Energy East Causing Uproar

[Derek 2.0]

look, I get it... apparently, you understand that just by saying "pipelines are the safest transportation vehicle",

Point of order..........The Trudeau Liberals plan to invest (by going further into debt) in vast "Hero Projects" to stimulate the economy. There are several near "shovel ready" proposed pipelines, that would be financed outside of the public purse, in most cases at a costs billions more than the Trudeau Liberals have proposed to spend on infrastructure...........Why wouldn't the Trudeau Liberals push through said pipelines, well providing additional Governmental oversight to calm any fears of potential negative impacts on the environment?

It would seem a win-win, privately financed stimulus, allowing the Trudeau Liberals to direct money elsewhere, or on additional stimulus spending.....

Edited January 25, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[Argus]

And if you do some research you will find that when Quebec needs a barrel of oil it imports it. When they need more electricity they just flip the switch on a hydro dam.

That's nice. They import oil, eh? Is this oil carried in barrels on the backs of Saudi peasants through the streets and valleys to local gas stations?

[Accountability Now]

But I'll ask again: in your premise stating, de facto, that "pipelines are safe... are the safest", does that suggest you believe oil companies should have carte blanche in regards their proposals?

Hey...its not just by de facto statement....this is coming from the NRC. I note how you conveniently glossed over that.

In regards to industry, no one should have carte blanche. The NEB should and does hold these companies to the highest standards in building and maintaining the pipelines. The fact is these pipelines are not 100% safe but are 99.999% which is good enough for me.

Oh wait... when you state "pipelines are safe... are the safest", is that you "discussing relations" or is that you taking/relaying a position?

Nah...that's just me showing how stupid your/Reefers anti-pipeline argument is. Having said that....you sure seem to be shying away from the fact that your two Liberal heroes....Trudeau and Wynne are supporting this pipeline. That really must bother you.

[Argus]

It would be refreshing to have Canadians to work together to get oil from one side of the country to the other, without have a verbal war starting. Brad Wall shouldn't said what he said about the Mayor of Montreal, it doesn't do any good to the problem.

But the Mayor of Montreal and his ilk ARE the problem.

[waldo]

But of course no one has suggested that they should have "carte blanche" you made that up, you imposed that alleged point of view on someone who didnt say it and doesn't hold it, so you could then use it against them in an argument.

when there's an automatic 'rush to decry' the position taken by Denis Coderre (as representing the MMC of mayors of the greater Montreal area)... without actually looking at (discussing and/or challenging) that position, that sir... that is, in the face of the de facto statements on "pipelines are safe... are the safest", that sir... that is giving oil companies carte blanche to develop irregardless of expressed concerns. I've snipped the remainder of your meaningless personalization - please attempt to rise above it.

[waldo]

But the Mayor of Montreal and his ilk ARE the problem.

cause they gave the ok to one pipeline proposal... but not the other? Really?

[Argus]

when there's an automatic 'rush to decry' the position taken by Denis Coderre (as representing the MMC of mayors of the greater Montreal area)... without actually looking at (discussing and/or challenging) that position,

Coderre's own 'rush to judgement' which arrived before the full details of the proposal is, of course, not important to you.

[waldo]

Coderre's own 'rush to judgement' which arrived before the full details of the proposal is, of course, not important to you.

and TransCanada has already filed written initial submission... and written amendments... with the NEB. And initial oral evidence was given in the fall 2015. Are these not, as you say, "important to you" - should no one be allowed to interpret/discuss or raise concerns in that regard?

[On Guard for Thee]

That's nice. They import oil, eh? Is this oil carried in barrels on the backs of Saudi peasants through the streets and valleys to local gas stations?

Maybe it is, but it shows your idea of it coming in a pipeline from Alta. is wrong.

