Energy East Causing Uproar

[Accountability Now 42]

With Trudeau squashing Northern Gateway and the fate of Keystone in the hands of the next US President (or so it seems), the latest focus has been on Energy East which will see a revitalization of the pipeline that will carry oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan to the refineries in NB thus creating more domestic oil products.

However, in the news as of late Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre and local Montreal area mayors have come out against the pipeline due to environmental concerns.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-mayor-denis-coderre-energy-east-opposition-1.3413117

This was met with huge criticism from Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall who stirred the pot by bringing up the equalization money that Quebec receives:

I trust Montreal area mayors will politely return their share of $10B in equalization supported by west #EnergyEast

http://globalnews.ca/news/2469532/wall-criticizes-montreal-area-mayors-for-opposing-energy-east-pipeline/

Also Mayor Naheed Nenshi has come out and blasted Coderre for this too:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/nenshi-slams-montreal-mayor-for-opposition-to-energy-east-pipeline-1.2746505

On a bright note it looks like Ontario Premier Wynne is getting on board with the pipeline and giving her blessing:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/montreal-area-mayors-energy-east-criticisms-short-sighted-notley-says/article28339330/

Obviously there is the discussion of whether the pipeline is needed or not, but what I find intriguing is the dynamic between Quebec and the ROC. Its almost like this situation is allowing everyone to air their dirty laundry.

Definitely a tough call for Trudeau now....will this situation cause unity among the Provinces or will it the cause of a riff?

[overthere 33]

Trudeau has surely painted himself into another I PROMISE corner.(as in the refugee and ISIS promises, which make no sense) He promised to consult everybody on everyhting including pipelines. By doing so, he has encouraged partisan pond scum like Coderre to believe that every village in Canada has a veto project over every project.

He promised to reform the NEB, which seems to work OK.

He promised that every project must have social licence, which amounts to a veto.

I have a sense of mounting dread. I fear we have elected a Dangerous Fool.

[overthere 33]

Definitely a tough call for Trudeau now..

all his own doing, too.

The opposition in Quebec until now was from the PQ. Coderre and his crew are all mainstream Liberals, Trudeaus heartland in the province.

I really, really doubt that Trudeau has the spine to act in the interest of the country, and there is no doubt that Energy East is to the benefit of Canada overall. he will fold under pressure from Quebec. Actually what he will do is send this off for more study, which will take a decade or two. That is just the same as folding.

And yes, this may well be the cause of some real, and serious, strife between provinces. I give Trudeau Senior credit for being nobodys puppet. He had no problem making decisions/taking action that Quebec did not care for. I have no reason at all to think the same of his son.

Edited January 22, 2016 by overthere

[ReeferMadness 31]

I really, really doubt that Trudeau has the spine to act in the interest of the country, and there is no doubt that Energy East is to the benefit of Canada overall. he will fold under pressure from Quebec. Actually what he will do is send this off for more study, which will take a decade or two. That is just the same as folding.

And yes, this may well be the cause of some real, and serious, strife between provinces. I give Trudeau Senior credit for being nobodys puppet. He had no problem making decisions/taking action that Quebec did not care for. I have no reason at all to think the same of his son.

Oh, yeah. Because if there is one thing that 9 years of Harper's magnificent success on the building of pipeline consensus shows, it's that the Prime Minister should be a spokesperson for industry and should harass and bully people who have the temerity to object when someone tries to pump toxic sludge through their backyards. Worked great for Harper right? :rolleyes:

[Accountability Now 42]

tries to pump toxic sludge through their backyards. Worked great for Harper right? :

So oil is now toxic sludge? I wonder if anyone told Wynne that before she approved of this pipeline? It would have been easy for Trudeau to cast off this pipeline had his Liberal cohort not done this...but she did. She must be anti-environmental hey???

[Smallc 24]

So oil is now toxic sludge?

I wouldn't characterize it that way myself, but yes, it is.

