance on either major project. In March, she also stated support for David Black’s refinery proposal for Kitimat. The B.C. Liberals could be avoiding taking a position because they fear if they oppose these projects, they risk upsetting certain factions of conservative voters, the Prime Minister and the federal Conservative Party (whose staffers and organizing muscle may be important to the B.C. Liberals), as well as certain business interests, which perennially finance the party.

If they take a position in favour of these oil tanker plans, they would risk alienating a majority of B.C. voters. So it seems, instead of making a decision, they’ve decided to waffle on the second most important issue for most voters heading into this May’s election.

You can read the B.C. Liberals’ position straight from the horse’s mouth in their platform.

Dogwood Initiative applauded Dix’s statement, given our long-standing campaign to halt the expansion of crude oil tanker traffic on B.C.’s coast. We destroyed our original B.C. election leaflets, which portrayed the NDP as only having a firm stance against Enbridge’s northern proposal, and created a new version showing both the Green Party and the NDP as standing up to both major proposals to bring more oil tankers to our coast.

Then, on Wednesday, Juan de Fuca NDP candidate John Horgan caused a stir with his comments to the Surrey News Leader suggesting possible alternative locations for an expanded Kinder Morgan oil port.

To say the least, we were concerned. Was the NDP open to expanded oil tanker traffic so long as the terminal was moved a little south? If so, we certainly wouldn’t count that as a strong stand.

Early Thursday morning, however, Adrian Dix settled the matter on CKNW’s Bill Good show, stating “We’re not going to become an oil tanker export port whether it’s in Vancouver, Delta or anywhere else.”

And in a later media scrum, when asked about Kinder Morgansending oil to Washington and then up through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Dix said: “I don’t see it as being a good idea for us to dramatically increase tanker traffic in this region.”

Adrian Dix's statements - and those of Green Party of B.C. leader Jane Sterk - continue to reflect clear party stances against Kinder Morgan's plans.

No matter who forms the next government and regardless of the promises candidates and parties do or don’t make, the Dogwood community will continue to relentlessly push for strong and immediate action to protect our coast from the threat oil pipelines, tankers and spills.

Suffice to say Earth Day, as generally celebrated, wasn’t inspiring for me. But I will always remember Adrian Dix’s Earth Day announcement of the NDP’s opposition to Kinder Morgan’s proposal to bring hundreds of oil tankers through Vancouver, Victoria and the Gulf Islands.

At a press conference in Kamloops, Dix declared the expected increase in tanker traffic resulting from Kinder Morgan's plan is not acceptable, stating he would not support any oil pipeline that would change “Vancouver's harbour into a major oil export terminal.” Up until this announcement Dix and other NDP candidates had insisted the NDP would wait to see the formal application before responding to the Kinder Morgan proposal.

While both the federal and provincial NDP had strong positions against Enbridge’s oil tanker-pipeline proposal, until the Earth Day announcement they were less clear about Kinder Morgan’s plan to twin their oilsands pipeline to Burnaby and increase by six-fold the number of oil tankers transiting Vancouver’s harbour.

The History

Both the federal and provincial NDP have a history of aggressively opposing Enbridge’s proposal. The NDP’s public opposition to B.C. oil tanker proposals began in the federal NDP.

Former federal NDP MP Denise Savoie from Victoria was the first elected official in B.C. to explicitly oppose Enbridge’s oil tanker proposal. In 2007 she brought forward a Private Member’s Bill seeking a permanent oil tanker ban.

Federal NDP opposition to Enbridge escalated in December 2010, when the House of Commons passed a motion presented by Nathan Cullen calling for a legislated ban on crude oil tanker traffic off BC's North Coast. The majority of parliamentarians in Ottawa, including all NDP, Bloc and Liberal MPs present, supported the motion with Tory MPs all voting against.

Although the B.C. NDP had been raising concerns about Enbridge’s proposal for a new Kitimat oil tanker port for many years, their opposition solidified after Adrian Dix became NDP leader in 2010. The NDP’s strengthening opposition culminated in the spring of 2012 with a letter to the National Energy Board (the federal body overseeing the panel reviewing Enbridge’s oil tanker proposal). The letter declared firm opposition to the Enbridge Northern Gateway project, saying in essence that Enbridge’s proposal was not worth the risk to our rivers, coast and the communities and local economies. To paraphrase, the NDP’s position is that Northern Gateway is not in B.C.’s environmental or economic interests.

