Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Federal/Provincial and Inter-Provincial relationship building (or not) - Post 2019 election.

  1. #1
    Forum Administrator *
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,617
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Federal/Provincial and Inter-Provincial relationship building (or not) - Post 2019 election.

    With the 2019 election call, it is time to stop with the conversations pre election, and get down to debating actual platforms announced. This thread will deal with Federal/Provincial Relations.
    Ow

  2. #2
    Forum Administrator *
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,617
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    The fact that this thread has ZERO comments from the election cycle is interesting. I will rename this one and leave it open given the Premier-designate's desire to be a "thorn in the side" of the current Federal Government. I will remove the 2019 prefix.
    Ow

  3. #3
    You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,737

    Default

    Kenney's winning speech wasn't just a shot across at Trudeau, but also at Scheer. Basically saying, if you win in the fall, you better approve that pipeline the day after you're sworn in, because between 'my' government and Ford's government, we got you elected.

    If Trudeau wins again in the fall, Kenney is going to have an uphill battle. In that case, I highly doubt that Trudeau will be willing to work with Alberta. He swore before he was elected that no pipeline would ever get built and I suspect that appeasing a few people in Alberta at the expense of losing your base in the rest of the country will not be a direction that they want to go in. If I were Kenney, I'd be looking at the tech of turning the bitumen into pucks and getting the train to Alaska built.

  4. #4
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Royal Gardens
    Posts
    1,733

    Default

    Kenneys speech is also his first step toward his only true goal, to be Prime Minister.
    My antidepressent drug of choice is running. Cheaper with less side effects!

  5. #5
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,615

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moodib
    He swore before he was elected that no pipeline would ever get built
    Source? He was quite clear during the 2015 election and even prior that he was not necessarily opposed to either Energy East or Trans Mountain, but felt that greenhouse gas emissions needed to be taken in to account during their reviews and that the overall review process needed to be revamped: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ticle25974145/

    On Thursday, Mr. Mulcair explained his refusal to come out explicitly for or against Energy East by saying, "It's as big a mistake to be against something that's never been studied thoroughly as it is to be in favour of something that's never been studied thoroughly."

    Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has been saying essentially the same thing. He says Canadian oil has to move to market, but he has carefully avoided pronouncing for or against Energy East, arguing that to do so would pre-empt the review. The Liberals, like the NDP, want to bring in "a new, comprehensive, timely and fair process that restores robust oversight, ensures decisions are evidence-based, and allows the public to meaningfully participate." Mr. Trudeau would also have greenhouse-gas emissions taken into consideration in this review process. Ditto Mr. Mulcair.
    Similar links:

    https://www.vancouverobserver.com/ne...line-expansion

    https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pipe...ects-1.2525685

    He was definitely opposed to Northern Gateway, sure. But it's false to say he was against any of Energy East, Line 3, or Trans Mountain.

  6. #6
    You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Moodib
    He swore before he was elected that no pipeline would ever get built
    Source? He was quite clear during the 2015 election and even prior that he was not necessarily opposed to either Energy East or Trans Mountain, but felt that greenhouse gas emissions needed to be taken in to account during their reviews and that the overall review process needed to be revamped: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ticle25974145/

    On Thursday, Mr. Mulcair explained his refusal to come out explicitly for or against Energy East by saying, "It's as big a mistake to be against something that's never been studied thoroughly as it is to be in favour of something that's never been studied thoroughly."

    Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has been saying essentially the same thing. He says Canadian oil has to move to market, but he has carefully avoided pronouncing for or against Energy East, arguing that to do so would pre-empt the review. The Liberals, like the NDP, want to bring in "a new, comprehensive, timely and fair process that restores robust oversight, ensures decisions are evidence-based, and allows the public to meaningfully participate." Mr. Trudeau would also have greenhouse-gas emissions taken into consideration in this review process. Ditto Mr. Mulcair.
    Similar links:

    https://www.vancouverobserver.com/ne...line-expansion

    https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pipe...ects-1.2525685

    He was definitely opposed to Northern Gateway, sure. But it's false to say he was against any of Energy East, Line 3, or Trans Mountain.
    You're correct. I meant to say Northern Gateway. He has since said there is no support for Energy East as well to appease the Quebec base.

