Enbridge

[GLG]

We all know the energy industry is the economic driver of the country, I provided you with all kinds of data a couple months back.

Source: Statistics Canada, Gross Domestic Product by Industry, 2002 to 2011.
GDP in the Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction sector increased from $53.5 billion in 2002 to $57.4 billion in 2011. The increase in GDP reported between 2002 and 2011 represented a compound annual rate of 0.8%. Between 2010 and 2011, the total value-added of the Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction sector increased by 4.5%.
https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/sbms/sbb/cis/gdp.html?code=21&lang=eng


Source: Statistics Canada, Gross Domestic Product by Industry, 2002 to 2011.
GDP in the Construction sector increased from $57.8 billion in 2002 to $76.5 billion in 2011. The increase in GDP reported between 2002 and 2011 represented a compound annual rate of 3.2%. Between 2010 and 2011, the total value-added of the Construction sector increased by 4.1%
https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/sbms/sbb/cis/gdp.html?code=23&lang=eng

Care to respond??

 

[steel_dreamin]

What “study” are you referring to. A lot of this money is for spending on infrastructure. The spending makes a laughing stock of the whole JRP process because it is not necessary if the project is not approved.

Actually yes. However IF the project were approved THAT is the time to spend taxpayer money.


Wrong questions. No one should do any work and spend taxpayer money UNLESS the project is approved.


Realistic alternatives to what? The pipeline? Oil?


Actually she makes a damn fine case
http://elizabethmaymp.ca/federal-spending-supporting-enbridge-tanker-plans
As for the readers of the sunnews you can gauge the level of mentality and capability of rational and intellectual thought from the comments underneath the article. Truly scary…..!

You may want to review the Environmental Assessment process under CEAA.

 

[agentaqua]

You may want to review the Environmental Assessment process under CEAA.

Firstly, it is a JPR Review Process - NOT CEAA. 2nd - The problem is not so much with the one-the-grounds process (although some would disagree about some parts of this) - RATHER the issues are with what happens AFTER the JPR makes it's determinations. Even if the JPR says NO - the Cabinet Minister could still forge ahead, and Joe Oliver and Harper appear to have every indication they will force the issue to appease their stock portfolio manager. The last 2 omnibus bills were done to tie-up any loose ends in that regard.

 

[steel_dreamin]

Firstly, it is a JPR Review Process - NOT CEAA. 2nd - The problem is not so much with the one-the-grounds process (although some would disagree about some parts of this) - RATHER the issues are with what happens AFTER the JPR makes it's determinations. Even if the JPR says NO - the Cabinet Minister could still forge ahead, and Joe Oliver and Harper appear to have every indication they will force the issue to appease their stock portfolio manager. The last 2 omnibus bills were done to tie-up any loose ends in that regard.

I'm sorry, so this JPR you speak of has it's own act? I'd love to see it so I can understand... and then the EA certificate is issued under this other act? this is so confusing...

 

[agentaqua]

I'm sorry, so this JPR you speak of has it's own act? I'd love to see it so I can understand... and then the EA certificate is issued under this other act? this is so confusing...

I agree - it IS confusing. Just the way the government likes it. Too confusing to properly engage - works for them. Why would any self-important politician/bureaucrat want to engage in a messy public process like democracy, when they have already made-up their minds and collected the manila envelope already from the corporate lobbyist. There are some very well-intended lower-level government employees who try to do what they can. BUT - they all have bosses all the way up to the PMO and the Privy Council. So the buck not only stops, but disappears along the way. BUT, I digress...

The JRP panel stands for the "Joint Review Panel". It is a panel composed of (in this case, for the Enbridge "Gateway" submission - 3) appointed, generally pro-industry ex-industry individuals: http://gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc.ca/clf-nsi/bts/jntrvwpnl-eng.html The JPR process is a separate process from the CEAA processes (3 levels in CEAA from low to high - screenings, full comprehensive assessment, and a completely different type of panel review). The National Energy Board (NEB) houses the literature/submissions, but the decision-making is handled within the panel.

