Canada Formally Objects To LNG Tankers In Canadian Waters

Posted on Thursday, February 15 at 11:04 by jensonj
"We are therefore prepared to use domestic legal means to address our concerns and prevent such passage from occurring," the ambassador said. The letter comes as FERC is preparing for hearings on two proposed LNG terminals in Maine. Downeast LNG is looking to build a plant in Robbinston, while Quoddy Bay LNG wants to build a terminal on the Passamaquoddy Tribe's reservation at Pleasant Point. Downeast LNG president Dean Girdis said Wilson's letter won't deter his company from trying to establish an LNG terminal. "I'm already so far into this it's too late to stop," he said. "We're full steam ahead. This changes nothing." Girdis questioned Wilson's tactic, accusing Canada of trying to short-circuit the U.S. regulatory process. New Brunswick MP Greg Thompson wouldn't elaborate Wednesday on what specific steps Canada would take to back up its opposition. "We're examining every regulation or action we could take to enforce that position," he said. The federal government commissioned a study of the safety and environmental impacts the LNG proposals could have on Canada, but has not released it. Thompson insisted Canada's position will not damage Canada-U.S. relations. Wilson's letter states the government's willingness to continue working with the U.S. to meet its energy needs. http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2007/02/14/canada_formally_objects_to_lng_tankers_in_canadian_waters?mode=PF [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on February 16, 2007]

Note: http://www.boston.com/n...

Contributed By


Topic


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. by avatar Jacob
    Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:43 pm
    My question: Why would the Canadian Ambassador to the US write this letter? Should it not have been written by the Province of New Brunswick or by someone else in the Canadian Federal Government?

    With the E/2 situation (an Internatinal Power Line near Sumas Washington), the Canadian Ambassador to the US was not involved, but only the Government of BC and Randy White, MP for Langley-Abbotsford.

  2. by RPW
    Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:31 am
    Possibly because it's a rhetorical objection, bereft of substance, as is the entire federal government.......?

    ---
    "When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change."
    -Max Planck

  3. Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:48 pm
    Why would any Canadian official think that taking the U.S. Administration to court let alone the threat of will make any difference or make them change their minds? It didn’t do anything in softwood lumber case and the Conservatives had from 1981 to deal with it including bringing in NAFTA and another 10 with the liberals in court cases which we won?

    Besides, the first comment after making this legal threat is the worrisome question about if it will up set the U.S. Administration, so much for sovereignty, Democracy and the rule of law? Isn’t nice when your friends fear you?

    Lets face it Canada has one master, one sovereign and that is the President of the United States of America who ever that be now and in the future.


    ---
    Perception is two thirds of what we perceive reality to be.

    Difficult decisions are a privilege of rank.



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news