[ReeferMadness 31]

So oil is now toxic sludge? I wonder if anyone told Wynne that before she approved of this pipeline? It would have been easy for Trudeau to cast off this pipeline had his Liberal cohort not done this...but she did. She must be anti-environmental hey???

Do some research on dilbit. Toxic sludge is actually kind of a charitable term.

And while you're at it, go and see what happened when a relatively minor spill occurred in the Kalamazoo River. Enbridge has spent over a billion dollars dredging the river and surrounding ponds.

Edited January 23, 2016 by ReeferMadness

[waldo 0]

This was met with huge criticism from Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall who stirred the pot by bringing up the equalization money that Quebec receives:

oh my! One would think a Provincial Premier would actually know the fundamentals and understand just how equalization works.

[poochy 3]

Do some research on dilbit. Toxic sludge is actually kind of a charitable term.

And while you're at it, go and see what happened when a relatively minor spill occurred in the Kalamazoo River. Enbridge has spent over a billion dollars dredging the river and surrounding ponds.

You should go to lac Megantic and see what a train load of oil did there, I mean you're arguing for train and truck transport over pipelines right? Well of course we know that isn't true, you're arguing for, like you do on every thread like this, is the impossibility of an oil free economy, an eco marxist utopia, and with opinions like that...Anyway, to say the you're arguing against a pipeline from a dishonest position would be putting it mildly.

[Accountability Now 42]

Do some research on dilbit. Toxic sludge is actually kind of a charitable term.

.

No...a toxic sludge is a waste product, something that is not useful. Correct me if I'm wrong but you use the products in that substance you are calling 'toxic sludge".

Of course you glossed over the major point...if this stuff is toxic sludge then that must make the Liberal Premier from Ontario an anti-environment type since she approves this going through their back yard. How do you think Trudeau is going to deal with his provincial cohort now approving this toxic sludge.

[ReeferMadness 31]

You should go to lac Megantic and see what a train load of oil did there, I mean you're arguing for train and truck transport over pipelines right? .

Do I detect a certain bitter tone? Why is it so many people are so determined to preserve Alberta's status as diggers of sludge and inheritors of the world's largest toxic hole in the ground? Alberta was there before the oil was discovered and will be there after the sludge is gone. Or worthless.

Well of course we know that isn't true, you're arguing for, like you do on every thread like this, is the impossibility of an oil free economy, an eco marxist utopia,

Did you just call me an eco marxist? You flatterer you. What are you trying to get from me? Actually, Marx doesn't really do it for me. All those workers throwing off chains - it seems so medieval and tiresome.

Anyway, to say the you're arguing against a pipeline from a dishonest position would be putting it mildly.

Tsk. Dishonest. Now them's fightin' words.

That's OK. I've been called enough things enough times to know which ones have merit, which ones I need to think about some more and which are just the empty words of people who don't get it.

Dishonest is the pretense that we can keep on endlessly expanding in a finite world. It's the delusion that we can keep on poisoning the biosphere because we'll always have the technology to fix it by time it comes back to us. It's the biggest of the big lies: that Russian experiment started in 1919 had some real association with socialism and that unregulated capitalism cannot only coexist with but is somehow synonymous with democracy and freedom. Dishonest is the belief that we understand enough to mess with the physical world of climate and biospheres but somehow the human-invented world of economic activity is too complicated for governments to get involved in and so we need to let markets regulate themselves.

[ReeferMadness 31]

No...a toxic sludge is a waste product, something that is not useful. Correct me if I'm wrong but you use the products in that substance you are calling 'toxic sludge".

So, I can tell you didn't do the research - that's very disappointing. Not only that but you seem to lack an understanding of the words "toxic" and "sludge". Toxic means poisonous, which dilbit certainly is. Sludge means mud-like. (In fairness, dilbit isn't mud-like because it has all of those carcinogenic, mutagenic solvents added to it to make it flow. The bitumen is mud-like. So sue me). So, how do you come to the conclusion that toxic sludge is a useless waste product? If you have a need for a carcinogenic, mutagenic, biotoxic substance that is almost impossible to clean up once it's dropped in water, then dilbit is probably a perfect fit. Would you like some in your backyard?

