I thought he said there was no business case for expanding to the East Coast…& he just wouldn’t allow expansion to the West Coast…?…& thus Bills C-48 and C-69?Enbridge announces $3.6 billion B.C. pipeline expansion as gas production nears record levels
Enbridge Inc. has OK'd a $3.6 billion expansion of the southern part of its B.C. gas pipeline system on strong customer demand. Read on.financialpost.com
HAHAAHAHA - you FOOLS! I've heard from Justin Trudeau himself that there's NO business case for expanding natural gas exports!!! Enjoy bankruptcy suckas!
(unless... is it possible justin was... WRONG? Naaaaaaaaaa)
www.theglobeandmail.com
This was all before his government was held hostage by honking bouncy castles . His tune has since changed .I thought he said there was no business case for expanding to the East Coast…& he just wouldn’t allow expansion to the West Coast…?…& thus Bills C-48 and C-69?
Oil Tanker Moratorium Act - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Impact Assessment Act and Canadian Energy Regulator Act - Wikipedia
Remember this “Non-Emergencies Act” moment? Addressing the House of Commons Tuesday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asked Canadians to be patient with his government as it seeks a negotiated end to Indigenous protests that have crippled the country's transportation network.
Trudeau said his government is committed to "dialogue" over the use of force with the Indigenous protesters who have shut down CN Rail in Eastern Canada and much of Via Rail's services nationwide by blocking a key artery in southern Ontario. CN announced it is "temporarily" laying off about 450 workers at its Eastern Canadian operations.
The protesters from the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory say they are acting in solidarity with some of the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs in B.C. who oppose the Coastal GasLink pipeline project running through their traditional territory.
"On all sides, people are upset and frustrated. I get it," Trudeau said. "It's understandable because this is about things that matter — rights and livelihoods, the rule of law and our democracy." This of coarse is February 2020 before COVID restrictions, & a demographic that Trudeau did NOT want to be seen enforcing existing laws against….bad for selfies…
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau defended his government’s efforts on Friday to handle a series of anti-pipeline protests, urging a negotiated resolution to the blockades that have brought much of Canada’s passenger and freight railway transportation to a halt.
Mr. Trudeau said politicians should not be telling the police how to deal with protesters, and that he and his senior ministers have been in regular contact with premiers and others to find a solution. That’s a quaint way of addressing protests?!?
Trudeau will not direct police to break up pipeline protests, sticks to negotiated strategy
Mr. Trudeau said politicians should not be telling the police how to deal with protesters, and that he and his senior ministers have been in regular contact with premiers and others to find a solution
So lets negotiate the Emergency Powers Act on the protesters before they block anything. Cut off their welfare and seize the bank accounts of all the foreign funders.I thought he said there was no business case for expanding to the East Coast…& he just wouldn’t allow expansion to the West Coast…?…& thus Bills C-48 and C-69?
Oil Tanker Moratorium Act - Wikipedia
Impact Assessment Act and Canadian Energy Regulator Act - Wikipedia
Remember this “Non-Emergencies Act” moment? Addressing the House of Commons Tuesday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asked Canadians to be patient with his government as it seeks a negotiated end to Indigenous protests that have crippled the country's transportation network.
Trudeau said his government is committed to "dialogue" over the use of force with the Indigenous protesters who have shut down CN Rail in Eastern Canada and much of Via Rail's services nationwide by blocking a key artery in southern Ontario. CN announced it is "temporarily" laying off about 450 workers at its Eastern Canadian operations.
The protesters from the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory say they are acting in solidarity with some of the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs in B.C. who oppose the Coastal GasLink pipeline project running through their traditional territory.
"On all sides, people are upset and frustrated. I get it," Trudeau said. "It's understandable because this is about things that matter — rights and livelihoods, the rule of law and our democracy." This of coarse is February 2020 before COVID restrictions, & a demographic that Trudeau did NOT want to be seen enforcing existing laws against….bad for selfies…
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau defended his government’s efforts on Friday to handle a series of anti-pipeline protests, urging a negotiated resolution to the blockades that have brought much of Canada’s passenger and freight railway transportation to a halt.
Mr. Trudeau said politicians should not be telling the police how to deal with protesters, and that he and his senior ministers have been in regular contact with premiers and others to find a solution. That’s a quaint way of addressing protests?!?
