The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
[Canadian Politics] Justin Trudeau's Great Canadian Electoral Reform Personality Test
Posts
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/hall-parliament-returns-liberals-commons-1.3417851
Why?
If what the article says is true, that seems like the right thing to do at this point?
It seems more from my reading of the article that this is just a technical detail rather then a strict affirmation of approval, given that it still needs to be ratified by Parliament.
At this point I don't know if the deal itself is good for Canada or not, and so would like to see debate on it in Parliament now that they are back under a new government.
yeah and now that the cons are out, there's likely to actually be a debate.
If enough other countries involved say no, we might be able to get away that way in saying no, and the deal would collapse or require renegotiation.
Good point. I guess an open debate can clear stuff up. This just seems like such a Harper deal.
It's kinda sorta gotta be ratified. I don't know that Canada can afford to stay out of the TPP.
Which is unfortunate, since the TPP is a shitty-ass deal, and the Harper Conservatives were so goddamned excited about free trade that they didn't bother negotiating any special provisions for Canada.
Like how Australia did on privacy.
Hence why I think Trudeau and company need to think long and hard about the consequences of accepting a deal made in error under Harper versus the potential loss of economic partnerships/opportunities and international prestige that accompanies these sorts of deals.
It's basically lose-lose.
I feel that kind of sums up the entire Harper administration.
Warms the shackles of my heart.
Sums up a lot of people's view out here.
Admittedly, I may be a bit biased against Quebec on these sorts of things after Quebec's repeated interference with energy projects in Atlantic Canada, like the Lower Churchill Project. Whether or not that's fair.
Well, to be frank (and as someone who grew up in Goose Bay), it's our own god damn fault Quebec had so much influence over our hydro projects. Smallwood was a great premier, but boy did he screw the pooch on that hydro deal.
I would rather the pipelines stay in Canada and utilize our refineries than to pipe it down to Texas or where ever. I don't know the environmental impact of the pipeline though, full disclosure, I do IT support for a midstream oil and gas company. I have seen the spills and accidents occur, I know how important inspections and monitoring is especially as the pipes get older. We doubt we will get rid of our fossil fuel dependency in our lifetime so building it seems like a "good idea?"
Please. He's ignoring the very real potential costs of sending that shit through another province.
He should turn that shit around. What is in it for Canada to have oil spills in Quebec?
Same thing could be said for whatever Quebec produces, if they needed to get it to the western ports.
I never finish anyth
I have no problem with other provinces and municipalities making decision on what should and should not go through their territories based on environmental concerns and to protect the safety of their residents.
In fact, I want them to do it, since that's their job.
Albertans might not give a shit about those things when they get in the way of almighty oil, but the confederation is not a suicide pact, so we don't have to just accept their decision without looking at the factors they are ignoring.
First, if that's the argument you want to make, make that argument. Don't go on about how it would be good for the Canadian economy, and any objection is just Quebecers being selfish.
Second, Lac Mégantic is not the killer argument you seem to think it is, since the main lesson is that oil companies can destroy a good chunk of a village without any real repercussion.
That kinda did not help with the reflexive hostility towards any project from those companies.
EDIT:
Incidentally, Asbestos, the town we named after asbestos, has a really shitty economy since we realized asbestos was dangerous.
I think it would be better for Canada if we re-started exploiting asbestos mines.
Sadly, most of the international markets died, so I think it would be a good idea to make the use of asbestos mandatory in new buildings throughout the country.
It would be good for Canada, so you don't get to complains about details like "health risk"!
A: Coderre has ZERO say if this happens or not. Like, none at all since it's provincial jurisdiction.
B: the pipeline already partially exists and only needs upgrading.
C: It benefits every single Canadian for us to sell oil from either tax revenue generated ( a little less than half goes to the Federal goverment), employment in oil related subsidiaries across Canada in either refining, plastics or manufacturing and employs 500,000 people across the country.
Do we need strict regulation and compliance. Of course. But you seriously don't understand why some people are pissed of by his reaction?
