Lack of Canadian consumer protection is mind-boggling

Hopefully the Pipeline Slayer can help boost consumer protection BC. I am sure the provincial govt can surely do a thing or two.

Go NDP Go Singh

This is unfortunate to see, but as long as we import any cleaned fish (or, supermarkets sell cleaned fish) then nothing short of a DNA test on every fillet is going to conclusively determine what species it is. 

We could, perhaps, "spot test" large shipments, or shipments from large importers, and revoke their import license if they're found to be mislabelling fish.

It doesn't seem like we don't inspect fish, but it looks like food safety and endangered species are #1 and #2 on the priorities list, ahead of whether pollock is called sole.

Quote:

Lots of protection for pipeline companies though from our Pipeline King PM

The steady decline of consumer protection in Canada

The article you link to mentions "decades of uneven government attention and a weakened advocacy sector.".  But somehow this is really all Justin Trudeau's fault.

To continue the "fish" theme here, as soon as this is all about the "Pipeline King" and the "Pipeline Queen", this thread just jumped the shark.  I suggest it was never really about fish.

Consumer Protection: Caveat Emptor, or in Canadian, 
"If you are not 1000% satisfied, God give you the serenity to accept the things you cannot change."

This article has a couple more examples

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/seafood-mislabelled-vanc...

MapleInTheEye wrote:

Those who are against the pipeline because they perceive it as being against global warming, well, honestly the oil is going to flow through private railroads or pipelines. Why not make it a public enterprise and get the benefit from it? It isn't like standing against the project is going to keep oil from flowing to market. There is demand for it. Electric cars aren't quite technologically matched with a price we can afford yet. It is a reality.

Only excess production is shipped by rail. New projects won't be developed based on rail transportation. Like everything else, mass production will lower the cost of electric vehicles. It already is. Give it another decade. 

If the pipeline ever reached tidewater the Saudis+ would simply lower their prices to make sure their oil is the one that makes it to market. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

MapleInTheEye wrote:

Those who are against the pipeline because they perceive it as being against global warming, well, honestly the oil is going to flow through private railroads or pipelines. Why not make it a public enterprise and get the benefit from it? It isn't like standing against the project is going to keep oil from flowing to market. There is demand for it. Electric cars aren't quite technologically matched with a price we can afford yet. It is a reality.

Only excess production is shipped by rail. New projects won't be developed based on rail transportation. Like everything else, mass production will lower the cost of electric vehicles. It already is. Give it another decade. 

If the pipeline ever reached tidewater the Saudis+ would simply lower their prices to make sure their oil is the one that makes it to market. 

I agree with parts but not the give it another decade statment. Yes mass production will do this but we do not have another decade given the speed of degredation for the planet. Mass production can be kick-started by government investment. In fact done well, the government can even make money doing this.

This is akin to the LED and CFL lightbulb: a combination of subsidy, promotion, and regulation were required to make the switch. It is right to ask for the same with electric vehicles.

----------

Global warming is real. We're damaging the environment. CO2 needs to be curtailed. I agree with all three of these statements fully and without reservation.

However, the danger from global warming will primarily be defended from technological advances and engineering, not ending oil pipelines. Oil pipelines carry this substance more efficiently and more safely than rail transport. And we're going to need oil for the next several decades before nuclear, renewables, and electric cars become lower in price and more mainstream.

Besides, nationalizing it puts the control in public hands with the benefits and accountability that offers. This is one area where Trudeau is spot on, and I am glad he made a smart choice after his rediculous flip flops on important things like voting reform. When he did that, I said the Liberals lost my vote. I suppose they had some saving grace afterall.

MapleInTheEye wrote:

 Global warming is real. We're damaging the environment. CO2 needs to be curtailed. I agree with all three of these statements fully and without reservation.

However, the danger from global warming will primarily be defended from technological advances and engineering, not ending oil pipelines. Oil pipelines carry this substance more efficiently and more safely than rail transport. And we're going to need oil for the next several decades before nuclear, renewables, and electric cars become lower in price and more mainstream.

Besides, nationalizing it puts the control in public hands with the benefits and accountability that offers.

Oil pipelines are not being ended. We just don't need more of them. 

Transmountain oil is intended for export not for Canadian needs and the world, including Canada, already has access to enough cheaper oil to satisfy needs for the next 3 decades. We don't need more oil to use less oil. 

