Topaz Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 Remember that song Harper sang, "a little help from my friends"? Well, it seems now one of those friends is the National Energy Board, which is suppose to be arms length with and seating government. Is it surprising, not really and we know Harper would do and say anything to help his home province and the oil and gas industry. I'm sure I'll also hear about Chretien doing the same with Quebec and two wrongs don't make it right. Is it so impossible to have a PM that treats all the provinces and territories fair and balance? So Canadians will have seat back and see how far things go to get the pipeline to the coast and how the Tories do it. http://news.yahoo.com/canada-plays-down-embarrassing-oil-sands-document-185208174.html;_ylt=Ajpefmf3A2hjitsBrPqrGEmtSfQA;_ylu=X3oDMTRvb3NnYjdhBGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sd2lraXVwcmVzdARtaXQDTmV3cyBmb3IgeW91BHBrZwNmZTE3OWUyNC05MTI3LTNiMzAtOTNhOC0xOTQxZjRjNDVhMDIEcG9zAzEEc2VjA25ld3NfZm9yX3lvdQR2ZXIDMjdiNjRiMjAtNDg0Zi0xMWUxLWJkNmYtZWVhNTdhOGRmNzJj;_ylg=X3oDMTNkajJsYXZ0BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDZmU1NzMyYzAtZWU5OC0zYmZiLTlkZDgtYmVjYjhiMGE0OGY4BHBzdGNhdAN1c3xjcmltZXMgYW5kIHRyaWFscwRwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2UEdGVzdAM-;_ylv=3 Quote
cybercoma Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 Is it not just a tad ironic that Alberta is getting into bed with the NEB? Quote
mentalfloss Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) It's ironic that document came out shortly after Harper declared First Nations Appreciation Day. Edited January 30, 2012 by mentalfloss Quote
Guest Peeves Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 "Canadian Environment Minister Peter Kent told reporters in Calgary that while he had not seen the document, the notion Ottawa considered aboriginal groups as adversaries was a "gross misrepresentation of reality". One may certainly put whatever spin they want on whatever they want, but I doubt the veracity of anything about the oils sands when the source is "GREEN and the definition is Tar Sands. Or when it is mean spirited, light on facts and shows a bias. Quote
waldo Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 One may certainly put whatever spin they want on whatever they want, but I doubt the veracity of anything about the oils sands when the source is "GREEN and the definition is Tar Sands.Or when it is mean spirited, light on facts and shows a bias. say what? The document is... the source is... from within the Harper Conservative Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade... a part of a lobbying & PR campaign... and was only realized through an Access to Information request. The "mean spirited" aspect reflects upon the source labeling of First Nations and environmentalists as "adversaries. What spirit would you like to label the source that presumes to describe the (supposedly) independent industry regulator, the National Energy Board, as an "ally"? Quote
mentalfloss Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 Gateway panel urged to affirm it’s impartial Quote
eyeball Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 One may certainly put whatever spin they want on whatever they want, but I doubt the veracity of anything about the oils sands when the source is "GREEN and the definition is Tar Sands. Or when it is mean spirited, light on facts and shows a bias. "Everybody thinks tar is worse," McAllister told the Tyee. "But when you look at the way language is used, people talk about oil spills, oil cartels, oil lobbyists, Big Oil. I've never heard people get upset about 'Big Tar' or 'Tar Tankers.'"http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/04/25/TarVsOil/ Tar Tycoons actually invokes an image of Big Tobacco. I doubt the veracity of Big Things myself especially Big Governments when they're in such obvious cahoots with Big Tycoons. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Scotty Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 Gateway panel urged to affirm it’s impartial What the hell difference does it make? It's not like they get to make any decisions anyway. The cabinet will decide, and we know they've already decided. So the whole hearings thing is just a big waste of time anyway. 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
waldo Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 What the hell difference does it make? It's not like they get to make any decisions anyway. The cabinet will decide, and we know they've already decided. So the whole hearings thing is just a big waste of time anyway. nonsense - a key facet of the hearings is to identify legitimate environmental concerns and seek consensual resolution. As an example, perhaps you should read up on what Enbridge has... initially... proposed in regards to raised concerns over tanker passage. of course, if an environmental assessment were to raise legitimate concerns that weren't addressed in a go-forward government decision, there could be... could be... elements of liability in the event of resulting problems. Equally, in the remotest of scenarios where the government goes against a NEB recommendation, that government approval is on record as being contrary to the NEB. as for, as you say, "what the hell difference does it make", it makes the difference in realizing whether or not the regulatory body is either biased and/or subject to government manipulation and intimidation. You do realize the NEB is supposed to be independent, right? Quote
Scotty Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 as for, as you say, "what the hell difference does it make", it makes the difference in realizing whether or not the regulatory body is either biased and/or subject to government manipulation and intimidation. You do realize the NEB is supposed to be independent, right? What I realize is that all they do is make a recommendation which cabinet is not bound by, and if by some chance they recommended against the pipeline I see virtually no likelihood the government would go along with that. Harper is determined to push a pipeline through to the coast and that's that. 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
waldo Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 What I realize is that all they do is make a recommendation which cabinet is not bound by, and if by some chance they recommended against the pipeline I see virtually no likelihood the government would go along with that. Harper is determined to push a pipeline through to the coast and that's that. determination aside, you appear to have no reservations about a supposed independent review/inquiry... possibly... being determined as biased, manipulated and intimidated at the hands of the Harper Conservative government. Quote
