[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[frunk]

So not clear to me if there are any additional concessions made by Canada today compared to what steps were promised a couple of weeks ago.

Lightly edited for spelling.

It's a repeat of the Colombia "Threaten, piss off allies and get pushback, claim victory while retreating to the status quo".  Foreign policy for Trump is primarily about looking tough and distracting from what they are doing to the government.

[celedhring]

Crap, we're next and we don't really have a common border to send 10,000 people to.

[viper37]

1) There were native protests about Trans-Mountain too.  Nobody needed to send in the Army - just the RCMP.

2) Environmental regulations for national projects (like pipelines) are set by the Federal government.  Nobody was saying they should be "set aside" - in particular since they were changed mid-way through.

3) It was the private sector which was proposing Energy East.  It was only deemed non-viable after Quebec put up as many roadblocks and obstructions as it could.


I have a feeling if Energy East was re-proposed today it would get a different reception.

1) Jurisprudence has changed since then, the Federal and Provincial government are obligated to negotiate in good faith with First Nations for every project and compensate them adequately.   With Trans-Mountain, the First Nations were in agreement with the project and had signed their consent.  Those who where chained, illegally occupied public property and the then Conservatives wanted removed by force - contrary to other protesters who apparently have unlimited freedom of speech now  -  where part of an opposing group claiming to be hereditary chiefs, which has no legal status, and is of a dubious claim on top of it, since there's no real way to verify the veracity of their claim.


2)  Provinces have rules too, and they should not be ignored.  I am willing to set for one of the other, the most stringent of the two.  Basic non environmental federal laws should not be ignored either:
 
In 2015, National Energy Board members—NEB's chief executive, Peter Watson, Lyne Mercier, Jacques Gauthier and Roland George "derailed" the Board's public hearings and were "forced to recuse themselves from further dealings with Energy East".^[12] They had held secret, private meetings in January 2015, with stakeholders, including Jean Charest, former Premier of Quebec who represented TransCanada at the time as a consultant.^[13] Board members were "supposed to handle all of their dealings with stakeholders in public." Conservative MP, Lisa Raitt said the board members made a mistake with Energy East. "The NEB is there to make sure they do everything legally, by the book...If I were the minister in charge, I would read them the riot act."^[7][12]


Then we have this:
The proposed route crossed the "traditional territory of 180 different aboriginal communities",^[14] most of which were strongly against it.^[15] Each of the 180 may^{[clarification needed]} in law have had a veto under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau had previously vowed to sign and uphold.^[16] This veto right was supported by some Canadian oil extraction corporations such as Suncor.^[17]

Energy East had generated controversy in various areas. Some communities through which it was proposed to pass (notably North Bay, Kenora, and Thunder Bay)^[18] opposed it categorically.

In partial response to these concerns, the NEB had planned to hear aboriginal oral evidence ^[19] from 70 specific intervenors.^[20]

The project was also strongly opposed by some Canadians on scientific grounds. The Pembina Institute released a report urging the National Energy Board to consider the impact on carbon emissions, estimating the project's upstream impact as being between 30 and 32 million tonnes of carbon emissions per year.^[21][22] This position was supported by the Governments of Ontario and Quebec, who had wanted the impact of the project on greenhouse gases examined as part of the National Energy Board review process, but did not oppose the project in principle.^[23] The Ontario Energy Board^[24] also had right to assert its own conditions and jurisdiction, but did not before the project was cancelled.^{[citation needed]}

Another controversial aspect was a new supertanker complex at the eastern end of the pipeline near Quebec City. Exploratory work was put on hold for a month after the Quebec Superior Court found that the Quebec environment ministry had not considered the impact of the project on beluga whales in the area.^[25] A public opinion poll held in Quebec found only one-third of Québécois supported the pipeline, while it was supported by one-half of Canadians outside of Quebec.^[26]



3) The private sector with Federal subsidies and a bypass of some of our environmental rules.  The proponent spent 1 billion$ on the project before it was ultimately cancelled.  They wouldn't go forward without public money.  In fact, they complained that they lacked "government support", which is code for "no money".