Trudeau will not direct police to break up pipeline protests, sticks to negotiated strategy
Mr. Trudeau said politicians should not be telling the police how to deal with protesters, and that he and his senior ministers have been in regular contact with premiers and others to find a solution
Why do that? Take away their chainsaws and Bic lighters.
Must keep the graft flowing .The phrase “evidence-based decision-making” was used a lot during the pandemic by government officials. “Following the science” was another common one.
It’s strange, then, that a government claiming to believe so deeply in rational thought has placed unverifiable spiritual belief at the core of how it judges the environmental impact of energy and other natural resources and infrastructure projects — and has shielded those beliefs from Canada’s transparency laws.
Such is the case with the Impact Assessment Act. Passed in 2019 with Bill C-69, it overhauled the procedure for reviewing potential environmental effects of of a new pipeline or a new mine, for example. It also represents a hypocritical rejection of science by a government that often uses “evidence-based” discourse to tell the public what to do.
Among the new procedures for approving projects is the requirement for impact assessments to consider “Indigenous knowledge.” In the previous environmental assessment law, this was optional. Now, Indigenous knowledge is one of the primary factors in deciding whether a project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.
The definition is vague and fleeting. The law itself defines “Indigenous knowledge” as “Indigenous knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of Canada” which isn’t exactly a definition. It is vague and unscientific, which has reasonably led to criticism, such as from then-Quebec deputy minister Patrick Beauchesne in 2018; he was promptly accused of racism by legal academics and his minister apologized soon after.
Jamie Sarkonak: Liberals defer to secret spiritual beliefs to approve energy projects — National Post
A hypocritical rejection of science by a government that often uses 'evidence-based' discourse to tell the public what to doapple.news
If we are going to use cultural, not scientific, information when deciding whether to build an important dam, road or pipeline, then that information should at least be available to the public. Such is not the case.
Frustratingly, the law cloaks Indigenous knowledge with confidentiality, allowing disclosure only if the knowledge was already public or was necessary for legal reasons. To be sure, I filed an access to information request myself for Indigenous knowledge and, unsurprisingly, was denied any records (the confidentiality clause was cited).
Chris Sankey: Indigenous communities are key to solving the global energy crisis — National Post
Governments need to start working with us to advance Canadian energy projects and secure Canada's place as part of the solution to the energy crisis
Secret knowledge? Like what? How the Egyptians built the pyramids? Stonehenge? How to train a dragon? A recipe for bison hotdogs?The phrase “evidence-based decision-making” was used a lot during the pandemic by government officials. “Following the science” was another common one.
It’s strange, then, that a government claiming to believe so deeply in rational thought has placed unverifiable spiritual belief at the core of how it judges the environmental impact of energy and other natural resources and infrastructure projects — and has shielded those beliefs from Canada’s transparency laws.
Such is the case with the Impact Assessment Act. Passed in 2019 with Bill C-69, it overhauled the procedure for reviewing potential environmental effects of of a new pipeline or a new mine, for example. It also represents a hypocritical rejection of science by a government that often uses “evidence-based” discourse to tell the public what to do.
Among the new procedures for approving projects is the requirement for impact assessments to consider “Indigenous knowledge.” In the previous environmental assessment law, this was optional. Now, Indigenous knowledge is one of the primary factors in deciding whether a project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.
The definition is vague and fleeting. The law itself defines “Indigenous knowledge” as “Indigenous knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of Canada” which isn’t exactly a definition. It is vague and unscientific, which has reasonably led to criticism, such as from then-Quebec deputy minister Patrick Beauchesne in 2018; he was promptly accused of racism by legal academics and his minister apologized soon after.
Jamie Sarkonak: Liberals defer to secret spiritual beliefs to approve energy projects — National Post
A hypocritical rejection of science by a government that often uses 'evidence-based' discourse to tell the public what to do
If we are going to use cultural, not scientific, information when deciding whether to build an important dam, road or pipeline, then that information should at least be available to the public. Such is not the case.
Frustratingly, the law cloaks Indigenous knowledge with confidentiality, allowing disclosure only if the knowledge was already public or was necessary for legal reasons. To be sure, I filed an access to information request myself for Indigenous knowledge and, unsurprisingly, was denied any records (the confidentiality clause was cited).
Chris Sankey: Indigenous communities are key to solving the global energy crisis — National Post
Governments need to start working with us to advance Canadian energy projects and secure Canada's place as part of the solution to the energy crisis
Some of those answers might be buried in the link:
