Posted on 05/11/2007 6:31:26 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
Amid heated charges of a coverup, Tory MPs on Thursday abruptly shut down parliamentary hearings on a controversial plan to further integrate Canada and the U.S.
The firestorm erupted within minutes of testimony by University of Alberta professor Gordon Laxer that Canadians will be left "to freeze in the dark" if the government forges ahead with plans to integrate energy supplies across North America.
He was testifying on behalf of the Alberta-based Parkland Institute about concerns about the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), a 2005 accord by the U.S., Canada and Mexico to streamline economic and security rules across the continent. The deal, which calls North American "energy security" a priority, commits Canada to ensuring American energy supplies even though Canada itself - unlike most industrialized nations - has no national plan or reserves to protect its own supplies, he argued.
At that point, Tory MP Leon Benoit, chair of the Commons Standing Committee on International Trade which was holding the SPP hearings, ordered Laxer to halt his testimony, saying it was not relevant.
Opposition MPs called for, and won, a vote to overrule Benoit's ruling.
Benoit then threw down his pen, declaring, "This meeting is adjourned," and stormed out, followed by three of the panel's four Conservative members.
The remaining members voted to finish the meeting, with the Liberal vice-chair presiding.
Benoit's actions are virtually unprecedented, observers say; at press time, parliamentary procedure experts still hadn't figured out whether he had the right to adjourn the meeting unilaterally. Benoit did not respond to calls for comment.
It's "reckless and irresponsible" of the government not to discuss protecting Canada's energy supply, says Laxer.
Atlantic Canada and Quebec already have to import 90 per cent of their supply - 45 per cent of it from potentially unstable sources such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Algeria, Laxer said.
Meanwhile, Canada is exporting 63 per cent of its oil and 56 per cent of its gas production, mostly to the U.S., he says.
"It's shocking the extent to which the Conservative party will go to cover up information about the SPP," says NDP MP Peter Julian, who also sits on the committee.
Other MPs raised concerns about recently revealed plans under the SPP to raise Canadian limits on pesticide residues to match American rules.
Questions were also raised about whether the effort will open the door to bulk water exports.
Representatives from the departments of Industry and International Trade defended the SPP as an effort to protect Canadian jobs in a competitive global market, without sacrificing standards.
They denied charges SPP negotiations have been secretive, saying civil-society groups are welcome to offer their input, and referred MPs to the government website, which lays out in general terms the SPP initiatives.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/renewable/ethanol.html
http://www.ethanol.org/index.php?id=37&parentid=8
I like E85 and run it in our Suburban, but E85 only makes sense if you grow it, refine it, and use it locally. IMO, If you expend energy to transport it, or its precursors, the energy benefits diminish exponentially.
“Corn does not become ethanol without a processing plant. Current plants are running at maximum capacity and many new ones are being built. This still does not reach the demand for ethanol with the current government mandates. “
Thanks for the information. There was a thread the other day about an impending ethanol bust. Doesn’t look like that will occur unless government mandates change. Current production techniques seem to require a lot of natural gas - which is not a good deal for long term heating costs.
And it only is financially possible with government subsidies. When economics are used, the foreign source was viable, the domestic from corn was not.
Remove the subsidies from all energy industries and then we can talk. I get chaffed every time this comes up with ethanol like ethanol is the only industry being subsidized by the man. Our tax code is a large source of our energy chaos. No ethanol subsidy will ever equal one year's worth of funding war in the middle east. I prefer men named Jim-bob and Obadiah to get my tax money over men named Hussein.
No will we sell any aircraft carriers or bombers if we become energy independent. The military expense exists for more than oil.
You must apply the expense proportionally to have a linear debate.
No I’m not mistaken about the cost of petroleum ethanol vs agricultural ethanol. However, your link to the cellulose based ethanol production is a different animal from corn based production. By using the whole plant, you can get more out. But the simple fact of the matter is that it is easier and cheaper to catalytically crack a hydrocarbon and oxidize it to ethanol than to bioproduce it.
I believe you are mistaken that ethanol can even be made from petroleum. Please provide a link that discusses it.
I take it you never studied organic chemistry. Crack the hydrocarbons in petroleum using a zeolite catalyst, for example, then separate and partially oxidize the C2 portions to produce ethanol. It would take to long to post my chemistry texts on line, but most of the organic chemicals we use come from petroleum. I’m taking almost all plastics, pharmaceuticals, etc.
Why don’t you post a link showing where it is being done commercially somewhere in the world since you claim it more economic. I recognize the molecular structure is capable of being altered to ethanol if you spend enough energy. Plastics and pharmaceuticals are not ethanol.
This sounds like more of the "North American Union" crap we hear down here, which is also nonsense.
The SPP—doing the jobs that freedom-loving Americans and Canadians won’t do.
Sorry, I’ve noted a coorelation between the NAU ranters, and the 9/11 Bush Knew crowd, and the WTC Building 7 kooks.
No thanks. I live in the real world.
Yeah, I agree that the professor’s an idiot, but Canada (like America AND Mexico) should be able to secure its own energy supplies without being required by some bureaucratic edict to supply certain amounts of them to neighboring countries. Canada should also be able to set its own sovereign limits on pesticide residues as well.
“Yeah, I agree that the professor’s an idiot, but Canada (like America AND Mexico) should be able to secure its own energy supplies without being required by some bureaucratic edict to supply certain amounts of them to neighboring countries. Canada should also be able to set its own sovereign limits on pesticide residues as well.”
Yep. The only thing stopping it is legislation disguised as ‘enviromental’ or ‘antiquities acts’.
We should have drilled ANWR over a decade ago, we should be doing the same - using different technologies - in Utah, Colorado and other areas with shale oil.
I hope we can import the ethanol, as long as there absolutely HAS to be an ethanol scam imposed on America. Our home-grown corn should be used for feeding people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.