Yes, it’s almost like condemning Trudeau for building the pipeline they demanded be built might have made him think that dropping billions for a new port we didn’t actually need at the time was a bad idea. Shockers!
Sorry, remind me of Poilievre’s work experience off Parliament Hill again?
This is a thread that just keeps on giving.
Q. How’s Carney doing?
A. Well, he’s done this thing, and that thing, and last week he did this other thing, and is also looking into shipping LNG to Europe.
Dude: Oh ya, well, the former PM Trudeau said that there was no good business case for this. Three years ago. Also, Trudeau was a drama teacher.
This is absolutely fantastic. Icing on the cake is that this is purported to be reasonable criticism of Carney’s accomplishments to date.
Yes. I posted that in case you missed it. It also should of happened years ago when Carney was advising Trudeau on what to do. Funny thing was many people also made it known that there was, in fact, a business case.
Or would have been if the government would get out of the way. The LNG terminals being built in the US and Australia are primarily private businesses. Why are they not being built in Canada? I’d support Carney if he got rid of the unnecessary regulations that prevent Canada from being competitive but then he’d be a conservative and you wouldn’t support him any longer! Heh.
So we’re back to “Carney was an advisor”?
Again, funny how you’re advocating for exactly the kind of massive infrastructure project you were complaining about upthread.
Which “unnecessary regulations” are those? The health and safety ones? The ones that reduce pollution? The ones that prevent them from seizing other people’s lands?
You know - all the ones that conservatives hate. Heh.
What project was I complaining about upthread? The one that was going to be built completely with private money until the government screwed it up and had to take it over? Any rational person would be complaining about it.
The ones that make us uncompetitive so that no business will try to build expensive and needed projects in Canada. Why can the US and Australia do it and not us?
Be specific.
How did the government “screw it up”?
Please.
Been done to death. $34B cost to the taxpayer.
Daniel Smith and Pierre Pollievre have both outlined at a minimum what needs to be removed.
- Guarantee Alberta full access to unfettered oil and gas corridors to the north, east, and west
- Repeal Bill C-69, otherwise known as the “no new pipelines act”
- Lift the tanker ban on the B.C. coast, allowing oil and gas shipments by marine vessels
- Eliminate the oil and gas emissions cap, which Alberta regards as a production cap
- Scrap the Clean Electricity Regulations
- End prohibition on single-use plastics
- Abandon the net-zero car mandate
- Return oversight of the industrial carbon tax back to the provinces
- Halt federal censorship of energy companies, a demand Smith highlighted in her statement
- Rescind export taxes or restrictions on Alberta’s oil and gas to the U.S., emphasizing that, as resource owner, Alberta will not accept such federal limitations
It hasn’t, though. Your entire argument has been “They spent too much!”.
So - let corporations pollute freely. Got it.
Not sure why I need to repeat this. They didn’t need to spend at all if they had kept their fingers out of the mix.
Ah, so before Trudeau, we lived in an industrial wasteland, right?
Governments job is to figure out how to protect people and the environment without killing industry, technology, jobs and innovation. If there is so much regulation that only the government can implement these projects then something is wrong. If government wants these things they have to implement them in a way that the majority of companies can comply and will attempt to.
You need to repeat this because you keep making unsupported assertions. Repeating the unsupported assertions does not make them supported.
Nobody said that, so you can save some money on straw here.
So - let corporations pollute freely. Got it.
But you’re right - if Carney adopted a “fuck the environment, money comes first” policy, he’d be a conservative and we wouldn’t support him.
You realize if the federal government did this it would violate provincial sovereignty in ways that if they even hinted at doing it to Alberta you’d scream until you were blue in the face? It’s hard to take you seriously when this is the first point on your bullet list.
The rest is all just “The world is going to burn, so let’s make sure we profit as much from contributing to the fire as possible.” It’s wild how conservatives have swung straight from ‘anthropogenic climate change is a hoax’ to ‘climate change is inevitable so we shouldn’t try to mitigate it’.
I wouldn’t mind having single-use plastics back though, especially since it seem like a ton of single-use plastic isn’t even banned. For example, cheap water bottles. I also constantly forget my grocery bags so I have a zillion of those in my car.
Is that what I wrote? You actually think you can’t get consensus from Indigenous, protect the environment and promote business (that essentially pays for all the things you want) at the same time? Or is it just because you can’t envision it that it mustn’t be capable of being done so you accept mediocracy?
Miss the point it being the Premier of Alberta’s list?
What it means is that we have the right to sell our goods without others blocking us from doing so. It should be even easier within Canada, but as a sovereign nation we’d have international law to fall back on. She is asking for guaranteed corridors to build pipelines through. Kind of like there are guaranteed corridors - roads, rails, air - to move goods across Alberta.
Added below for those that don’t know about the right of landlocked states to deliver their products port. It would prevent anyone from traditional tribal chiefs to NDP politicians from blocking access. And knowing how BC likes the UN and implementing international law even when it isn’t law, we’d have no trouble as an independent nation.
UNCLOS, Part X (Articles 124–132) deals explicitly with the “Right of Access of Land-Locked States to and from the Sea and Freedom of Transit.”
- It establishes that landlocked states have a right of access to the sea for purposes of international trade.
- Neighboring “transit states” (countries with coastlines) are obliged to allow landlocked states to move goods to and from tidewater, subject to reasonable regulation.
What it means in practice
- The right is not absolute; it must be balanced with the sovereignty and laws of the transit state.
- Transit states can set customs, traffic, and security regulations, but they cannot arbitrarily block a landlocked state’s trade routes.
- The principle is one of “freedom of transit”: landlocked countries should not be economically strangled because they lack a coastline.
So funny. So everything the Conservatives hated about Trudeau in the past is now Carney’s fault.
The fact that provinces other than Alberta have rights concerning pipelines crossing their land is also Carney’s fault, even when Trudeau was PM.
The pipeline that got built after private industry gave up on it years ago when Trudeau was PM is totally Carney’s fault today, even though Alberta was clamouring for it, because a very few people are upset that the Federal government spent too much on the gift for them.
This revisionist history is fascinating. Please go on.
‘We know that Putin can never be trusted’: Canadian PM Carney speaks in Kyiv
It kind of is. How many of the regulations on that list that you wish to repeal or curtail exist for environmental reasons?
I don’t think that at all. Lots of countries do it. Including Canada.
This bit of snark is rather undermined by your apparent inability to envision getting consensus from Indigenous, protecting the environment and promoting business at the same time. After all, you’re the one arguing that the first two are hindering the third. As indeed conservatives have been doing for a long, long time.
Case in point: during Trump’s 2016 campaign he pledged to bring back coal jobs by cutting those same types of pesky regulations you decry. And he did cut regulations. It didn’t bring back any coal jobs, but it did result in a significant increase in air and water pollution from mining companies and a massive uptick in mining deaths due to reduced safety standards.
I’ve got a lot more of those types of examples if you like. It’s worth remembering that these environmental and safety regulations don’t get put in place arbitrarily - in many cases they are written in blood. But if you like, please keep telling us about the poor downtrodden businesses being persecuted by people wanting clean air and drinking water.
Yes, you can. But what you laid out as the Smith-Poilievre demands would just be an environmentally disastrous no-holds-barred push to maximize fossil fuel consumption everywhere. It’s a climate change denier’s wet dream. Is there anything in this insane strategy that even hints at acknowledging climate change as a serious problem?