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


B00Mer
No Party Affiliation
+4
#1  Top Rated Post
Sask. comes out swinging against Bill C-48, saying tanker ban will 'alienate Western Canadians'



A controversial bill concerning oil transport will be seen as an attack on Saskatchewan and Alberta if approved, senators heard at a public hearing in Regina Wednesday.

"I don't think Canadians understand the magnitude of what's happening here," John Hopkins, CEO for Regina & District Chamber of Commerce, told senators on a committee hearing arguments for and against Bill C-48.

The bill would prohibit tankers carrying more than 12,500 metric tonnes of oil from docking along B.C.'s north coast, an area that stretches from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to the Alaska border.

It was introduced after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet vetoed Northern Gateway — a project that would have carried crude from Alberta through northern B.C. to a tanker terminal in Kitimat for export to Asia.

Hopkins said Bill C-48 comes amidst wider efforts from environmentalists and outside groups to keep Canadian oil resources in the ground, despite the oil being produced under stringent environmental regulations and planning.

"If the bill goes forward, it's going to continue to alienate Western Canadians," he said, following his presentation to the senate committee.

"Confederation's important to all of us. Hopefully we'll see cooler heads prevail."

Diametrically opposed views
Independent senator Julie Miville-Dechêne noted senators on the Transport and Communications committee have been travelling to hear from communities that hold diametrically opposed views.

In British Columbia, most coastal Indigenous nations and non-Indigenous residents support the tanker ban, and want to see their way of life and fisheries protected against the risk of an oil spill, she said.

It makes it very difficult because it has been portrayed as an issue pitting provinces, one against the other, environmentalists against oil industry interest.
- Senator Julie Miville-Dechene
In Alberta, the bill is viewed as discriminatory and opposed to economic interests of the province, further limiting the province's ability to get its product to tidewater, she said.

"It makes it very difficult because it has been portrayed as an issue pitting provinces, one against the other, environmentalists against oil industry interest," she said, adding the looming threat of climate change hangs over the whole issue.

"To be very frank, there's huge division."

The committee is made up of 12 senators: five Conservatives who oppose the bill, one Liberal and six independents.

Miville-Dechêne said that as an Independent senator, she's keeping an open mind and listening to all the witnesses before deciding how she will vote on the bill.

Saskatchewan mayors and industry representatives were scheduled to speak throughout the day on Wednesday.

The Senate committee will next travel back to Ottawa to hear from more witnesses, before making a report to the entire chamber in mid-May, according to Miville-Dechêne.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saska...osed-1.5118663
 
Decapoda
+1
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by B00Mer View Post



Independent senator Julie Miville-Dechêne noted senators on the Transport and Communications committee have been travelling to hear from communities that hold diametrically opposed views.

In British Columbia, most coastal Indigenous nations and non-Indigenous residents support the tanker ban, and want to see their way of life and fisheries protected against the risk of an oil spill, she said.

Is that so??

Not sure who "Independent" senator Julie Miville-Dechêne (appointed by Justin Trudeau) has been meeting with and talking to, perhaps she should get her head out of her "Independent" a** and open her ears.

Pro-pipeline First Nations spar with environmental activists over 'devastating' tanker ban bill

First Nations chiefs and leaders who say they represent over 200 Indigenous communities in B.C. and Alberta are fighting back against the federal government's plan to ban all oil tanker traffic off the coast of northern B.C., calling it an "attack" on the energy industry that will impoverish remote First Nations.

Chief Roy Jones Jr. of the National Coalition of Chiefs, a group that supports energy projects as a solution to rampant poverty on First Nations reserves, said the federal Liberal government is "arbitrarily denying Indigenous communities ... investments" by curtailing development through the northern reaches of the province.

"We're trying to lessen our dependency on federal [welfare] dollars. Bill C-48 will just set us back," Jones said.
Last edited by Decapoda; May 2nd, 2019 at 03:30 PM..
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#3
There a lot of tanker activity in Flatskatchewan?
 
Durry
+2
#4
Kenney has come out swinging, good job dude .
 
Decapoda
+2
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

There a lot of tanker activity in Flatskatchewan?