Last summer Dix and the NDP clarified how they would stand up against Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Big Oil to kibosh Enbridge’s proposal. Dix’s NDP made two definitive commitments:

1. “Within a week of taking office, we will serve the federal government with 30 days’ notice to terminate the 2010 deal in which the Liberals signed away B.C.’s interests.” By withdrawing from the “equivalency agreement” Dix would remove B.C. from the federal review process.
2. Dix would also establish a made-in-B.C. “review process that would ensure that B.C.’s economic, social and environmental interests are fully addressed, that B.C.'s powers and responsibilities are properly exercised and that First Nations’ interests are recognized.”

In Kamloops Dix made clear that Kinder Morgan’s oil tanker–pipeline proposal would get a similar treatment. Dix promised “a rigorous, made-in-B.C. environmental assessment process” for both Enbridge and Kinder Morgan, indicating this would mean withdrawing from Gordon Campbell’s agreement with Ottawa (later endorsed by Christy Clark) stating the federal environmental assessment is equivalent to a B.C. assessment.

We expect to hear similar announcements from the federal NDP soon given several B.C. NDP parliamentarians, including  Burnaby-Douglas MP Kennedy Stewart and Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca MP Randall Garrison, are known to be vehemently opposed to Kinder Morgan’s proposal.

Pundits, including Vaughn Palmer of the Vancouver Sun, have criticized Dix for taking a position before he has reviewed Kinder Morgan application. But parties and governments as a matter of policy should be clear when projects present an unacceptable category of risk.

Previous B.C. governments have done this to rule out nuclear power, coal-fired power, water exports, uranium mining, coastal oil drilling and many other projects perceived as being fundamentally too risky.  Dix is following these precedents in his recent announcement. In fact, he said, “Radically transforming the Port of Vancouver into a major oilsands export facility is not a good idea. It’s too much of a risk to our environment and our economy.”

When parties or governments make these decisions they are often based more on an assessment of provincial values, and less on detailed technical specifications. A company could still file an application, but most wouldn’t do so if it ran counter to current government policy. Instead of being criticized as anti-business, Dix should be praised for providing certainty so Kinder Morgan doesn’t waste its time and money pushing unwanted projects on an unwilling province.

Made-in-B.C.-Review

While Dix and the NDP continue to leave the door open to Kinder Morgan through the made-in-B.C. review, this is mostly for legal reasons. The legal opinion Dix commissioned last summer from Murray Rankin — now the NDP MP from Victoria — is believed to recommend this approach to bolster a NDP government’s litigation position in the event of a move by our Prime Minister to legally push Kinder Morgan’s project through against B.C.’s consent. There is disagreement among legal experts about whether a full review is necessary or whether there could be a pre-review screening process designating projects as red light, green light or yellow light based on an assessment of risks.

The majority of British Columbians believe both Kinder Morgan and Enbridge’s proposal are red light projects. Cynics are wary of the NDP living up to their commitments if they form government in the face of incredible pressure from Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Bay Street banks and Big Oil. Whoever is ultimately elected on May 14^th must know British Columbians passionately oppose the expansion of oil tankers on our coast and if government doesn’t act accordingly, people will take the matter into their own hands and force them too. The next government doesn’t want oil tankers to become their HST.

There remains a long way to go toward permanently banning the expansion of oil tankers off our coast, but as someone who has spent years fighting to protect the B.C. coast, Earth Day 2013 will always stand out for me thanks to the NDP announcement on Kinder Morgan.

So where do the parties and candidates stand?

[The following party positions were edited April 23rd 2013 following an announcement by the NDP]: The Green Party of BC and the BC NDP have both announced opposition to plans to bring more oil tankers to our coast. The two parties word their commitments differently, however. The Green Party opposes both Enbridge and Kinder Morgan's projects, specifically, but they also support "a permanent ban on crude oil tankers on the west coast." The BC NDP have repeatedly opposed Enbridge's project, specifically. On April 22 Adrian Dix also announced that "we do not believe any proposal should transform Vancouver into a major port for oil export." This would apply to Kinder Morgan's proposal but also any other proponent seeking to do the same.

