Sign in to follow this  
Guest longtimer

Open Topic On Canadian Politics

Recommended Posts

So if we have Dutch disease what has caused the Canadian dollar to drop so much in the last year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you even know what Dutch Disease is? You think it has to do with elm trees?

It occurs when a country's currency is over-valued, resulting in a loss of competitiveness and the loss of jobs, even entire industries as a consequence. No one is seriously arguing that the Canadian dollar wasn't significantly over-valued, and that that over-valuation - a reflection mainly of high commodity prices - and that's why the new BoC governor has been trying to talk it down.

So if we have Dutch disease what has caused the Canadian dollar to drop so much in the last year?

Doesn't the post answer that question?

High commodity prices caused the overvaluation of the loonie and the correction in prices (such as gold, silver,copper etc) would get credit for the dollar to drop.

No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest longtimer

Analysis

Thomas Mulcair and the black hole of party accountability

NDP's 'satellite offices' show the transparency gap when it comes to party spending

By Greg Weston, CBC News Posted: May 16, 2014 5:00 AM ET| Last Updated: May 16, 2014 5:00 AM ET Greg Weston

National Affairs Specialist

Greg Weston is an investigative reporter and a regular political commentator on CBC Radio and Television. Based in Ottawa, he has afflicted governments of all stripes for over three decades. His investigative work has won awards including the coveted Michener Award for Meritorious Public Service in Journalism. He is also the author of two best-selling books, Reign of Error and The Stopwatch Gang.

The current flap over whether the NDP used parliamentary funds for partisan activities is actually much ado about not much.

But it points to a far greater problem of political parties spending millions of tax dollars with all the transparency and accountability of a black hole.

The current controversy involves satellite offices the NDP set up in Toronto and Montreal in 2011, with another that was slated to open in Saskatchewan but never did.

The facilities were leased and used in part by the party, but they also housed NDP staffers paid by the House of Commons, allegedly to perform parliamentary business in cities some distance from Parliament.

■Mulcair maintains party followed rules on satellite offices

The Conservatives and Liberals claim the NDP was trying to pull a fast one on Canadian taxpayers, taking public money designated for Parliament and using it instead to run party operations.

All of which is enough to leave ordinary Canadians nodding off at dinner tables across the land.

But then NDP leader Tom Mulcair made an extraordinary statement: The money came from the party, he said, not the public.

"Not a single cent of taxpayers' dollars was used to rent those spaces," he told a Commons committee.

Oh, that taxpayers should be so lucky.

Same pocket

Truth is, whether the NDP was spending money from its parliamentary budget or the party's coffers makes little difference to taxpayers — almost all of that money ultimately comes from the same pocket.

According to public records, the three main federal parties collectively spent about $50 million in 2012 (the most recent year for which statistics are available).

Roughly $46 million of that — or 92 per cent — came from Canadian taxpayers. Here's the math:

Canadians who gave donations to political parties were reimbursed $22 million in tax credits.

The parties then received another $24 million from the federal government in direct subsidies, based on the number of votes each won in that last federal election.

That adds up to $46 million.

The parties' windfall was even bigger in 2011, an election year, when the grateful taxpayers of the land coughed up a whopping $116 million.

That year, the government refunded $31 million in tax credits to political donors; gave out $29 million in per-vote subsidies to the parties; and passed along more than $56 million in refunds of election expenses incurred by parties and candidates.

While every penny of that comes from the public purse, the nation's political parties cling to the quaint 19th-century notion that the spending of all that money is nobody's business but their own.

Every year, the federal parties have to file audited annual financial statements with Elections Canada.

But those statements merely describe the party's expenditures of so many millions of dollars of public funds in broad categories such as advertising, salaries, travel and hospitality.

Elections Canada has no power to audit or otherwise check a party's books, even though they are accounting mainly for public funds.

The watchdog agency can't even compel parties to hand over a single invoice or receipt to back their financial statements.

Even the auditor general is powerless to follow the money once it is in the hands of a federal political party.

And forget trying to get at all those financial secrets using the Access to Information Act: political parties are exempt.

The category known as other

Given the lack of independent oversight, it is hardly a wonder that parties seem particularly fond of a category called "Other."

In 2012, for instance, the Conservatives' annual filing posted $312,000 as "Other." The previous year, the party claimed $2.3 million of election expenses under the same miscellaneous heading.