Actually, quite a bit of local pipeline activity (Enbridge Line 3), thanks for asking. Would likely be quite a bit of oil activity too, if we could get oil to move. That's where the tankers come in.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Decapoda View Post

Actually, quite a bit of local pipeline activity (Enbridge Line 3), thanks for asking. Would likely be quite a bit of oil activity too, if we could get oil to move. That's where the tankers come in.

I'm sure there's a fair amount of farming too. But farming isn't tanker activity, and pipeline activity isn't tanker activity, so your alleged response is not, in point of fact, responsive, now is it?
 
B00Mer
No Party Affiliation
+4
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Decapoda View Post

Actually, quite a bit of local pipeline activity (Enbridge Line 3), thanks for asking. Would likely be quite a bit of oil activity too, if we could get oil to move. That's where the tankers come in.

What we need is the oil to move east to the Irving Refinery and replace Saudi Oil.

McKenna says Irving could refine western crude
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

I'm sure there's a fair amount of farming too. But farming isn't tanker activity, and pipeline activity isn't tanker activity, so your alleged response is not, in point of fact, responsive, now is it?

Maybe it's time to shut them carbon burning tractors down, we have close to 2 Billion barrels/day of oil flowing beneath our feet right now in Sask. what's a couple thousand barrels to leave shore in Northern BC compared to that?
 
Decapoda
+2
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

I'm sure there's a fair amount of farming too. But farming isn't tanker activity, and pipeline activity isn't tanker activity, so your alleged response is not, in point of fact, responsive, now is it?

I hesitate to bring this up since you seem somewhat coherent, but grain doesn't move on tankers. I'm sure you're bright enough to realize that tankers, just like pipelines, and resource extraction all go hand in hand as part of the overall system required to produce and efficiently export to foreign markets.

If you're initial smarmy inquiry was inferring that Sask. has no stake in a discussion on C-48, then either you're not as bright as you think you are, or you're sitting South of the border happily watching the US buy our oil at a huge discount and then turning around and reselling it at a tidy profit. If that's the case, you'll have to excuse me if I side with Scott Mo on this one.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Maybe it's time to shut them carbon burning tractors down, we have close to 2 Billion barrels/day of oil flowing beneath our feet right now in Sask. what's a couple thousand barrels to leave shore in Northern BC compared to that?

You are correct.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Decapoda View Post

I hesitate to bring this up since you seem somewhat coherent, but grain doesn't move on tankers. I'm sure you're bright enough to realize that tankers, just like pipelines, and resource extraction all go hand in hand as part of the overall system required to produce and efficiently export to foreign markets.
If you're initial smarmy inquiry was inferring that Sask. has no stake in a discussion on C-48, then either you're not as bright as you think you are, or you're sitting South of the border happily watching the US buy our oil at a huge discount and then turning around and reselling it at a tidy profit. If that's the case, you'll have to excuse me if I side with Scott Mo on this one.

"The Almighty says to quit changin' the subject an' answer the fockin' question."

--Stephen, Braveheart
 
Hoid
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Decapoda View Post

I hesitate to bring this up since you seem somewhat coherent, but grain doesn't move on tankers.

Grain doesn't move on tankers?
Record amounts of Canadian grain move through the port of Vancouver.
But probably none from Saskatchewan

D'uh
 
petros
+1
#13
Grain is shipped in bulk carriers.

D'uh.
 
Decapoda
+2
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Grain doesn't move on tankers?


Nope.


Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Record amounts of Canadian grain move through the port of Vancouver


Yeah, on bulk carriers.


Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

D'uh


Don't be too hard on yourself, it can be hard to cure stupid.
 
Decapoda
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Grain is shipped in bulk carriers.

D'uh.


You beat me to it.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#16
Good. Who cares what Saskibush thinks.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#17
So, let me get this straight. A ban on tankers on the West Coast brought about by Westerners on the West Coast is going to alienate Westerners?

WTF?

Do you guys ever read what you've written by before hitting the button?

Really?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Do you guys ever read what you've written by before hitting the button?
Really?

Apparently not. I asked Decapoda, who isn't usually stupid or dishonest, if there was much tanker activity in Saskatchewan. So far I've heard everything except an answer to the question.
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
+2
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Grain doesn't move on tankers?
Record amounts of Canadian grain move through the port of Vancouver.
But probably none from Saskatchewan

D'uh

In Hopper Cars, not Tanker Cars for Grain. Lentils (back 30yrs when I was humping sacks) get (or use to) get bagged and travel in Box Cars (50kg sacks and 1100 per Car) loaded by hand back in the 80's. I'd have 2200 sacks across my shoulders (two box cars filled per day) five days a week (almost a 1/4 million pounds a day).
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Apparently not. I asked Decapoda, who isn't usually stupid or dishonest, if there was much tanker activity in Saskatchewan. So far I've heard everything except an answer to the question.