The B.C. Conservatives support both the Enbridge and Kinder Morgan projects, while the B.C. Liberals are still on the fence with both – sometimes leaning one way, sometimes the other.

We are a non-partisan organization, which means we don’t favour any particular party. Rather, our job is to pay close attention to the factual positions of the parties and candidates on our issues, and then communicate that to our network of 150,000 people. All parties have the opportunity to be the best – to adopt the strongest position in defence of our coast and to potentially benefit electorally as a result. We’ve advocated for all parties to do so.

We’ve met with ministers, MLAs, candidates and staffers from various parties. We’ve executed targeted automated calls to the constituents of B.C.’s Premier and Environment Minister asking their opinion and encouraging them to take a stand on the issue. We launched a Twitter campaign during the Joint Review Panel’s south coast stops, letting MLAs of both parties know how their constituents feel about Enbridge. We’ve hosted door-knocking events in B.C. Liberal and NDP ridings, collecting No Tankers petition signatures and bringing media attention to the issue. Simply put, we’re trying to go to everyone, everywhere we can in B.C., to make the case for protecting our coast.

The massive momentum we’ve got right now is the result of many years of work done by passionate individuals all across B.C. First Nations have long led the way, and the political aspect of the movement has been largely built by one-on-one conversations with neighbours, friends and family. This is our greatest weapon.

It has been proven time and time again that meaningful, face-to-face conversations with others is the single most effective way to encourage people to act on an issue. In these final days leading up to the provincial election, the No Tankers network will be gearing up and speaking with voters at their homes and on the phone, explaining the importance this election has on keeping our coast safe from the threat of oil spills.

The plan is simple:

1. With your help, we’ll have as many one-on-one conversations with voters as possible.
2. We’ll explain the factual distinctions between the parties and candidates on oil tanker expansion.
3. On election day, we’ll activate our network to get out to vote.

When we have these conversations, it’s not about telling British Columbians whom to vote for —it’s about letting concerned citizens know the facts about where their local candidates stand on an issue important to the majority of British Columbians. We respect the ability of voters to then make their own choice.

With your help, we want to make sure as many people as possible have the facts and make it to the polls.

We know some people are worried about vote-splitting (e.g. between the NDP and Green Party on this issue or between the B.C. Liberals and B.C. Conservatives on other issues). There's a lot to unpack here, but briefly: claiming that any one party actually ‘owns’ votes, which can be ‘stolen,’ undermines the integrity of the voter.

People vote for smaller, so-called 'third parties' because they align with their values; because they’re dissatisfied with their former party; because they’re moved by core principles and beliefs.

Elections are about voter choice. Voters don’t split votes — party positions on important issues do.

Every political party has the opportunity to lead the pack on the most important issues of the day. Currently in B.C., oil tankers and pipelines are the number three issue of concern to voters, and people are looking for leadership in defence of our coast. It's possible that the positions of the candidates and parties evolve before the vote on May 14th, and we'll communicate any developments as soon as we have them.

The subject line was: “Dogwood Initiative nominated for 2012 Katerva Award.” Her first question was: what’s a Katerva Award? A little research quickly turned up the fact the award has been described as “the Nobel of sustainability.”

“At first I didn’t believe it,” Gilchrist said. “But the more research I did, the more I realized this was a pretty big deal.”

As it turned out, Dogwood Initiative had been nominated as one of the world’s best sustainability initiatives through Katerva’s prestigious spotter network, comprised of global thought leaders from business, government, NGOs and academia. Previous finalists include 350.org and Avaaz.

“I knew we were doing innovative and effective work, but we’re just a small group here on Vancouver Island,” Gilchrist said. “You never expect to be recognized like this on an international scale.”

One of just two nominees in Canada, Dogwood Initiative stood out for its unique approach to changing how decisions about natural resources are made through citizen engagement and mobilization.

We asked Gilchrist a few questions to find out more about what the Katerva nomination means.

Q: Can you describe the Dogwood approach and how it can be applied elsewhere?

A: Wherever you go in the world these days, private interests are taking over public resources, such as air, land and water. Here in B.C., Dogwood Initiative is pioneering a model to put control back in the hands of the public by bringing together citizens to reclaim decision-making power over their natural resources.

The Dogwood model combines large-scale citizen engagement and recognition of aboriginal land rights with a non-partisan political approach, both of which are underscored by a commitment to continual improvement through testing and analytics. Done right, this type of model can help drive change anywhere in the world.