So I assume you only ever walk or take a bike? Because Asbestos is a massively dangerous product that can be replaced by other alternatives. Hydrocarbons will hopefully be phased out as a fuel source in the coming decades but will still be massively used untill then.I have a shocking revelation for you. Plastic's = hydrocarbons and will be for the long term.
A: Coderre is doing his job, advocating for the interest of the citizens of Montréal. He does not, nor should he have, the juridiction to stop the project, but that does not mean it's not part of his job to have a position on it.
B: So ?
C: Something being good for the economy is not the only thing that matter.
Opposition is not caused by the lack of advantage for Québéc, it's caused by the utter lack of trust for the oil companies, the regulations, and the actual compliance to those regulations.
The project is unpopular because it's seen as suicidal. Same thing with the very concept of even looking for natural gaz and petroleum on Anticosti island, something that would definitively be advantageous to Québec.
If you want to convince Quebeckers that the project is worth it, how about you stop insulting them and address their actual concerns.
I'm curious, when exactly I insulted anyone?
Seems like the lack of advantage to Montreal is a pretty big part of his stance.
Great way to do politics. So if there was more benefits to MTL he would be ok then and could deal with the environmental risks if I am reading that correctly.
Environmental risk is usually balanced against economical advantage, especially by the business community.
In this particular case, the risk as perceived by most of the population could not be balanced against any realistic economical advantage, but the business community could be convinced.
Of course there are a lot of holes in this idea that would need to be filled out. Nor would it be easy, but I think talking about these things upfront would result in fewer incidents and few occasions of taxpayers being on the hook.
Since the point when straight over your head, even if I keep repeating it, I'll try to reformulate it once more.
Decisions on projects are not based solely on the economical impact of the project.
Other factors are considered.
Once of those factors are the risks to people and to the environment.
Sometime, and this is the hard part, project that would be worth quite a lot, economically, are not pursued because the risk to people and to the environment is too great.
An example of this is the decision to prohibit the use of asbestos, even if it destroyed the economy of some regions.
Another example is the moratorium on fishing in the Great Banks.
In both cases, entire communities got wrecked, economically.
I'm not the one you have to convince that the pipeline is acceptable, but constantly insulting Quebeckers by accusing them of only opposing to project to get more money, instead of addressing their significant environmental concern, is not going to help. Going on about how it's good for the economy of Canada is not going to help when the problem is that any kind of petroleum exploitation is perceived as a future catastrophe.
I agree fully. I'm in the chemical engineering field and I understand that most chemical companies don't have insurance requirements as stringent as SHOULD be required of the oil industry. But that's because nobody has been responsible for the same number of large scale incidents in Western countries, receiving huge media attention, and almost no repercussions for the offending parties.
In an ideal world, they would be forced to buy insurance in a manner similar to required insurance for your car or what have you, so that they could reasonably accommodate these problems when they occur. It's not just the accident but the lack of consequence for the accident which fuels the reluctance of the populace towards many of these programs.
Given the track record, can you blame them?
The track record of what, exactly? Pipelines in general?
That seems to be a call for more regulation, oversight, and quality control, not whatever this is.
I mean, if you have a 0 petrochemical risk policy, I'd get those refineries the hell away from Montreal. Those things use some nasty chemicals.
The problem is, once a company reaches a certain size or is in a sector that is too risky according to some group of actuaries then they cannot receive insurance or would pay rates which are prohibitive. In those cases companies in effect self-insure, they pay out of pocket for anything that an insurance company would normally cover. Of course legislation could be put in place to either require insurance companies to cover them or to force the company to have reserves put aside to cover contingencies but then it is up to the oversight groups to make sure that everything is in place which I understand is part of the problem with some existing projects that don't have enough resources to monitor everything adequately.
The best solution would be to have more accountability and consequence for companies that do not comply as the financial penalties should motivate them to not cut corners and do regular inspections/maintenance. If there are just large financial costs off the jump that means only the largest companies can enter the market and smaller, perhaps safer companies can't enter due to high barriers to entry.
What if we have the rest of the country yell at Alberta and Quebec at the same time?
Then it's Wednesday.