[waldo]

Hey...its not just by de facto statement....this is coming from the NRC. I note how you conveniently glossed over that.

uhhh... de facto is not de jure! The rest of your post simply highlights that you (also) don't make the distinction between pipeline and pipeline development. A development is more than a pipeline proper, yes? Here's a thought: just as a for instance, whether it applies or not in this case: if local authorities legitimately have a risk assessed concern relative to the proposed route, might there be any latitude in your rush to arbitrarily denounce anyone raising question/concern, to actually look at a related concern... any related concerns?

you can speak all you want about the NEB (and the appointees Harper stacked it with... I digress, I digress), but it sure seems you're not willing to accept any position that doesn't align with yours, yes? Denis Coderre has advised the MMC (Montreal Metropolitan Community, which he currently heads) will be providing their written submission (based on prior public consultation within the MMC held throughout the fall 2015), to both the "Québec Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE) and the National Energy Board (NEB)."

.

[waldo]

Point of order..........The Trudeau Liberals plan to invest (by going further into debt) in vast "Hero Projects" to stimulate the economy. There are several near "shovel ready" proposed pipelines, that would be financed outside of the public purse, in most cases at a costs billions more than the Trudeau Liberals have proposed to spend on infrastructure...........Why wouldn't the Trudeau Liberals push through said pipelines, well providing additional Governmental oversight to calm any fears of potential negative impacts on the environment?

It would seem a win-win, privately financed stimulus, allowing the Trudeau Liberals to direct money elsewhere, or on additional stimulus spending.....

point of order: "shovel ready" or "shovel compliant/needed, vis-a-vis meeting environmental concerns, risk assessments, public support, all stake-holder considerations, regulatory oversight/approvals, etc.?"

.

[Derek 2.0]

point of order: "shovel ready" or "shovel compliant/needed, vis-a-vis meeting environmental concerns, risk assessments, public support, all stake-holder considerations, regulatory oversight/approvals, etc.?"

.

Who knows? That is why I suggested additional government oversight.

[waldo]

Who knows? That is why I suggested additional government oversight.

yes! I'm all for the Trudeau government dismantling the NEB and putting in place, through appropriate independent input, an alternate vehicle that all sides can view as independent and truly non-partisan. Doomed Harper government made 49 “future” patronage appointments

Former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s cabinet quietly stacked government agencies and Crown corporations with dozens of “future appointments,” and early appointment renewals in the dying days of its regime, many of which were only scheduled to go into effect long after the Conservatives were defeated

.

.

The move by Harper’s government constrains Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s ability to put his government’s stamp on some key agencies like the National Energy Board, which regulates things like the construction of pipelines and the import of crude oil and natural gas.

.

.

The moves mean that barring the future appointments or early renewals being rescinded, the Trudeau government will not be able to replace any temporary members of the National Energy Board until at least May 2018 and any permanent members of the NEB until January 2020 – which is after the next election.

[Accountability Now]

Here's a thought: just as a for instance, whether it applies or not in this case: if local authorities legitimately have a risk assessed concern relative to the proposed route, might there be any latitude in your rush to arbitrarily denounce anyone raising question/concern, to actually look at a related concern... any related concerns?

Please point exactly (either by quoting my post or indicating the post number) where I have criticized Denis Coderre at all for raising concerns. I showed that other politicians have criticized however I have on three different occasions posted directly to you stating the following:

I have never said whether Montreal and surrounding areas were right or wrong for expressing their concerns. They are allowed to express whatever position they want however it appears that those in Quebec are at odds with the other provinces and now Trudeau over their opinions. As stated in my OP, what is intriguing is the dynamic between the ROC and Quebec and how it will evolve especially since Trudeau has strong support in Montreal.

Its Coderre and his group of mayors that I find intriguing. As per the last article I posted, these mayors represent half of the Liberal votes in Quebec and may cause Trudeau some grief if he stays the course.

Is it my claim that oil companies have carte blanche? Is it my claim that Coderre is not entitled to his opinion? Nope...thats all you pal.

For a guy being so big on Freedom of Speech and the ability for Coderre to speak out, then why....WHY is not not allowed for others to speak out against what he is saying. Are you in fact saying that Coderre has carte blanche? See....I can do the waldo thing too.

By the way...I didn't miss the fact that you COMPLETELY GLOSSED over the previous part about Trudeau and Wynne, so I'll give it the little bump it needs.

Having said that....you sure seem to be shying away from the fact that your two Liberal heroes....Trudeau and Wynne are supporting this pipeline. That really must bother you.

