Energy East Causing Uproar

[poochy]

Since Montreal didn't look after their sewage properly and had to discharge into the St Lawrence, they should accept a massive dilbit pipeline running up the St Lawrence valley. Is that the logic that is being suggested?

No, i wouldn't say that, maybe in combination with the two oil refineries and the oil tankers arriving via the St Lawrence, the obvious continued desire for oil, the benefits they have received as a part of confederation that has an oil industry and the fact that not a single one of you or they can put forward a realistic argument against it adds up to a lot of hypocrisy and stupidity on the subject. They want oil, they need oil, we have oil, they should bear the risk associated with it's extraction, transportation, refinement, and use, just like the rest of us, fyi, you're continued insistence of using terms like "massive dilbit pipeline" only undermines anything you might have to say. That sort of hyperbole is the calling card of the fringe enviro movement, but frankly it's unsurprising that you continue to argue in such childish ways while pretending to be reasonable, pretending to be arguing against a pipeline, when you are actually arguing against oil, oil companies, and capitalism in general. It's all so disingenuous.

[ReeferMadness]

Looking at your map alone, the line rights close to the St. Lawrence from Montreal up to Levis....all spots that have manageable dredging locations SHOULD a spill occur. Having said that I agree that having a spill in that spot with the flow rates we are talking is not a good situation and therefore the river locations should be minimized.

I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the people of Montreal. Enbridge spent years dredging the Kalamazoo. Do you think they'd mind trucking in their drinking and bathing water for that long?

So...maybe we should take a closer look. I don't know if this is accurate, however this map comes from an anti Energy East site, so I can't see you having any issue with it. When you look at the route from a zoomed out position, yes it appears it runs right next to the river. However when you zoom in, most points on the line are 2km or more from the river except where it crosses. I'm quite sure that dilbit isn't that mobile on dry land....so wouldn't you think that would be far enough?

Well. When the dilbit spill happened in Michigan, it actually spilled into a wetland near Talmadge Creek. Then it flowed 2 miles down to the Kalamazoo River. They had to close off 35 miles of the Kalamazoo River for about 2 years. So you tell me.

With all this said, would you prefer tankers to haul dilbit directly on the St. Lawrence or a pipeline to transport it mostly kilometers away from the river. I know you don't want oil either way....but the reality is the tankers are happening now....so this becomes an either-or decision.

Again with the false choice. If you could turn on a pipeline today and could turn it off in 10 years, that might be an appropriate choice. But it's not.

This isn't about now or today. It's a decision about the future. Even in Trans Canada's wildest dreams, it won't be built for another 10 years and once it's built, it needs to be operated for 50 years. So the real question is whether we're building towards a clean energy future or whether we're going to continue to dig sludge out of Alberta and dilute it with toxic solvents for decades to come.

And that future doesn't just belong to us, it belongs to our kids and their kids who will have to live with the consequences.

[Accountability Now]

The reference point I made was to the recent past decade government of Harper Conservatives relative to today...

Again....WTF did Harper even have to do with the argument to begin with? Nothing.....you brought him into the equation out of some deranged desire to combat your HDS. He can't hurt you anymore man!!!!

The key note is that every news source which comments on the years says its happened before and either mentions 2003 and 2005/2007 (Of course, there were actually two events in 2003 but most sources count that as one) But for some reason you think that every news source is incompetent because you claim there could have been MORE than the two events and that this could have happened in 2003, 2005 AND 2007. Ummmmmm....nope. There were two years it happened and we know 2003 is set in stone. Its either 2005 or 2007. But keep dreaming lil' waldo.

Of course if it is 2007, the point that you completely miss (and it doesn't surprise me) is that the shear size of the discharges in 2003 under the Liberal party watch. So by your claim you state that the 2007 event was all on its own even though you have zero facts to support it and no data to add to the equation. So lets say the 2005 event was in fact in 2007....then the discharge on that event was only 770 million litres. This is compared to a combined 18 billion litres in the two 2003 events which is 4.3% of the amount. Never took that into consideration....did ya? And this year....5 billion gallons. All said, there were three events conclusively signed off by Liberal governments for a total of 23 billion litres and one inconclusive event that could either be in 2005 or 2007 which would be 770 million litres. So all said, under a Liberal watch, the City of Montreal has dumped 30 x the amount of sewage into the river compared to a 'possible' Conservative event. Wow....that really must irk you.....probably to the point of deflection and avoidance of the question.

