Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Bill C-48

  1. #1
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014

    Bill C-48

    This is the Bill about getting Alberta oil out the northern route of British Columbia.

    The Senate Committee voted against it.
    The Senate body just threw out all the Committee recommendations.

    This is the 6th time in Canadian history that the Senate body has voted against the recommendations of their committee.

    Another, of course, being C-71.

  2. #2
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014

    Braid: Senate slaps down its own committee and C-48 lives on

    June 7 2019

    What a country.

    Or, to put it another way: What? A country?

    On Wednesday evening, the full Senate refused to kill Bill C-48, the so-called Tanker Moratorium, by a whopping margin of 53-38.

    That bill forbids export of Alberta petroleum products off B.C.’s north coast. It has been roundly slammed as discriminatory, divisive and dangerous to national unity.

    A Senate committee, after months of hearings, testimony and submissions, had recommended that the bill be abandoned.

    But now the Senate itself rejects the decision of its own committee. This has only happened six times since 1996, according to Alberta senator Doug Black.

    Four Alberta senators voted to kill C-48: Black, Scott Tannas, Elaine McCoy and Paula Simons.

    Two Albertans voted in favour of the bill: Grant Mitchell, former leader of the Alberta provincial Liberals; and recent appointee Patti LaBoucane-Benson.

    Simons, whose dramatic earlier vote tipped the committee against Bill C-48, says some senators were uncomfortable with a committee killing a piece of government legislation.

    They want full Senate debate, amendments and then third reading.

    But as Sen. Black says, “there is no making this right. There is no solution for Alberta except to kill it. This is just so frustrating.”

    That C-48 is poison in any form is also the view of UCP Premier Jason Kenney; and before him, NDP premier Rachel Notley.

    “Toss C-48 in the garbage where it belongs,” she told the Senate committee via video link.

    This is not a partisan issue within Alberta, but it certainly is on the national stage.

    “For the Senate to overrule that committee is very disappointing — maddening,” Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage said in an interview.

    “You had a committee that went around the country and heard from experts. And the committee itself became expert. They gave reasoned consideration and came to the conclusion that the bill should be killed. For the Senate to overrule that committee is very disappointing.

    “There’s some who might want to fix it. But you can’t fix that bill. There is no pathway to make Bill C-48 work.”

    Savage says Alberta will file a constitutional challenge if the bill goes ahead.

    “That bill is directly aimed at Alberta, it’s discriminatory. It land-locks us from getting our products to market.

    “We are going to get very loud and noisy with a number of other provinces and industry associations and Indigenous groups (who oppose the bill.)”

    Savage still feels the best solution is the death of C-48 at the hands of the full Senate.

    In the vast writhing nest of Ottawa’s procedural possibilities, there is a chance it could happen.

    Simons says she’s now working on possible amendments with some other senators.

    But if the premise is inherently flawed — the notion that Ottawa can intentionally land-lock a province’s resources — why try to tinker with it?

    Well, some senators who propose amendments may not want them to pass at all. Rather, they’ll be trying to run out the clock until the Senate adjourns for the summer.

    Bill C-48 would then die on the order paper and be no issue in the election.

    There’s also a background sense that the Trudeau Liberals won’t go to the wall for C-48. Even though it was never a priority, it’s now an eternal dark cloud on the western horizon.

    They are also ready to approve the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion within a couple of weeks.

    After paying $4.5 billion for that honour, do they really want Kenney and his allies using C-48 to snatch back all the good will?

    There’s also the strange fact that Bill C-48 isn’t about anything specific.

    No current, active pipeline proposal exists for the north coast. Even if one were approved, we wouldn’t see a northern line for a decade or more.

    One Ottawa guy asked me Wednesday why C-48 bothers me so much when it doesn’t block a project.

    I asked him why he needs C-48 so much, when there’s no project to block.

    Such a Canadian moment.

    What? A country?


    Quote Originally Posted by ReplyToCommentAtLink
    These days being ill-informed is a choice or maybe its more a lifestyle.
    -- Chris Plant
    Quote Originally Posted by UnrelatedCommentAtLink
    Who ever thought that a prime minister's main job was to break up Canada?
    -- Larry Gammon

  3. #3
    Senior Member LB303's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    not far enough
    The federal government should never have gotten involved, they should have allowed the market to find their own solution.
    This lies squarely on the B.C. government's cowardice and the environment vs. gas prices equation is their trade-off to manage.
    They're getting the feds to do their dirty work, with our money (and take the heat, hopefully at the ballot box), but it's still obvious NIMBY.
    Really all they need to do is refuse to approve new land use for pipeline purposes. What is so complicated about that.
    It's their prerogative, since property law falls under provincial purview, but they seem to need Big Brother to hide behind, like that little brat we all used to hate.
    The fact that Big Bro happens to be stupid enough to get entangled in this spat, is further proof of the JustNotReady theory.

  4. #4
    The Gunsmithing Moderator blacksmithden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    I live among the creatures of the night (Edmonton)
    Trudeau and the liberals have such a loathing of Alberta that they're not even trying to hide their hate anymore. It doesn't matter what anyone recommends from now till October. From here on out, Turd will be telling his lapdogs that it's a scorched earth policy when it comes to things that will bash down Alberta. Hopefully in the future, no Conservative leader will repeat Harper's mistake of leaving a boat load of senate seats wide open, allowing the liberals to stack the deck for years to come.
    GOC moderator
    Dealer/co-founder/co-owner of Tundra Supply Ltd.
    The High River Gun Grab - NEVER FORGET !!!!
    Feb 26 2014 - Swiss Arms prohibition and ordered confiscation by the RCMP - NEVER FORGET !!!!!

  5. The Following 5 Users Like This Post By blacksmithden

    canthitathing (06-09-2019), LB303 (06-09-2019), Relic49 (06-09-2019), ruger#1 (06-09-2019), Swingerguy (06-09-2019)

  6. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    New York, NY, New York
    Are the oil companies Canadian owned? Or are the profits just leaving the country along with the oil?

  7. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Quote Originally Posted by amyacker View Post
    Are the oil companies Canadian owned? Or are the profits just leaving the country along with the oil?
    Many privately held oil co's are Canadian owned. Many many of the supporting companies (far and away the vast majority) for the O&G industry are Canadian owned. Their profits go where ever their owners direct them (which is really none of your business, since you are incurring none of the risk, you have no say in the reward). Suffice it to say though that the bulk of those revenues go back into those companies in the form of wages, capex, opex, R&D, etc. And at least a healthy portion of the profits do indeed stay in Canada providing revenues to the range of general services and product sales we support in our day to day lives.

    Many of the larger companies are publicly owned, and their profits are the responsibility of their shareholders.

    In all cases, however, the jobs they create are specific to that region. That is the nature of resource development. You need feet on the ground where the resource is. You need all the supporting services where the resource is. That's jobs. Good jobs.
    Last edited by Soph; 07-10-2019 at 09:45 AM.

  8. The Following User Liked This Post By Soph

    Scoutertracker (07-10-2019)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts