Ottawa launches Alberta counterterrorism unit

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I was gonna go down this road, but lacked the drive today.

I suspect that none of these companies pay taxes.......

Exactly,
Nor do they contribute to the the budget to the tune of billions of dollars worth of royalty payments, land sales, and lease rentals.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Speaking of silly arguments, the police don't have anything to do with protecting businesses. Private security companies do that. Police help after an incident, but the cops aren't at Wal-Mart making sure they don't get ripped off.

So Blackwater it is then. You are fine with that? I guess it gives our ex-soldiers something to do.....

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Azure

So you want Blackwater patrolling northern Alberta? Because that is who the O&G companies would hire.

So be it then. I'm not gonna tell them who to hire. They want to hire mercenaries, thats their prerogrative. But this notion that lets spend (likely) hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars "in case" something might happen is wasteful. It's just fear-mongering to me.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Daradon

The problem is the Conservative government is establishing zones where rights don't apply.

By calling it 'terrorism' (Cheney anyone?) they establish zones that infringe on your rights out of court and in.

The funny thing is we really haven't had any problems that would even call for this.

2 pipe bombs in BC. MY DEAR GOD!!!

It's a way of keeping scientists and media out.

It's a blackout.

Okay, I'd love for an explination of how exactly this will infringe on my rights. Please go ahead and spell that one out for me.

Secondly, the fact is that there are some pretty attractive targets for someone who wants to make some sort of statement. Because we've never had a problem before doesn't mean we shouldn't give a little thought to keeping things secure.

We've never had anyone shoot at someone in parliment, but I had to go through 2 metal detectors to get into the gallery in the House of Commons. Guess we can do away with that since we've never had a probelm?

Are there areas where we are being a little too over cautions? Absoutely.
Is this one of them? Maybe, I don't know and neither do you. Neither of us knows what kind of resources are going into this thing just yet so we can't make any argument one way or the other.

Is something needed? Probalbly.
Is this what we need? Guess we'll see.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Okay, I'd love for an explination of how exactly this will infringe on my rights. Please go ahead and spell that one out for me.

Secondly, the fact is that there are some pretty attractive targets for someone who wants to make some sort of statement. Because we've never had a problem before doesn't mean we shouldn't give a little thought to keeping things secure.

We've never had anyone shoot at someone in parliment, but I had to go through 2 metal detectors to get into the gallery in the House of Commons. Guess we can do away with that since we've never had a probelm?

Are there areas where we are being a little too over cautions? Absoutely.
Is this one of them? Maybe, I don't know and neither do you. Neither of us knows what kind of resources are going into this thing just yet so we can't make any argument one way or the other.

Is something needed? Probalbly.
Is this what we need? Guess we'll see.

The government eliminates climate scientists, eliminates maritime scientists, and then puts extra money on the oilsands.

Give me one non Wiebo example where we need this? And yes, new NAFTA rules do redefine terrorism. This law doesn't do it specifically, but it's a step. Like the measures before, and the measures that are coming.

We are one step away from the argument about SC, where we ban the parabola.

I never thought I'd say it, but thank god for Quebec. Harper is showing himself the door.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Speaking of silly arguments, the police don't have anything to do with protecting businesses. Private security companies do that. Police help after an incident, but the cops aren't at Wal-Mart making sure they don't get ripped off.

Yes, we should wait until after something gets blown up to establish some level of security.

And I don't believe that this group is out patrolling the wilderness around oil and gas facilities. I would expect that it would be a bit more strategic in its efforts. Otherwise, why establish their offices in Calgary and Edmonton - Brooks, Beaverlodge, Cold Lake and Fort Mac would be better, no?

The oil sands flew under the radar for many, many years. That's over now and the more it lends itself to North American energy independence, the more it will be seen as an object to undermine.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Daradon

The government eliminates climate scientists, eliminates maritime scientists, and then puts extra money on the oilsands.

Give me one non Wiebo example where we need this? And yes, new NAFTA rules do redefine terrorism. This law doesn't do it specifically, but it's a step. Like the measures before, and the measures that are coming.

We are one step away from the argument about SC, where we ban the parabola.

I never thought I'd say it, but thank god for Quebec. Harper is showing himself the door.

So I ask you for how this will affect my rights and your response is
"It doesn't, but something before did, and stuff that they're gonna do definitley will"?

That's not an argument, that's speculation.

Also, you do realize there is a lot more to the alberta petroleum industry than the oil sand right?
Do you also realize that the government isn't cutting a cheque to anyone?
There's a big difference between "Putting extra money on the oilsands" and saying "Hey, we've got some pretty vulnerable infrastructure over there, that has the potential to cause incredibly significant economic and environmental impact were it attacked. Maybe we should do something about that."
It's called risk management. The likelihood is small, but the consequences are enormous, so you give it some attention.

