Merge USA and Canada?

[MigL]

What was that ?
Sorry, I didn't hear you.
Busy killing whales in my back yard.

No point talking to Rangerx; he'll just accuse me of killing Canada geese.
But the fact remains, CharonY, that BC is already serviced by a TransCanada pipeline.
The consultation criteria for the EXPANSION of that pipeline were not met, and it was halted by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Rangerx can stomp his feet all he wants, but if the Government decides to to its due diligence with consultations, the Supreme Court will approve it.
The alternative is to buy foreign oil.
And the fact that Rangerx thinks BC does neither, means he believes in magic.

I didn't make this a Harper vs Trudeau contest. Rangerx did.
And I've never claimed S Harper was a likeable person; he is rather stand-offish with the press, and other groups.
I claimed he was a smart and sensible economist ( compare how Canada did following the 2008 collapse to the US and other countries ), and I claimed he had more international clout.
Do you have an argument with that ?

[rangerx]

On 8/23/2019 at 7:00 PM, MigL said:

THAT's what you don't like about J Trudeau, Rangerx ?

Oh bullshit MIgL! Lies, lies and more lies.

YOU are the one who brought Trudeau into the discussion and pretend that I'm defending him. I did no such thing.

Gaslight fail.

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

I didn't make this a Harper vs Trudeau contest. Rangerx did.

 

Bullshit

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

No point talking to Rangerx; he'll just accuse me of killing Canada geese.

Lies.

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

And the fact that Rangerx thinks BC does neither, means he believes in magic.

Lies

[MigL]

Well he is the current Prime Minister.
And being directly relevant to the preceding conversation, why wouldn't I ???

To which you replied "But what about S Harper".
And so it started...

Me ? I'm going back on topic.
You do what you want.

Edited August 26, 2019 by MigL

[rangerx]

Just now, MigL said:

Well he is the current Prime Minister.
And being directly relevant to the preceding conversation, why wouldn't I ???

To which you replied "But what about S Harper".
And so it started...

Because he sold us out to China and got us into this mess, but you're all good with that part.

[MigL]

I'm good with a lot of things.
You, on the other hand, seem to be one of those always angry people who stomps his feet when he doesn't get his way.

Have a nice day.

[rangerx]

Just now, MigL said:

I'm good with a lot of things.
You, on the other hand, seem to be one of those always angry people who stomps his feet when he doesn't get his way.

Have a nice day.

I speak the court's mind. Apparently you have no respect for that either.

It's your lot in life to deride liberals and uphold conservatives.

Meanwhile I doubt you ever picked a drop of spilled oil or cleaned a beach of plastic.

Unlike the conservatives who do nothing but mouth off, we actually do something. We physically clean up the mess, We are leading the charge to rid the oceans of single use plastics, yet you would demonize us because you want more pollution and don't give a rat's ass about first nations interests or killer whales or clean beaches. You just want to own libs, irrespective of the cost to yourself, your environment and moreover, your country.

We have every right to make a claim against dirty oil. The court agreed. My case stands, your bullshit walks.

My opinion has nothing to do with it. The law prevails.

35 minutes ago, MigL said:

The consultation criteria for the EXPANSION of that pipeline were not met, and it was halted by the Supreme Court of Canada.

And just exactly where is this "world class spill response" located?

No where. There are no ships or storage facilities equipped with adequate response gear capable of managing spills greater than a few hundred litres in calm, harbour waters.

Let's examine a recent spill in Vancouver's English Bay. https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/city-of-vancouver-tries-to-recover-cost-of-english-bay-oil-spill-cleanup.
 

“This is a clear example of where the federal government and the international oil tanker program is not safe, not dealing with the damages appropriately and where we have great concerns”

"The lack of compensation leaves taxpayers and municipalities on the hook for costs incurred by the spill, and raises concern over what might happen in the case of a diluted bitumen spill along B.C.’s coastal waterways.

“Vancouver’s primary concern with the Kinder Morgan pipeline is the oil tankers — seven times the number will go through our harbour — and the oil spill we expect will happen over time and dramatically impact our environment and our economy,”

"The SSOP fund was established in 1989 to act on behalf of impacted municipalities, companies and individuals in pursuit of compensation from shipowners in the event of a spill and provide additional compensation. The city has received an “absolutely unacceptable” offer from the Ship-source Oil Pollution fund of 27 per cent of the $550,000.

