|
Hey Harper, if you love American nonsense so much, why don't you gently caress off and live there, you thick gently caress?
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 14:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:50 |
|
|
It seems like maybe there's a term for undermining your own government's efforts to secure an advantage for a foreign nation. Can't quite put my finger on it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 14:13
|
|
|
Stephen Harper needs to keep his loving mouth shut and to piss off. What a dumb gently caress arguing from the wrong side of history. Eat poo poo prick.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 14:19
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:What a dumb gently caress arguing from the wrong side of history. At least he's consistent? "Backchannel entreaties to his republican masters" isn't exactly a new trick for him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 14:38
|
|
|
THC posted:Lmao this is all gold Steve Paikan? What? Why? He's a pretty staunch conservative supporter. And on the subject of dumb pointless poo poo: The whole Tommy Robinson has got to be one of the dumber things that's become a conservative cause. I guess it's getting a lot of good publicity on people who don't give a poo poo that he risked (or caused?) a mistrial for what looks to be some pretty awful people. I get that it ties into Freedom Of Speech!! the right has picked up on without understanding that there are always limits to freedom of speech depending on the context, or that they just don't care because it drives patreon donations, but it's still just poo poo. Dreylad fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Jul 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 14:52
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BenRabidoux/status/1020275837835214848?s=19 lol this is a garbage country
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
Pretty good breakdown of the carbon tax idiocy by Doug Ford. quote:Globe editorial: Doug Ford’s carbon tax folly tl;dr The feds are going to impose it anyways you dolt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 15:12
|
|
|
Reince Penis posted:Pretty good breakdown of the carbon tax idiocy by Doug Ford. I think that works to Ford's benefit, to be honest. The province gets the money either way, so it doesn't have a huge revenue impact. Ford gets to appeal to his base, and appeal to his base even more when Trudeau forces the tax anyway. The conservatives are getting their cake and eating it too, they get to eliminate a tax while still getting the revenue from it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
enki42 posted:I think that works to Ford's benefit, to be honest. The province gets the money either way, so it doesn't have a huge revenue impact. Ford gets to appeal to his base, and appeal to his base even more when Trudeau forces the tax anyway. The conservatives are getting their cake and eating it too, they get to eliminate a tax while still getting the revenue from it. Right, and you think the federal govt will just willingly hand over cheques to Doug Ford to take the credit for, all while he badmouths them at every opportunity why exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
I mean, the federal government could just use the money to invest in it's own programs for Ontarians and cut the province out of the revenue loop. You do realize that right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
Reince Penis posted:Right, and you think the federal govt will just willingly hand over cheques to Doug Ford to take the credit for, all while he badmouths them at every opportunity why exactly? https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carbon-price-tax-discussion-paper-1.4120135 quote:Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, speaking to reporters on Parliament Hill, said "every penny" collected by the federal government would be returned to the provinces and territories. She said putting a price on pollution is critical to tackling climate change and stirring innovation in clean energy. I suppose the federal government could earmark where the returned money was going to be allocated, but even so, unless it's 100% going to something that Ford wasn't going to fund at all anyway, at worst it's just going to free up money that he can use somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 16:09
|
|
|
I'm sure the Liberals could spin "giving it back to Ontario" in a way that bypasses the actual Government of Ontario, for example by investing in federal programs in Ontario or by writing a cheque to every Ontarian or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
So I posted about this earlier, but the legislation that governs large environmental assessments in Canada is changing. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA,) currently governs how large projects are assessed in Canada. There is legislation that is already the Gazette II that is going to modify this, the Impact Assessment Act (IAA). Now I'm interested as to what people think about this, and I've seen little discussion of it. Before I get into it, I just wanted to provide a little background as to what all this crap is, because frankly unless you are immersed in it, it is confusing as hell. There are two kinds of assessments, provincial and federal. The lines between each are extremely blurred. For a project to fall under a federal review, it has to meet an arbitrary list called the activities designation regulation. This is a big old list that says things like "If you have a mine that processes more than 500 tonnes a day you need an Federal EA", except for everything you can imagine (dams, mills, bridges, factories, etc.). Generally the provinces have a similar piece of legislation, just with smaller numbers because the province generally handles smaller projects. If a project is undergoing a federal assessment the feds run it, and the provinces latches on (how each province does this differs). How this happens isn't well defined in all cases, and has worked fairly poorly in the past. As governments and legislation has changed, there are very significant differences between what the provinces want and what the feds want. Preamble aside, this brings us to the new legislation, which I think was sorely needed. Harper took a buzz saw to the legislation in 2012, so as a result it has been known as CEAA (2012). These changes allowed the feds to assess their own projects internally if they were a certain size and generally reduced government involvement throughout the process. It also changed some definitions that changed how significant impacts were assessed. So that brings us to today. The IAA legislation changes look to overhaul the activities designation regulation, and change which projects get assessed. The timelines have changed as well, with a lot more time dedicated to aboriginal involvement, and there is