Of course you glossed over the major point...if this stuff is toxic sludge then that must make the Liberal Premier from Ontario an anti-environment type since she approves this going through their back yard.

You think you have me on this? I know little about Premier Wynne and I care about as much. She's a politician so I expect she goes along with a whole bunch of stuff she doesn't like to get whatever she does want. It sounds like this is very important to you so I'll let you answer your own question.

How do you think Trudeau is going to deal with his provincial cohort now approving this toxic sludge.

I couldn't even begin to guess and as luck would have it I don't have to. Trudeau has sided with Notley and Wynne on this. It's not really surprising. Like Wynne, Trudeau is a politician. Whether he really believes what he's saying or whether he is being careful to not alienate Alberta is impossible to know. Maybe he really believes his own bullshit about being able to protect the environment while still being the world's leader in purveying toxic sludge.

But one thing is certain. Unlike Harper, Trudeau is showing he can make common cause with his provincial counterparts.

[Topaz 44]

I think the Mayor Of Montreal has a real concern and maybe Justin should throw it back into the laps of the oil companies saying yes, maybe pipeline are safer than trains but its NOT safe until the pipelines are made not TO BREAK and spill and cause an environmental mess for years. I thought they were going to go through SW Ontario , but I see they go through N. Ontario. So either make a spill-proof pipe or re-direct the pipeline away from cities and carry a couple of billion for cleanup.

[Accountability Now 42]

So, I can tell you didn't do the research - that's very disappointing.

Why would I do research a scientific topic when I clearly posted this in Provincial politics. With that said, I don't need to research the items as I deal with sludge every day. Do you consider sewage to be toxic? Most municipalities do however Montreal felt it was ok to dump billions of litres of raw sewage right into the St.Lawrence. Victoria dumps all their raw sewage right into the ocean. The reality is that an item can be determined relatively toxic based on its intended use.

Vitamins can be toxic....http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vitamin+Toxicity

Gasoline is toxic....but you use that every day.....don't you.

Municipal sludge is toxic but when treated properly and applied under the right conditions will go right on farmers fields.

Hell...even water is toxic at high levels.

The fact of the matter is that everything is determined in a risk/benefit analysis and the reality is that until we stop using oil we need to have ways to move the oil and pipelines are the safest way of moving this product. In fact, one of the main reasons for the catastrophe in Kalamazoo is that they never dealt with it before and didn't respond accordingly.

You think you have me on this? I know little about Premier Wynne and I care about as much.

Then why the hell are you commenting in a post made in PROVINCIAL POLITICS with the OP citing how this will impact interprovincial relations? Do you just come here to deflect? Aside from offering the latest news on Trudeau now agreeing to the project, you offer nothing on how this will impact relations. This post has nothing to do with the science or practicalities of pipelines, nor does it have anything to do with your biggest fear (HDS), rather it is about the rift it is causing between jurisdictions. Consequently how it will affect Trudeaus base in Quebec that clearly doesn't want this go forward.

Of course....like you said you don't care so please leave the conversation for the people who do.

[waldo 0]

Of course....like you said you don't care so please leave the conversation for the people who do.

pulling partial/select statements doesn't speak well of the supposed conversation you project. Do you recognize local authorities have responsibilities to their direct constituents? That there's an onus on participating oil companies to work to allay the raised concerns of those local authorities? Surely you're not suggesting oil companies have carte blanche - surely.

[overthere 33]

Oh, yeah. Because if there is one thing that 9 years of Harper's magnificent success on the building of pipeline consensus shows, it's that the Prime Minister should be a spokesperson for industry and should harass and bully people who have the temerity to object when someone tries to pump toxic sludge through their backyards. Worked great for Harper right? :rolleyes:

Not surprisingly, you have missed the point entirely.