By the by, have you finally found Bragg Creek yet?

Yup...know it now and knew it back when you tried to claim I didn't as well. Was actually there again this past summer visiting friends. But I'm surprised you brought that up as I was sure you'd want to hide behind the bluster of your whole Alberta Floods mess. Remember when you claimed that flood was DOUBLE the flow as the worst one ever. Oh man.....you really screwed up there? As is the case in the number of planned sewage dumps... its a numbers game....which you seem to always be on the losing end of.

We could also look back to your failed attempt with the Brookings study where you dishonestly tried to claim the number of Green Energy jobs as the number of Green Economy jobs. Man...that one blew up in your face too.

Just a pattern of dishonesty but again...I really don't expect anything different from you!

[waldo]

Again....WTF did Harper even have to do with the argument to begin with? Nothing.....you brought him into the equation out of some deranged desire to combat your HDS. He can't hurt you anymore man!!!!

no - again, stated several times now. Mentioning wastewater discharges under Harper Conservative authority/approval was the counter to the suggested hypocrisy concerning the presumed position of the Liberal government, vis-a-vis the Energy East pipeline risk attachments (re: MontrealCoderre/MMC pipeline protest) in relation to decade+ prior wastewater dump reference. The 'argument' as you say, began with you refusing to accept that there were any wastewater dumps attached to Harper Conservative approvals... you went nuclear over this and, of course, you fell flat - big time! Why so protective of, 'Harper - the former one'?

.

But for some reason you think that every news source is incompetent because you claim there could have been MORE than the two events and that this could have happened in 2003, 2005 AND 2007. Ummmmmm....nope. There were two years it happened and we know 2003 is set in stone. Its either 2005 or 2007. But keep dreaming lil' waldo.

no - again, another of your strawman efforts! I've said nothing about the 2003/2005 events... haven't challenged them ever - not once. This is simply you making shyte up again! Again, you choose to ignore the 3 separate quoted mainstream articles (from 4 distinct journalists) that all confirm exactly what I stated, inclusive of that most inconvenient direct quote from Montreal Mayor, Denis Coderre. So you bluster and act juvenile while trying to cover your fail - your big-time fail.

.

Just a pattern of dishonesty but again...I really don't expect anything different from you!

no - again; "you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts"

.

Edited January 29, 2016 by waldo

[Accountability Now]

Do you think they'd mind trucking in their drinking and bathing water for that long?

I thought that dilbit sinks. Last time I checked, water sources aren't pulled off the bottom. Not to mention, you don't think that a water treatment plant which is designed to get rid of oils would be able to treat the residuals of this?

Well. When the dilbit spill happened in Michigan, it actually spilled into a wetland near Talmadge Creek. Then it flowed 2 miles down to the Kalamazoo River. They had to close off 35 miles of the Kalamazoo River for about 2 years. So you tell me

Again...this was the first time it happened. It was a big learning curve for all involved. Do you not think that knowledge is being considered for placement of the line as well as protocol if a spill were to happen again?

Again with the false choice. If you could turn on a pipeline today and could turn it off in 10 years, that might be an appropriate choice. But it's not.

Why can't you? If the pipeline no longer makes sense then it gets shut down. If what you say is true (even though I disagree) and oil is not needed in the future then the pipeline is shut down and the new form takes over. From what I saw they work these on a 20 year cycle anyway.

[Accountability Now]

I've said nothing about the 2003/2005 events... haven't challenged them ever - not once.

There were only two possible years according to all media sources. If you don't challenge these then you run out of options meaning 2007 did not happen. So since you agree with that then we are in agreement. The two events happened in 2003 and 2005

You really could have saved yourself a lot of effort and shame by just admitting it from the start. I mean come on....is it that hard for you to admit you were wrong?

Edited January 29, 2016 by Accountability Now

[Accountability Now]

.

Edited January 29, 2016 by Accountability Now

[ReeferMadness]

I thought that dilbit sinks. Last time I checked, water sources aren't pulled off the bottom. Not to mention, you don't think that a water treatment plant which is designed to get rid of oils would be able to treat the residuals of this?

dilbit is composed of bitumen and solvents like benzene and xylene. When it gets spilled in water it has a tendency to separate into it's constituent components. The solvents are light and tend to float, releasing toxic and potentially explosive vapors.