Q: What does the Katerva nomination mean? And what happens next?

A: Essentially, it means we were identified as one of the top 100 sustainability ideas in the world, which is a huge honour. We recently found out we were not selected as a finalist, but we’re still very pleased with the nomination — especially considering we were one of just two nominees in Canada.

Q: What makes Dogwood different?

A: Dogwood stands out for its commitment to sharing what it learns with other organizations to help catalyze the scale of change the world needs. We are consciously creating a model that can be applied anywhere in the world where corporate interests have started to infringe upon the public interest.

Our goal is not just to succeed on a project-by-project basis — rather, our goal is to use hot-button issues (such as oil tankers) to fundamentally change the way public resource decisions are made, tilting the scales back in favour of the public interest, communities and aboriginal groups.

Q: What has been Dogwood’s greatest success in the past 18 months?

A: Looking at the big picture, I think we’ve been able to give citizens hope that they can influence decisions about their air and water by making oil tanker expansion one of the top political issues in the province. More specifically, we helped a record-breaking 4,000 people register for public hearings on Enbridge’s proposal to bring oil supertankers to the Great Bear Rainforest and in 2012, we attracted more than 83,000 new No Tankers petition signatures. Our movement is growing at a breakneck pace and achieving new milestones every week.

Q: How do you think Dogwood caught the eye of the Katerva spotter network?

A: In the past two years, Dogwood has earned praise for punching above its weight and has become known as one of Canada’s most innovative and effective non-profit organizations. Not only are we building a model for citizens to take back control of their air, land and water, but we are also developing a template for how citizen-based organizations can become financially self-sufficient.

Ultimately, all of our success can be credited back to the citizens who get involved and do things like write letters, register for public hearings, volunteer and donate (more than 150,000 people have now signed our No Tankers petition and last year 4,194 people donated to keep our campaigns running). It’s our job to help more people get engaged in democracy and to go out into the world and make a difference — that’s what it’s all about.

“First Nations leader Gerald Stewart stood up in the hearing room on the very last day and hour of the hearings and beat his drum, challenging us to aim higher, to push harder. We couldn’t let all of that passion and emotion just slip away,” Rowlands says.

The young man stopped his drumming and then challenged the room, “Is that it?”

The answer was a defiant no.

“We couldn’t just let all those stories disappear, but we were feeling empty and exhausted at that point. We needed Gerald’s spark to ignite us again,” Rowlands says.

Charged by a collective passion and unwillingness to have their home compromised by an oil spill, about 80 local residents began meeting at the Fisherman’s Hall, brainstorming the perfect way to continue their stories. Soon a cookbook, The Salmon Recipes, gave life to a heartfelt community experience.

The book’s editor, Luanne Roth, says the idea of a Pacific Northwest cookbook sprang up rather naturally.

“I knew the stories I had heard at the Joint Review Panel had the power to win Canadians over. We had zero money. The only books selling these days are cookbooks . . .  bingo.”

More than just a cookbook, The Salmon Recipes describes life and culture on the north coast through stories, photography, and poetry.

“We were upfront with people, explaining that the purpose of the cookbook was to celebrate our north coast culture and introduce ourselves to the world. The ultimate goal was to oppose Enbridge’s plans to build pipelines and a marine export terminal here on the north coast,” Rowland says.

The Salmon Recipes was put together through the combined efforts of more than 100 volunteers. Roth and Rowlands started contacting people during the summer of 2012 to ask them to contribute their talents, recipes and photography. Through word of mouth, the project quickly took off.

Poet and children’s writer Susan Musgraves agreed to contribute a poem early on, which helped get more contributors and volunteers on board. Next up, northwest photographer Mike Ambach joined the project. And then photographs started pouring in from people in the community.

Roth would spend long hours working on her laptop from her fishing boat, reading, selecting and organizing the most powerful stories from the hearing transcripts. “I got the stories from individuals who sweated for months to use their ten minutes of time in front of the judges in the best possible way,” she says.

Rowlands says the surprising and delightful part for her was having the privilege of viewing so many beautiful photos that local photographers shared. “It was a treasure box and very exciting, like kids in a candy store. The photos alone stand up for this coast,” she says.

