Metals mines association, accounting for most federal enviro assessments, OK with Bil

Commodity Marketing

Tools

Metals mines association, accounting for most federal enviro assessments, OK with Bil

Jun 21, 2019 | 16:17 1 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mining-sector-ok-with-c69-1.5174095

Metals mines association, accounting for most federal enviro assessments, OK with Bill C-69

New bill gives more clarity and flexibility in assessment process says mining association head
The Canadian Press · Posted: Jun 13, 2019 2:06 PM ET | Last Updated: June 13
Pierre Gratton, the president and CEO of the Mining Association of Canada, says the federal government's bill revamping the environmental assessment process for natural resources projects is an improvement over existing legislation. (Mining Association of Canada)

The head of the Mining Association of Canada says the hotly contested federal environmental assessment bill is welcome in the industry it will affect the most.

"This promises to be a better system than what we've had for the last seven years," said Pierre Gratton, the president of the association.

Bill C-69 overhauls Canada's environmental assessment regime for major national resource and transportation projects but the high-octane opposition from the oil and gas sector has drowned out much of the comment from other affected industries.

While the bill affects interprovincial pipelines, oilsands projects, offshore oil projects and oil refineries, it also applies to hydro dams, natural-gas power plants, the construction or decommissioning of military bases and airports, and most commonly, mines.

Since 2012, when the existing Canadian Environmental Assessment Act came into effect under the former Conservative government, Gratton said as many as 60 per cent of assessments have applied to mines producing things like diamonds, gold, zinc and copper.

"That cohort has felt consistently that C-69 represented an improvement on the status quo," Gratton said.

He said that was true in 2018, when the House of Commons debated and passed the bill, and it's true today, after the Liberal government rejected a majority of amendments proposed by the Senate.

Environment Minister Catherine McKenna said Wednesday she would accept 62 Senate amendments as written and 37 more with some adjustments. But the rest of the amendments, including 90 per cent of those proposed by Conservative senators, are hitting the slag heap.

"We will not accept amendments that give provinces a veto over projects in federal jurisdiction," she said. "We will not accept amendments that make it optional to consult Indigenous people."
The mining petroleum divide

In addition to creating a new Impact Assessment Agency to oversee the reviews, the bill says reviews must consider a project's effect on climate change and the construction effort's impact on women to the criteria for consideration. A pre-planning design phase will be required to try to have proponents seek out and understand the concerns that will be raised and address them before making formal applications.

The government will have set timelines to make decisions within, and all decisions will have to be accompanied with explanations, including publicly reporting any of the scientific evidence used.

Conservative MPs, senators and at least six premiers are adamant this legislation will be the death knell for the oil industry, prevent any new pipelines from ever being built in Canada and send energy investors scurrying to find other countries in which to spend their money.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said late Wednesday the government is "risking the country's economic future" by not accepting all the Senate amendments.

One of the biggest concerns is the bill's requirement to take into account climate change.

Gratton said the oilsands and uranium segments of the mining industry remain strongly opposed to the legislation. But mineral- and metal-mining companies, which have operations across Canada, are happy with it. He said the legislation from 2012 made assessments harder for mines because provincial and federal governments couldn't easily work together to have one single assessment, which C-69 fixes.

He said the new regime also has more flexibility for assessments to take into account the specific circumstances of different projects and also allows for federal permitting to get underway at the same time as an assessment is conducted, cutting the total time for getting a project approved.

He said the 2012 legislation did not "live up to its promise."

"We actively pursued changes that would address the problems we encountered and we believe that the biggest ones for that cohort have been largely addressed in this bill. It's not to say that suddenly federal environmental assessment is going to be easy. It's still going to be onerous. But some of the real problems that were not really justifiable (are gone.)" Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2019 | 16:26 2 You don't hear much about the support for Bill C69 from the metal mining industry.

