Sask. comes out swinging against Bill C-48, saying tanker ban will 'alienate Western


Tecumsehsbones
#61
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

... or swapping those "tanker" wives?

You are a truly repulsive man.

I admire that.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#62
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

You are a truly repulsive man.
I admire that.

It's a Navy ting.
 
Mowich
Conservative
+1
#63
Senators defeat Ottawa's oil tanker ban bill in rare move, putting legislation on life support

nationalpost.com/news/politics/senators-defeat-ottawas-oil-tanker-ban-bill-in-rare-move-putting-legislation-on-life-support
 
Mowich
Conservative
+2
#64
My, my our Senators have been busy little beavers. First they kill the Tanker Ban - YAHOO and good on them and now they just brought forward 187 amendments for Bill C-69 which is going to royally piss of the liberals and give Climate Barbie fits.

nationalpost.com/news/senators-adopt-187-amendments-to-c-69-setting-up-another-fight-over-controversial-legislation
 
Tecumsehsbones
#65
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

It's a Navy ting.

True. We often tried to out-gross the Navy, and never even came close.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#66
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

True. We often tried to out-gross the Navy, and never even came close.

It's the guy who said "Look at the frog go hippity-hop" seconds before he picked it up and crunched it in half who got me ...

... that and the Irish-born Electrician who got his jollies from making Drano sandwiches to feed to the shithawks. ... one very sick puppy, that one.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+1
#67
Senate committee passes majority of amendments for Bill C-69

Quote:

After a thorough clause-by-clause review of hundreds of amendments to Bill C-69, a Senate committee has accepted a majority of the amendments to the Liberal bill that seeks to overhaul the environmental review process for new energy and transportation projects.
“Our energy and environment committee, which has been quite divided, came up with a compromise and we passed pretty much all the amendments,” Senator Paula Simons told Rob Breakenridge Thursday.
“We are now going to be reporting the bill to the Senate. This is the opposite of what happened on C-48, where there was no compromise that we didn't report any bill.
The Alberta Independent Senator said there was much compromise in the committee process.
Simons doubts the Liberal government will adopt all of the amendments that resulted from nationwide public consultations.


READ MORE: Senate introduces more than 130 changes to Liberals’ environmental assessment bill

“They won't accept them all. I don't think they should accept them all. There's some amendments in that package that I vehemently disagree with.
Senator David Tkachuk, Conservative Senate critic for Bill C-69, said that despite concerns about the bill, the amendments vastly improved Bill C-69.
“It is now up to the government to show they’re serious and adopt the changes that have been passed by the Senate Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee,” Tkachuk said in a statement.

READ MORE: Changes to Bill C-69 ‘critical’ for Canadian energy sector: Enbridge CEO

The contentious proposed legislation Alberta Premier Jason Kenney dubbed “the no more pipelines bill” could have lasting consequences for infrastructure projects of all types across Canada, Simons said.
“If we get C-69 right, it means that any port, any pipeline, any new rail line would have to go through a rigorous environmental assessment,” Simons said Thursday.

READ MORE: Jason Kenney calls environment assessment bill a threat to national unity

“It's too early to claim victory on these bills,” Kenney said Thursday in Calgary. “They still have to go back to the full Senate. But we clearly have momentum. The wind is in our sails.”
“The reports we have today are quite encouraging that all or most of the amendments put forward by the Alberta government and the energy industry have been accepted by the committee,” Kenney said.
“I believe there is a large and growing number in the Senate who are opposed to Trudeau's no pipelines law, Bill C-69, but I'm not going to suggest this will be an easy fight.”

READ MORE: Some northern Alberta chiefs to support Bill C-69 at Senate hearing

Kenney said he, Energy Minister Sonya Savage and Environment & Parks Minister Devin Dreeshen will be part of a “full court press” to influence Senators to vote down Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 in the coming weeks.
Alberta NDP leader Rachel Notley will also join lunchtime conversations with Alberta Senators next week, the party said in a statement.
READ MORE: Alberta premier applauds Senate committee’s decision to reject tanker ban

Even with another Senate committee outright rejecting Bill C-48 — the bill to ban tanker traffic off B.C.’s north coast — Simons said Canada’s west coast won’t see increased threats from oil tankers.
“If C-48 were to die on the order paper, say, it wouldn't mean that the B.C. coast is suddenly at huge risk of oil tanker traffic,” Simons said.
“Any new port, any new pipeline or a rail line to ship bitumen would be subject to a vigorous impact assessment," she said. "And that's as it should be.”