The main difference between CEAA and the JPR process, is mainly that the lead regulatory role switches to the the National Energy Board under a JPR process, rather than staying with the federal Department of Environment. This is because the NEB is industry-friendly. The NEB is an independent federal agency that regulates several parts of Canada's energy industry. Its purpose is to promote safety and security, environmental protection, and efficient energy infrastructure and markets in the Canadian public interest, within the mandate set by Parliament in the regulation (read: "promotion and protection") of pipelines, energy development and trade.

The Minister of the Environment decided that the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project would be assessed using a joint review panel. The applications are reviewed under both the Canadian Environmental Assessment and the National Energy Board Acts. The Panel’s report is submitted to the Governor in Council (who is a puppet for Harper's cabinet) will make the decision on the environmental assessment (whether the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects and if so, whether such effects are justified in the circumstances). The Governor in Council will also decide, by order, whether the National Energy Board should issue a certificate and will give reasons for the order. https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/li...ew_Panel_Agreement.pdf?nodeid=591960&vernum=0

Examples of past JPR decisions and recommendations can be found here:
http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/Content/1/5/5/155701CE-6B5C-4F54-84E3-5D9B8297CD15/MGP_Final_Response.pdf
http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents/54772/54772E.pdf

Expect something similar here. Even if the panel says no - the cabinet (read Harper, Oliver and con-men) - through the GOC - can over-ride that decision. Hang on for the ride!

 

[steel_dreamin]

Sorry man, I was being a smart butt and you didn't pick up on it. I do apologize for that as it turns out you comprehend the process. Some wires crossed but I believe it was more semantics than lack of understanding. CEAA 2012 is still the overarching act dictating review process - that's what I was getting at.

You are correct in that there are many complexities.

Good info for those that want to know.

 

[Rockfish]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...eral-cabinet-ministers-push-pipelines-bc.html

 

[Whole in the Water]

All I can say right now is we need to keep a close eye on Harper and his Minister's as they will try to do what ever it takes to ram these pipelines through. I don't trust Clark either, it seems she is just olding out for a bigger cut of the profits to fund her projects.

 

[agentaqua]

Sorry man, I was being a smart butt and you didn't pick up on it. I do apologize for that as it turns out you comprehend the process. Some wires crossed but I believe it was more semantics than lack of understanding. CEAA 2012 is still the overarching act dictating review process - that's what I was getting at.

You are correct in that there are many complexities.

Good info for those that want to know.

Like everything we do - PARTICULARLY wrt environmental assessments - the devil is in the details - something well understood by government.

The main differences between CEAA and the JPR processes, is that under the JPR process the reviewers/decision makers are either current or ex-industry members, and that they are pro-government and commonly friends and acquaintences of cabinet ministers, and that the cabinet minister deceides what process to use and who to appoint.

This is called "stacking the deck".

Admittedly, there is some benefit to having at least 1 panel member with industry background so that there is a realistic assessment of planned logistics and technology proposed by the proponent at the decision-making level.

However, that should not be the sole focus of the qualifications of each panel member. Familarity with environmental assessment process, familarity with the area, familarity with oil spill response and clean-up, and familarity with First Nations Rights and Titles and associated processes should also figure just as prominant as qualifications.

AND the minster should NOT have the ability to self-appoint his buds and acquaintances, but rather have it vetted through a panel designed to review qualifications - like a job interview panel.

The Terms of Reference for the panel should be similarly set at the same time.

to my knowledge - none of this has ever been done for a JPR process.

Instead, in the JPR process - pro-industry people drive the process towards a favourable approval process for the proponents. "Yes", "no" and "maybe if" should be all equally possible responses to any proposed development, after weighing all societal costs/benefits - not just those components that promote a favourable stock investment return.

In the case of Enbridge - how is shipping a non-renewable limited product in it's raw form to a foreign country so that they can get the refining jobs an acceptable "economic generator" for Canada - substantial potential negative environmental impacts aside?