They can't even clean up a minor spill from a ship in calm weather at anchor. MigL figures a few more consultations will resolve that. Wrong. Talk, talk talk, but no action. Several of the first nations say no. It's their right. It's their territory. It's their decision to make, not his.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Do you have an argument with that ?

Well, again depends on what you mean with clout. But specifically the science community (national and international) had problems with his policies, especially as they relate to  environmental issues (I am not informed enough regarding the pipelines to comment on that). Especially limiting the ability of scientists to create and disseminate was a huge red flag, as control of information by the government is rather obviously seen very critical and not becoming for a democratic society. More specific to international reputation, I can say that at least the press was not terrible fond of Harper, either. Issues included the Kyoto accord, IMF to name two that I remember of the top of my head. It is very difficult to assess as Canada is often not seen as such a big player as the US, but I have not seen a lot that would substantiate the claim that he had any more or less international clout. If anything, from what I have seen Trudeau was seen far more optimistic but mostly because (or at least it looked to me) of the rather dim view many had on Harper. I do wonder how things would go if Harper was still PM when Trump came to power. 

I am also not sufficiently schooled in economics to determine how effective Harper was in that area. While it is likely that simply not enough time has passed to properly contextualize his economic policies there have been plenty of criticisms regarding income inequality.

What I have heard is that he was a very effective political leader, which included tightly controlling information flow (which includes the aforementioned scientific data). Now I will note that there are now leaders out there who will make Harper look brilliant, I am just not sure whether your characterization of Harper is accurate. I will say that it will take a longer look from the future to properly assess the decisions the respective leaders have taken. 

[MigL]

What issues with Kyoto are you referring to, CharonY ?

You realize that the previous Liberal Government of J Chretien ( whom I voted for ) merely paid lip service to the Accord, and increased Canadian greenhouse gas emissions by almost 200 MTonnes ?

When S harper was elected in early 05, GHG emissions actually dropped a little, or at worst, held steady for nearly ten years.

J Trudeau has adopted S Harper's GHG reduction targets, yet emissions are at best holding steady, or, slowly starting to creep up.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html

So if you mean S Harper's problem with Kyoto was that he just didn't just talk, he actually tried to control GHG emissions ( while the Liberals talk a good game but fail to deliver ), then I guess he's guilty.

[John Cuthber]

I think it's fair to say , without knowing or caring who is right,  that the strength of opposition between the views of just two people on opposite sides of the border is such that linking the two countries is probably a non-starter.

 

[CharonY]

22 hours ago, MigL said:

What issues with Kyoto are you referring to, CharonY ?

You realize that the previous Liberal Government of J Chretien ( whom I voted for ) merely paid lip service to the Accord, and increased Canadian greenhouse gas emissions by almost 200 MTonnes ?

When S harper was elected in early 05, GHG emissions actually dropped a little, or at worst, held steady for nearly ten years.

J Trudeau has adopted S Harper's GHG reduction targets, yet emissions are at best holding steady, or, slowly starting to creep up.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html

So if you mean S Harper's problem with Kyoto was that he just didn't just talk, he actually tried to control GHG emissions ( while the Liberals talk a good game but fail to deliver ), then I guess he's guilty.

Two things. you were talking about international clout and how Harper was great in that respect. However, when Harper pulled out of the Kyoto protocol he expended a lot of international goodwill, presumably in order to curry favour from the industrial sector perhaps?

Also it is interesting that you have not given much thought why the emissions went down despite Harper driving a hard line against clime change policies and the formal abandonment of the Kyoto protocol? Do you seriously think that he just gave lip service to his disdain for environmental goal, actively inhibits research in that area only to better the environment in secret? Come on, you do like to call out bullshit when you sense it, and you think this passes the smell test?

I'll quote from a newspaper report, but the full articles are also available:

Quote

But in a report released Thursday, Simon Fraser University professor Mark Jaccard concludes that it was not federal action that reduced GHGs, but instead the recession of 2008-09, British Columbia's carbon tax, and Ontario's effort to phase out coal-fired power.

"In the nine years since its promise to reduce Canadian emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 and 65 per cent by 2050, the Canadian government has implemented virtually no policies that would materially reduce emissions," Mr. Jaccard said. "The 2020 target is now unachievable without great harm to the Canadian economy.