In that same election year filing, the Bloc Quebecois claimed fully 10 per cent of its total campaign spending as "Other" — and was thereby entitled to be reimbursed for part of those expenses by Elections Canada with no further proof required.

In short, the federal political parties are able to spend tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money every year — and collect massive amounts in election-expense rebates — with almost no public accountability.

The Harper government is gradually phasing out the per-vote subsidies to political parties, so those amounts will be eliminated altogether before the next federal election scheduled for 2015.

But that will still leave tens of millions of dollars a year in public funds disappearing into the black hole of party coffers.

Mulcair was technically correct when he said not a single cent of taxpayers' money was used to rent the party's satellite offices.

Clearly, it was a whole lot more than that.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/thomas-mulcair-and-the-black-hole-of-party-accountability-1.2644718?cmp=rss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again, Harper all puffed up with indignation over Ukraine, sending UNARMED jets to Poland. Aren't you shaking in your boots, Vladimir?

Well, maybe not. Harper wimped out.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/16/ukraine-crisis-sanctions-canada-idUKL1N0NZ0RX20140516

But unlike the United States, Canada has not moved against Sergei Chemezov, who heads state-owned industrial and defense conglomerate Rostec, and Igor Sechin, CEO of oil giant Rosneft . Both men, who are close to Putin, have business ties to Canada.

Rosneft owns some 30 percent of a Canadian oil field, while Rostec has an aircraft assembly joint venture lined up with Bombardier Inc. The venture is vital to the Canadian plane and train maker, as the fate of a roughly $3.4 billion aircraft sale deal is tied to it.

Asked about the decision not to go after either Sechin or Chemezov, a Canadian government source familiar with Ottawa's sanctions strategy told Reuters: "Our goal is to sanctionRussia, it is not to go out of our way to sanction or penalize Canadian companies."

The comments appear to contrast with the official government approach. Harper, referring to the Ukraine crisis, said in March that "we will not shape our foreign policy to commercial interests" and officials say that stance is still valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest longtimer

Here we go again, the Liberal Leader controlling his MPs

Justin Trudeau's abortion stance leaves Liberal ranks in confusion

It's not clear what the consequences will be if Liberal MPs vote along anti-abortion lines

By Leslie MacKinnon, CBC News Posted: May 21, 2014 5:00 AM ET| Last Updated: May 21, 2014 5:00 AM ET

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has clarified his position on the abortion regarding the stances of incoming Liberal MPs, but some aren't clear about what would happen if they don't vote along party lines. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau tried to clarify his abortion policy over the long weekend, saying he knows people were "troubled" by it.

New MPs in his party, he said, can be personally opposed to abortion as long as they vote along party lines on any bill or motion that tries to restrict a woman's right to choose.

■Justin Trudeau's abortion policy will 'definitely' hurt Liberals, former MP says​

■Abortion-rights move by NDP to embarrass Liberals could backfire

It was an attempt to straighten out the impression Trudeau made in an announcement on May 7 when it seemed to some that would-be candidates might be scrubbed on the basis of their personal views.

In the foyer of the House of Commons, Trudeau told reporters that candidates for Liberal nominations would be screened about how they "feel" about issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion.

On Monday, Trudeau released a message on the Liberal.ca website.

Trudeau spelled out that "Liberal MPs are welcome and encouraged to hold fast to their personal beliefs."

But he asserted, "Under my leadership, incoming Liberal MPs will always vote in favour of a woman's fundamental rights."

Party must speak with 'one voice'

Trudeau continued, "When it comes to actively supporting women's rights, our party must speak with one voice."

The use of words such as "must" and "will always" seemed to leave little doubt that if new MPs don't vote the party line on abortion, they could face unpleasant consequences such as being cut out of critics' roles, positions on committees or MPs' travel.

A whipped vote can even result in a miscreant MP being kicked out of caucus. In the past, the Liberal Party allowed free votes on so-called issues of conscience.

Rob Oliphant, a former Liberal MP and an ordained United Church minister who is seeking the Liberal nomination for the Toronto riding of Don Valley West, said at first it wasn't clear to him that a candidate who has an "alternative" view on abortion could run.

In a phone interview he explained he had no trouble telling the Liberal Party's screening or "green light' committee he supported a woman's right to choose.

Concerned candidates wouldn't be 'green-lit'

But, he added, "I did have a concern that people who hold another value or different religious view or whatever would be stopped from running, would not be green-lit. That is a bother to me, because we're a big tent party."