Nothing to say on Trudeau and Wynne both backing this line?

[Derek 2.0]

yes! I'm all for the Trudeau government dismantling the NEB and putting in place, through appropriate independent input, an alternate vehicle that all sides can view as independent and truly non-partisan. Doomed Harper government made 49 “future” patronage appointments

Well pitter patter.........Privately funded stimulus, under the watchful eye of regulators, would surely be in the interest of the Trudeau Government I should think.........long term, it would a strategy that would further insulate Eastern Canada industry from price influxes once oil eventually rebounds.......

Perhaps another useful Hero Project for the Trudeau Liberals would be the creation of a Strategic Petroleum Reserve in abandoned mines across Canada..........creating a Canadian controlled equilibrium for energy prices....

[waldo]

For a guy being so big on Freedom of Speech and the ability for Coderre to speak out, then why....WHY is not not allowed for others to speak out against what he is saying. Are you in fact saying that Coderre has carte blanche? See....I can do the waldo thing too.

no freedom of speech angle here... no raised concerns for Coderre having an ability to speak out here. Nice strawman attempts though.

I bow to your "honest broker" claims! Notwithstanding your mentioning you "deal with sludge every day" and your big-time challenge to another MLW member concerning toxicity of said sludge, I didn't factor your long-established MLW history of being a vocal proponent of oil, oil companies and the oil industry. I didn't factor your posts in this thread continuing in that theme. And I didn't factor your emphasis on pipeline safety and "pipelines are the safest"... while you brought forward the Coderre/MMC opposition (and those railing against Coderre and that opposition) - that was just you being the "honest broker", right?

in that "honest broker" positioning of yours, care to offer comment on the TransCanada (and proponents) statements/implications/positioning that the Energy East proposal has a significant emphasis on domestic usage, one intended to lessen/remove Eastern Canada reliance on imported oil? Broker that... honestly - yes?

Nothing to say on Trudeau and Wynne both backing this line?

you seem to imply some kinda grand "gotcha" here. I expect Wynne has the position perspective from an Ontario slant... if you suggest otherwise, please provide cite to that end. In regards the Liberal Party government position on Energy East, feel free to counter this (with your presumed gotcha):

Liberals believe that Canada needs new infrastructure, including pipelines, to move our energy resources to domestic and global markets. However these projects must earn the trust of local communities, respect Indigenous rights, and cannot put our lands and waters at risk.

The Energy East project is undergoing an environmental assessment, and it would be inappropriate to pre-judge the outcome of the review.

[Accountability Now]

no freedom of speech angle here... no raised concerns for Coderre having an ability to speak out here. Nice strawman attempts though

The strawman was clearly to show you how you play. Its sad that you didn't pick up on that even though I state I can do the waldo thing too. Tsk tsk....

I bow to your "honest broker" claims! Notwithstanding your mentioning you "deal with sludge every day" and your big-time challenge to another MLW member concerning toxicity of said sludge,

I do deal with sludge, especially the type of sludge that was directly pumped in to the St. Lawrence by said Coderre.

I didn't factor your long-established MLW history of being a vocal proponent of oil, oil companies and the oil industry. I didn't factor your posts in this thread continuing in that theme. And I didn't factor your emphasis on pipeline safety and "pipelines are the safest"... while you brought forward the Coderre/MMC opposition (and those railing against Coderre and that opposition) - that was just you being the "honest broker", right?

So lets get this straight....I provide three DIRECT, CLEAR and OBVIOUS statements saying that Coderre has the right to raise concerns but yet your ASSUMPTION based on past conversations trumps these DIRECT, CLEAR and OBVIOUS statements? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA....I am seriously laughing by my computer right now. Is this your only come back?

Horrible FAIL waldo....but based on 'past conversations', I have come to expect that out of you. However unlike you I actually gave you the chance to have an honest conversation by posting an OP that was completely unbiased but nope....you had to go off on your waldo ways.

in that "honest broker" positioning of yours, care to offer comment on the TransCanada (and proponents) statements/implications/positioning that the Energy East proposal has a significant emphasis on domestic usage, one intended to lessen/remove Eastern Canada reliance on imported oil? Broker that... honestly - yes?