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

MapleInTheEye wrote:

Those who are against the pipeline because they perceive it as being against global warming, well, honestly the oil is going to flow through private railroads or pipelines. Why not make it a public enterprise and get the benefit from it? It isn't like standing against the project is going to keep oil from flowing to market. There is demand for it. Electric cars aren't quite technologically matched with a price we can afford yet. It is a reality.

Only excess production is shipped by rail. New projects won't be developed based on rail transportation. Like everything else, mass production will lower the cost of electric vehicles. It already is. Give it another decade. 

If the pipeline ever reached tidewater the Saudis+ would simply lower their prices to make sure their oil is the one that makes it to market. 

I agree with parts but not the give it another decade statment. Yes mass production will do this but we do not have another decade given the speed of degredation for the planet. Mass production can be kick-started by government investment. In fact done well, the government can even make money doing this.

This is akin to the LED and CFL lightbulb: a combination of subsidy, promotion, and regulation were required to make the switch. It is right to ask for the same with electric vehicles.

tI agree that government could do a lot more but its going to take more than a decade to switch to 100% electric vehicles being sold nevermind being driven. The government wouldn't have to subsidize. All they have to do is require all cars to be hybrids or electric. Mass production would bring the cost down very quickly. 

What I am saying is that there is not enough time to let this happen naturally Goverentment has to be interventionist when it comes to climate action. The luxury or waiting for the market to get there with a big enough consensus around capital just is not there. Put another way -- the paces of climate change is more rapid than human adjustment to it.

MapleInTheEye wrote:

Besides, nationalizing it puts the control in public hands with the benefits and accountability that offers.

Bullshit, both the Airport Authoritys and Port Authoritys belie that we would get any accountability especially any local say.

Sean:

"I am not convinced that this support of oil could not be invested in developing alternatives that may be more social and environmentally sustainable."

Then investor need to be convinced that they will receive a return on investment by investing in "alternatives........".

So far, evidence shows better returns from oil and no returns from 'alternatives'. Pension funds are mandated to ensure maximum returns to the plan, not taking a winger on emerging technologies and capital generally is conservative therefore speeding up technological change will require sociological change  globally, not just Canuckistan to make global capital flows alter direction faster than their normal staid pace.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

MapleInTheEye wrote:

Besides, nationalizing it puts the control in public hands with the benefits and accountability that offers.

Bullshit, both the Airport Authoritys and Port Authoritys belie that we would get any accountability especially any local say.

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help".

whenever government moves assets into different form ie: local control, crown corp, whatever, benefits and accountability are never the reason. The prime reason is to move the entity off the government books as part of the book fudging non-accountability that makes holding government to account so frustrating.

Governments prime agenda is ensuring no one anywhere can be held accountable for anything and they waste enormous amounts of taxpayers' resources to do so. Resources that could be used for the public services that governments are mandated to provide.

Martin N. wrote:

Sean:

"I am not convinced that this support of oil could not be invested in developing alternatives that may be more social and environmentally sustainable."

Then investor need to be convinced that they will receive a return on investment by investing in "alternatives........".

So far, evidence shows better returns from oil and no returns from 'alternatives'. Pension funds are mandated to ensure maximum returns to the plan, not taking a winger on emerging technologies and capital generally is conservative therefore speeding up technological change will require sociological change  globally, not just Canuckistan to make global capital flows alter direction faster than their normal staid pace.

It is some scrambled logic to compare what is worthwhile return for an investor and what is worthwhile return for a government trying to change behaviour. But let's indulge this a little.

If alternative make possible the continuation of human life on the planet well that is everything. Against any other investment which would be somewhat less than everything.

Ok so assume that without intervention, there is a chance we might survive (most ecologists call it a low chance but whatever). Insurance companies play the odds and do not need absolute certainty -- improved odds alone are worth something. When it comes to survival -- care to speculate on what is worth more?

Now we do not expect capital to think the same way as government -- back to my first point. In fact we want government to do this sort of thinking and make the long term investments needed that private capital cannot. Let's consider for example education and health care. We know people need both but private business will not invest in that public good unless they are in that sector -- even though we know it is essential and we want the government to make sure it gets done. Government can approach the environment in a similar way: the investment might not be seen as a good capitalization now for a fund or business, but we need it and do it. But this is not the only story here. This is also an emerging technology meaning that investment now can create the seed from which future investment of a capital nature can be practical. You can find articles about the ROI to private money in renewables from many sources. It is not far behind viable and growing. Seed from government, based on the knowledge that this is a prerequisite to protect the viability of human life, can in fact turn into the capital value of tomorrow.

But if it doesn't it just may allow us to live. That is not such a terrible ROI for a government anyway even if it is not impressive for a private business.