All First Nation reserves in support of Kinder Morgan

[vegas1500]

Its much simple than that hobby. The majority of canadians are not interested in bending over for tar sand companies as its dead end .

What's a "tar sand" company?

[mikest2]

When reading these articles, one must consider the source. The G&M article was written by a University of Saskatchewan law professor; the "Kinder Morgan Oil Pipeline to Nowhere" was an article in 'Business In Vancouver'.

IMHO, the BIV article is written by someone who has his finger on the pulse of British Columbia. The KM expansion cannot be compared to the transcontinental railways of yore. For one thing, this is a pipeline that is basically transporting diluted bitumen from Alberta to the US and Asia. Very little of this product will be refined in B.C., but will be shipped to Cherry Point, WA, refined there and then sold back to British Columbians. Much of it will also be shipped via tanker across the Pacific Ocean. It's ludicrous to think this oil pipeline will break the ties that bind this country together.

If the federal government thinks B.C. is somehow in contravention of the Canadian constitution, then I suggest an amendment be made to the constitution. It's not carved in stone.

An amendment to the constitution ? Do you perhaps recognize that more than one province may have to vote on that ?
Canada as a nation cannot exist without access to all arteries and all ports for all products of all the provinces. Anyone who doesn't get that should consider going back to school.

[Cactusflower]

When reading these articles, one must consider the source. The G&M article was written by a University of Saskatchewan law professor; the "Kinder Morgan Oil Pipeline to Nowhere" was an article in 'Business In Vancouver'.

IMHO, the BIV article is written by someone who has his finger on the pulse of British Columbia. The KM expansion cannot be compared to the transcontinental railways of yore. For one thing, this is a pipeline that is basically transporting diluted bitumen from Alberta to the US and Asia. Very little of this product will be refined in B.C., but will be shipped to Cherry Point, WA, refined there and then sold back to British Columbians. Much of it will also be shipped via tanker across the Pacific Ocean. It's ludicrous to think this oil pipeline will break the ties that bind this country together.

If the federal government thinks B.C. is somehow in contravention of the Canadian constitution, then I suggest an amendment be made to the constitution. It's not carved in stone.

An amendment to the constitution ? Do you perhaps recognize that more than one province may have to vote on that ?
Canada as a nation cannot exist without access to all arteries and all ports for all products of all the provinces. Anyone who doesn't get that should consider going back to school.

You can consider going back to school; I'll consider BC separation. The Rocky mountains are a natural barrier. I'm all for using it as such.

[Urban Cowboy]

Its much simple than that hobby. The majority of canadians are not interested in bending over for tar sand companies as its dead end .

Only if you take a simplistic view. The BC NDP and the NDP in general, and certainly the lunatic LEAPers are NOT a majority of Canadians. That Desmog stuff is bad for cerebral function.

Simplistic is the standard in this context.

[Cactusflower]

^^ I guess it's easier to be a cheerleader than to respond to a comment that one cannot debate.

[lesliepaul]

MJ and CF..................I would not waste ANY time explaining ANYTHING to either of them. Now...........

[Dizzy1]

Its much simple than that hobby. The majority of canadians are not interested in bending over for tar sand companies as its dead end .

I love how you always just throw around the term "majority"

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/m ... posed-poll

[Urban Cowboy]

Its much simple than that hobby. The majority of canadians are not interested in bending over for tar sand companies as its dead end .

I love how you always just throw around the term "majority"

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/m ... posed-poll

Just as amusing as when "facts" keeps being thrown around.

[Merry]

When reading these articles, one must consider the source. The G&M article was written by a University of Saskatchewan law professor

who presumably knows what he's talking about when discussing the roles and responsibilities of the Provinces versus the Federal Government as set out in our constitution.

As for amending the constitution to give the Provinces more power, well that might be more difficult that you think.

amendments to the Constitution Act, 1982 must be done in accordance with Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982, which provides for five different amending formulae. Amendments can be brought forward under section 46(1) by any province or either level of the federal government. The general formula is set out in section 38(1), known as the "7/50 formula", requires: (a) assent from both the House of Commons and the Senate; (b) the approval of two-thirds of the provincial legislatures (at least seven provinces) representing at least 50% of the population (effectively, this would include at least Quebec or Ontario, as they are the most populous provinces). This formula specifically applies to amendments related to the proportionate representation in Parliament, powers, selection, and composition of the Senate, the Supreme Court and the addition of provinces or territories.

The other amendment formulae are for exceptional cases as provided by in the act. In the case of an amendment related to the Office of the Queen, the use of either official language (subject to section 43), the amending formula itself, or the composition of the Supreme Court, the amendment must be adopted by unanimous consent of all the provinces in accordance with section 41. In the case of an amendment related to provincial boundaries or the use of an official language within a province alone, the amendment must be passed by the legislatures affected by the amendment (section 43). In the case of an amendment that affects the federal government only, the amendment does not need approval of the provinces (section 44). The same applies to amendments affecting the provincial government alone (section 45).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canada

But frankly, even if it WERE possible, I wouldn't want to see the constitution amended every single time a Province got into a disagreement with another Province, or with the Federal Government. Because a constitution that could be changed that easily, and/or that often, wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on.

[The Green Barbarian]

Its much simple than that hobby. The majority of canadians are not interested in bending over for tar sand companies as its dead end .

the majority of Canadians, including First Nations, support projects that generate economic activity, jobs and taxes for the government. What they don't support are brainless wind and solar projects that are just plain stupid and suck cash from taxpayers. That's what's known as a dead end.

I can't believe what a disgusting racist Horgan is. Dr. Weaver, it's time to distance yourself from this horrible racist regime, and bring down this horrible government.

