You are a truly repulsive man.... or swapping those "tanker" wives?
I admire that.
You are a truly repulsive man.... or swapping those "tanker" wives?
It's a Navy ting.You are a truly repulsive man.
I admire that.
True. We often tried to out-gross the Navy, and never even came close.It's a Navy ting.
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 ...True. We often tried to out-gross the Navy, and never even came close.
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.”
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
Hey that guy in the comments Danny Devo sounds just like you . Do you hang around CBC comments section all day too ?B.C. court to decide if province can regulate Trans Mountain
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/brit...ntain-pipeline-environment-question-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.
Did he also cut and paste from the article itself?Hey that guy in the comments Danny Devo sounds just like you . Do you hang around CBC comments section all day too ?
B.C. court to decide if province can regulate Trans Mountain
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/brit...ntain-pipeline-environment-question-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.
No he thinks oil is dead , just like you , possibly slightly more unhinged then you . If that is possible .Did he also cut and paste from the article itself?
Christie must have appointed those judges .Not the decision you were looking for unanimous by all the judges case closed
There a lot of tanker activity in Flatskatchewan?
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.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.
Horgan promesed to squander even more taxpayers money to get the Supremes to tell him he is an idiot.Not the decision you were looking for unanimous by all the judges case closed
Hopefully the Supremes will spare taxpayers the expense by refusing to hear the appeal.Horgan promesed to squander even more taxpayers money to get the Supremes to tell him he is an idiot.
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...
I can, canoe.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.