Throw a citation at what you are talking about and I'll have a read.

you seem to imply some kinda grand "gotcha" here. I expect Wynne has the position perspective from an Ontario slant... if you suggest otherwise, please provide cite to that end. In regards the Liberal Party government position on Energy East, feel free to counter this (with your presumed gotcha):

I have provided cites on these. Trudeau and Wynne both support it. What more do you want me to cite?

This really is a gotcha moment for anyone who is anti-pipeline, environmentalist types who were hoping that Trudeau would be their environmental knight in shining armour. It also is a gotcha moment for the next federal election as his support for this will clearly ruffle feathers within his Liberal strong hold of Montreal/Quebec. Again...I have already cited this.

[waldo]

I have provided cites on these. Trudeau and Wynne both support it. What more do you want me to cite?

This really is a gotcha moment for anyone who is anti-pipeline, environmentalist types who were hoping that Trudeau would be their environmental knight in shining armour. It also is a gotcha moment for the next federal election as his support for this will clearly ruffle feathers within his Liberal strong hold of Montreal/Quebec. Again...I have already cited this.

Wynne? So what... I already said I interpret that as her position from an Ontario perspective. And this is a startling revelation for you?

Trudeau? Put up an exact quote... explicitly quoted. In the prior post I put forward the Liberal Party government position... I trust your presumed "gotcha" quote will counter that. If you do so, perhaps I may choose to comment further.

but hey, here's a revealing thought for you: I've not offered my personal position on the pipeline. Don't let that get in your way, hey!

.

[waldo]

So lets get this straight....

no - you can CAPS highlight and go all "HAHAHAHAHAHAHA" to no end; however, what you ignored, what you didn't get straight, was my pointed and most detailed emphasis on your statements that completely reveal that your "honest broker" act has no legs!

[waldo]

I do deal with sludge, especially the type of sludge that was directly pumped in to the St. Lawrence by said Coderre.

apologies - I took your vehement position against the other MLW member's statements concerning dilbit toxicity to infer you had first hand knowledge/dealings with that particular type of dilbit shyte... not the human-waste variety of shyte. Perhaps for another thread/time you can provide comment on alternatives the City of Montreal could have taken... while you also comment on the 2 prior occasions the Harper Conservative government authorized waste dumping by the City of Montreal into the St. Lawrence.

[Accountability Now]

Trudeau? Put up an exact quote... explicitly quoted. In the prior post I put forward the Liberal Party government position... I trust your presumed "gotcha" quote will counter that. If you do so, perhaps I may choose to comment further

Yes....yes...that quoted blurb was an election platform that was a brilliant 'political' answer in that it really doesn't say anything as to what they support. Of course that was before the election, before Notley added a carbon tax limiting oil sands emissions, before Wynne showed her support....any chance that any of these factors may have pulled him away from the extremely vague, non-committal platform answer.

This quote was again from the article titled :

Trudeau supports Notley on Energy East pipeline

“I am solidly in one camp on this one,” he said. “I am very much in the camp of both premiers, [Ontario’s Kathleen] Wynne and Notley, who demonstrated that Canada can and should work together on economic issues for all of us.”

Mr. Trudeau said his government is reviewing environmental assessment rules with the aim of boosting the credibility of pipeline reviews. But he sees no inherent conflict between the approval of new projects and environmental protection.

I will say this outright and clearly so that you don't have to ramble on for multiple posts complaining about it....this does not mean he has rubber stamped it. He is saying that he is supporting this project to move forward under the proper environmental investigation and review. So again, he has his politicians hat on in that he can always come back and squash the project. But it is moving forward at this point.

but hey, here's a revealing thought for you: I've not offered my personal position on the pipeline. Don't let that get in your way, hey!

Oh...I've noted that and unlike you I haven't claimed that you have. You really haven't offered anything other than dishonest accusations and strawmen arguments. I'm starting to believe that you are a politician yourself.

no - you can CAPS highlight and go all "HAHAHAHAHAHAHA" to no end; however, what you ignored, what you didn't get straight, was my pointed and most detailed emphasis on your statements that completely reveal that your "honest broker" act has no legs!