One of the greatest challenges Roth faced creating The Salmon Recipes is something most of us take for granted in our daily lives: the ability to instantly communicate with whomever we please in a variety of ways.

“It’s really hard to get time from many of the coastal First Nations people, especially the volunteers and leaders. They’re so busy. A little village has all the work of any community plus treaty negotiation, resource management, environmental management, etcetera — things federal governments usually do for communities.”

Roth desperately wanted permissions from Fanny and Clarence Nelson from Metlakatla. She contacted Fanny through about her tenth route – a friend of a friend of a friend – but Chief Clarence was down the south coast waters gillnetting late in the season without his cellphone.

“Someone turned me onto a fisheries officer who knew his favorite nephew’s phone number and he in turn had a secret number for Clarence. I held my breath when he answered. He sighed a sigh I could hear over the waves and wind in the background… and then he said yes.”

The recipes were tested and photographed at potluck dinners and barbecues around Prince Rupert and the book was launched at the Museum of Northern BC. They invited the whole community, and shared in a great feast. Chief Murray Smith gave a traditional welcome and Reverend Ha’eis Clare Hill from the Gitga’at Nation in Hartley Bay blessed the book.

“More speeches followed and the wine, smoked salmon and seafood dishes were wonderful. The evening was well attended and a huge success. It truly was the celebration we had envisioned,” Rowlands recalls.

The Salmon Recipes brought together a community that has its culture, history and future threatened.

“The important thing is to help spread the word in our campaign against Enbridge. I believe this cookbook became our therapy,” Rowlands says.

The Salmon Recipes has already sold its first 2,000 copies and is into its second print. As noted by Andrew Nikiforuk in the Tyee, the book is a sweet and gentle reminder that salmon, not oil, make up the Pacific Northwest’s distinct cultures.

Hit recipes to look out for: Norwegian fishcakes, Icelandic pickled salmon and baked salmon with lemon sauce. Or try one of these recipes!

The Salmon Recipes is available to order online for $19.99.

Why all the sudden fuss about coal? While Vancouver publicly works to become the world’s greenest city, Port Metro Vancouver is quietly becoming one of North America’s largest exports of coal, the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel.

This latest approval alone will bring the health risks of increased diesel fumes to North Vancouver and the respiratory health concerns of coal dust from trains and stockpiles near homes. It’s no wonder neighbouring residents fear their property values will drop by 33 per cent.

The B.C. Lung Association, the Public Health Association of B.C. and the Coastal and Fraser Health Authorities have all raised concerns about the proposal — not to mention that NASA scientist James Hansen has said “coal is the single greatest threat to civilization and all life on our planet.”

The mandate of the Port Authority is to “operate with broad public support in the best interests of Canadians,” yet a poll conducted by Justason Market Intelligence in the fall found 64 per cent of British Columbians had never heard of plans to expand coal exports from B.C. ports.

On the day of the approval, Port Metro Vancouver’s President and CEO Robin Sylvester wrote an open letter to Dogwood Initiative purporting to respond to the health, safety and climate concerns raised in the hundreds of letters submitted to the port before the deadline. In essence, Port Metro Vancouver said coal dust, diesel fumes and other health concerns are not a problem and that global warming is not their problem.

Regardless of what the port claims, the facts about Neptune’s impacts are clear:

• The expansion means up to 10 coal trains will travel through affected neighbourhoods each day emitting diesel fumes and coal dust, both of which have known health impacts;
• Each train car loses 500 to 1,000 pounds of dust en route from mine to port, despite the use of sealant;
• The Neptune expansion means up to 18 million metric tonnes of coal will be stockpiled on site, increasing already problematic coal dust problems in surrounding neighbourhoods in North Vancouver;
• The additional capacity will exacerbate preexisting traffic problems in surrounding neighbourhoods in North Vancouver.

• When the 18 million tonnes of metallurgical coal is burned to make steel, more than 37 million tonnes of heat trapping pollution will be pumped in to the atmosphere.

None of these issues were addressed in the port’s approval.

In fact, Sylvester illustrated the port’s bias by dismissing people’s health and climate concerns as “form letters,” while not applying the same level of scrutiny to letters in support of the proposal.

Research by our colleagues at Voters Taking Action Against Climate Change (VTACC) uncovered that “360 of 375 comments in support of coal exports were identical, and were sent to the Port Authority on a single day… exactly one week before the decision was released.”

