It isn’t just TransCanada who has to suck it up and move one. There are jobs involved that are needed now.
Big oil & gas companies have a lot to answer for, and I’m not particularly on their side, but I don’t think they shouldn’t be heavily penalized because of hypocritical US American political posturing (raise your hand if you think the US is going to go without oil because it comes from Alberta’s “dirty” oil sands).
As for sucking it up and moving on, after the last couple of booms and busts, I sure do hope O&G companies are responsive to changes. 
I like the idea of shipping to Asia, for it will help with our balance of trade with Asia, and lessen our economic dependancy on the USA.
The problem with Asia is getting the oil there. There is this big landmass to the west of Alberta that is full of eco nuts and unresolved land claims types who don’t want a pipeline going through ‘their’ property.
See, what you do is you run the pipeline down to Edmonton from Fort MacMurray, then right alongside the Yellowhead Highway, through Jasper National Park, to Prince George, and right on to Prince Rupert on the coast, where you can load up the bitumen on Chinese tankers and sail it across to the Far East. Easy peasy. I can’t possibly see how anyone could find fault with that master plan. 
Look , if the Alaskans can build a pipeline from Prudoe Bay to Valdez through mountains and permafrost for 800 miles, overcoming environmentalist and native protest with 1970s technology, I see no reason why we can’t connect Fort Mac and Rupert with a big money gushing pipeline.
Exactly.
Don’t worry the NDP is sending people to Washington to help them make up their minds.
Maybe not.:rolleyes:
And people elect these clowns. Baffling.
Another interesting article linked to on that site -“Canada wields bigger stick in U.S. than we know.”
Fascinating.
If it weren’t for trade with the US Canada’s unemployment rate would be about 30%. I don’t have a cite, but I’m willing to bet that we would be royally fucked without trade with the US, whereas they would only be marginally fucked without Canada as a trade partner.
Their stick is much, much bigger than ours. Much.
Note that I am not informed enough on this particular project to know where it stands on environmental issues and whether the complaints are valid, but this comment struck me as funny.
If part of the American opposition to the pipeline is environmental issues…and we can be reasonably certain that BC wouldn’t accept a pipeline (that you hypothetically suggest) because of environmental issues…and the government’s Official Opposition has concerns about environmental issues…
…perhaps we need to examine the environmental issues and find a way to work with them, mitigate damage, etc before we end up with another environmental disaster like the Gulf? Do the work now, rather than later?
I agree that we aren’t at a point where we can say “let’s not extract this oil and use other energy sources instead” and so this project - in some form - pretty much needs to be done. I just wonder if some important issues may be overlooked in favour of reducing costs and profit. Maybe it really has all been done and it’s as safe for the environment as anything could be - that’s where I admit I’m uninformed. But I agree with the “eco-nuts” enough to say that the issues must be examined.
IMHO, it’s sad that such basic civilized behaviour as “don’t make messes” and “clean up after yourself” has come to be labeled, so often, as ‘eco-nut concerns’. In more respectable channels, the equivalent manoeuvre labels such concerns as ‘environmental’, with the implication that they are a concern only of specialists who are not in ‘the mainstream’. This is a linguistic issue as much as anything, but I do know that obtaining clean water, air, food, and living space are about as mainstream as things get.
Of course - no Canadian would argue otherwise. My point (and my surprise) is at how big Canada’s stick actually is - I think we’re used to thinking of ourselves as having no influence at all.
And if that was the only concern, then it would be easily solved by rational people. You build it, you are responsible for it (should a company owning it be responsible if one of the opposition groups, or a nutter, decides to blow it up in protest?). But it isn’t the only issue when some groups don’t want the transport of oil to happen at all. See the NDP link earlier.
Sure, it’s unfortunate for everyone who’s been caught in it, but whatcha gonna do? Insist that American politics not affect us?
I’m not sure what big oil and big ass 
(to use Jack Layton’s famous gaffe) has to answer for. They just operate within parameters set for them. And what you call “hypocritical US American political posturing”, I call political reality in democracy, which can necessarily get dirtier than any Tar Sands oil. Obama’s desire for re-election isn’t hypocritical. It’s the nature of the democratic beast.
I’m not on either side in this. I’m trying to look at it objectively, and to be honest, the complaints from the pro-pipeline people, who think we should be immune from the political realities of our closest trading partner, are as naive to me as the environmentalists who ignore economic and energy realities.
The irony behind the environmental protests against the new project is that the original Keystone pipeline (as opposed to the Keystone XL that we’re discussing) has been pumping crude from Alberta to the States for over a year now and has already had a spill, yet not a word from the protesters about it.
As we all have to be.
Spread the risk of getting shafted by a trading partner (remember softwood?) by also shipping oil to Japan and China. Obviously we don’t have the infrastructure for that yet, so let’s get working on it now rather than be caught in a crisis a decade or two down the road.
If you’re referring to a criminal trial, while the witnesses speak whichever language they choose, the prosecutor and the court staff are required to use the language in which the accused has asked the trial to be conducted. With respect to pleadings and evidence, in my experience there’s rarely a need to have them translated, because in my neck of the woods the lawyers will always be bilingual. I’ve never heard of authorities being translated, for that same reason.
Actually, I was thinking of civil trials, but you are quite right about the criminIal trials. With civil matters it gets more complicated when the parties do not share the same language.
I wonder if the change from 2-for-1 down to 1-or-1.5-for-1 will make any difference in the frequency of criminal trials held in French in Ontario (or the frequency of excessive adjournments regardless of language)? I recall bilingual prisoners who were guilty as hell and knew they are going to be convicted sometimes electing to be tried in French in hopes that it would take longer due to the occasional delays in finding a French speaking lawyer and bringing in a French speaking judge (most judges here speak French, but not all, which occasionally has required that one be brought in).