August1991 Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Should foreigners (either directly or through funding) have the right to influence regulatory decisions in Canada? At present, there is controversy about foreign involvement in the Northern Gateway Review Panel. For example, Canadian environmental groups receive some funding from foreign (typically US) sources. At the same time, foreign-based corporations (typically US but also Chinese) want also to make presentations. Is the presence of foreigners or their money really the issue? Frankly, I have no problem with inviting foreign experts to make presentations or even allowing foreigners to waste their money trying to influence the process. The participation of foreigners is not the problem. We have broken the review system entirely on our own. How? We have let anyone anywhere in the world apply to make an oral presentation of 10 minutes before the committee. As a result, almost 5000 people/organizations have applied. At 10 minutes each, that would be a minimum of 800 hours of presentations. It would take at least 2 years to get through all these presentations. You can see the list of names here. (Here is a link to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Joint Review Panel.) ----- Our environmental review process is broken and needs to be fixed. It does not accomplish in a timely manner what it should be doing. We should not blame foreigners for this state of affairs. We did it ourselves. We need far tighter rules about who can make a presentation before a regulatory panel - but at the same time, we should not exclude foreigners simply because they are not Canadian. Edited January 10, 2012 by August1991 Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 Should foreigners (either directly or through funding) have the right to influence regulatory decisions in Canada? What is a 'foreigner' ? Aren't you referring to foreign-based companies that have a stake in Canadian business ? In that case, don't you want to give them a "choice" ? At present, there is controversy about foreign involvement in the Northern Gateway Review Panel. For example, Canadian environmental groups receive some funding from foreign (typically US) sources. At the same time, foreign-based corporations (typically US but also Chinese) want also to make presentations. It's that way in the US too. Why should we prevent them from influencing our decisions when we influence theirs, including elections? Is the presence of foreigners or their money really the issue? Frankly, I have no problem with inviting foreign experts to make presentations or even allowing foreigners to waste their money trying to influence the process. It's not a waste of money, clearly. They wouldn't spend it if they thought so. In any case, the presentations in front of the camera are only part of the story. It's in the backrooms where the real negotiating happens. The participation of foreigners is not the problem. We have broken the review system entirely on our own. How? We have let anyone anywhere in the world apply to make an oral presentation of 10 minutes before the committee. As a result, almost 5000 people/organizations have applied. At 10 minutes each, that would be a minimum of 800 hours of presentations. It would take at least 2 years to get through all these presentations. That does sound stupid. Our environmental review process is broken and needs to be fixed. It does not accomplish in a timely manner what it should be doing. We should not blame foreigners for this state of affairs. We did it ourselves. We need far tighter rules about who can make a presentation before a regulatory panel - but at the same time, we should not exclude foreigners simply because they are not Canadian. Makes sense to me. There's no point in providing extensive review when the results are so prone to political influence. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Topaz Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 Why can't this just be FAIR and BALANCED for EVERYONE. There`s foreign companies in the Alberta, so let the foreign groups who have problems with this talk. Let hear from the experts, all of them. It seems most people against this pipeline is the location in which its going, so can`t the oil companies find any route? Yes, it would probably cost more but they are saying trillions of dollars would be made on this. Quote
peterpan Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Why can't this just be FAIR and BALANCED for EVERYONE. There`s foreign companies in the Alberta, so let the foreign groups who have problems with this talk. Let hear from the experts, all of them. It seems most people against this pipeline is the location in which its going, so can`t the oil companies find any route? Yes, it would probably cost more but they are saying trillions of dollars would be made on this. The problem with permitting outsiders from testifying at these hearings, is that they represent in most cases foreign oil companies such as Citgo [venuzala] and Saudi Arabia oil interest, who want to stop the importing of any oil from Canada to any other Nation. There is really little difference in Carbon emmissions between Canadian oil and other Foreign oil. The percentage of difference is less then 2%. Canada, is permitting everyone to testify to starve off the preception that it is a foregone conclusion. They will however, limit this review to 2 years, unlike previous hearings that took 9 years. Edited January 10, 2012 by peterpan Quote
fellowtraveller Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 The problem with permitting outsiders from testifying at these hearings, is that they represent in most cases foreign oil companies such as Citgo [venuzala] and Saudi Arabia oil interest, who want to stop the importing of any oil from Canada to any other Nation. There is really little difference in Carbon emmissions between Canadian oil and other Foreign oil. The percentage of difference is less then 2%. Canada, is permitting everyone to testify to starve off the preception that it is a foregone conclusion. They will however, limit this review to 2 years, unlike previous hearings that took 9 years. The local apaper in Edmonton randonly picked 500 names out of the 4500 or so registered as 'interveners' and checked their stated place of origin. 5 were from Alberta, 428 were from BC and the balance were from all over the world. Quote The government should do something.