In the port's public statement, Sylvester failed to point out that virtually all (96 per cent) comments in favour of coal export were "form letters." In contrast, VTACC found that only “378 of 640 comments (59 per cent) opposed to coal exports were identified by the Port Authority as examples of one of five different "form letters."

In response to criticism of its inadequate consultation process, does the port make it more transparent and accessible? No. Do they mandate independent environmental assessments and public hearings? No. Instead the port decides to hire a PR firm "to develop and implement a communications program that will increase awareness and understanding of the port and its role in facilitating Canada's trade, primarily amongst residents of its bordering communities in the Lower Mainland." Perhaps the money could have been better spent actually talking, and listening, to people.

Nothing illustrates the port’s inadequate public consultation more than comparing it to the extensive process happening just south of the border in evaluating a proposed coal port at Cherry Point in Washington. For that proposal, nine public hearings were held, some as far as two hours away. In contrast, there were no public hearings in Vancouver and while Neptune claims to have sent out 1,000 letters, Dogwood Initiative was contacted by residents living within sight of the proposal who had never heard of the project until they saw our ad or received a recorded call from us.

Port Metro Vancouver’s role in approving coal and oil exports highlights the urgent need for a new approach: a decision-making process that truly incorporates local communities and First Nations; a process that promotes rather than undermines local government’s attempts to be world leaders in sustainability; and approval decisions that balance the potential benefits of expanded trade with the potential local and global consequences of that trade. Ultimately, we need a decision-making process that ensures the needs of real people, not distant corporate and political interests, are driving policy.

Believe it or not, there is a silver lining in the approval. By fast-tracking the approval, while ignoring legitimate health and safety concerns and disregarding health and municipal officials, the port authority was so dismissive that reasonable people can’t help but now see the port as a major problem.

It reminds me of the concept of “dumb wins and smart losses” discussed by Matt Price in his thought-provoking survey of Canadian politics: “Revenge of the Beaver: Building Power in the Age of the Canadian Culture War.”

One of Price’s insights is that citizens like us can “win while losing” if the loss helps build power over time. This could be a “dumb win” for the port if we organize and make it a “smart loss” for us.

Every good story needs a villain and the port’s CEO and directors just nailed their audition. Through their heavy-handed action, Port Metro Vancouver leaders have made themselves the target of directly affected communities, municipal and health leaders, and the growing number of people willing to take action on global warming.

With some trepidation, I signed up to speak at the Enbridge hearings in Victoria last January. I felt I had a duty to speak out as a former vice-president academic of Fleming College, known for its School of Environmental and Natural Sciences.

On the day of my presentation, I joined a roomful of others at the Delta Ocean Pointe Hotel. We had to present photo ID at the door and swear on the Bible to tell the truth. Three of us at a time were escorted to the actual hearing room, which was set up like a courtroom. I felt like a witness at an historic trial presided over by a judge without power to issue a binding verdict. The Joint Review Panel can only make recommendations to Harper and his cabinet.

I sat down before the three panel members and two Enbridge representatives — finally, I was face to face with Enbridge. I maintained eye contact with them throughout most of my presentation, which was videotaped. A live audio broadcast was also placed on the panel’s website.

Fearing conflict, the panel refused to allow the public to attend the live hearings. We were forced to watch a video feed in the Ramada Inn a few kilometres away, and as a result, very few people showed up. In contrast, the open hearings up north attracted hundreds of concerned citizens. I guess Victoria has a reputation for violence!

Like 252 other presenters, I had carefully researched the proposed route of Enbridge’s pipeline and the effect of 220 supertankers winding their way from Kitimat through 125 km of narrow, rocky passes. And like every other presenter, my answer to Enbridge was a resounding “NO!”  Here are some excerpts from my presentation.

"My husband and I moved to Victoria seven years ago and we live in a condo by Victoria’s harbour. We watch tankers and freighters pass by our home every day. As a coastal resident, I’m primarily concerned about the risk of oil tanker spills, which history shows are inevitable. The Hecate Strait is the fourth most dangerous body of water in the world, according to Canada’s Marine Weather Hazards Manual. And human error is always a danger, along with the weather…

"When the predicted big earthquake happens, it will take only one pipeline crack and one tanker oil spill to wreak devastation on our coast. We live in a ring of fire where oil has no place…

"I’ve tried to put myself in Stephen Harper’s shoes, but cannot for the life of me, fathom why he gutted so many of our environmental protections last year, while actively promoting this pipeline. Is he preparing for a big cover-up?