[Cactusflower]

When reading these articles, one must consider the source. The G&M article was written by a University of Saskatchewan law professor

who presumably knows what he's talking about when discussing the roles and responsibilities of the Provinces versus the Federal Government as set out in our constitution.

As for amending the constitution to give the Provinces more power, well that might be more difficult that you think.

amendments to the Constitution Act, 1982 must be done in accordance with Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982, which provides for five different amending formulae. Amendments can be brought forward under section 46(1) by any province or either level of the federal government. The general formula is set out in section 38(1), known as the "7/50 formula", requires: (a) assent from both the House of Commons and the Senate; (b) the approval of two-thirds of the provincial legislatures (at least seven provinces) representing at least 50% of the population (effectively, this would include at least Quebec or Ontario, as they are the most populous provinces). This formula specifically applies to amendments related to the proportionate representation in Parliament, powers, selection, and composition of the Senate, the Supreme Court and the addition of provinces or territories.

The other amendment formulae are for exceptional cases as provided by in the act. In the case of an amendment related to the Office of the Queen, the use of either official language (subject to section 43), the amending formula itself, or the composition of the Supreme Court, the amendment must be adopted by unanimous consent of all the provinces in accordance with section 41. In the case of an amendment related to provincial boundaries or the use of an official language within a province alone, the amendment must be passed by the legislatures affected by the amendment (section 43). In the case of an amendment that affects the federal government only, the amendment does not need approval of the provinces (section 44). The same applies to amendments affecting the provincial government alone (section 45).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canada

But frankly, even if it WERE possible, I wouldn't want to see the constitution amended every single time a Province got into a disagreement with another Province, or with the Federal Government. Because a constitution that could be changed that easily, and/or that often, wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough. My point about the SK professor was that SK has some skin in the game. Brad Wall has made that perfectly clear and I'm sure, as with all Premiers, he has his supporters.

As to my comment about an amendment to the constitution, it was made out of frustration. My point there was that the federal government should stop being hypocrites. They say they are intent on meeting our climate targets, yet they sign off on a project that will greatly increase GHG emissions in the AB 'oil' sands.

Nobody wants to address the fact that this pipeline expansion is of very little benefit to B.C., yet puts us at great risk. If the 'crude' were to be refined here in B.C. and not being shipped to WA state to be refined and sold back to us at inflated prices, perhaps it would not be such a bitter pill to swallow. As it stands, Justin Trudeau and Christy Clark basically thumbed their noses at B.C. when they signed that agreement to have AB bitumen transported across B.C.

And I didn't even touch on the tanker issue.

[The Green Barbarian]

As to my comment about an amendment to the constitution, it was made out of frustration. My point there was that the federal government should stop being hypocrites. They say they are intent on meeting our climate targets, yet they sign off on a project that will greatly increase GHG emissions in the AB 'oil' sands.

Greatly increase GHG emissions? How do you know that? The oil sands produce very little emissions on an overall basis, yet they are attacked constantly by tiny-brained enviro-lunatics. Who should all be ashamed of themselves for telling such disgusting lies.

Nobody wants to address the fact that this pipeline expansion is of very little benefit to B.C., yet puts us at great risk.

I'll address it. What the hell are you talking about? "Great risk" - more fear-mongering from enviro-nut lunatics. We are all Canadians. We don't get to pick and choose what the definition of "we" is. I for one am 100% behind this project, because it makes sense. Just like the FA are on board.

And I didn't even touch on the tanker issue.

What tanker issue? What the hell are you talking about? More fear-mongering babbling?

[alanjh595]

Therefore; It's safe enough to ship via pipeline to New Westminster, refined, and then sent via pipeline to a "Tank Farm" for delivery via tanker truck to local gas stations all over BC, but is not safe to pipe it to the USA and then back again?

[hobbyguy]

CF - no they didn't thumb their noses at the residents of BC. A LOT of BC residents rely of the oil sands for a very good living.

If anyone is doing any "nose thumbing" it is the hypocritical NDP who have been drumming up hysteria about imagined negatives of the pipeline project and as usual, ignoring objective facts.

If you look at objective facts, the risks to BC from the TMX are infinitesimally small, yet phonies like George Heyman and Gregor the useless keep drumming up hysteria.

The objective facts said that the NGP was bad news. The TMX is another matter, especially as the marine safety regime is being significantly improved (and at the same time resolving other preexisting risks and bringing good jobs to BC).

[Merry]

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough. My point about the SK professor was that SK has some skin in the game. Brad Wall has made that perfectly clear and I'm sure, as with all Premiers, he has his supporters.

Point taken, but I'm sure that the things the Professor said about how the constitution defines the roles and responsibilities of the Feds and the Provinces are accurate, because he knows how easy it would be to discredit him if he lied about it. And no University Professor wants to be caught out playing fast and loose with facts, because it would destroy his reputation and ultimately his career. Therefore, regardless of which side of the political fence this particular Professor may sit, I think we can safely assume that his comments relating to the constitution in that article are correct.

the federal government should stop being hypocrites.

I do agree that the Trudeau Government is trying to "suck and blow" at the same time. Which is the consequence of trying to "play both sides of the fence" in the last General Election. It won them the election, but now they're having a hard time living up to all those contradictory promises.

But that said, it didn't take a genius to figure that Trudeau couldn't possibly appease BOTH sides of this political divide, despite all his lofty promises. So, knowing that, I have to wonder why so many people fell for his whoppers and voted for him. Those who wanted to see the environment given priority over the oil industry should have voted NDP en masse, yet they didn't. Why is that?