The bitumen also tends to float - for a while. As it attracts sediment in the water, it becomes heavier and then tends to sink. So, depending on the amount and nature of the sediment, it can float, sink or be suspended in the water. Also, it is possible for the sediment in the bitumen to become dislodged, resulting in floaters that appear later.

You'll notice I used the words "tend to" a lot. Because, when this gunk is dropped into moving water (like, say, a river), it moves around and becomes mixed into the water column.

Again...this was the first time it happened. It was a big learning curve for all involved. Do you not think that knowledge is being considered for placement of the line as well as protocol if a spill were to happen again?

It was a big learning curve because, due to gross negligence on the part of industry and the regulators, nobody bothered to do the proper investigation beforehand. I'm sure they will use the knowledge but I have no confidence they would do much better the second time. If you go back and read the study that was done to support the Trans Mountain submission, you'll note that they recommend further study. Dr Andrew Weaver also noted serious deficiencies in the Trans Mountain submission.

Why can't you? If the pipeline no longer makes sense then it gets shut down. If what you say is true (even though I disagree) and oil is not needed in the future then the pipeline is shut down and the new form takes over. From what I saw they work these on a 20 year cycle anyway.

Once the pipeline is filled, there will be a huge economic imperative to keep it filled in exactly the same way that companies are producing oil today and selling it at a loss. And if Canada were to decide in 15 years that it wants to curb GHG emissions and curb either the pipeline flow or the amount of oil produced to fill it, the lawsuits will be so massive that it will scare governments away from even considering it. This is a 50 year decision.

Water treatment is situational. Unless Montreal already has significant levels of benzene in its water supply, I doubt it put in the capability to remove it.

[waldo]

There were only two possible years according to all media sources.

you mean when you discount all the media sources that speak to the year 2007? When you discount all those? Cause... I only provided 3 quoted links in that regard... an easy googly will return you many, many more.

just because your preferred link only shows 2003/2005 that certainly doesn't allow you to outright dismiss any/all references to 2007... just cause! Just cause you want to... just cause those are YOUR FACTS!

oh wait! This will burn ya, hey:

The City of Montreal has discharged raw sewage on three other occasions in the past twelve years, sending 10 billion litres into the St. Lawrence in the spring of 2003, 7.6 billion litres in the fall of 2003 and 800 million litres in the fall of 2007

and let me tighten the facts around that lil' ole election campaign ploy by Harper Conservatives in regard the declared 8 billion litres wastewater discharge carried out at the end of October... where Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq charges forward just a week before the scheduled date to declare "this is the first her office has heard of the intent/plan... and that it must be stopped"! Of course that was a lie as both her Environment department and Environment Canada had knowledge of the plan back to September of 2014... and NO concerns had been raised towards it; that EC had given its approval: Documents show Environment Canada knew in 2014 about Montreal raw-sewage plan

now! Now, will you consider this your final fail in this regard and just move on and get YOUR thread back on track/topic? Well, will ya?

.

[Accountability Now]

you mean when you discount all the media sources that speak to the year 2007? When you discount all those? Cause... I only provided 3 quoted links in that regard... an easy googly will return you many, many more.

just because your preferred link only shows 2003/2005 that certainly doesn't allow you to outright dismiss any/all references to 2007... just cause! Just cause you want to... just cause those are YOUR FACTS!

oh wait! This will burn ya, hey:

My GAAAAAAWD. Why do you keep proving my point??? The media sources obviously are citing the same event. Some say its in 2005, some say its in 2007. Either way the volume is 30x the amount that the other three CLEARLY Liberal EVENTS. That is of course assuming the 2007 event is in fact in that year and not 2005.....but again....YOU CAN'T PROVE IT!!!

Keep cycling waldo....

[Accountability Now]

Water treatment is situational. Unless Montreal already has significant levels of benzene in its water supply, I doubt it put in the capability to remove it.

The thing working against the clean up would be the thing working for the water treatment aspect. The river flows at 7,000 m3/sec and the oil flow would be ~16m3/sec (1.6 Million gallons/hr)...this is assuming a direct drop into the water which would be unlikely.

The chances of getting concentrated doses of an oil product in the water intake would be small.

Not to mention, this also assumes that the water in take locations are near the pipeline spots.

[ReeferMadness]

The thing working against the clean up would be the thing working for the water treatment aspect. The river flows at 7,000 m3/sec and the oil flow would be ~16m3/sec (1.6 Million gallons/hr)...this is assuming a direct drop into the water which would be unlikely.

The chances of getting concentrated doses of an oil product in the water intake would be small.