"Is this project in Canada’s public interest? My answer is NO for two reasons. First, it violates First Nations rights under Section 35 of our Constitution. 130 First Nations are opposed to this pipeline. And B.C. First Nations have not signed away their rights under bogus treaties. The Idle No More movement is just one sign of their growing anger at centuries of neglect and racism.

"As a white person, I want to be on the right side of history for once. It’s my moral duty.

"Secondly, this project is not in our public interest because, as a planet, we’re on the verge of environmental collapse. I’m aware that your panel considers global warming to be beyond its scope on the grounds you are concerned with oil transport, not extraction. But if transport is expanded, so is extraction. And the oilsands are a notorious contributor to global warming.

"You’ve included “cumulative effects” under the topic of environmental effects in your terms of reference. An increase in tarsands production and hence global warming is certainly a 'cumulative effect…'

"Something can be done to stop this but it requires a bold moral vision — not tankers filled with crude oil headed for Asia. Our whole way of life has to change.

"I know it will be incredibly hard to wean ourselves off oil, but the first step in breaking an addiction is to admit the depth of the problem. And there are all sorts of healthier green industries springing up around the world. I trust human ingenuity will find a way.

"I’m no longer an arm-chair critic. I intend to get active in provincial and federal politics for the first time in decades. I’ll campaign this spring for whichever party has the strongest No Tankers Off Our Coast stance. B.C. still has the power to stop this project."

As I left the room that day, I felt proud to have joined the chorus of “No Tankers” and I was encouraged to see the panel take my comments seriously. But the battle is far from won. I’ve got work to do this spring – door to door, phone to phone. Will you join me?

The presenters had to register 15 months ago and schedule three months before their 10-minute slots rolled around. For their efforts, they got to partake in the largest public hearings in National Energy Board history.

The people who spoke in opposition to the project ran the gamut, from a retired commander of the Royal Canadian Navy and the former CEO of BC Hydro to an Anglican reverend and several coast-guard trained oil spill experts. (Read more of their testimony.) There were high school students, university professors, people who work B.C.’s tourism industry, realtors and a former riding president for the Conservative Party of Canada.

Who were those two people who spoke in favour? One was former Liberal MLA for Bulkley Valley-Stikine, Dennis McKay, and the other was former mayor of Port Hardy Russ Helberg.

All roads lead back to politics

Many speakers noted that since Prime Minister Stephen Harper changed the law last year so he can overrule the joint review panel, they worried they were wasting their breath. Indeed, at this point, the joint review panel will not be making the final decision.

This is going to be a political decision whether we like it or not — now it’s just a matter of whether we allow Ottawa to make this decision for us or if we elect a B.C. government on May 14 that will stand up for our coast.

With that in mind, we crunched some numbers recently, taking a close look at the provincial ridings that were won by less than 10 per cent in the last election. We discovered (happily) that there are currently more No Tankers supporters than the margin of victory living in 16 of 24 of those ridings.

The big question is: are British Columbians going to get out and vote on this issue in May’s provincial election? Of course, we think the answer is yes.

To demonstrate what the No Tankers movement is capable of we partnered with Forest Ethics on Saturday to host an event called Knock the Vote. Nearly 100 volunteers turned out for a strategic canvass blitz in the riding of Vancouver-Fairview, which was won by just 1,063 votes in the 2009 provincial election.

More than 3,200 voters in Vancouver-Fairview had already signed the No Tankers petition. On Saturday, volunteers had face-to-face conversations with hundreds more voters about their candidates’ positions and collected an additional 543 signatures on the petition.

Events like these will be happening all over the province in the run-up to the provincial election and have already happened twice in Campbell River, once in Burnaby and once in Victoria — where Times Colonist columnist Jack Knox described Knock the Vote as being carried out with "a military precision that would have made Rommel weak in the lederhosen."

If you’d like to be involved on the front lines in the run-up to the election, check out our Find Leaders journey which provides all the tools and resources you need to pressure your MLA in the most effective ways possible.

Together, we’re going to make protecting B.C.’s coast from the threat of oil spills one of the top voting issues in May’s election.