Whatchya trying to say there, buddy?
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.
You have a small minority of rabid leftwingnuts, same as we do.
Key word, thankfully, is ‘small’.
“dunno what part of Ohio you’re from but, surely merely contrasting Buffalo with surrounding Erie & Niagara Counties largely proves my point, eh?) “
Yes, it does, especially since we have family up around Buffalo.
Some people seem to be able to think only in terms of bumper sticker slogans. That’s great it they manufacture bumper stickers, but otherwise, it is just really annoying.
Oh, some people have gone off the deep end alright, but it isn’t W.
LOL
Some people can’t grasp a concept that isn’t able to fit on a bumper sticker.
Thats the bigger worry too me.
Whatchya trying to say there, buddy?
Will do.
I don't waste my time on anti-science luddites. You know nothing of chemistry. Plastics and pharmaceuticals are more complicated to synthesize than ethanol. Ethanol from petroleum is not commercialy done because of competition from farming subsidies that artifically lower the cost of agriculturally produced ethanol. It's the corporate welfare to farmers that prevents oil companies from making ethanol. Take away the oil subsidies and you then have a petrochemical market for ethanol. Scientific AMerican had a very good laymans article on this subject. Bottom line is that it takes about as much energy to produce ethanol agriculturally than you get out of it.
LOL!!! You must be new to the energy threads.
Plastics and pharmaceuticals are more complicated to synthesize than ethanol.
Yes they are. That is also why they are more expensive. Ethanol is rather relatively easy to make through fermentation compared to polymers and pharmaceuticals.
Ethanol from petroleum is not commercialy done because of competition from farming subsidies
Ethanol from fermentation of grains and sugars has been produced in this country far longer than the current subsidies. And fermentation is used in the other parts of the world that do not have the US attempted social engineering.
It's the corporate welfare to farmers that prevents oil companies from making ethanol. Take away the oil subsidies and you then have a petrochemical market for ethanol.
Ethanol and Petroleum are global products. If your claim of economic production were true, we would see it elsewhere in the world.
Scientific AMerican had a very good laymans article on this subject.
I agree it is theoretically possible to produce. I disagree that it is more economical.
Bottom line is that it takes about as much energy to produce ethanol agriculturally than you get out of it.
That is completely off topic. And I suspect the producing ethanol from petroleum would have the same problem. Ethanol is a crappy fuel in many aspects. We should not be mandating its use or using the tax code to give it preference over better fuels.
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.