Oliphant said he was reassured by reading that Liberal MP Wayne Easter told a Charlottetown newspaper a person who has anti-abortion views could become a Liberal MP, but he or she would be expected to vote along party lines.

Oliphant assumed, he said, adding "these are my words," that "they would suffer the consequences as anyone would when they break a whipped vote."

That, said Oliphant, is "advance notice to a person so they can self-select and say, 'If I can't live with that then I won't run.'"

Easter, reached by phone in P.E.I., described himself as the only MP on the Island who "ever was pro-choice." Easter said he didn't know if a vote on abortion would be whipped, and noted that Trudeau was asked the same question by a reporter during his May 7 announcement .

"That's a tough one," Trudeau replied, and then, as Easter put it, "He moved away from it."

'Maybe you don't vote'

"Maybe you don't vote," Easter said. "I've seen people not vote because morally they couldn't support a position, or a belief system, or whatever."

He continued, "That's one of the possibilities. The only person who can answer whether it will be a whipped vote is the leader."

Trudeau's office did not reply to an email from CBC News about whether votes on abortion would be whipped.

Sean Casey is a P.E.I. Liberal MP who has strong anti-abortion views. On May 9 he issued a statement saying, "I have openly expressed my personal struggle with this issue in the past."

However, he continued, "My personal views should not come first." He then went on to clarify Trudeau's stance, which he said the public had misunderstood.

"Candidates who hold a pro-life view won’t be barred from running. Their personal views will remain their own," Casey wrote.

But, he added, "It’s expected that they will commit to upholding the position of the Supreme Court, regardless of how difficult this may be for them."

Other parties on abortion

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has said no current or future NDP MP "will ever vote against a woman's right to choose."

The Conservatives allow a free vote on abortion issues.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, reached Tuesday in her B.C. riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands, said the Green Party "around the world" never whips votes and she doesn't, under her party's rules, have the power to unilaterally reject a nomination candidate who holds anti-abortion views.

She said, however, that the Green Party "supports unequivocally a woman's right to access safe legal abortions."

May, who once studied to become an Anglican minister, added, "My own personal views are that, as a practising Christian, part of my understanding of protecting life is that we must have access to safe and legal abortions. Otherwise women die."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-s-abortion-stance-leaves-liberal-ranks-in-confusion-1.2648752?cmp=rss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest longtimer

and on the other hand we just might be seeing the seeds of a "New Liberal" party.



Trudeau's abortion policy lays groundwork for 2015 election

Unexpected announcement could lead to Liberal gains at NDP expense, says pollster

By Trinh Theresa Do, CBC News Posted: May 21, 2014 2:27 PM ET| Last Updated: May 21, 2014 2:32 PM ET
It was a clumsy 10 seconds when Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau was weighing in his head how to answer the question of whether he'd whip MP votes on any abortion issues that might come up in Parliament.

"Um. That is. Uh, uh, an issue that ... I've committed in my ... Well, it is a tough one," he said to reporters in the House of Commons, before getting into the groove of an answer that ultimately threw Parliament Hill-goers and members of his own party for a loop. ​
Trudeau said future candidates would be expected to vote pro-choice on any bills, and that "moving forward, the party that we're building ... will be resolutely pro-choice."

The announcement surprised a number of Liberal MPs and created a flurry of confusion within party ranks about whether anti-abortion candidates (including former Liberal MPs and cabinet ministers) would be excluded from the party in the future.

Several sources told CBC News that the Liberal leader's remarks were off the cuff and not as clear as they should have been. The party then clarified on Victoria Day that all personal views are welcome, but that incoming Liberal MPs must vote pro-choice.

Whether or not the declaration was originally a Trudeau slip, it's become a strategic move.

Advancing on NDP territory

“I believe that what the Liberals are trying to do is lay track, so to speak, for the next election,” said pollster Nik Nanos of Nanos Research.

Sources tell CBC News that federal Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau's announcement that incoming MPs must vote pro-choice may be a strategic move ahead of the 2015 election. (Jonathan Hayward/Canadian Press)

Nanos said that because the abortion debate is "a lightning rod" for many Canadians, Trudeau is bringing it up now so it doesn't look like the Liberals are "desperately pulling a rabbit out of a hat" in the midst of the election campaign.