Arrrr.

There be scurvy pirates an the shores of mighty Wascana!

http://youtu.be/DuGGNsE3_8Y
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
+1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

So, let me get this straight. A ban on tankers on the West Coast brought about by Westerners on the West Coast is going to alienate Westerners?

WTF?

Do you guys ever read what you've written by before hitting the button?

Really?

Brought about by the Liberal party Federally (Bill C-4 to create Western infighting. It's working too so I'm assuming it was Gerald Butts idea and Justin just had to be told it was his idea. Divide & conquer the West from Ottawa.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

Brought about by the Liberal party Federally (Bill C-4 to create Western infighting. It's working too so I'm assuming it was Gerald Butts idea and Justin just had to be told it was his idea. Divide & conquer the West from Ottawa.

Are there any facts in play in this. . . I hesitate to use the word. . . debate?

Stuff like relative safety of larger and smaller tankers? Relative fuel efficiency per ton of cargo moved? Infrastructure costs?

Anything?
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Apparently not. I asked Decapoda, who isn't usually stupid or dishonest, if there was much tanker activity in Saskatchewan. So far I've heard everything except an answer to the question.

Saskatchewan is landlocked, and is the second largest oil producing province in Canada. Lots of Oil Tanker Rail Cars if that answers your question. The Bakken Play that lays under much of ND is also under much of Southern SK. The Oil Sands that are under Fort Mac are also under Mid-Western SK but are still undeveloped.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

Saskatchewan is landlocked, and is the second largest oil producing province in Canada. Lots of Oil Tanker Rail Cars if that answers your question. The Bakken Play that lays under much of ND is also under much of Southern SK. The Oil Sands that are under Fort Mac are also under Mid-Western SK but are still undeveloped.

So, no waterways navigable to tankers?
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

Brought about by the Liberal party Federally (Bill C-4 to create Western infighting. It's working too so I'm assuming it was Gerald Butts idea and Justin just had to be told it was his idea. Divide & conquer the West from Ottawa.

Brought to you by American agents provocateurs, probably, to prevent you from selling the oil that they get from you for half price to the Chinese for full price. They have the most to gain. The Feds gain nothing from your theory.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

So, no waterways navigable to tankers?

Barely navigable by war canoe (in the wet season) ... if you don't mind a lot of long portages.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Barely navigable by war canoe (in the wet season) ... if you don't mind a lot of long portages.

Thank you. My knowledge of Saskatchewan geography is limited. Wisconsin is "landlocked" too, but seems to do a fair amount of trade by water.
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
+2
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Are there any facts in play in this. . . I hesitate to use the word. . . debate?

Stuff like relative safety of larger and smaller tankers? Relative fuel efficiency per ton of cargo moved? Infrastructure costs?

Anything?

Good questions. Here's more. Are Larger Tankers safer in Southern BC with lots of traffic than Northern BC with much less traffic? Are smaller tankers safer off the West Coast than off the East Coast? Why do Super-Tankers exist? Why are B-Trains (Truck/Tractor combo's) a 'Thing' when 20 years ago in Canada they didn't exist?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

Good questions. Here's more. Are Larger Tankers safer in Southern BC with lots of traffic than Northern BC with much less traffic? Are smaller tankers safer off the West Coast than off the East Coast? Why do Super-Tankers exist? Why are B-Trains (Truck/Tractor combo's) a 'Thing' when 20 years ago in Canada they didn't exist?

I presume they exist because they're more profitable. That's an argument with limits.

I'm not sure what road trains have to do with this, but I'm sure you have a point somewhere. I do hope it's something a bit more sensible than "bigger is necessarily and inevitably better."
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

So, no waterways navigable to tankers?

No. Please Google a map of North America. No Ocean Going Tankers in Saskatchewan for the same reason they aren't in Montana and Utah. It's tough getting them over the mountains to the West, and Western Canada is a long ways from the Atlantic.
 

Similar Threads

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