, 10 tweets, 6 min read Read on Twitter
@FairQuestions @RachelNotley TMX is on hold because the initial approval failed to meet legal requirements. The statutory regime under which the approval is being done was enacted in 2012.

Are you suggesting pipelines should not have to comply with the law governing their construction?

1/
@FairQuestions @RachelNotley Or, are you saying that the government under Mr Harper was beholden to foreign anti-oil organizations when they introduced the EA regime in 2012. A regime which was unsuccessfully challenged in court by a number of First Nations.

2/
@FairQuestions @RachelNotley Line 3 and KXL have the necessary Canadian approvals in place. Construction of the Canadian portion of Line 3 is nigh-complete.

They are held up because they do not yet satisfy all US legal requirements. Should the US portions be exempt from complying with US law?

3/
@FairQuestions @RachelNotley You are essentially saying that these pipelines would have been built DESPITE NOT COMPLYING WITH APPLICALBLE LAW if some meddling foreign-funded groups had not supported legal challenges to them.

Even if your claims of funding are right, why don’t you support the law?

4/
@FairQuestions @RachelNotley Personally, I expect that projects like pipelines should meet the applicable legal requirements for them to be built.

If they do not—and regulators can make mistakes on this—then I will welcome judicial review and its outcomes.

It’s called rule of law.

5/
@FairQuestions @RachelNotley You can argue that the applicable laws (even the 2012 regime) do not balance environmental protection with the economy. There are many views on this, and our democracy thrives because there are diverse positions. This debate is public. Why shouldn’t all views be heard?

6/
@FairQuestions @RachelNotley Energy companies have not been shy about putting forward their views; they even have an industry group to advocate on their behalf. There is nothing wrong with this. Why shouldn’t environmental groups be able to advocate?

7/
@FairQuestions @RachelNotley Even if these groups are largely foreign-funded, they are using freedom of expression to openly advocate for their views. We do not (and should not) stop corporations from doing this, even foreign-owned ones. In the end, a democratic decision is made on policy.

8/
@FairQuestions @RachelNotley So, my fair questions are:

Do you feel only corporations (including foreign-owned and/or with extensive revenues from outside Canada) are the only ones who should lobby on policy?

Do you feel courts should not be called in to make sure legal requirements are being met?

9/
@FairQuestions @RachelNotley Because if you don’t, there is no other basis for why foreign funding of environmental organizations in Canada is a problem, even assuming that your claims regarding their funding and their objectives are true.

/fin
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Timothy Huyer
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!