There can be no consensus on pipeline construction. It is impossible. Completely impossible. But the building of this economic infrastructure means much more to the economic health of this country than everybody holding hands in fellowship and harmony. It is one of the things, and a crucial element, of paying for the social contract of which you are so very fervently fond. I get that you don't understand that. But does Trudeau? Is his deep need to be loved by all greater than his ability to objectively assess the situation and base decisions on facts rather than sunny ways?

[overthere 33]

Like Wynne, Trudeau is a politician.

That is unproven, that he is a politician. Or perhaps he is a politician in the pejorative sense, and is unproven as a leader of a country.

He has put himself in a very tough position. He either tends to the economic needs of his country, or panders to some of his electorate. Either way, he reaps a whirlwind.

I think that he will do all he can to defer a decision, likely by shredding the NEB and suspending their decision.

It is the cowards way out, and I reckon he will take it.

He could push the pipelines forward, take his lumps from various quarters, and charm them back into his camp over the next few years but..... does he have both the wit and the spine?

[waldo 0]

That is unproven, that he is a politician.

again, you continue your practice of purposely taking out the member name of statements you quote... why do so? It affords no opportunity for anyone to know who you're replying to... it affords no opportunity to allow anyone to look back at the linked quote and check context. Again, this is your standard practice in quoting - why?

[Accountability Now 42]

pulling partial/select statements doesn't speak well of the supposed conversation you project. Do you recognize local authorities have responsibilities to their direct constituents? That there's an onus on participating oil companies to work to allay the raised concerns of those local authorities? Surely you're not suggesting oil companies have carte blanche - surely.

Where have I stated ANYTHING about oil companies??? Where? I have stated that Brad Wall wants this to go forward and stirred the pot talking about equalization payments. I have stated Nenshi, Notley and Wynne support this but nowhere have I stated oil companies. The OP is about political relations among inter provincial entities.... Do I need to hold your hand on this?

Now do you have something to offer or will it just be your standard deflections at this point?

[overthere 33]

again, you continue your practice of purposely taking out the member name of statements you quote... why do so? It affords no opportunity for anyone to know who you're replying to... it affords no opportunity to allow anyone to look back at the linked quote and check context. Again, this is your standard practice in quoting - why?

For brevity, and because this site does not link the entire post.

If I don't quote you Waldo, it is because your post is not worth repeating or commenting upon.

If my style is offensive , there is a report mechanism.

[waldo 0]

The OP is about political relations among inter provincial entities.... Do I need to hold your hand on this?

Now do you have something to offer or will it just be your standard deflections at this point?

obviously... political relations are based on political positions. If you believe you can discuss relations based on positions taken/held without qualifying those positions... just what do you presume to discuss? I appreciate you're taken aback by having pointed... and apparently, most inconvenient questions directed to you!

.

[waldo 0]

For brevity, and because this site does not link the entire post..

of course there's linkage to an entire post... that's what you're eliminating when you purposely take a member's name out of the quotation. You can accomplish your claimed "brevity" by leaving your "brief quote" as is... and simply leaving the members name within the quote. And again, by doing so, it affords an opportunity to realize directly who you're responding to and it allows anyone an ability to simply click the arrow within the quote to check the complete post for context. You do know about that arrow in the upper right-hand corner of a properly (name included) quoted post, right?

[Accountability Now 42]

obviously... political relations are based on political positions. If you believe you can discuss relations based on positions taken/held without qualifying those positions... just what do you presume to discuss? I appreciate you're taken aback by having pointed... and apparently, most inconvenient questions directed to you!

.

Hey...if you want to make said claims then go for it. Don't state that I made such claims and purport them in your standard deflection ways. That would be dishonest waldo....you're not dishonest...are you?

[overthere 33]

No, it only takes thew response, not the quoted bit. It is a serious shortcoming, not the case on other forums.

But if you object to the form or content, snitch to your hearts content. It is your habit, after all.

[Accountability Now 42]

But if you object to the form or content, snitch to your hearts content. It is your habit, after all.

No kidding