significant focus on social license. The timelines have also been what I called "fuzzed". There are less firm timelines throughout the process. If you add up the minimum timelines specified throughout the process, the process appears faster, but it is less certain. The government is saying this is an improvement, but I'm not so sure. Idon't want to inject too much of my opinion into this yet, so I was interested in what people would like to know, and what they think. One thing I want to add is that I think there is a fundamental understanding of what the environmental assessment process is. While it is a decision making process (should this project go forward), it only is at the very last stage of the process. The entire rest of the process is a planning exercise which occurs years beforehand with the government and stakeholder groups. The aim of the planning process is to assess how the project will affect important parts of the environment, and see if there will be a "significant" impact that can't be mitigated. This is usually achieved through a long set of letters, reports and meetings. In my opinion, almost every project can be done without significant impacts (there are obvious exceptions for proposed projects in sensitive areas) but what it comes down to is money. Is the company the company willing to spend the money to mitigate the impacts to a sufficient level, and is the project viable at that point? When the company and government disagree, the project is rejected. Companies generally don't want to waste the money on a failed assessment (Provincial assessments are generally between 100K and 3M, CEAA Assessments are 500k to 20M) so generally they ask experts first if the project is actually viable. Hence why few projects are generally rejected. In that case, somebody gave the company bad advice. I've had a weird career working for aboriginal groups, the federal government and private industry so I think I have a unique perspective, as generally people only work for one of these groups. So, if anybody cares, what do you care about with the assessment of projects, especially in light of the changing legislation? Anything you want to know?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:It seems like maybe there's a term for undermining your own government's efforts to secure an advantage for a foreign nation. Can't quite put my finger on it. Trumpism?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
Laminar posted:So, if anybody cares, what do you care about with the assessment of projects, especially in light of the changing legislation? Anything you want to know? How independent is the review process, and (closely related question) what happens when the government really wants an environmentally-damaging project to go through? How much power does a negative assessment really have, is it just ammunition for the government if the government wants to stop the project, or does it have some kind of binding power over the government's approval process? Like, for example, hypothetically what happens if environmental assessments show a pipeline will be really damaging but the government wants to push it through so bad it nationalizes the project? e: another question, how much weight is given to lifetime harm done by the project (like expanding oil drilling and therefore carbon emissions) versus immediate harm (like destroying protected habitat)?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:How independent is the review process, and (closely related question) what happens when the government really wants an environmentally-damaging project to go through? How much power does a negative assessment really have, is it just ammunition for the government if the government wants to stop the project, or does it have some kind of binding power over the government's approval process? Two good questions. Fun fact, all environmental assessments mean essentially nothing if the government says "yes this goes through". In all cases, the minister gets the final call. The second question is a great one, and one that has only really been assessed in detail during the last 15 years or so. "Cumulative Impacts". Now it is assessed at all stages in EA processes, but how hard it is looked at really depends on which province it is occuring in (if it is provincial) and the guidelines for the EA if federal. Long story short, it is assessed now and given a lot of weight, but how good that assessment is varies. Edit: The new IAA legislation gives more weight to both climate change and cumulative impacts
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
In the case of environmental remediation after a project is complete (say restoring a mine to "natural" condition after its closed), how does the money work for that and is it taken into account during the assessment? If a mining company goes bankrupt who cleans up that mine? Do companies put x amount of money each year of operation into some kind of independent account for the purposes of remediation or something? I know there's a program to clean up abandoned oil wells (it's a bad program, but it's exists sort of) that oil companies put money into. Presumably though an individual oil well wouldn't face much (if any) environmental assessment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
Could you talk more about the changes Harper made in 2012? Could you provide an example of a changed definition and it’s consequences, for example? Also, how much of the newly-released guidelines are about “overwriting/redoing” the 2012 changes and how much of them are building something new? How much of the Harper changes are still in effect?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
Chicken posted:In the case of environmental remediation after a project is complete (say restoring a mine to "natural" condition after its closed), how does the money work for that and is it taken into account during the assessment? If a mining company goes bankrupt who cleans up that mine? Do companies put x amount of money each year of operation into some kind of independent account for the purposes of remediation or something? In the past, nothing. Now there is something called financial security/assurance which is a process by which the mine and the landowner (fed, prov, aboriginal) come to a conclusion on an up front bond to clean up the mine sufficiently, which is held in escrow. The part of Canada I'm from has a toxic legacy of gold mines that had no financial security. It is actually something I specialize in. The issue in the past, which is the issue with the abandoned oil wells in Alberta, is that the amount of security held isn't nearly enough. Some provinces have great security rules, where there is more than enough held for closure. Others, like Alberta and BC, have nowhere close to the security that is required for proper site closure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