At the same time, it's another indicator that the Liberal leader might be turning the page on the party, as previously evidenced by support for marijuana legalization and removing senators from the Liberal caucus.

The stark pro-choice stance is also a clear advance on traditional NDP territory. The Official Opposition's policy is to guarantee safe and accessible abortions.

"The New Democrats should actually be quite afraid," said Nanos.

“The challenge for them is that Trudeau has staked out a position that resonates very well with New Democrats.”

What that means, he said, is if the next election is about who can beat Stephen Harper, then there will be people who will "reluctantly" vote Liberal even if they support the NDP because they are being "squeezed politically."

Though some Liberal sources said they're unsure if the move will result in a net gain or net loss for the party, Nanos believes this will be a Liberal gain in the long term. He said the issue of being pro-choice is not necessarily a major force because the more socially conservative Liberals would still have to "turn themselves inside out" to vote Conservative.

Managing Liberal discontent

The Liberal Party is already touting the positives of the announcement.

"Since releasing his letter to the party membership on Sunday, 2,000 Canadians who had never interacted with the Liberal Party before have been in touch and over 10,000 Canadians have signed the petition," said Trudeau spokeswoman Kate Purchase in an email to CBC News.

But Nanos said there are still risks for Trudeau, who is branded as a "fresh-faced" leader engaging in a "different type" of politics.

That image could potentially be undermined if Trudeau looks to be a heavy-handed leader.

“He has to watch out that there isn’t a narrative that the Liberals are divided,” said Nanos.

What's important, he said, is how Trudeau manages discontent within Liberal ranks — something that afflicted former Liberal leader and prime minister John Turner.

“If party members aren't behind their own leader, how can Canadians be behind their leader?”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest longtimer

Is it "anything" to get a vote????

If the following story is accurate, he has lost my support in regard to his position on abortion .................... abortion for a number of reasons, rape, disease, danger to the mother among others fall within my standards of acceptance but abortion because the sex of the baby is not agreeable is not a reason for abortion. .........




Trudeau weighs in on sex-selective abortion

7:30 pm, May 22nd, 2014



Trudeau weighs in on sex-selective abortion
Liberal leader Justin Trudeau

Credits: REUTERS/Chris Wattie

TORONTO - Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau wouldn't try to talk a woman out of a sex-selective abortion - aborting a child based on gender alone - because it is a "charter right."

Some immigrant communities are aborting female fetuses in Canada because they don't value daughters as highly as sons.

The Canadian Medical Journal, public opinion polls and the NDP condemn the practice.

"I will leave discussions like that between a woman and the health professionals that she encounters," Trudeau told Sun News Network's Marissa Semkiw during a press conference Thursday. "I don't think the government should be in the business of legislating away people's rights. And that's why the Liberal Party is steadfast in this position."

Trudeau was asked what advice he would personally offer a woman considering such an action and whether or not he had personal qualms about the practice.

"The Liberal Party is the party standing up for people's rights. And the Liberal Party will always be the party of the Charter. So we will continue to stand up for people's rights and not legislate them away," Trudeau responded.

Trudeau, reportedly a devout Catholic, has previously indicated he is personally opposed to abortion.

In January 2012 the Canadian Medical Association reported that female feticide -- terminating a pregnancy because it's a girl -- has become a common practice in many Asian countries and that it's finding root in Canada with new immigrants. The group urged physicians to stop revealing the gender of the unborn until the 30th week, when an abortion would be nearly impossible, in order to stop the practice.

"Canada has a unique opportunity to address this problem. It's a major form of discrimination against women. If Canada cannot do something to address this problem, what hope do India and China have?" Dr. Rajendra Kale, who penned the editorial, told QMI Agency in January 2012.

A 2012 Angus Reid poll found that 60% of Canadians - and 66% of women - thought there should be laws on sex-selective abortion. Support for regulation dealing with sex-selective abortion crossed all party lines.

The Opposion NDP says the practise has no place in Canadian society.

"Sex selective abortion reflects the deep inequalities between men and women and has no place in our society. We believe there is a need for education and support in order to combat that inequality," NDP sources told Sun News in an emailed statement.

There are currently no laws on abortion in Canada - including sex-selective abortion.

Trudeau has been hounded with abortion-related questions since announcing two weeks ago that new candidates who personally oppose abortion would be forbidden from running for the Liberal Party in the next federal election.