Not to mention, this also assumes that the water in take locations are near the pipeline spots.

I think you should phone Denis Coderre and tell him he has nothing to worry about, then. The big ninny.

[waldo]

My GAAAAAAWD. Why do you keep proving my point??? The media sources obviously are citing the same event. Some say its in 2005, some say its in 2007. Either way the volume is 30x the amount that the other three CLEARLY Liberal EVENTS. That is of course assuming the 2007 event is in fact in that year and not 2005.....but again....YOU CAN'T PROVE IT!!!

Keep cycling waldo....

your fuzzy math won't prevail! In the prior links I provided, the City of Montreal is quoted referring to a 2007 discharge... Denis Coderre is quoted referring to a 2007 discharge. and this latest link I provided confirms the 2007 discharge/volume. Of course, NOW you're all about volume! Here's the thing - the October 2015 discharge is all on Harper Conservatives... they had the file since September of 2014... EC under Harper Conservatives gave approval. The campaign election ploy only resulted in a delay to the original scheduled discharge date period over Oct 18-25.

the real cycling you speak of is your attempt to insist no discharges occurred under Harper Conservatives! Why so protective of 'Harper, the former one'?

[Accountability Now]

your fuzzy math won't prevail! In the prior links I provided, the City of Montreal is quoted referring to a 2007 discharge... Denis Coderre is quoted referring to a 2007 discharge. and this latest link I provided confirms the 2007 discharge/volume.

I've provided more than enough data showing the same about 2005. Are you that obtuse that you can't see they are talking about the same event?

Of course, NOW you're all about volume!

Hey....like I said...its a numbers game. A game that you're losing...sorry...lost!

Here's the thing - the October 2015 discharge is all on Harper Conservatives...

You can keep saying your opinion all you want however the fact is that the plan was NOT approved under the Harper government. McKenna signed off on this....if she wasn't comfortable with signing off then she shouldn't have. If she didn't know if she should sign off then she shouldn't be in that position. The fact is that she did. This one is all YOURS buddy.

[Accountability Now]

I think you should phone Denis Coderre and tell him he has nothing to worry about, then. The big ninny.

I don't think he needs to hear it from me, he's heard enough from Nenshi, Notley, Brian Jean, Brad Wall, and even his provincial partner in Quebec City. I haven't seen any mayors/Premiers rushing in to back up Coderre....have you?

[waldo]

I've provided more than enough data showing the same about 2005. Are you that obtuse that you can't see they are talking about the same event?

you've provided... data? I thought you provided an article cite! And again, I never challenged the authenticity of 2005... I never said a word about it. What I have provided, again, are (now 4) articles (from 5 distinct journalists) that confirm my reference to 2007 - including, again, the direct quote from Denis Coderre to that end. But your facts... are your facts and nothing will get in the way of you not accepting/acknowledging the 2007 reference. To you, only your reference is absolute, definitive, beyond reproach! And I'm really luvin' each and every time you fall flat with this... probably the gold standard with your fail over Mulcair and your grand positioning that he should be held accountable for a 2007 discharge when he was out of the Quebec government in early 2006! Gold, real gold.

.

You can keep saying your opinion all you want however the fact is that the plan was NOT approved under the Harper government. McKenna signed off on this....if she wasn't comfortable with signing off then she shouldn't have. If she didn't know if she should sign off then she shouldn't be in that position. The fact is that she did. This one is all YOURS buddy.

no - it was effectively approved by Harper Conservatives/EC... they had had the file for over a year, had been engaged all throughout the planning phases by the City of Montreal, and as I read had never raised a concern on any level and, again, as a last minute election campaign ploy, the Harper Conservative Environment Minister boldly comes forward to state she/they had never heard of it! Per the link I provided in the prior post you can read that was absolute bunk/BS. The City of Montreal was moving forward through the full years planing cycle and you're going to suggest that a government election change through a matter of days period from the scheduled event pins this on the new government? The original scheduled discharge was before the official turn-over date of government... the delayed discharge was a matter of but days after the official turn-over date of government... and you're going to legitimately tag this on the new government? Of course you are! As for the 'McKenna sign-off'... there was little to no leeway to leverage the period of least possible impact to the river's ecosystem! But again, that simply points to the (purposeful) predicament that the Harper Conservative election campaign ploy pulled off... pull the pin at the 11th hour and claim ignorance about ever knowing of the intent/plan! That was gold too.

.