Michael Hardner Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 Why can't this just be FAIR and BALANCED for EVERYONE. There`s foreign companies in the Alberta, so let the foreign groups who have problems with this talk. Let hear from the experts, all of them. It seems most people against this pipeline is the location in which its going, so can`t the oil companies find any route? Yes, it would probably cost more but they are saying trillions of dollars would be made on this. I'll bet that if you promised a quicker and more streamlined review process, business groups would at least see that as an improvement. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
fellowtraveller Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 I'll bet that if you promised a quicker and more streamlined review process, business groups would at least see that as an improvement. Isn't that what has happened, the govt intervening to limit the review process for Gateway to two years? Quote The government should do something.
Michael Hardner Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 I suppose so. There was also Auguste's point about the current process: We have let anyone anywhere in the world apply to make an oral presentation of 10 minutes before the committee. As a result, almost 5000 people/organizations have applied. At 10 minutes each, that would be a minimum of 800 hours of presentations. It would take at least 2 years to get through all these presentations. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
August1991 Posted January 10, 2012 Author Report Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Isn't that what has happened, the govt intervening to limit the review process for Gateway to two years?The current system allowed anyone to apply to make an oral presentation. As long as the person applied before 6 October 2011, their name was added to the list. With almost 5,000 names now on the list, I made a quick calculation that it would take 2 years to hold the hearings. Nowing how governments work, it could easily take much longer.I suppose one solution would be to hold the oral presentations in a small town in northern BC. Then, most presenters would be no-shows. Another solution would be to hold simultaneous oral presentations and record them in video. But even with these "solutions", this whole process is ridiculous. The purpose of an environmental review panel is to determine whether a project should be approved and if so, to determine any additional environmental safeguards. The panel requires expert opinion and it should restrict presenters in the same way that the Supreme Court (for example) restricts who can make a presentation. Edited January 10, 2012 by August1991 Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 The current system allowed anyone to apply to make an oral presentation. As long as the person applied before 6 October 2011, their name was added to the list. With almost 5,000 names now on the list, I made a quick calculation that it would take 2 years to hold the hearings. Nowing how governments work, it could easily take much longer. I was so proud of you for using numbers that I didn't check them. 5,000 names X 10 minutes per name = 50,000 minutes = 833 hours = 20 work weeks. Still... it explains two years at least. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
fellowtraveller Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 suppose one solution would be to hold the oral presentations in a small town in northern BC.The hearing schedule does just that, they started yesterday in a First Nations community neasr Kitimat. You can look it up. The NEB will present their report in 2013 and I expect Cabinet will make the final decision very soon after. None of that time frame will sit well with project opponents. Quote The government should do something.
fellowtraveller Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 But even with these "solutions", this whole process is ridiculous. The purpose of an environmental review panel is to determine whether a project should be approved and if so, to determine any additional environmental safeguards. the environmental review is part of the NEB project review process, not all of it. Quote The government should do something.
Scotty Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 The panel requires expert opinion and it should restrict presenters in the same way that the Supreme Court (for example) restricts who can make a presentation. Absolutely agree. How much is there to be said anyway? A few dozen presentations ought to do it. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
August1991 Posted January 10, 2012 Author Report Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) I was so proud of you for using numbers that I didn't check them.5,000 names X 10 minutes per name = 50,000 minutes = 833 hours = 20 work weeks. Still... it explains two years at least. 833 hours is roughly 6 months full time since a work year is about 1700 hours give or take.I reckoned that when you add in the time between presentations, the people who speak beyond the 10 minutes, the microphones/powerpoints that don't work, etc. etc. plus the time to prepare the report, we are well beyond 6 months. I picked 2 years (a factor of 4X) based on my (modest) experience organizing public events but I think it could easily be longer. In any case, this is no way to run a country. The hearing schedule does just that, they started yesterday in a First Nations community neasr Kitimat. You can look it up.I saw that too. But I would have held all of the presentations in Kitimat. Heck, I would have held them in a tent on a side of a mountain outside Kitimat, and made the presenters find their own way to the site.If the matter is important enough to them, then they'll show up. Edited January 10, 2012 by August1991 Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 I picked 2 years (a factor of 4X) based on my (modest) experience organizing public events but I think it could easily be longer. I see. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Battletoads Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 Preference should be given to British Columbians, particularly experts who have no ties to foreign corporate/environmental interests. Citizens of other provinces of Canada can fill up any left over spaces. Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
fellowtraveller Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 Preference should be given to British Columbians, particularly experts who have no ties to foreign corporate/environmental interests. Citizens of other provinces of Canada can fill up any left over spaces. If they don't know anything about oil, business or the environment, what sort of 'experts' would you like to hear from? Quote The government should do something.
