LooksLikeTheKeefDoesNotHaveAMeggsianMainline
InVille
Well, well, well...
As we noted a few days ago, Mr. Mason of the Globe was 'right' that the Trans Mountain pipeline approval process mess would end up in court.
And it turns out that the word 'court' was the cab(ernet)-whistle signal to Ms Notley to begin her climb down.
From the National Observer's un-bylined bit on the latest development in the story:
...Alberta Premier Rachel Notley is temporarily ending her province's ban on B.C. wine after (B.C.) Premier John Horgan announced a new court action to defend rules that could stop Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project.
"We'll be buying wine again," Notley told reporters at a late afternoon news conference...
Which brings us back to our original point written in the wake of the Mr. Obvious' initial piece:
...(T)his (legal) eventuality would fully explain why any politician can say and do whatever they want for whatever purpose, political point scoring (and/or future cover creating?) or otherwise, in the interim...
Gosh.
It's almost as if the puffed-up Lotuslandian proMedia punditry that covers local politics doesn't understand how the game is actually played.
And/or understand when they are being played.
If you get my drift.
_____
Off topic but....Hey, look!....In the wake of the federal info watchdog's parting shot, Professor Holman has come out to play!...With historical perspective and citations and everything.
.
The Wars Come Home
1 hour ago
4 comments:
Ron had all bases, dugouts, and bullpens covered.
On the other hand it seems that Mr. Horgan suddenly realized he was playing in the bigs with a Single A legal team. He’s now recruiting the players he should have fielded during spring training.
Lew--
Mid-February is not just for pitchers and catchers (or Nuke Laloosh) anymore!
.
Truth to tell, it was Rachel who blinked.
Once she asserted that it was justifiable to block BC wine entering Alberta then the same logic applies to Albetabit entering BC.
Too bad and so unfortunate that most, if not all, of the BC mainstream media still rail and rattle on with their historical biases rather than furnish their fables with unburnished fact.
When Transmountain Pipeline was given the go ahead by Minister Rich Coleman to proceed with the pipeline, that was to include the five conditions, especially the one on Oil Spill cleanup. was it signed before the Writ was issued for the 2017 election or during the election? If during the writ then that's not permitted due to the fact that it might be controversial or may be financial harmful to a new government to stop it. eg. BC Hydro's Site C
The signed TM document includes, along the bottom, "Dated for Reference April 6, 2017" which is five days before the Writ was issue. Question is when was it signed?
An example of .....
Dated for reference defined: Using dated for reference is one of a number of ways that drafters signal to the reader that the contract is being given a date that is other than the date it was signed. (To the same end, a drafter might use an as of date or state in the introductory clause that the contract is effective on a date that happens to be a date other than the date the contract was signed.) - Adams Drafting
Post a Comment