    While there is support for Trans Mountain, I don't think they are in a huge rush, nor can they be when the bungled the consultations.

  7. #7
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,341

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Moodib
    He swore before he was elected that no pipeline would ever get built
    Source? He was quite clear during the 2015 election and even prior that he was not necessarily opposed to either Energy East or Trans Mountain, but felt that greenhouse gas emissions needed to be taken in to account during their reviews and that the overall review process needed to be revamped: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ticle25974145/

    On Thursday, Mr. Mulcair explained his refusal to come out explicitly for or against Energy East by saying, "It's as big a mistake to be against something that's never been studied thoroughly as it is to be in favour of something that's never been studied thoroughly."

    Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has been saying essentially the same thing. He says Canadian oil has to move to market, but he has carefully avoided pronouncing for or against Energy East, arguing that to do so would pre-empt the review. The Liberals, like the NDP, want to bring in "a new, comprehensive, timely and fair process that restores robust oversight, ensures decisions are evidence-based, and allows the public to meaningfully participate." Mr. Trudeau would also have greenhouse-gas emissions taken into consideration in this review process. Ditto Mr. Mulcair.
    Similar links:

    https://www.vancouverobserver.com/ne...line-expansion

    https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pipe...ects-1.2525685

    He was definitely opposed to Northern Gateway, sure. But it's false to say he was against any of Energy East, Line 3, or Trans Mountain.
    marcel, absolutely his quotes were quite clear. but that doesn't move them into the sphere of being credible/believable. because he certainly did carefully avoid pronouncing for or against. he also certainly did condition any approval process or review such that "for" is pretty much impossible to achieve while "against" is pretty much guaranteed either through outright non-approval or by attaching so many conflicting objectives that any approval would be guaranteed to be tied up in the courts for decades. wtf does "allow the public to meaningfully participate" when conditions range from downstream as well as upstream impacts to gender equity employment.
    Factors To Be Considered





    Factors — impact assessment





    22(1) The impact assessment of a designated project, whether it is conducted by the Agency or a review panel, must take into account the following factors:
    (a) the changes to the environment or to health, social or economic conditions and the positive and negative consequences of these changes that are likely to be caused by the carrying out of the designated project, including
    (i) the effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the designated project,

    (ii) any cumulative effects that are likely to result from the designated project in combination with other physical activities that have been or will be carried out, and

    (iii) the result of any interaction between those effects;


    (b) mitigation measures that are technically and economically feasible and that would mitigate any adverse effects of the designated project;

    (c) the impact that the designated project may have on any Indigenous group and any adverse impact that the designated project may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982;

    (d) the purpose of and need for the designated project;

    (e) alternative means of carrying out the designated project that are technically and economically feasible, including through the use of best available technologies, and the effects of those means;

    (f) any alternatives to the designated project that are technically and economically feasible and are directly related to the designated project;

    (g) Indigenous knowledge provided with respect to the designated project;

    (h) the extent to which the designated project contributes to sustainability;

    (i) the extent to which the effects of the designated project hinder or contribute to the Government of Canada’s ability to meet its environmental obligations and its commitments in respect of climate change;

    (j) any change to the designated project that may be caused by the environment;

    (k) the requirements of the follow-up program in respect of the designated project;

    (l) considerations related to Indigenous cultures raised with respect to the designated project;

    (m) community knowledge provided with respect to the designated project;

    (n) comments received from the public;

    (o) comments from a jurisdiction that are received in the course of consultations conducted under section 21;

    (p) any relevant assessment referred to in section 92, 93 or 95;

    (q) any assessment of the effects of the designated project that is conducted by or on behalf of an Indigenous governing body and that is provided with respect to the designated project;

    (r) any study or plan that is conducted or prepared by a jurisdiction — or an Indigenous governing body not referred to in paragraph (f) or (g) of the definition jurisdiction in section 2 — that is in respect of a region related to the designated project and that has been provided with respect to the project;

    (s) the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors; and

    (t) any other matter relevant to the impact assessment that the Agency or — if the impact assessment is referred to a review panel — the Minister requires to be taken into account.




    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •