Kinder Morgan expansion vs Burnaby and others : Who will win?

The Transmountain pipeline,  currently owned and operated by Kinder Morgan, has been in Burnaby since 1953. The 1150 km pipeline runs from Edmonton to the Westridge marine terminal just off the Burrard Inlet.

The pipeline provides energy supplies of 300000 barrels a day  to Western Canada. In the 20th century, its spills in Burnaby were relatively minor. There was a spill of 12 cubic litres in 1987, but nothing more than that.

Fast forward 2 decades later.

On July 24, 2007, a contractor ruptured the pipe line,  sending 250000 litres of crude into the air, with 70000 invading the Burrard Inlet. The price tag for the cleanup cost was $15 million and 250 people had to leave their homes.

But the misfortunes of the North Burnaby residents did not end there. Less than 2 years later, about 200000 litres gushed out of a Kinder Morgan storage tank in Burnaby Mountain, 10 km away from the 2007 spill.

Then Kinder Morgan's environmental damage shifted to Abbotsford in January 2012, where 110000 litres gushed out from its Sumas Tank Farm. So what did they announce a few months later?

Kinder Morgan announced they want to double  the existing pipeline. The oil giant initially planned to carry 600000 barrels per day in the Transmountain pipelines.

Now Kinder Morgan wants to carry almost 900000 barrels per day.

Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan blasted the 5 billion dollar plan back in April 2012.

In July 24, 2013, 6 years after the Barnet Highway spill, most residents in the Westridge neighborhood were dead set against the expansion, which will export oil overseas.

On February 26, the Calgary based National Energy Board rejected a request from the Burnaby Douglas MP Kennedy Stewart to extend the deadline for participation in the Kinder Morgan expansion hearings.

One day later, it was revealed the Texas based Oil giant sent a 15 page letter to NEB and those applied for Intervenor status, saying some of Intervenor applicants may be ineligible.

On March 18, 2014, Burnaby officially asked the Calgary based National Energy Board to reject the Kinder Morgan application, on the grounds it lacks important information.

But can Burnaby and other opponents such as Vancouver and North Shore municipalities topple Kinder Morgan and its alleged backers such as the National Energy Board?

The Federal Conservatives have the final say. A court action may be the only way to stop the expansion.

Commercial music artists: are they really that much better than indie artists?

I am a volunteer at CJSF Radio, the campus radio station for Simon Fraser University. I do a show called jumbalaya every Saturday at 11 am. The CDs of indie musicians I play are often highly skilled. There are many indie music shows at CJSF, including Melodies in Mind, Pirates of the Carribean, and Rad Radio. Compare to many commercial radio stations, I argue that above shows are more exciting.

People in commercial radio allege that having independent artist drive their ratings down. One alleges that the Peak 102.7 FM suffers from low ratings as independent artists get air time. The Peak's latest rating was 3.2, which is far lower than highest rated music radio station, QM-FM at 13.1. However, the Fox had lower ratings than the Peak at 2.9, despite playing mainly commercially established artists.

I once talked to Chris Ronald when he was at CJSF to play at Melodies in Mind. Ronald says he contacted JR-FM multiple times, but his emails were never returned. But he gets air time at CBC Radio.

Let's compare Chris Ronald's freedom to flourish with  Kenny Chesney's Don't happen twice. Chesney is a very accomplished country music artist who has been on JR on numerous occasions.

I don't see much difference in music quality between the two.

Now let's compare Ronald's freedom to flourish to Luke Bryan's  I don't want this night to end.

In some ways I would argue Ronald is a better musician than Bryan.

WWE on the road to Wrestlemania XXX: Undertaker's legacy

WrestleMania: the Super Bowl of all of professional wrestling.

It hatched on March 31, 1985. None other than at Madison Square Garden in New York City.

6 years later, the 29 year old Undertaker defeated Jimmy the "Superfly" Snuka for his first victory at
the Show Case for the Immortals. Then others attempted to defeat the Undertaker. Only to fail.
It ended the career of a legendary wrestler Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania 26 in 2010.

The Deadman further cemented his Wrestlemania legacy by defeating the WWE COO Triple H in
2011 and 2012, with the latter having Shawn Michaels as the special guest referee.

CM Punk dared to challenge the Undertaker last year, further infuriating the Phenom by mocking Paul Bearer who was a long time manager of the Deadman.

