Fletch 27 Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 ROTHESAY, N.B. - Federal NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair is accusing a national energy lobby group of "pulling a con job" when promoting shale gas fracking. Mulcair was in New Brunswick on Sunday to boost the campaign of provincial NDP Leader Dominic Cardy in a byelection in the Saint John-area riding of Rothesay. During his visit, Mulcair said the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers was "pulling a con job" in trying to make the public believe they were regulating the industry. Fracking, which refers to hydraulic fracturing, involves the use of high volumes of water and chemicals to fracture layers of rock to release pockets of shale gas. The industry has argued that fracking is safe and sustainable and provides major economic benefits, an argument environmental groups reject. Mulcair also said he supports the development of a west-to-east pipeline that would deliver energy and generate jobs in Atlantic Canada." Can anyone tell me why he does not support a pipe-line to the West but supports a pipe-line that runs to the East? So the Jobes in the West are not as valuable? Or would this just be a pipe-line running directly to the hear of Quebec? The NDP are clearly not being transparent or showing any form of transparency. Will there not be "dutch disease" if this pipeline runs to the East? Hmmm, Sounds like catering and Pandering to me.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilter Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 The one good thing about this stand is that a politician from Quebecland is actually admitting that there is existence west of Parry Sound. The bad thing about it is that, while being in favor of the Eastern pipeline and against the oilsands & any offshore drilling he leaves us to wonder where the oil to fill the pipeland will come from Maybe he is thinking of filling it with gravy top export Poutain to NFland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiddleClassCentrist Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 He's for sustainable development of the sands. Stop lying con bots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted June 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 Ahhhh riiight... Yes, it will only be sustainable if that pipeline runs to the east? Riiiight.. He's for sustainable development of the sands. Stop lying con bots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 Mulcair is very selective in calling for internalizing environmental costs of the oil sands. "The hydro companies of this country have flooded forest areas the size of Lake Ontario, so where's the reservoir tax that's the hydro equivalent of the carbon levy?"As Quebec's sustainable-development minister in Jean Charest's Liberal government, Mulcair didn't talk about internalizing the environ-mental effects of the province's hydro operations, Manning argued. "If you're going to preach that to the petroleum industry, how come you didn't implement that concept there?" he said. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Manning+calls+Mulcair+hypocrite+environment/6758775/story.html#ixzz1xUkxeXe4 Just another example that Mulcair is Quebec-centric. He is the PM in waiting and so far hasn't proven his concerns are pan-Canadian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 Fletch, you say fracking is safe but it's not and like the oil industry there are cons to it. 60 Minutes did a story on it in the US and I think you should watch it. BTW, there's two short commericals on the video that you may have to watch first. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7054210n Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted June 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 No i did not say fracking was safe... Please point to where i stated that i support it... It wasnt even part of the discussion.. This post is only about Mulcairs position and support of an Oil pipe-line.. But ONLY one that runs to the East. Fletch, you say fracking is safe but it's not and like the oil industry there are cons to it. 60 Minutes did a story on it in the US and I think you should watch it. BTW, there's two short commericals on the video that you may have to watch first. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7054210n Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anti-Am Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 A western to eastern pipeline benefits Canada more than a pipeline through B.C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted June 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 Really? I would be interested in why? DO we have a refinery out there that can refine this stuff? Or, are you just stating that the building of the pipeline will add jobs? If so, we could also make this a lengthy project by adding zi-zags or loops in that pipe. Puh-lease A western to eastern pipeline benefits Canada more than a pipeline through B.C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mentalfloss Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 (edited) I agree that we should be enforcing polluter pay on all energy endeavors, but just because Mulcair focused primarily on the oilsands, does not mean he would not enforce polluter pay in other areas. He's already mentioned the costs of the shale and fracking business in other parts as well. Edited June 11, 2012 by mentalfloss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted June 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 Mulcair "focussed on the oil-sands"? Sure seems like his only prioriy is Quebec! Where do you think that east-running pipeline will stop? Ontario? NB? PEI maybe? My money is on Sherbrook or Trois-Rivieres! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 No i did not say fracking was safe... Please point to where i stated that i support it... It wasnt even part of the discussion.. This post is only about Mulcairs position and support of an Oil pipe-line.. But ONLY one that runs to the East. ok, so you said that the industry said it was safe and by saying that, you didn't disagree, right? As far as the oil pipeline, this why he's against it going to the west coast. http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/10/ranchers-fed-up-after-alta-oil-spill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 (edited) Herhttp://www.equiterre.org/en/communique/enbridge-changes-tune-days-before-hearings-open-in-london-groups-call-for-full-review-of-e's some more info on western oil coming east. Edited June 11, 2012 by Topaz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted June 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 Please (!) dont put words in my mouth.. Thanks... And NO, I do NOT support fracking.. i DO support a pipleline. I do NOT support a leader that says a pipe-line that runs to the West is "Dirty" and one that runs to the East is better. Just so you know (im not sure if you know your geography), but a pipeline to run east to "the maritimes" is about 6x longer of a pipeline. So, a longer pipeline is safer and will not foster the "Dutch disease"? Is he not being a hypocrite or what is he hiding?? What is his alterior motive?? Sounds shaddy to me if not completely counter to his past arguments?!! ok, so you said that the industry said it was safe and by saying