So what we had was:
- Opposition from nearly all 1st Nations whose territory is crossed by the pipeline
- Failure to adequately inform the public and address First Nations concern who were lukewarm to the project
- NEB panel meeting in secret contrary to the law
- Attempt to bypass existing Federal and Provincial environmental regulations
- Complete disregard for the regulatory process
- Huge initial costs beyond the means of the investors for the possible short term returns on investment requiring public funding, like the other pipeline project supposedly needed by Alberta
- But it's all the fault of Quebec if that pipeline wasn't built.


If a project can be done within the regulatory framework, all the better for Quebec and Canada.  Maybe Alberta will stop whining at equalization?  Or go independent and we'll extract revenue from the pipeline?


As it was, you were asking to bypass all regulations, for everyone to (again) pay for the pipeline and Quebec not receiving a dime.  Even a worst deal then the foundation of Canada for the CP railroad.  

[viper37]

I don't deal with deportations.

So, it is as Trump says, you are slacking off on your duties or is it that not many illegal immigrants walk up the border from Idaho to your neck of the woods, hey?  

[viper37]

Crap, we're next and we don't really have a common border to send 10,000 people to.

See, this is the time to regret letting go of your colonial empire. 

[Jacob]

That was a whole lot of hullaballoo for basically... nothing?

On the upside, I don't think I've seen Canadians so united since the mens' hockey final during the Vancouver Olympics. I hope the sentiment sticks. I think it will.

And BB - not that I represent anyone but myself; and I'm West of you rather than East - but I'm definitely much more supportive of pipelines through BC to the coast than I was.

[HVC]

That was a whole lot of hullaballoo for basically... nothing?

With this fool he could wake up tomorrow, feel like he's not getting enough attention, and do it all over again

And BB - not that I represent anyone but myself; and I'm West of you rather than East - but I'm definitely much more supportive of pipelines through BC to the coast than I was.

If it can't go east, what's the next option, Hudson Bay?

*edit* although I guess summer only shipments would be a bitch. Is the ice thin enough for ice breakers?

[Grey Fox]

That was a whole lot of hullaballoo for basically... nothing?

With this fool he could wake up tomorrow, feel like he's not getting enough attention, and do it all over again

And BB - not that I represent anyone but myself; and I'm West of you rather than East - but I'm definitely much more supportive of pipelines through BC to the coast than I was.

If it can't go east, what's the next option, Hudson Bay?

*edit* although I guess summer only shipments would be a bitch. Is the ice thin enough for ice breakers?

1.6m thick sea ice  on average. We would need a fleet to keep it open. A good contract for Davies Ship Building co.

[Valmy]

That was a whole lot of hullaballoo for basically... nothing?

Yeah. It feels like Trump's last term where he talked and talked and talked and talked but ultimately nothing much happened.

The difference this time is Elon Musk running rampant. If we could somehow get rid of him we might get through this.

[crazy canuck]

Crap, we're next and we don't really have a common border to send 10,000 people to.

You just have to tell Trump that he's an amazing president, that he's right about everything and of course you will do everything he asks.

He then gets to say he wins, and then something else will attract his attention.

[viper37]

PP wants to army to be deployed along the border.

One or two soldiers for every km of border? Our military being stretched thin as it is, that's about as much as we could deploy I suppose.

What a fucking idiot.

I think it's time for him to cash on his pension after 2 decades wasting our time in politics doing nothing worthwhile.  Time to get a real job in the private sector Pierre!  Remember, public sector expenses are too high, show the example, gtfo, renounce your pension!

[crazy canuck]

PP wants to army to be deployed along the border.

One or two soldiers for every km of border? Our military being stretched thin as it is, that's about as much as we could deploy I suppose.

What a fucking idiot.

I think it's time for him to cash on his pension after 2 decades wasting our time in politics doing nothing worthwhile.  Time to get a real job in the private sector Pierre!  Remember, public sector expenses are too high, show the example, gtfo, renounce your pension!

Yeah, nothing screams not ready for the top job like this.  Try to maintain our force in the Baltic states against a real enemy or pull them back home to sit on their thumbs at the border.  Tough call there.

[Neil]

I feel like Poilievre saw what worked for Mexico and figured that the way to do it is to follow suit. 

I'm not thrilled about him, but who else is there to vote for?