Alberta is full of abandoned wells and BC is apparently full of earthen dams built without approval. As long as it doesn’t happen near a major population center and you hide it behind a thin strip of trees from the highway or on the backside of a mountain then no one cares. cowofwar fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Jul 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Stickarts posted:Could you talk more about the changes Harper made in 2012? Could you provide an example of a changed definition and it’s consequences, for example? While this is a little slanted away from industry, this is the best assessment I can find quickly of the changes: https://www.ecojustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/August-2012_FINAL_Ecojustice-CEAA-Regulations-Backgrounder.pdf I can't really boil down all the changes easily, but it changed the triggers for what caused an federal EA significantly, and limited public participation. In my opinion IAA is a full overwrite. The process is similar because it is the same everywhere, but it really is a different document. Edit: A specific consequence - if the project was a federal project (military or infrastructure) certain kinds of projects could get away with something called a "Section 67" which was a super abbreviated internal EA that had no public participation. A very limited assessment that the public would not even hear about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
Alberta.txt
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
quote:Fildebrandt said his party, called the FCP for short, wants Alberta to have direct control over the CPP, employment insurance, tax collection, the firearms act and immigration. good luck with that THIS ISN'T AMERICA
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Laminar posted:In the past, nothing. Now there is something called financial security/assurance which is a process by which the mine and the landowner (fed, prov, aboriginal) come to a conclusion on an up front bond to clean up the mine sufficiently, which is held in escrow. The part of Canada I'm from has a toxic legacy of gold mines that had no financial security. It is actually something I specialize in. Oh hey, another wondrous person to experience the joys of Giant Mine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
I don't want to give too much self identifying info, but I'll say I spent a whole summer there working once after it closed. There are .303 holes through the mine dry from the strike still.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
Just going to double post to say lol @ the frozen block method of remediation Giant is using now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
Arivia posted:good luck with that Also probably planning to decriminalize poaching and hit-and-run retroactively, given his crushing stupidity and current legal issues.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/moniquescotti/status/1020021075374112768 https://twitter.com/moniquescotti/status/1020114486269800449 quote:Experts have blamed a decline in vaccination rates in Canada, and the reemergence of certain long-defeated illnesses, on the anti-vaccination movement and “fence-sitting parents.” https://twitter.com/fagstein/status/1020052678796341254
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
All I see is that the white little girl is so lucky that everybody else vaccinated their kids. Honestly though, as a Graphic Designer, I am not surprised at all that ads with this level of poor taste seep through.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
Entropic posted:I would settle for Northwest Passage. Mention of the Passage reminded me I wanted to share some a good CanPol TV recommendation. Recently finished watching The Terror and thought it was quite well done. It tells the story of the doomed Franklin expedition, working from the historical facts/theories, but filling in the gaps with some spooky supernatural stuff. Cool blend of history and horror. Recommendo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:https://twitter.com/BenRabidoux/status/1020275837835214848?s=19 All Countries Are Bastards
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 22:44
|
|
|
Our laws and government suck really bad.
Somebody fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Our laws and government suck really bad. What's the alternative here? Just wait indefinitely for a trial, or use a judge that's not as familiar with the laws that may have been violated? I'm not being snarky, I just don't know what other options we'd have. Somebody fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
Postess here is a little snipe of info chucked into an article on the pharmacare program that ties back to our earlier discussion about costs getting downloaded onto provinces:quote:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/premiers-health-friday-1.4754762 Also - thanks, Laminar. Interesting stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Trumpism? Man, I never really thought about it until right this moment. That "Trump" could become the new "Quisling". I mean, he'll have his place in our history books for other reasons, so he probably won't ever reach the level of obscurity where his name is all that really remains, divorced from his actual identity for a lot of people over the globe, but, yeah, I could see people whipping out a "He's a total trump.", like, 80 years from now, when discussing the behavior of a loathsome selling-out of the cave peoples to the acid sea tribe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 04:37
|
|
|
As an Albertan, let me just say that I wish Mr. Fildebrandt all possible luck with his new party, and I hope it garners a lot of votes next year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 04:39
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:What's the alternative here? Just wait indefinitely for a trial, or use a judge that's not as familiar with the laws that may have been violated? In that situation? Too little too late, but we'd be less of a garbagefire country, as originally inferred, if the justice system in general was more interested in persecuting white collar crime than it is today. Our justice system is undermanned and underfunded, but the allocation of those limited resources is indicative of a different problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 06:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:50 |
|
|
infernal machines posted:What's the alternative here? Just wait indefinitely for a trial, or use a judge that's not as familiar with the laws that may have been violated? Idk maybe appoint judges to fill vacancies and adequately fund the legal system so they can hire enough staff to process cases in a timely manner. This is what the SCC Jordan decision was supposed to do by lighting a fire under the rear end of government, but it clearly hasn't done that fully.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 06:51
|
|