What you get is a lot of noise from Moe and Kenney repeating their lines written for them by the oil and gas industry, who don't want to accept any responsibility for climate change or environmental problems. They want taxpayers to pay for it all.

The oil industry lobbies hard against even small attempts to make it more accountable and responsible on environmental issues.

The best example is the way they keep ignoring abandoned, suspended, and orphaned wells. Completely irresponsible. Taxpayers will be paying billions for their cleanup! Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2019 | 16:42 3 What a cherry picker socialist you are chuck. If course mines like it. They can transport their goods out on the back of old half ton. Potash goes out on trains on our rail system built in the 1800s.

See what happens when the next hydro dam and transmission line tries to get going. Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2019 | 17:24 4 So that assumes every new mine has a road and rail system already in place? Not a chance. Read the article and you will see why the metals mining industry likes C69.

The oil industry doesn't want to do anything about the problems that they cause because lets face it, oil demand will drop as other forms of lower carbon energy are developed and implemented. Its an industry that will likely decline in importance at some point in the future. Maybe sooner than later.

So just like the tobacco industry fights every new regulation or innovation that affects their product demand so does the oil and gas industry.

When a Conservative Prime Minister Harper from Calgary said Canada would stop using fossil energy by the year 2100 you know the writing is on the wall. It may take longer than 80 years but you and I won't be around to see it anyway. Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2019 | 17:34 5 I agree with chuck on this. Minimoe and Kenney the puppets have no interest In any other industry other than oil that will be here long after oil is gone because they don’t pay them off just like us farmers we just pay the oil bills.

Andrew made a absolute fool of himself criticizing the approval of the pipeline?????? How dumb must his writers be. Bucket get down to Ottawa and out some sense into these knuckle heads.
Go ahead and question when and how much but to criticize approval did he want them to not approve it or what? Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2019 | 18:44 6 So you mean this end of the oil age?

Why the global fossil-fuel phase-out is a fantasy

If not nuclear, then maybe solar? According to a U.S. government site, it takes about three million solar panels to produce one gigawatt of energy, which means that by 2050 the world will need 3,000,000 X 11,865 solar panels to offset fossil fuels. The wind alternative would require about 430 new wind turbines each of the 11,865 days leading to 2050.

To produce the electric power needed to offset the lost fossil fuel energy, Canada would have to build 2.5 hydro power dams the size of British Columbia’s $13-billion Site C project somewhere in the country “every year for the foreseeable future” leading up to the proposed 2050 carbon reduction targets. The geographic and cost obstacles send that prospect into the realm of the impossible.
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2019 | 19:54 7
Quote Originally Posted by jazz View Post
So you mean this end of the oil age?

Why the global fossil-fuel phase-out is a fantasy

If not nuclear, then maybe solar? According to a U.S. government site, it takes about three million solar panels to produce one gigawatt of energy, which means that by 2050 the world will need 3,000,000 X 11,865 solar panels to offset fossil fuels. The wind alternative would require about 430 new wind turbines each of the 11,865 days leading to
To produce the electric power needed to offset the lost fossil fuel energy, Canada would have to build 2.5 hydro power dams the size of British Columbia’s $13-billion Site C project somewhere in the country “every year for the foreseeable future” leading up to the proposed 2050 carbon reduction targets. The geographic and cost obstacles send that prospect into the realm of the impossible.
You are assuming technology is staying the same as it is now it isn’t. And could have been done a long time ago.
The reason we are not progressing in these other technologies is because the oil industry controls both sides of politics. The puppets they buy off and the other guys that don’t want to give up the tax money as much as they hate oil or pretend to.

Once the electric cars come on line even if half went electric what would the price of oil be then and that’s only 5 to 10 years away.
Last edited by the big wheel; Jun 21, 2019 at 20:00.
Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jun 21, 2019 | 19:55 8 Maybe they "consulted" the oil and gas industry like the NDP government "consulted" farmers on Bill 6?

    All the lip service you heard coming from the government was that farmers were in agreement with the new bill, but the farmers were ready to beat down the doors (and the idiot officials from the government) at the town hall meetings. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jun 21, 2019 | 20:50 9
    Quote Originally Posted by the big wheel View Post
    You are assuming technology is staying the same as it is now it isn’t. And could have been done a long time ago.
    The reason we are not progressing in these other technologies is because the oil industry controls both sides of politics. The puppets they buy off and the other guys that don’t want to give up the tax money as much as they hate oil or pretend to.

    Once the electric cars come on line even if half went electric what would the price of oil be then and that’s only 5 to 10 years away.
    And as soon as someone has to start using conspiracy theories to justify why their pet theory doesn't work, most rational people tune out. Reply With Quote
    Jun 21, 2019 | 20:54 10 Hardly a conspiracy theory that Big Oil controls Government, rather a statement of fact. Reply With Quote
    Jun 21, 2019 | 21:00 11
    Quote Originally Posted by grassfarmer View Post
    Hardly a conspiracy theory that Big Oil controls Government, rather a statement of fact.
    The fact that fossil fuels continue to supply the vast majority of energy to the globe, inspite of billions spent trying to displace them, has everything to do with physics, and not conspiracies. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Jun 21, 2019 | 21:57 12 These socialists just yap at anything big. Just like Chihuahuas yipping at Greyhound buses. Their jealous insecurities blind them to the real truth - carbon is the staff of life and our society is villanizing it by brainwashing kids in schools. This socialist BS is putrid. Reply With Quote

  • Jun 22, 2019 | 07:03 13 Why do socialists bash the very thing that provides for their socialism? Talk about sadist.

    Oil is one of the reasons you can walk into a hospital and not have to pay to get treated. And we want to kill this off and natter about a few govt benefits given to the industry and then dream some green fairy tale.

    You guys are nuts.

    Did you read the article. We need to build 2 hydro dams a year to offset oil. Or billions of solar panels or millions of windmills. It will never happen. Reply With Quote

  • Jun 22, 2019 | 07:20 14
    Quote Originally Posted by jazz View Post
    Why do socialists bash the very thing that provides for their socialism? Talk about sadist.

    Oil is one of the reasons you can walk into a hospital and not have to pay to get treated. And we want to kill this off and natter about a few govt benefits given to the industry and then dream some green fairy tale.

    You guys are nuts.

    Did you read the article. We need to build 2 hydro dams a year to offset oil. Or billions of solar panels or millions of windmills. It will never happen.
    Oil had its day its on the way out. Get in touch with the reality of what the rest of the world is doing they are leaving us behind our paid off representatives want to suck out the last dollars they can meanwhile everyone else moving forward. It’s so dumb beyond belief how sheep follow.
    The last oil boom doubled our farm expenses can’t you see that? The pst is still paying for the last boom and the walk to the hospital. Lmao. Reply With Quote
    Jun 22, 2019 | 07:21 15 On the CBC national Thursday night Rosemary Barton was interviewing environment minister Catherine McKenna. Rosemary brings up that the Parliamentary Budget Office had released a report that the carbon tax would have to be $102 a tonne by 2030 for Canada to meet the targets it agreed to under the Paris accord. Rosemary asked the minister why the federal Liberal's had stated that they wouldn't raise it above the planned $50 a tonne and how Canada would meet its targets? Well the minister talked about the plastics ban and electric cars and then she said this(from memory) that the carbon tax was only going to get us 20% of the way to our targets anyway!!!! This to me is quite a revelation when on national television the environment minister who has recently announced the imposition of a federal carbon tax on Alberta as of Jan. 1,2020, because in her words there has to be a price on pollution says that the carbon tax will make such a small difference. So in reality it is just another useless tax!!!!!! Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jun 22, 2019 | 07:32 16
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamloc View Post
    On the CBC national Thursday night Rosemary Barton was interviewing environment minister Catherine McKenna. Rosemary brings up that the Parliamentary Budget Office had released a report that the carbon tax would have to be $102 a tonne by 2030 for Canada to meet the targets it agreed to under the Paris accord. Rosemary asked the minister why the federal Liberal's had stated that they wouldn't raise it above the planned $50 a tonne and how Canada would meet its targets? Well the minister talked about the plastics ban and electric cars and then she said this(from memory) that the carbon tax was only going to get us 20% of the way to our targets anyway!!!! This to me is quite a revelation when on national television the environment minister who has recently announced the imposition of a federal carbon tax on Alberta as of Jan. 1,2020, because in her words there has to be a price on pollution says that the carbon tax will make such a small difference. So in reality it is just another useless tax!!!!!!
    I agree the whole issue of pollution and global warming are 2 different things being stated as the same thing on purpose. we know pollution is something we don’t want so maybe if global warming is caused by pollution then we won’t want that either so we ll pay for it with a tax is the deception. And many have fallen for that bukkshit. Use the tax to bring along the other technologies to lessen pollution and it would have merit. As it is it’s a joke claiming to save our world when all it is a money grab. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jun 22, 2019 | 07:54 17 The price of oil and gasoline went very high during the boom and that was okay?

    Not a peep from Conservatives leaders about how it was going to cost consumers and kill the economy. It cost my farm many extra thousands of dollars. Consumers were hit hard by higher prices. Gasoline prices often jump 5-10 cents a liter before holiday long weekends. But that's okay?

    Put a small carbon tax of 4.5 - 11 cents cents a liter to encourage conservation and innovation and its the end of the world! Quite the double standard.

    Brad Wall spends 1.2 billion dollars of taxpayers money on an expensive and unproven system for carbon capture and storage at Boundary that taxpayers and consumers will pay for. In essence a another form of a carbon tax and that's okay?

    The Sask Party, UCP and the Conservatives have so many double standards it hard to keep up.

    Moe and Kenney defend the oil industry but hardly a peep about the crisis in agriculture.

    Moe doesn't want any agri recovery programs or enhancements to agri stability because that will cost the province hundreds of millions in costs sharing with the federal government. Farmers are going to get very little attention and the oil industry gets all the oxygen!

    The oil industry are these governments priority. Everbody and everything else are not important. Reply With Quote
    Jun 22, 2019 | 08:11 18 Taxes are used to pay for education, healthcare, infrastructure, roads, a justice system, social programs, OAS, GIS, the military, subsidies to agriculture............ the list is long.

    Just because you don't believe there is climate change, or that carbon dioxide is a pollutant in excess if it changes the climate, doesn't make a carbon tax any different than all the other taxes you and I pay. It's one tool to fight climate change. Energy already has numerous taxes applied.

    Scheer, Moe, and Kenney want to use regulations to reduce carbon emmisions (another form of tax) which also have costs that consumers and business will pay for.

    Scheer, Moe, and Kenney want to do as little as possible and let taxpayers pay for the all the damage from climate change and the cost of mitigation.

    Their goal is to protect the interests of the oil industry and socialize the costs of climate change. In effect privatize the profit and socialize the harmful effects!

    Many people want all the benefits and protection of living in a developed country but don't want to pay for it. They are wannabe free riders. Reply With Quote
    Jun 22, 2019 | 08:39 19
    Quote Originally Posted by the big wheel View Post
    I agree the whole issue of pollution and global warming are 2 different things being stated as the same thing on purpose. we know pollution is something we don’t want so maybe if global warming is caused by pollution then we won’t want that either so we ll pay for it with a tax is the deception. And many have fallen for that bukkshit. Use the tax to bring along the other technologies to lessen pollution and it would have merit. As it is it’s a joke claiming to save our world when all it is a money grab.
    Burning fossil fuels causes air pollution and release massive amounts of carbon dioxide.