Your 'honest broker' comment was your deflection to me outright calling your BS with your faulty and presumptuous Dennis Coderre claim. I asked you CLEARLY to show where I criticized Dennis Coderre for his position. YET....all you can provide is your assumptions....yup....the waldo assumption that clearly had no legs. I even posted the three direct times that I stated the opposite and all you can return with is chirping about me being an honest broker??? I would love to comment further by I have to continue laughing uncontrollably at your fail!

Perhaps for another thread/time you can provide comment on alternatives the City of Montreal could have taken...

There actually were other alternatives which would have been costly but I agree....another thread.

PS...see how that is done. Its not hard to remain on topic which is actually about the inter provincial issue and where it will lead with Quebec taking such a stand.

while you also comment on the 2 prior occasions the Harper Conservative government authorized waste dumping by the City of Montreal into the St. Lawrence.

Why would I comment on Harper for those two when I didn't comment on Trudeau for this one? I said Coderre didn't have an issue dumping sewage. The comment was directed at him alone. But yet your HDS/Must Protect Trudeau instincts kick in automatically? Wow.....you're on a roll.

[waldo]

I will say this outright and clearly so that you don't have to ramble on for multiple posts complaining about it....this does not mean he has rubber stamped it. He is saying that he is supporting this project to move forward under the proper environmental investigation and review. So again, he has his politicians hat on in that he can always come back and squash the project. But it is moving forward at this point.

well that's hardly your "gotcha", is it? That's in line with the position statement I put forward earlier! Nice try though. Did you think anything else was happening, other than the current progressing NEB process... what you describe as "moving forward under the proper environmental investigation and review"? Yeesh! Given you kept repeating and challenging me with your "waddabout Trudeau", how does it play now that your "gotcha"... ain't so... "gotcha"?

.

[waldo]

Why would I comment on Harper for those two when I didn't comment on Trudeau for this one? I said Coderre didn't have an issue dumping sewage. The comment was directed at him alone. But yet your HDS/Must Protect Trudeau instincts kick in automatically? Wow.....you're on a roll.

in line with this thread, Coderre/MMC does not have final authority... on either dumping human shyte into the St. Lawrence or in making a decision on Energy East. Accordingly, in your targeted criticism of Coderre for the waste dumping, that rightful target is the federal government... and in the prior 2 waste dumping instances I mentioned that was absolutely with the Harper Conservative government approvals. And if you really want to press the point, the most recent instance was planned well before the election working with the Harper Conservative government... and executed just days after the Liberal government assumed government - but who's counting, hey!

.

[waldo]

Your 'honest broker' comment was your deflection to me outright calling your BS with your faulty and presumptuous Dennis Coderre claim. I asked you CLEARLY to show where I criticized Dennis Coderre for his position. YET....all you can provide is your assumptions....yup....the waldo assumption that clearly had no legs. I even posted the three direct times that I stated the opposite and all you can return with is chirping about me being an honest broker??? I would love to comment further by I have to continue laughing uncontrollably at your fail!

no deflection, no BS and no "faulty and presumptuous Dennis Coderre claims". But most certainly your attempt at being the "honest broker" fell apart immediately with your nonsensical complaints about others discussing positions rather than relations!... while at the same time you were discussing position references, particularly with your "pipelines are safe... are the safest" ploy.

I'm most interested in why you're so reluctant to provide an answer to the point I've made now several times to you... only to have you ignore it, repeatedly: given TransCanada has positioned the pipeline as a "win for Eastern Canada" in regards replacing imported oil with domestic oil, care to comment on just how much existing refinery capacity there is towards meeting that premise, particularly given the proposal is so heavily aligned towards exports ala the development of new export terminals within the proposal? When Denis Coderre/MMC suggests that, "all the risks are being placed on the greater Montreal area with no direct gains to the area"... is he right? Well, is he?

.

[Argus]

Maybe it is, but it shows your idea of it coming in a pipeline from Alta. is wrong.

It comes in pipelines. It doesn't matter from where or to where. If Quebec is afraid of pipelines then shut them all down.

I want to see Quebecers pushing their cars up the long lines to the few remaining open gas stations, so I can laugh my head off.