that, you didn't disagree, right? As far as the oil pipeline, this why he's against it going to the west coast. http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/10/ranchers-fed-up-after-alta-oil-spill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 A western to eastern pipeline benefits Canada more than a pipeline through B.C. other accounts of this specific Muclair comment show it was given in relation to the jobs issue... with concerns over jobs being shipped out of Canada with a pipeline to the U.S. - shipping raw product rather than refining it within Canada. More pointedly, Muclair has previously raised concerns over the significant level of oil Canada still imports... that (sustainable) efforts should be made to reduce our import levels. Apparently, there are refineries in the east - go figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 Just another example that Mulcair is Quebec-centric. It's interesting that the official CPC talking point is to try to divide Canada by playing up Mulcair's "Quebec-ness." Sounds like a losing strategy to me though, so I encourage them to continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 Omit the above and read this one more information on west oil coming east. http://www.equiterre.org/en/communique/enbridge-changes-tune-days-before-hearings-open-in-london-groups-call-for-full-review-of- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted June 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 So, The group in your link ("Environmental defence") stated adimantly that a Pipeline from the West to east could turn into and environmental nightmare but Thomas Mulcair sais it will bring JOBS to the maritimes. This guy CLERLY now doe not care about the environment.. Only jobs in Quebec! Your link CLEARLY highlights Mulcairs disdane for the economy Omit the above and read this one more information on west oil coming east. http://www.equiterre.org/en/communique/enbridge-changes-tune-days-before-hearings-open-in-london-groups-call-for-full-review-of- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 I have to agree with Preton Manning a bit. Hydro developments have a lot of environmental impacts but Mulcair is all for them. http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Reform+Party+founder+Manning+slams+Mulcair+over+polluter+position/6762249/story.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 It's interesting that the official CPC talking point is to try to divide Canada by playing up Mulcair's "Quebec-ness." Sounds like a losing strategy to me though, so I encourage them to continue. He is a quebecor , most of his people are in quebec, he was a quebec minister, the CPC are doing nothing, matter of fact they are just letting him hang himself. Once the lib convention starts , we won't hear to much about mulcair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mentalfloss Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 (edited) other accounts of this specific Muclair comment show it was given in relation to the jobs issue... with concerns over jobs being shipped out of Canada with a pipeline to the U.S. - shipping raw product rather than refining it within Canada. More pointedly, Muclair has previously raised concerns over the significant level of oil Canada still imports... that (sustainable) efforts should be made to reduce our import levels. Apparently, there are refineries in the east - go figure. Huh.. So it is more complicated than this 'hypocrisy' Manning would like us to believe. Why am I not surprised? I have to agree with Preton Manning a bit. Hydro developments have a lot of environmental impacts but Mulcair is all for them. http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Reform+Party+founder+Manning+slams+Mulcair+over+polluter+position/6762249/story.html Just because he hasn't commented specifically on Hydro yet, does not mean he doesn't endorse polluter pay for that type of energy production. I'm pretty sure the NDP stance is that polluter pay should be enforced in all areas where regulation has been ignored. It's interesting that the official CPC talking point is to try to divide Canada by playing up Mulcair's "Quebec-ness." Sounds like a losing strategy to me though, so I encourage them to continue. You have to give them credit for getting some jabs in. Unfortunately for them, these criticisms tend to become dismissed within days. Edited June 11, 2012 by mentalfloss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted June 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 "Pretty Sure"? I guess i dont need to ask for a link as "pretty sure" seams "pretty weak" to me. I like facts Huh.. So it is more complicated than this 'hypocrisy' Manning would like us to believe. Why am I not surprised? Just because he hasn't commented specifically on Hydro yet, does not mean he doesn't endorse polluter pay for that type of energy production. I'm pretty sure the NDP stance is that polluter pay should be enforced in all areas where regulation has been ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 Just because he hasn't commented specifically on Hydro yet, does not mean he doesn't endorse polluter pay for that type of energy production. I'm pretty sure the NDP stance is that polluter pay should be enforced in all areas where regulation has been ignored. Commented on it? He was Quebec's "sustainable-development minister" and he didn't comment on it. The lack of comment is all that needs to be said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mentalfloss Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 (edited) Commented on it? He was Quebec's "sustainable-development minister" and he didn't comment on it. The lack of comment is all that needs to be said. Not really. There is more substance to the hypocrisy if the person actually endorsed some hypocritical sentiment. In which case, there is no evidence to suggest that Mulcair would not support polluter pay everywhere it should be enforced - especially since it appears that is part of the NDP agenda. Conservative pundits and commentators have had to resort to over-simplification and misrepresentation of what NDP leader Thomas Mulcair has said to prevent a serious discussion about how we develop our natural resources in a sustainable manner. They choose to try to pit region against region; when, in truth, there is widespread agreement across the country with the principle of making polluters pay. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/25/the-ndp-position-on-the-environment-make-the-polluter-pay/ Edited June 11, 2012 by mentalfloss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted June 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 I think you posted the wrong link... What you posted was what we call an "Editorial" from the "Opinions" section. Can you please post the correct link to the justification of the Fact that the NDP "have a plan"? Not really. You can't accuse someone of hypocrisy unless they've actually endorsed a hypocritical sentiment. In which case, there is no evidence to suggest that Mulcair would not support polluter pay everywhere it should be enforced - especially since it appears that is part of the NDP agenda. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/25/the-ndp-position-on-the-environment-make-the-polluter-pay/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.