    Carbon dioxide in excess is a pollutant and unwanted byproduct of burning fossil fuels. The natural carbon cycle provides enough carbon dioxide to sustain life.

    Releasing millions upon millions of tons of stored carbon annually into the atmosphere in addition to the natural carbon cycle is unsustainable.

    Only a small number of ill informed idiots think you can keep burning massive amounts of fossil fuels for thousands of years and not cause massive changes to the climate. Harper said we we would stop using fossil energy by 2100 for this reason.

    Water is essential to life just like Carbon dioxide. Excess water in the wrong place will damage your property, kill your crops and you. Reply With Quote
    Jun 22, 2019 | 08:54 20
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Burning fossil fuels causes air pollution and release massive amounts of carbon dioxide.

    Carbon dioxide in excess is a pollutant and unwanted byproduct of burning fossil fuels. The natural carbon cycle provides enough carbon dioxide to sustain life.

    Releasing millions upon millions of tons of stored carbon annually into the atmosphere in addition to the natural carbon cycle is unsustainable.

    Only a small number of ill informed idiots think you can keep burning massive amounts of fossil fuels for thousands of years and not cause massive changes to the climate. Harper said we we would stop using fossil energy by 2100 for this reason.

    Water is essential to life just like Carbon dioxide. Excess water in the wrong place will damage your property, kill your crops and you.
    You are the climate cult leader ... lol Reply With Quote
  • 3 Likes


  • fjlip's Avatar Jun 22, 2019 | 09:08 21 All hail the infallible leader...Name:  5E515A61-A77E-4A67-8A4D-29873518F071(full).jpg
Views: 296
Size:  12.6 KB Reply With Quote
    Jun 22, 2019 | 09:15 22 Interesting the people who support climate change and its BS also hate the oil patch. So basically the only reason they support the carbon tax is they beleive its a wealth distribution to their pocket from corportations. So envy and socialism again. nothing to do with climate change. Cant create socialism ditectly because its a death cult, so slip it in the back door. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Jun 22, 2019 | 09:21 23
    Quote Originally Posted by jazz View Post
    Interesting the people who support climate change and its BS also hate the oil patch. So basically the only reason they support the carbon tax is they beleive its a wealth distribution to their pocket from corportations. So envy and socialism again. nothing to do with climate change. Cant create socialism ditectly because its a death cult, so slip it in the back door.
    That is 100% correct in every word 👍 Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jun 22, 2019 | 09:26 24
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Burning fossil fuels causes air pollution and release massive amounts of carbon dioxide.
    See, you are learning, pollution and CO2 are not the same thing, this is progress, well done, our efforts have not been in vain.
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Carbon dioxide in excess is a pollutant and unwanted byproduct of burning fossil fuels. The natural carbon cycle provides enough carbon dioxide to sustain life.
    One step forward, two steps back. But don't give up, it takes time to break old habits when something has been brainwashed into you for so long, just keep trying. And no, the natural carbon cycle is a sink, which was well on its way to taking CO2 to levels that will no longer support life.
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Releasing millions upon millions of tons of stored carbon annually into the atmosphere in addition to the natural carbon cycle is unsustainable.
    Absolutely, and on this issue we both agree. We are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere at highly unsustainable rates, and given the short residence time, there will be little easy stored beneficial CO2 left for future generations to release, to maintain crop yields and the greening of the planet. Any other source of CO2 such as limestone will require massive amounts of energy to liberate, to maintain our standards of living, at a time when energy will be in very short supply.
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Only a small number of ill informed idiots think you can keep burning massive amounts of fossil fuels for thousands of years and not cause massive changes to the climate. Harper said we we would stop using fossil energy by 2100 for this reason.
    Exactly, because at current rates of growth, only an idiot would think that we have enough economically accessible fossil fuels to last for thousands of years. Case in point...
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Water is essential to life just like Carbon dioxide. Excess water in the wrong place will damage your property, kill your crops and you.
    And I've asked you before, ( and provided the answer) at what level does CO2 become excessive enough that the detriments outweigh the benefits, and how practical is it that we could achieve such lofty levels? Reply With Quote
    Jun 22, 2019 | 09:46 25 There is no debating them AF. They already know that there is no low carbon economy coming, there is only a no economy if we cut oil, and thats the point, they know it cant be cut back nor can renewables ever replace it, its just an ever increasing regressive shame tax wealth transfer welfare scheme which will send money to their pockets. Even trudeau realized that when he greenlit TMX. He knows there is no solar plant or windmills that are ever going to put $50B into govt coffers to waste on vote buying. And now they can trot out some psudeoscience propaganda every few yrs to raise it when the sheep start bleating again. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Jun 22, 2019 | 10:36 26
    Quote Originally Posted by the big wheel View Post
    Oil had its day its on the way out. Get in touch with the reality of what the rest of the world is doing they are leaving us behind our paid off representatives want to suck out the last dollars they can meanwhile everyone else moving forward.
    Could you possibly post some examples of how successfully the rest of the world is weaning itself off of oil or fossil fuels and leaving us behind? The only place I have seen it happening is in the imagination of some very out of touch politicians making absurd promises for dates far exceeding their tenure. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • blackpowder's Avatar Jun 22, 2019 | 11:00 27 I'm sure we'll all wake up one day to suddenly find there is no more oil and we have no alternative developed. Anarchy.