Edited January 30, 2016 by waldo

[waldo]

I don't think he needs to hear it from me, he's heard enough from Nenshi, Notley, Brian Jean, Brad Wall, and even his provincial partner in Quebec City. I haven't seen any mayors/Premiers rushing in to back up Coderre....have you?

you mean you're discounting the 81 Mayors of the 'Montreal Metropolitan Community'? No, say it ain't so!

.

[ReeferMadness]

I don't think he needs to hear it from me, he's heard enough from Nenshi, Notley, Brian Jean, Brad Wall, and even his provincial partner in Quebec City. I haven't seen any mayors/Premiers rushing in to back up Coderre....have you?

Oh.... I didn't know that any of this bunch had assured Coderre that an oil spill would have no impact on Montreal's water supply. Do you have a citation?

[Accountability Now]

But your facts... are your facts and nothing will get in the way of you not accepting/acknowledging the 2007 reference.

And there it is....written proof that your comprehension horrible. I have clearly written on a number of times that the 2005 and 2007 events are in fact one and the same event. I have also shown that if the event were in EITHER 2005 OR 2007 that it was minimal as it was less than 5% of what the combined PROVEN LIBERAL dumps were. For shame lil' waldo....the info is all there for you to read, but you just can't...

To you, only your reference is absolute, definitive, beyond reproach! And I'm really luvin' each and every time you fall flat with this... probably the gold standard with your fail over Mulcair and your grand positioning that he should be held accountable for a 2007 discharge when he was out of the Quebec government in early 2006! Gold, real gold.

You know this is a funny one...I was browsing a CBC article that said this:

"We also did a waste dump in 2003 and 2005. You know who was the environment minister at the time? Thomas Mulcair," Coderre said.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/denis-coderre-raw-sewage-st-lawrence-federal-1.3272048

So a DIRECT quote from Coderre referencing the 2003 and 2005 dump and Mulclair's involvement in both as like you said he was the Minister until at least Feb of 2006. Hmmm......why is he not referencing 2007 on that one? Just another puzzling piece aint it lil' waldo.

no - it was effectively approved by Harper Conservatives/EC... they had had the file for over a year, had been engaged all throughout the planning phases by the City of Montreal,

That's right....the Conservatives did all the ground work and got most of the data need to MAKE A DECISION. On Nov 2, Environment Canada said they needed just one more week to allow the final data to come in so that they COULD MAKE A DECISION. Then guess what happened....Liberal Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine Mckenna did make a DECISION on behalf of the LIBERAL PARTY. It was a GOOOOOOOOOO.....

So many waldo flops....not sure I can even count them any more

[Accountability Now]

you mean you're discounting the 81 Mayors of the 'Montreal Metropolitan Community'? No, say it ain't so!

You mean the same mayors that were PISSED at Coderre for dumping in the St Lawrence but then coward once he puffed his chest? Ya....you can tell who the ring leader in that area is.

[Accountability Now]

Oh.... I didn't know that any of this bunch had assured Coderre that an oil spill would have no impact on Montreal's water supply. Do you have a citation?

They probably didn't have the discussion as it wasn't needed. Again, when you can show that their water supply is in danger then please present the info.

[ReeferMadness]

They probably didn't have the discussion as it wasn't needed. Again, when you can show that their water supply is in danger then please present the info.

Coderre claimed it was but you assured me it wasn't. Then you said that Brad Wall talked to him about it. So I didn't investigate it further.

[Accountability Now]

Coderre claimed it was but you assured me it wasn't. Then you said that Brad Wall talked to him about it. So I didn't investigate it further.

Sounds good!

[Accountability Now]

Lil waldo and Reefer...its been fun but I'm off to Florida tomorrow for a couple weeks. Not sure how much time I'll have for your cycles so please do me a favor and discuss among yourselves!

[waldo]

And there it is....written proof that your comprehension horrible. I have clearly written on a number of times that the 2005 and 2007 events are in fact one and the same event. I have also shown that if the event were in EITHER 2005 OR 2007 that it was minimal as it was less than 5% of what the combined PROVEN LIBERAL dumps were. For shame lil' waldo....the info is all there for you to read, but you just can't...

your comprehension is limited to your self-serving interpretations. Again, I never said anything about 2005... I never questioned it... why do I need to keep repeating this for you? It's your assertion the 2 events are one and the same - and you NOW only do so because you can't deny the 4 separate cited references I've provided to confirm 2007, including the direct quote from Coderre to that end. So your latest attempt to recover from all those posts where you were knee-slapin', high-fivin' and going all 'HAHAHAHAHAHAHA' is to come forward and state they're the same events... even though the volumes are different between your provided link's 2005 reference and my provided link's 2007 reference! And as I laughed at you earlier, of course, once your house-of-cards blew up on ya... blew up on ya reeeaalll good... you suddenly became all about the volumes of discharge. Approval is approval - which is all I ever referenced only to watch your 'white knight' effort coming to protect your guy, 'Harper, the last one'!

