Thus the jab about bias- just a joke. I didn't even post the Robyn Allan piece.
Anyway, since most opposition is in BC and we're the ones holding up the show, and BC has the most to lose and least to gain (between BC and AB), it has a lot to do with what BC gets out of it. We're the ones needing convincing.
Firstly the majority of BC citizen's already support the pipeline, so I'm not sure they need convincing. Secondly, as we've talked about, many of the folks in opposition don't need convincing because they CAN'T be convinced... EVER. It's not a matter of sitting down with the Mayor of Burnaby and going through the merits and risks, addressing concerns, making changes.
Canada is a Confederation and the project is considered in the "National Interest" not necessarily in the "BC Interest", just like shipping goods from Vancouver ports to Toronto through Edmonton isn't necessarily in the "Alberta Interest". Nor paying out more in federal taxes than either of our provinces receive back in either of our "interests", but its part and parcel of being part of the country.
Regarding your post about declining park ranger numbers between 2001 and 2016 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...gers-1.3661583
), ya that sounds about right. Those dates correspond quite well to the Liberal premierships of Gordon Campbell and Christy Clark, so it's about what we'd expect. Thanks for the reminder. It's also off topic, as I was talking about oil spills in national parks, not rangers in provincial ones.
No you brought up "how much do Albertan's love their national parks" and pointing to an article on spills in Jasper (the most recent being 25 years ago). Beyond pointing out that expanding the pipeline actually reduces the likelihood of spills in the parks (Banff, Jasper, Yoho, Glacier and Mt Revelstoke), I'm pointing out that we could easily go round and round on "which province loves their parks the most"