    WTF has everyone been smoking this morning????
    Separation, climate doom, Trump is the devil.......
    Jesus, I've wasted 20 mins of my life reading this shite.
    Wienerville on full retard today.
    Half of you guys must live in Toronto. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Jun 22, 2019 | 11:50 28 Jazz, admittedly, there is no point in debating any ideologue, it sure is fun watching them repeatedly reveal how truly ignorant they actually are about something they profess to be so confident in.
    Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Jun 22, 2019 at 21:47.
    Reply With Quote
    Jun 22, 2019 | 17:40 29 "Pierre Gratton, the president and CEO of the Mining Association of Canada, says the federal government's bill revamping the environmental assessment process for natural resources projects is an improvement over existing legislation. (Mining Association of Canada)

    The head of the Mining Association of Canada says the hotly contested federal environmental assessment bill is welcome in the industry it will affect the most.

    "This promises to be a better system than what we've had for the last seven years," said Pierre Gratton, the president of the association.

    Bill C-69 overhauls Canada's environmental assessment regime for major national resource and transportation projects but the high-octane opposition from the oil and gas sector has drowned out much of the comment from other affected industries."

    No comments from the peanut gallery on this? Yup its all about the oil industries opposition and not one peep about support from the mining association who sees the majority of the reviews!

    The oil industry writes environmental policy in Alberta and Saskatchewan and you fossils go along with it. Moe and Kenney are nothing but oil industry puppets taking care of their rich friends!
    They whine about a carbon tax, plan to impose their own version in regulations and carbon capture and then say nothing about the hundreds of billions in liability of abandoned, suspended and orphaned wells that taxpayers are going to pay to clean up. Totally irresponsible management of a one time finite resource and the environment! Reply With Quote
    Jun 22, 2019 | 18:01 30 This is all bullshit. Wasting time and energy on things we can’t change and never effected in the first place. Carbon dioxide is a good thing. Christ sakes people are gullible that believe it’s a pollutant. How the hell would we grow the crops we do if it wasn’t the way it is. U wanna fix problems. Start by not dumping garbage in the ocean or flushing our shit down the rivers. Their are companies that can help with these problems but our governments don’t really wanna fix any of this stuff they just want the tax dollars to piss away on the me too movement or human rights crap in some third world toilet that couldn’t give 2 shits about Canada or where it even is. And it don’t matter what political stripe u are they are all the same. Reply With Quote