 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+1
#68
In major reversal, Jason Kenney now says Alberta can live with amended C-69 environmental assessment bill

Quote:

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney and the leaders of the three other provincial parties are offering an olive branch to the Trudeau government on C-69, saying they're now prepared to accept the controversial overhaul of Canada's environmental assessment process — as long as the Senate's amendments are part of it.

In a joint letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's point man in the Senate, Peter Harder, the multipartisan group asks the government to accept the changes to Bill C-69 — including amendments long demanded by oil and gas lobbyists — to avoid a constitutional fight over federal-provincial jurisdiction in natural resources.
"While we remain concerned about the overall spirit of Bill C-69, we believe that with the inclusion of all these amendments, that the bill would be acceptable to the interests of Albertans," reads the letter, signed by Kenney, NDP Leader Rachel Notley, Alberta Party Leader Stephen Mandel and David Khan, the leader of the Alberta Liberal Party...……...More

 
Hoid
#69
B.C. court to decide if province can regulate Trans Mountain

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...tion-1.5147454

Regardless of what the appeal court decides, the ultimate decision on the law is likely to rest with the Supreme Court of Canada.
 
pgs
Free Thinker
#70
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

B.C. court to decide if province can regulate Trans Mountain

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...tion-1.5147454

Regardless of what the appeal court decides, the ultimate decision on the law is likely to rest with the Supreme Court of Canada.

Hey that guy in the comments Danny Devo sounds just like you . Do you hang around CBC comments section all day too ?
 
Hoid
#71
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

Hey that guy in the comments Danny Devo sounds just like you . Do you hang around CBC comments section all day too ?

Did he also cut and paste from the article itself?
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+2
#72
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

B.C. court to decide if province can regulate Trans Mountain
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...tion-1.5147454
Regardless of what the appeal court decides, the ultimate decision on the law is likely to rest with the Supreme Court of Canada.

Not the decision you were looking for unanimous by all the judges case closed
 
pgs
Free Thinker
+1
#73
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Did he also cut and paste from the article itself?

No he thinks oil is dead , just like you , possibly slightly more unhinged then you . If that is possible .
 
pgs
Free Thinker
+1
#74
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Not the decision you were looking for unanimous by all the judges case closed

Christie must have appointed those judges .
 
White_Unifier
+1
#75
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

There a lot of tanker activity in Flatskatchewan?

Saskatchewan isn't as flat as you think. When I'd passed through there years ago, I could see the curvature of the earth along the horizon, so not flat at all. More spherical I'd say.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#76
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

Saskatchewan isn't as flat as you think. When I'd passed through there years ago, I could see the curvature of the earth along the horizon, so not flat at all. More spherical I'd say.

There are stepped in Saskatchewan. The F.N. people built them as Buffalo jumps but no one told them that they only have (had) Bison, there.
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+2
#77
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Not the decision you were looking for unanimous by all the judges case closed

Horgan promesed to squander even more taxpayers money to get the Supremes to tell him he is an idiot.
 
Mowich
Conservative
+2
#78
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Horgan promesed to squander even more taxpayers money to get the Supremes to tell him he is an idiot.

Hopefully the Supremes will spare taxpayers the expense by refusing to hear the appeal.
 
petros
+1
#79
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

Yep, except (Like the Dakota's) AB & SK are east of the continental divide so no rivers flowing to the Pacific at all. A few rivers flow towards Hudson's Bay eventually but for no use commercially. Some smaller creeks and such would eventually connect to small rivers in America that would eventually connect to larger ones that would eventually connect to the Gulf of Mexico I guess. No use for commercial transport though. No eventual oceangoing vessels bigger than small pleasure vessels at best getting from the prairies to the oceans, etc...

Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

NO worries. Both AB & SK are in the same boat. It’s all good. We all learn something new everyday here (most of us anyway). I know I do.

I can, canoe.

You can canoe from SK to the Gulf of Mexico.

Parts of S. SK and AB are part of the Missouri River watershed.

If furthet dammed and worked into a canal the Souris could plausibly be tied to the Missouri with a short canal and lock in N.Dakota.

Same goes for the Milk River, easily dammed and canals built directly to the Missouri which its a tributary of.

Once upon a time many a steamboat navigated AB, SK and MB rivers.