Full Transcript:

MARISSA SEMKIW: A woman comes to you. She says she's pregnant with a girl and she wants to terminate the life of the child because it's a girl. What would you say to her?

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: My position has been very clear. The Liberal Party is the party standing up for people's rights. And the Liberal Party will always be the party of the Charter. So we will continue to stand up for people's rights and not legislate them away.

MARISSA SEMKIW: So to be clear, you wouldn't discourage her from having an abortion because it's a girl?

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: My role as the leader of the Liberal Party is to make sure that Canadian legislation respects peoples rights and that's what I will continue to do.

MARISSA SEMKIW: Yesterday you said you were happy with the status quo on abortion. But right now the status quo is that it's perfectly fine to abort a child because it's a girl. Do you have no qualms with that?

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: I will leave discussions like that between a woman and the health professionals that she encounters. I don't think the government should be in the business of legislating away people's rights. And that's why the Liberal Party is steadfast in this position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it "anything" to get a vote????

If the following story is accurate, he has lost my support in regard to his position on abortion .................... abortion for a number of reasons, rape, disease, danger to the mother among others fall within my standards of acceptance but abortion because the sex of the baby is not agreeable is not a reason for abortion. .........

Lost your support?

He never had your support. You're practically Harper's shoe shiner.

Anyway, I'll stick a pin in your blue balloon.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/on-abortion-is-there-any-difference-between-harper-and-trudeau/

http://www.macleans.ca/authors/colby-cosh/why-trudeau-made-the-right-choice/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest longtimer

I might shine his shoes but unlike you I don't lick boots...... But again I am stating my opinions so what are yours on this subject or are you just content to resort to insults?

Re my support it was as stated on his position on abortion, but I guess you never read my posts in that regard, perhaps it is time to remove your blinders.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You love to post articles that support your positions but do you even bother to click on the links that might challenge them? The Macleans article is pretty clear. Harper and Trudeau are in lock step when it comes to their position on reopening the abortion debate before parliament. Neither one of them will allow it to happen. Everything else, including the issue of sex-selective abortion, becomes nothing more than grist for the mill since neither one of them will allow it to be debated.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest longtimer

ICHELE MANDEL | QMI AGENCY

TORONTO — It's not unconstitutional to make new citizens swear allegiance to the Queen, the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled.

Ontario's top court has dismissed the appeal of three Toronto permanent residents who are opposed to taking a citizenship oath to a foreign, Anglican, privileged monarch chosen by virtue of birth.

Michael McAteer, Simone Topey and Dror Bar-Natan argued in April that their charter rights to freedom of expression, conscience and religion would be violated if they must declare that they "will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her heirs and Successors."

The appeal court ruled Wednesday that they were being "too literal" in their interpretation of the Queen — they are not asked to swear allegiance to her personally, but to our constitutional monarchy.

"The purpose of the oath is not to compel expression but to obtain a commitment to our form of government from those wishing to become Canadian citizens," Justice Karen Weiler wrote on behalf of the court.

"The oath is secular and is not an oath to the Queen in her personal capacity but to our form of government of which the Queen is a symbol."

The appeal panel also overruled a lower court judge who found that the oath does violate new citizens’ right to free speech, but it was a reasonable limit on the right of expression that is justifiable in a free and democratic society.

The appeal court said new citizens are free to demonstrate and lobby against the monarchy and it won't affect their status as Canadians.

"They are entirely free to express their opinions," Weiler wrote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest longtimer

This , if political in nature, is the act of a coward.

Justin Trudeau’s home broken into while wife, kids slept: spokeswoman

The Canadian Press

Aug 16, 2014 02:09:43 PM

ustin Trudeau’s office says the Liberal leader’s home was broken into Saturday morning while his wife and children slept.

A spokeswoman says the Liberals leader himself was working in Winnipeg at the time.

Kate Purchase says that “everyone in the family is safe and nobody was harmed.”

She says a threatening note was left inside the home but that police asked her not to comment on its comments.

Purchase says to her knowledge, nothing was taken.

She says Trudeau’s family is on their way to meet him in Montreal.

Ottawa police and RCMP are investigating, but would not comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This , if political in nature, is the act of a coward.

Justin Trudeau’s home broken into while wife, kids slept: spokeswoman

The Canadian Press

Aug 16, 2014 02:09:43 PM

ustin Trudeau’s office says the Liberal leader’s home was broken into Saturday morning while his wife and children slept.

