If some of Alberta's old grievances had been addressed by the "Liberal" feds, then there would be fewer old grievances to be recycled. How about taking a good look at that ?!
I could just about get behind Matt's sentiment of just get it done - but fuck me - as an Alberta, the UCP/cons have fucked over this province so bad environmentally and won't even handle the cleanup of abandoned wells nor will even enforce their own laws and hold bad actors to account. If I'm BC, how the fuck do I treat AB/Smith as a good faith actor to cleanup/pay for the enevitable leak etc....
That's the problem -example all these oil companies in AB are supposed to be responsible for these messes and carry insurance - but if someone bails/goes bankrupt you end up w 50,000+ abandoned wells in AB costing 30-70Billion to clean up that us the tax payers are now stuck with. And a large part of that liability is because AB has been terrible at enforcing their own regulations AND insuring that operators have the proper insurance and contribute to cleanup funds. Danni sure likes to talk pro-business and removing regulation and getting out of the way - but she never makes the case for doing the development responsibly - she flat out refuses to acknowledge that the environmental risk will be born entirely by BC.
I live in Edmonton, i legitmately think we need another pipeline somewhere - but fuck she is just so terrible at making the case w/o any respect for real concerns - and if I was Premier EBY, I'd be demanding that AB gov backstop any environmental damage because god know the AB gov won't hold accountable any firms operating in this province
Off topic... Abondonment issues have nothing to do with transportation.
Most of abandoned well liabilities are from pre-1980's, and have nothing to do with any recent AB government policity
Smith is playing this perfectly. Why not make BC and the Feds demonstrate their positions on a pipeline now?
I'm with Smith on the notion of no pipeline, no country. The opinions of the BC government and First Nations are irrelevant. At its base, country must provide unrestricted movement of goods, services, people and capital within its borders. If the federal government isn't willing to risk all of its political capital on table stakes, it hasost its authority to govern.
When Ryerson, (which is a few blocks from my home in downtown Toronto) went all-in on the progressive positioning for its law school, my immediate reaction was that at some point their students and faculty were going to expect them to do something so progressive that other law schools wouldn't do it. Schools like Osgoode (part of York) just down the road, which employs such faculty as Heidi Matthews, who is (um) very critical of Israel. Very critical indeed. Notoriously so.
If you're starting a law school in a province with lots of very, very progressive law schools, a couple of which are within walking distance, and your chief point of differentiation is that you are the most progressive — the natural home for students and faculty who think the other ultra progressive law schools are insufficiently progressive — you'd better have thought through how you will make good on that positioning. Apparently, they had not thought it through.
I'm sure they are well-positioned to win their lawsuit, if they don't flake out and settle, which would be just like them. But the entire premise of one of their signature initiatives, the new law school, has been exposed as so much virtue signaling nonsense. Serves them right.
Also - The Line Podcast: Carney sets a pipeline trap ... but is Smith in on it?
Re. possible pipeline deal with Carney, Smith is like a 13-year old girl in puppy love, soon to be bitterly disappointed.
Smith should be keenly aware that she is dealing with an experienced long-time white collar borderline shyster, who is proceeding to hot-wire and rejig Canadian economy so that as an innocuous byproduct of that, his investments will benefit fatly, from our taxes and money borrowed which we the serfs will have to pay off with interest.
Seen:
Repealing B.C. tanker ban a ‘hypothetical question’ for now, federal energy minister says. “It’s a hypothetical question right now, because there is no project before us,” .
Now is not that a surprise !
Dannie, what you gonna do if perchance next year Markie Conman Carnie wins a supermajority, as he is scheming to ?? And who is gonna keep a jaundiced jaded keen eye on that Elections Canada crew ? Last fed election they performed the shittiest that I heard of for feds. Markie did OK out of that though .........
Enjoyable potshots being taken at the professional theoretical academicians, so much at ease parasitizing on public purse.
A good podcast to my ears and mind, sniping in all directions very fairly.
Note to Jen.
If some of Alberta's old grievances had been addressed by the "Liberal" feds, then there would be fewer old grievances to be recycled. How about taking a good look at that ?!