The S.S. Northcote was used to ferry troops up and down the N.Sakatchewan river during the 1885 Northwest Rebellion. (Library and Archives Canada)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saska...ewan-1.3731688
Last edited by petros; 3 weeks ago at 12:39 PM..
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+1
#80
Mom remembers barges and steamboats on the Swan River
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#81
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Mom remembers barges and steamboats on the Swan River

Way down upon the Swan River?
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#82
Yep
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#83
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Yep

Far, far away?
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#84
God's country, most of us don't even lock our doors here
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
+1
#85
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

God's country, most of us don't even lock our doors here

Believe it or not, we don't have to here in most of Oakville, either.
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
+2
#86
From: http://nationalpost.com/opinion/brad...-c-48-into-law

Federal Natural Resources Minister Amarjeet Sohi has defended Bill C-69, the proposed replacement for Canada’s environmental impact assessment process, by hailing the greater degree of regulatory certainty it would bring. His various approbations of the bill are directly contradicted by industry groups, regulatory lawyers and many Canadian First Nations. They have cogently argued that the bill does nothing to fix the current uncertainty, creates new uncertainty in how to fulfill the assessment requirements and invites new litigation without precedent.

And so Sohi’s words of reassurance and a toonie might get you a litre of regular unleaded gas in Vancouver, but no pipelines.

Dangerously naive is the federal contention that additional legal requirements, new consultation obligations, discretionary decisions and the elimination of previous precedent will somehow speed up or bring clarity to the process. It seems to be the product of ivory tower drafters who have not faced down the kind of opposition-at-any-cost effort that halted Trans Mountain.

There is a great economic risk to Canada’s resource sector if Prime Minister Justin Trudeau barrels ahead with this new mess. Sadly, one gets the sense that no matter how beset the feds are with well-considered challenges to C-69 — the latest of which came so compellingly from new Alberta Premier Jason Kenney — they do not want to hear the ends of any of their critics’ sentences.

More serious still is what Bill C-69 and yet another parliamentary peach, Bill C-48, the B.C. tanker ban, will do to national unity if they become the law of the land.

First it was the venerable Angus Reid telling us in February that over 50 per cent of both Albertans and Saskatchewanians (yes, that’s a word) strongly or somewhat supported their respective province “joining a Western separatist movement.” There too was the Environics poll of last month that pegged the number of those open-minded to independence (or as that survey’s wording suggested, resigned to independence if things didn’t change) was 53 per cent … in Saskatchewan.

These numbers should shock. They are an order of magnitude stronger than they were at the time of the NEP when the first Trudeau caused earnest Western Canadians to think about going it alone.

And if C-69 is dry kindling to the flames of Western alienation, then C-48 is a carbon-taxed lighter fluid.

C-48 seeks to stop the export of Western Canadian oil, notionally to protect the pristine West Coast from oil tankers, ironically while tankers from Alaska sail southward past that coast to Washington and California. The East Coast and the St. Lawrence apparently rate no such protection. Then again, these waterways need to be open to oil tankers bringing foreign oil into Canada … because we can’t build any pipelines to move our own oil across the country.

Earlier this month there was a flicker of light on C-48, and from the Senate no less, when the transportation committee voted the bill down. Let this be a portent of a similar ignominious fate for this ill-considered and dangerous legislation when it’s called to a vote in the full Senate.

If it is not defeated, consider then what Westerners will feel. If further economic dislocation is caused because of objectively unfair and harmful legislation from a distant and out-of-touch federal government, compounded by the continued intractability of a dysfunctional pipeline approval problem and with Westerners still on the paying side of the equalization formula, the talk out West might turn in earnest away from trying to improve on the status quo to “and now for something completely different.”
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#87
This will be interesting he really wants this passed before summer break at least before the election

Trudeau calls out Tory premiers for 'playing games' with national unity over C-69

If you read the article one can almost picture him throwing a tantrum over the bill rejection Lol
 
Hoid
#88
Contrast this to Scheer who would be Kenney and Ford's geisha boy
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#89
Scheer wouldn't have tried to meddle in Provincial political domain to start with Hoid
 
Hoid
#90
Of course he wouldn't.

He would do whatever Ford and Kenney told him to do.
 

Similar Threads

32
Republicans start swinging
by Avro | May 28th, 2008
5
Websites alienate Firefox users
by Jo Canadian | Sep 10th, 2005