Photo: NDP MP Megan Leslie in front of her office on Gottingen St. trying to explain her position to her constituents, why she continues to support the Energy East pipeline.
1) Despite Mulclair’s statements, published yesterday, Megan was still walking the ‘we support the principle of a west-east pipeline’ line. According to Megan, Energy East is a proposal from a private company, and so must be reviewed by an official review process that includes environmental and climate considerations. The NDP believes the NEB is at this point a sham process and so cannot perform the kind of review that is required with any authority.
2) Megan continued to talk about energy security. She isn’t necessarily arguing that this project specifically will improve Canadian energy security, but she is pointing to the fact that national energy security is a key issue and that the general idea of a west-east pipeline the NDP supports is one targeted at energy security.
**Here is something for us to think about in terms of our messaging and alternatives narrative. I think so far we’ve done a good job of describing how Energy East isn’t about national energy security, but we haven’t done a good job of describing what might be.
3) Megan suggested it’s important to fight climate change rather than fighting each pipeline proposal. Here again is the willfully naive distinction the NDP is trying to make between infrastructure and policy. The NDP’s policies are great, but they seem to be missing the point that policy functions in a built environment.
**Another key point to continue in our messaging: the efficacy of policy is constrained by the world of infrastructure it must contend with and function within. Energy and electricity infrastructure lasts a long time, once it is built.