.

You know this is a funny one...I was browsing a CBC article that said this:

So a DIRECT quote from Coderre referencing the 2003 and 2005 dump and Mulclair's involvement in both as like you said he was the Minister until at least Feb of 2006. Hmmm......why is he not referencing 2007 on that one? Just another puzzling piece aint it lil' waldo.

given the pummeling you took on this, I would have thought you would avoid any further references to Mulcair! Your like questioning blew up on you when you thought you had the 'silver bullet' gotcha over the election campaign article from the Liberal Party attacking the related hypocrisy of NDP leader Mulcair over his authority approvals for the 2003/2005 discharge events (when he was Quebec's Environment Minister)... you know, when you said that it didn't include a reference to 2007 and declared that as your absolute "proof... gotcha". Again, as I pointed out to you, the attack on Mulcair made no sense to include 2007... since he wasn't the Environment Minister anymore and, in fact, had left Quebec politics in early 2006. And now, again, you're asking me why a quote from Coderre referencing Mulcair doesn't include 2007? Really? Again? Well, ok... again: Mulcair would have had nothing to do the 2007 discharge event... he wasn't there! I didn't think you could improve your fail on this one - but you did! Well done... very well done!

.

That's right....the Conservatives did all the ground work and got most of the data need to MAKE A DECISION. On Nov 2, Environment Canada said they needed just one more week to allow the final data to come in so that they COULD MAKE A DECISION. Then guess what happened....Liberal Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine Mckenna did make a DECISION on behalf of the LIBERAL PARTY. It was a GOOOOOOOOOO.....

So many waldo flops....not sure I can even count them any more

oh my! Already touched on this... but thanks for confirming what I said. You are correct sir... in spite of the election campaign ploy from the Harper Conservative Environment Minister just a week before the original scheduled discharge in mid-October (18th-to-25th), where she claimed her Environment Department and EC had never heard of the intended discharge... and where she thundered in to stop that scheduled mid-October event; as I showed, the Environment Department and EC had the file on the event at least as far back to Sept 2014... and EC had been working with the City of Montreal from that point all the way through without ever raising a concern to suggest the event had problems or couldn't proceed. So ya, the decision was/had been made... under Harper Conservatives.

and again, that Harper Conservative election campaign ploy left but the smallest of time window to allow the discharge to still occur in a period that would have the least impact on the St. Lawrence River ecosystem and still allow the critical repairs to the infrastructure to be made. So yes, new conditions/requirements were from the new Liberal Environment Minister McKenna in that shortest of short windows available (after the Liberals assumed government on Nov 4th), the discharge proceeded on Nov 11th... one week later. Geezaz, that EC is good... but that good? To turn on a dime and in days meet some "new requirements" in... quite literally days! But, of course, no biggee... as you confirm, the "groundwork" was done under Harper Conservatives - good on ya for acknowledging this!

Ms. McKenna imposed a handful of conditions on the sewage spill, including that the city improve water-quality monitoring, as well as cleanup and emergency response plans, and consult more with First Nations communities along the riverbank. The work, which involves pouring a billion litres of sewage into the river a day, is expected to last a week and must be completed by Dec. 5.

“I wish there were a magic bullet here, I wish there were other options,” Ms. McKenna said in a conference call from Paris. “This release is far from ideal, but it is needed for the city of Montreal to perform critical maintenance on their infrastructure before winter.

“If we do not allow this to go ahead and there was an unplanned discharge, the long-term impact to flora and fauna could be significantly more.”

The file, which had been before the federal government for 18 months, landed in Ms. McKenna’s lap after it emerged as an issue in the recent election campaign. The former Conservative government suddenly put Montreal’s plan on hold, citing concerns about fish habitat.

“All I can say is I inherited this file on the first day. Things were not conducted in the way I would have hoped for,” Ms. McKenna said. “We can do better and we will do better.”

you really, really should know when to fold em, hey!

.