The pipeline company has applied for a specific route through the Rockwood Park and the wording of this bill would allow any pipeline company's to put a pipeline through any portion of the said land.
The National Energy Board as of yet has not made a decision whether to allow a certificate to operate.
Why should this bill be approved when there is no decision?
If the members allow this bill and the National Energy Board denies the company certificate to operate this bill will allow other companies in the future to put a natural gas pipelines thought any portion of the park.
The National Energy Board has in front of them an application, for a specific route and within that corridor the pipeline would be placed, if approved by the National Energy Board. The wording " any portion of said lands" could destroy our park in the future.
One has to wonder why the loose wording "any portion of said land" in Rockwood Park tells me there is more plans to put pipelines into our park. Why else this wording?
12 comments:
How would passing this bill open the door to other pipelines running through any portion of the park? Would not any and all pipelines and their locations need NEB approval after all? You say yourself that if the NEB does not approve this pipeline the bill now before government would not mean anything. How can you infer from this bill that the park will somehow be crisscrossed by natural gas pipelines? Do you have some knowledge that a host of companies plan on bringing gas to Saint John? That seems to be a bit of a step.
well like anything else in Canada it will be push thru and the Canadian people will just shake their head inshame or bury them in the sand lie usual
The NEB does not have to regulate pipelines within a certain distance. I believe that if the pipeline wasn't crossing the boarder that the NEB would not be involved. The bill before the goverment would be in affect if the bill is approved and yes the park would be left unprotected. This is what Trevor Holder had to say to CHSJ
[HOLDER HAS RESERVATIONS ABOUT PIPELINE BILL]MAY18/07 3:50AM
SAINT JOHN PORTLAND CONSERVATIVE M-L-A TREVOR HOLDER SAYS HE’S AT A LOSS WHY THE CITY’S PROPOSED BILL IS SO VAGUE. HOLDER WHO SITS ON THE LEGISLATURE COMMITTEE EXAMINING THE PRIVATE MEMBERS BILL SAYS THE BILL WOULD LEAVE THE PARK WIDE OPEN TO FUTURE INDUSTRIALIZATION.
CITY SOLICITOR JOHN NUGENT DENIES THE CLAIM -- HE SAYS THE BILL CAN’T BE MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT THE PROPOSED EMERA BRUNSWICK NATURAL GAS PIPELINE UNTIL THE NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD RULES ON THE PROJECT.
With the new refinery wouldn't it be cheeper to pipe it to the U.S. just like the LNG plant is proposing? Once a pipeline corridor is open there are usually more pipelines to follow.
Ok, so there are more than one interpretation of the bills meaning. One from the party that approved the LNG terminal in the first place and "now" claims to be at a loss and expresses his concern over future park industrialization. Although apparently not over its initial industrialization as envisioned while in power....(isn't that a surprise) and another from city that of course is looking forward to the bill passing. I wouldn't be prepared to put much faith in either. As to multiple pipelines running in the same corridor, that could well be the case some time down the road. But that's not the same as having pipes buried all over the park.
Did you see the commercial on TV. You got Bankers. Well in New Brunswick it should be we got Irvings!!
This is what Bill 55 says and yes pipelines could go anywhere in Rockwood Park with this wording.
BILL 55
An Act to Authorize an Easement Through Certain Lands in The City of Saint John for Natural Gas Pipeline Purposes
WHEREAS The City of Saint John and the Saint John Horticultural Association pray that it be enacted as hereinafter set forth;
THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick enacts as follows:
1 Notwithstanding anything contained in the Acts of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick concerning the lands previously vested in the Saint John Horticultural Association and conveyed to The City of Saint John by the said Horticultural Association in a Deed dated March 20, 1967 and registered in the Saint John County Registry Office on April 14, 1967 in Book 564 at Page 323 as No. 210666, The City of Saint John, with the consent of Saint John Horticultural Association, is hereby authorized and empowered to grant an Easement in any portion of the said lands for the purposes of constructing, maintaining, replacing and operating a natural gas pipeline together with associated equipment and facilities and such rights as are ancillary thereto.
That sounds pretty much like you would expect. While it does not go into detail about the exact corridor the pipeline is running through it does say "a natural gas pipeline" not multiple pipelines, not crude oil pipelines or any other pipelines. So why would you think it opens the door for multiple lines?
As to the route this line will take, I can only assume that being against it as you appear to be you know full well that they have the route already selected. So really, suggesting that pipelines will someday fill the park is really just a little scare tactic on your part.
If it says 'any portion of said lands' then that is definitely a precedent and not a 'scare tactic'. It's pretty easy once one pipeline goes through to look at the legislation that says 'any portion' and use that to legitimize putting more pipelines in.
It's the same argument as the states says about gas terminals-its pretty hard for NB to complain about Maine putting in a gas terminal when they have one just a little ways away.
Once a pipeline is in, this opens the door for more pipelines. You can't argue that an area is out of bounds for industrial development if its already open for industrial development.
It may be true that nobody has yet mentioned more pipelines, however, having legislation that allows a pipeline for 'any area' in the park certainly does open it up for industrial development. It's not a certainty, but the claim is far from a scare tactic.
That its private members bill shows that it isn't even government policy, so whoever got the member to put the bill forward may have plans of their own.
well after all we are in newbrunswick where they decided to amalgate cities and provide policing by the Rcmp without the consent of the citizens which had a petiton of almost all the citizens names against it ......
so to me this mean it the government way or noway at all ..
the only way to solve these problems would be to hit the government where it hurts no more taxes money
Most people of NB are passive and don't care to know what is going on and when they find out; nothing changes they are still passive.
My blood pressure boils and no matter what some of us try to do to bring out all the facts there is a segment of people who call us the naysayers. The politicians play the game too and mislead the people after they get voted in. All parties are guilty of following their agenda and certainly whatever the Irvings want is the policy here.
They do pay their fair share but they do receive a lot of tax breaks and with that ( our money ) they help many. They do alot for themselves with our money too.
They don't pay for building permits, water and natural
resources and get alot of $1 deals that no other business could get. NB does not belong to the Irvings but they are not far off. They are trying to buy all water rights and our politicians just allow it to happen. Our public resources should be protect and No Private person or business should own it!
Heres a radical thought anonymous 7:15, maybe its not that they don't care...maybe those people just don't agree with you.
no just passing it that they are just too chicken to fight for their rights so anybody that tries are bullied by people like you instead of putting down everything that is done to preserve our country and our culture maybe you should take your head out of the sand and help out
Post a Comment