A spokeswoman says the Liberals leader himself was working in Winnipeg at the time.

Kate Purchase says that “everyone in the family is safe and nobody was harmed.”

She says a threatening note was left inside the home but that police asked her not to comment on its comments.

Purchase says to her knowledge, nothing was taken.

She says Trudeau’s family is on their way to meet him in Montreal.

Ottawa police and RCMP are investigating, but would not comment.

Well it probably wasn't a stoner that broke in...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More likely a "supplier". They can't be happy about the prospect of lost income for them if marijuana is fully legalized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet it's staged, although it's a bit early for that game. You usually want to stage a fake break-in right before the vote, to generate a few sympathy points. Kinda like the never-found criminal who broke into Duncan Dee's house, or sat outside with a gun or whatever it was...ah yes http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/police-close-case-on-gun-incident-at-air-canada-exec-s-home-1.1001242

Didn't assault, didn't steal but left...a note. Call me skeptical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet it's staged, although it's a bit early for that game. You usually want to stage a fake break-in right before the vote, to generate a few sympathy points. Kinda like the never-found criminal who broke into Duncan Dee's house, or sat outside with a gun or whatever it was...ah yes http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/police-close-case-on-gun-incident-at-air-canada-exec-s-home-1.1001242

Didn't assault, didn't steal but left...a note. Call me skeptical.

I think they were Conservative operatives looking to spy on Liberal election plans, LOL

Watergate began as a simple break-in, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet it's staged, although it's a bit early for that game. You usually want to stage a fake break-in right before the vote, to generate a few sympathy points. Kinda like the never-found criminal who broke into Duncan Dee's house, or sat outside with a gun or whatever it was...ah yes http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/police-close-case-on-gun-incident-at-air-canada-exec-s-home-1.1001242

Didn't assault, didn't steal but left...a note. Call me skeptical.

Call me naive, but I would like to think Mr Trudeau has a little more integrity than that.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RELEASE THE NOTE. I'm half kidding but, really. This guy was born into politics and is running against Harper, one of the most calculating politicians in Canadian history. Trudeau is bringing his A game, we can be certain of that. What would you do for completely unchecked executive power over an entire nation? The cops would figure it out..yeah, a couple of Robert Bordens says I doubt it.

Politicians/integrity. Ha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're right to be so skeptical ZV.... That's how we find truth, through skepticism... But I think your BS detector is in need of calibration. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NEB sets out dispute resolution process for Trans Mountain pipeline

Under new process, decisions on permitting disputes will be sped up to take 3-5 weeks, says NEB

The Canadian PressPosted: Jan 18, 2018 3:00 PM PT Last Updated: Jan 18, 2018 5:00 PM PT

The National Energy Board says it has streamlined the permitting process in order to be able to render quick decisions on future disputes, after Kinder Morgan encountered what it called significant delays securing permits from Burnaby, B.C.

The National Energy Board says it has streamlined the permitting process in order to be able to render quick decisions on future disputes, after Kinder Morgan encountered what it called significant delays securing permits from Burnaby, B.C. (Erin Collins/CBC)

The National Energy Board says it has established a process to resolve future permitting issues between the builders of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project and provincial and municipal authorities.

The NEB says that under the new process, it will take about three to five weeks to reach a decision on future disputes for permits the project is required to get under conditions imposed on the project.

Kinder Morgan Canada Ltd. had asked for a way to resolve future disputes after encountering what it called significant delays securing permits from Burnaby, B.C., that led to it launching a legal challenge.

The NEB ruled in favour of Kinder Morgan Canada on that challenge in early December, allowing the company to bypass some bylaws in the city that were found to be obstructing the project.

The company said Wednesday that it estimated that the Trans Mountain expansion project was a year behind schedule after encountering regulatory and permitting delays.

The project, which would nearly triple oil shipping capacity from Alberta to the West Coast, faces significant opposition from numerous Indigenous groups, environmentalists and municipalities in British Columbia.

Company pleased

Kinder Morgan issued a statement Thursday afternoon praising the NEB decision.

"Provision of a process that is open, fair and provides certainty for all parties is good news and is an important component of the assurances we need for the successful execution of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project," Kinder Morgan president Ian Anderson said in the statement.

Kinder Morgan said the company would work with communities along the pipeline route in good faith.

The company reiterated the pipeline's benefits, which it said included getting Alberta oil to international markets and economic benefits to Canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this