August1991 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) Remember that song Harper sang, "a little help from my friends"? Well, it seems now one of those friends is the National Energy Board, which is suppose to be arms length with and seating government. Is it not just a tad ironic that Alberta is getting into bed with the NEB? Uh, why does the NEB even exist? In 1867, Canada did not have an NEB. (Yes, we had energy in 1867. We even had oil.) Edited January 31, 2012 by August1991 Quote
mentalfloss Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 The NEB assessment actually does hold water unless the government decides to table legislation. Quote
Moonbox Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 *yawn* Another pointless Topaz thread. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
waldo Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 *yawn* Another pointless Topaz thread. *yawn* Another pointless, useless and non-contributing Moonbox post. Quote
waldo Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 Uh, why does the NEB even exist? In 1867, Canada did not have an NEB. (Yes, we had energy in 1867. We even had oil.) in matters of cross-provincial or international energy, are you suggesting there is no regulatory requirement? Just a free-for-all... a hodge/podge... a mish-mash? Really? Quote
Scotty Posted February 1, 2012 Report Posted February 1, 2012 determination aside, you appear to have no reservations about a supposed independent review/inquiry... possibly... being determined as biased, manipulated and intimidated at the hands of the Harper Conservative government. This is a parliamentary democracy. Parliament is almost always supreme, whether it is the NEB or the CRTC. 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
jacee Posted February 1, 2012 Report Posted February 1, 2012 This is a parliamentary democracy. Parliament is almost always supreme, whether it is the NEB or the CRTC. This is a democracy. The people are supreme. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted February 1, 2012 Report Posted February 1, 2012 This is a democracy. The people are supreme. Don't we all wish !!! Quote
g_bambino Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 Don't we all wish !!! Why wish for what you already have? Quote
August1991 Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) in matters of cross-provincial or international energy, are you suggesting there is no regulatory requirement? Just a free-for-all... a hodge/podge... a mish-mash? Really?Is this a federal issue? According to the BNA, provinces own the natural resources.More broadly, Waldo, who is better placed to protect the environment? This is a parliamentary democracy. Canada is a federal State. Edited February 4, 2012 by August1991 Quote
waldo Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 Uh, why does the NEB even exist? In 1867, Canada did not have an NEB. (Yes, we had energy in 1867. We even had oil.) in matters of cross-provincial or international energy, are you suggesting there is no regulatory requirement? Just a free-for-all... a hodge/podge... a mish-mash? Really? Is this a federal issue? According to the BNA, provinces own the natural resources. More broadly, Waldo, who is better placed to protect the environment? it's really not a difficult concept to understand... it's really quite simple, in fact. That you would so struggle with it... pipelines completely within a single provincial border are regulated by that respective province's regulatory body/governance. As I said/implied, in energy matters that cross provincial or international borders, the NEB is the responsible regulatory body. as for your direct reference to the environment, to protecting the environment, given your oft displayed past failings concerning climate change/environmental impact, it's really not too surprising to me that you would view the environment as a simple closed box encapsulated within a provincial land mass border. As simple as the alternative construct is, clearly you're challenged in recognizing it. As for the NEB's environmental regulatory mandate, it associates directly with responsibilities assigned in relation to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Quote
August1991 Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) as for your direct reference to the environment, to protecting the environment, given your oft displayed past failings concerning climate change/environmental impact, it's really not too surprising to me that you would view the environment as a simple closed loca box encapsulated within a provincial land mass border.All things considered, I understand your viewpoint but I see environmental protection differently.People in Alberta, and Quebec, are best placed to decide how to protect their environment. At present, IMV, it is destruction of local habitats that poses the greatest threat to the world's species. CO2 and global warming? It could possibly be a problem, like an asteroid hitting earth. IMV, we have far, far greater environmental problems than CO2 and global warming. Edited February 4, 2012 by August1991 Quote
waldo Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 People in Alberta, and Quebec, are best placed to decide how to protect their environment. At present, IMV, it is destruction of local habitats that poses the greatest threat to the world's species.CO2 and global warming? IMV, we have far, far greater environmental problems. you clearly don't even recognize the/an environment. Air, oceans, rivers, creeks, lakes, mountains, habitats, vegetation, ecosystems, wildlife, pests, contamination, weather, climate, etc., are not typically and/or wholly localized. Regulations and standards and applying each towards optimal protection of the "environment", at large, is not something that can be determined, set, controlled and managed by distinctly separate provincial entities - overall oversight is required - hence, for example, the NEB. Quote
August1991 Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) you clearly don't even recognize the/an environment. Air, oceans, rivers, creeks, lakes, mountains, habitats, vegetation, ecosystems, wildlife, pests, contamination, weather, climate, etc., are not typically and/or wholly localized. Regulations and standards and applying each towards optimal protection of the "environment", at large, is not something that can be determined, set, controlled and managed by distinctly separate provincial entities - overall oversight is required - hence, for example, the NEB.IMV, protection of local habitats should be the greatest environmental concern.And if I were an environmentalist, I would make local people pay to protect the local environment. Edited February 4, 2012 by August1991 Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.