TMU vs TMU Law students? LET. THEM. FIGHT.
I could just about get behind Matt's sentiment of just get it done - but fuck me - as an Alberta, the UCP/cons have fucked over this province so bad environmentally and won't even handle the cleanup of abandoned wells nor will even enforce their own laws and hold bad actors to account. If I'm BC, how the fuck do I treat AB/Smith as a good faith actor to cleanup/pay for the enevitable leak etc....
The carrier is liable for any environmental damage and must carry insurance. Why would the AB Gov have any liability other than wishful karma?
That's the problem -example all these oil companies in AB are supposed to be responsible for these messes and carry insurance - but if someone bails/goes bankrupt you end up w 50,000+ abandoned wells in AB costing 30-70Billion to clean up that us the tax payers are now stuck with. And a large part of that liability is because AB has been terrible at enforcing their own regulations AND insuring that operators have the proper insurance and contribute to cleanup funds. Danni sure likes to talk pro-business and removing regulation and getting out of the way - but she never makes the case for doing the development responsibly - she flat out refuses to acknowledge that the environmental risk will be born entirely by BC.
I live in Edmonton, i legitmately think we need another pipeline somewhere - but fuck she is just so terrible at making the case w/o any respect for real concerns - and if I was Premier EBY, I'd be demanding that AB gov backstop any environmental damage because god know the AB gov won't hold accountable any firms operating in this province
Off topic... Abondonment issues have nothing to do with transportation.
Most of abandoned well liabilities are from pre-1980's, and have nothing to do with any recent AB government policity
Smith is playing this perfectly. Why not make BC and the Feds demonstrate their positions on a pipeline now?
I'm with Smith on the notion of no pipeline, no country. The opinions of the BC government and First Nations are irrelevant. At its base, country must provide unrestricted movement of goods, services, people and capital within its borders. If the federal government isn't willing to risk all of its political capital on table stakes, it hasost its authority to govern.
C A N A D A... N E E D S... I N D U S T R I A L... I N C O M E... Y E S T E R D A Y...
When Ryerson, (which is a few blocks from my home in downtown Toronto) went all-in on the progressive positioning for its law school, my immediate reaction was that at some point their students and faculty were going to expect them to do something so progressive that other law schools wouldn't do it. Schools like Osgoode (part of York) just down the road, which employs such faculty as Heidi Matthews, who is (um) very critical of Israel. Very critical indeed. Notoriously so.
If you're starting a law school in a province with lots of very, very progressive law schools, a couple of which are within walking distance, and your chief point of differentiation is that you are the most progressive — the natural home for students and faculty who think the other ultra progressive law schools are insufficiently progressive — you'd better have thought through how you will make good on that positioning. Apparently, they had not thought it through.
I'm sure they are well-positioned to win their lawsuit, if they don't flake out and settle, which would be just like them. But the entire premise of one of their signature initiatives, the new law school, has been exposed as so much virtue signaling nonsense. Serves them right.
Kindly said. I call them parasites on public purse.
Also - The Line Podcast: Carney sets a pipeline trap ... but is Smith in on it?
Re. possible pipeline deal with Carney, Smith is like a 13-year old girl in puppy love, soon to be bitterly disappointed.
Smith should be keenly aware that she is dealing with an experienced long-time white collar borderline shyster, who is proceeding to hot-wire and rejig Canadian economy so that as an innocuous byproduct of that, his investments will benefit fatly, from our taxes and money borrowed which we the serfs will have to pay off with interest.
Seen:
Repealing B.C. tanker ban a ‘hypothetical question’ for now, federal energy minister says. “It’s a hypothetical question right now, because there is no project before us,” .
Now is not that a surprise !
Dannie, what you gonna do if perchance next year Markie Conman Carnie wins a supermajority, as he is scheming to ?? And who is gonna keep a jaundiced jaded keen eye on that Elections Canada crew ? Last fed election they performed the shittiest that I heard of for feds. Markie did OK out of that though .........
Enjoyable potshots being taken at the professional theoretical academicians, so much at ease parasitizing on public purse.
A good podcast to my ears and mind, sniping in all directions very fairly.