Battletoads Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 If they don't know anything about oil, business or the environment, what sort of 'experts' would you like to hear from? Who said they shouldn't know anything about oil, business, or the environment? Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
fellowtraveller Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 Who said they shouldn't know anything about oil, business, or the environment? Um, you did when you stated particularly experts who have no ties to foreign corporate/environmental interests. Anybody who is an expert in the Gateway project must have knowledge of global business and environmental issues, or they won't be an expert will they? How would they gain the knowledge to become an expert without that experience? Quote The government should do something.
Battletoads Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Um, you did when you stated Anybody who is an expert in the Gateway project must have knowledge of global business and environmental issues, or they won't be an expert will they? How would they gain the knowledge to become an expert without that experience? Your saying it's impossible to be an expert on a topic with out being tied to foreign interests? Also, last I checked this was an environmental review. As in not a business review. Edited January 11, 2012 by Battletoads Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 11, 2012 Report Posted January 11, 2012 Your saying it's impossible to be an expert on a topic with out being tied to foreign interests? Also, last I checked this was an environmental review. As in not a business review. Then it is settled...Pamela Anderson meets all the qualifications to be on the review panel. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Battletoads Posted January 11, 2012 Report Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) Then it is settled...Pamela Anderson meets all the qualifications to be on the review panel. Maybe. Joe Oliver could use someone to debate. Edited January 11, 2012 by Battletoads Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
Rick Posted January 11, 2012 Report Posted January 11, 2012 Maybe. Joe Oliver could used someone to debate. Zing!Even Pam would have a field day debating Canada's version of Rick Perry... But, Joe needs to answer some very important questions such as.. Why does he hate Canadians having jobs, to the tune of an estimated 40,000 jobs which will be exported out of Canada with this pipeline... http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/01/10/May-Takes-On-Oliver/ Quote “This is all about who you represent,” Mr. Dewar (NDP) said. “We’re (NDP) talking about representing the interests of working people and everyday Canadians and they [the Conservatives] are about representing the fund managers who come in and fleece our companies and our country. Voted Maple Leaf Web's 'Most Outstanding Poster' 2011
August1991 Posted January 11, 2012 Author Report Posted January 11, 2012 Why does he hate Canadians having jobs, to the tune of an estimated 40,000 jobs which will be exported out of Canada with this pipeline... From your Tyee link:Most fundamentally, shipping unprocessed bitumen crude out of Canada has been attacked by the biggest of Canada's energy labour unions, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, as a bad idea. The CEP estimates it means exporting 40,000 jobs out of Canada (figure based on jobs lost through the Keystone Pipeline). They prefer refining the crude here in Canada. (The CEP is also not a group to which your allegation that opponents of Gateway also oppose all forestry, mining, oil, gas, etc. is anything but absurd.) If the environmentalists are going to use delaying tactics to stop the construction of a pipeline, imagine what they would do to stop the construction of a refinery. It's instructive that Shell recently closed a refinery in east-end Montreal. Quote
Rick Posted January 11, 2012 Report Posted January 11, 2012 From your Tyee link: If the environmentalists are going to use delaying tactics to stop the construction of a pipeline, imagine what they would do to stop the construction of a refinery. It's instructive that Shell recently closed a refinery in east-end Montreal. Well I'd support any radical action which helps prevent the export of 40,000 Canadian jobs...As for the tree huggers, let them eat cake. We need more refineries built right here in Canada. Quote “This is all about who you represent,” Mr. Dewar (NDP) said. “We’re (NDP) talking about representing the interests of working people and everyday Canadians and they [the Conservatives] are about representing the fund managers who come in and fleece our companies and our country. Voted Maple Leaf Web's 'Most Outstanding Poster' 2011
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.