So these two squared off at WrestleMania 29 on April 7, 2013 at East Rutherford, New Jersey. A stone's throw away from WrestleMania's birth place Madison Square Garden.

So after defeating "The Best in the World", who does Undertaker fight for WrestleMania XXX in New Orleans, Louisiana, on April 6, 2014?

Enter the former UFC World Heavy Weight Champion BRRRROCK Lesnar.

Since returning to WWE, Lesnar hasn't been involved in many matches. But whenever he has been in the WWE Ring, he has left a lot of destruction behind.

 

 

But why has Lesnar been sending his advocate Paul Heyman this month?

 

Even though Undertaker has no issues to deliver messages to Lesnar via Paul Heyman, it seems the Phenom wants to confront 'The Beast Incarnate' face to face.

Personally I think it would have been better if Lesnar was talking to Undertaker via video. That way the rivalry between the two  would have ramped up to a point that people would want to see a one on one confrontation between the two superstars.

Perhaps we will see the second confrontation between Lesnar and Undertaker next Monday. At Barclays Center in Brooklyn, New York.

Nordic model of prostitution: Is this the best solution for prostitutes in Canada?

On December 20, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down 3 laws relating to prostitution.
The Canadian top court believed the laws banning living off the avails of prostitution, keeping a
bawdy house, and public communication for clients were over-broad and "grossly disproportionate."
In a 9-0 decision, Chief Justice Beverly McLaughlin wrpte "Parliament has the power to regulate against nuisances, but not at the cost of the health, safety and lives of prostitutes," 

This ruling followed an appeal from the Court of Appeal from the Ontario, who upheld the public
communication ban. The Supreme Court of Ontario had previously struck down the other two laws.

Those who want to abolish prostitution were not happy that the laws were struck down. However,
they vowed to push the Parliament  to adopt the model used by Sweden where men are criminalized
for purchasing sex. The Swedish model has political support, particularly
from Manitoba MP Joy Smith. There are also rumblings the Conservative government will agree to
Smith's report, The Tipping Point, to adopt the purchase ban sometime this year.

Sweden became the first country to bring the model in 1999. Its first official government report in
2010 claims the ban on purchase is important in fighting sexual trafficking (Page 6).
While the street prostitution has been cut in half, internet prostitution has increased. The report
concludes prostitution has not increased in Sweden, whereas other Nordic nations have seen
large jumps.

According to the Swedish police in the report, the traffickers have been deterred (Page 7). However,
in page 20, it says there are more foreign women in Swedish streets since the purchase ban. A few
pages later in 29, the report claims the Swedish police have NOT been estimating victims of sex
trafficking since 2007.

But what has been the effect on the sex trade workers themselves? While those who left prostitution
support the model, people who are still in the trade say cop harassment has increased. However, the
report says increased stigma
"must be viewed as positive from the perspective that the purpose of the law is indeed to combat prostitution".

What about notions of increase violence for the sex workers after the ban was instituted? While the
Swedish report claims the fears of additional violence after the ban has not been realized (page 33),
the next line on 34 also says
"There are no statistics about cases reported to the police and criminal proceedings regarding assaults
against people involved in prostitution."

A 2012 research on 123 Norway sex workers perhaps suggest increased violence may be the case
after Norway adopted the Swedish model in November 2008. While 52% of 95 women suffered
violence in their careers back (1 day to 50 years) in a previous study done in 2007/08, 59% of 125
women experienced violence in 2012, roughly 3 years after the purchase ban was adopted.

Prostitution abolitionists like Samantha Berg claimed that violence actually decreased in
Norway after the purchase ban (Nordic Model) as the rape incidence decreased from 29% in the
2007/08 study to 15% in the 2012 follow-up. But the 2012 study only looked at the purchase ban only
after 3 years of its existence in Norway. A follow up study in 2018 and beyond would probably be a
better gauge of the Nordic model in Norway, provided the ban lasts until then.

Now let's say the Conservatives adopt the purchase ban sometime this year, much like Sweden
and Norway. How will the purchase ban stand up to a constitutional challenge?

3 months ago, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down 3 laws: having a brothel, living off profits
of prostitution, and public communication for purpose of prostitution.

The Sweden penal code bans the following:
A) purchasing "sexual relation for payment" (CH 6, S 11),
B) promoting or exploiting someone making money from sexual services , and if one owns a premise
C) renting a place to someone for prostitution purposes and failing to anything reasonable to
terminate the conduct.