I'd be willing to bet the RCMP gives all sorts of extra attention to nuclear plants out east, but nothing's ever happend to them, and people are making billions off of that power. Why the hell are we doing that?

[Senator Clay Davis]

I understand that waiting until something happens isn't a good approach, I'm just curious why us, the taxpayer, have to pay to protect something that benefits corporations more than citizens? Yes we benefit from the oil sands, just not as much as O&G companies do. If they need assurances that everything possible is being done to protect the resource, why don't they pay for it themselves?

Of course its the same as a new stadium argument: Why would a team pay for it itself if taxpayers will? Same here, corporations can make us pay for it, so why not? The ironic part about new stadiums is they are usually tax payer financed, yet when they open how are the taxpayers rewarded? Usually by ticket prices rising. What a concept, take people's money and then charge them more for your service.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Speaking of silly arguments, the police don't have anything to do with protecting businesses. Private security companies do that. Police help after an incident, but the cops aren't at Wal-Mart making sure they don't get ripped off.

Yes, but if for example the police got wind of a group that was going to rob Walmart they'd likely do some investigating and look into stopping it.
Kind of like what an anti-terrorism unit is supposed to do.

The RCMP isn't going to be sitting up on fractionation towers with guns looking to shoot terrorists, they're going to be working to prevent things from happening through investigations. Like they would for any industry.

[Daradon]

Boring. 'Prove to me this ant I'm squishing feels pain'.

Boring. 'Prove to me labeling jews for business practices will escalate.'

Boring. 'Prove to me the internet 'piracy' law infringes on my privacy and well being.

Boring.

A CC often points out, soldiers fight for our freedom.

He forgets a lot of it it is on our soil.

[Senator Clay Davis]

But again why do we, the taxpayers, have to pay for this? We spent nearly a $1 billion on G20 security and that was a catastrophic waste of money. Sorry for being skeptical but I can't imagine this being a much better investment of money. So far outside Weibo, I can't name you one incident that has occured relating to the oilsands, so why the sudden need to bump up security for them? And if there needs to be more money spent preventing terrorism out here, find another way to make it happen within the budget, don't just add to the budget. I could think of more than a few ways they could redirect RCMP resources for this cause.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I understand that waiting until something happens isn't a good approach, I'm just curious why us, the taxpayer, have to pay to protect something that benefits corporations more than citizens? Yes we benefit from the oil sands, just not as much as O&G companies do. If they need assurances that everything possible is being done to protect the resource, why don't they pay for it themselves?

Of course its the same as a new stadium argument: Why would a team pay for it itself if taxpayers will? Same here, corporations can make us pay for it, so why not? The ironic part about new stadiums is they are usually tax payer financed, yet when they open how are the taxpayers rewarded? Usually by ticket prices rising. What a concept, take people's money and then charge them more for your service.

First of all I think you underestimate the impact of the petroleum industry quite a bit.
It's not just royalty revenue (Which is VERY substantial), it's all of the jobs and tax revenue that come from it. Sure you may not work in O&G, but there's a huge number of people who do and who pay taxes and who drive the economy of this province, and those people are working for companies that are reinvesting their money into the province.
A huge portion of the revenue that companies make from the resource is reinvested into salries of people who work in this province, and buying goods that are manufactured here. It's not like there is some oil barron who is just putting cash into a giant bag with $ on it and laughing while twisting his old timey mustache.

Secondly, the idea isn't just to protect the resource, the idea is to protect against the environmental and economic impact that could happen. Both of which could have varying degrees of impact from tiny spill to catastrophic.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

But again why do we, the taxpayers, have to pay for this? We spent nearly a $1 billion on G20 security and that was a catastrophic waste of money. Sorry for being skeptical but I can't imagine this being a much better investment of money. So far outside Weibo, I can't name you one incident that has occured relating to the oilsands, so why the sudden need to bump up security for them? And if there needs to be more money spent preventing terrorism out here, find another way to make it happen within the budget, don't just add to the budget. I could think of more than a few ways they could redirect RCMP resources for this cause.

Again, this isn't just security to protect oil companies it is to protect the environment and economic stability of the who province (and to a lesser extent the rest of the country)

Secondly, those evil oil companies are also tax payers.
Why should "those tax paying oil companies" have to pay to have cops patrol your neighbourhood? If you want to be safe at night why don't you pay for your own security?

We all have a part to play in the economy and government. We all pay and we all reap benefits. Singling out a single part of it and asking why you should pay for them is a self defeating argument, because every other person/industry can make the same arguement about you.

Just a few numbers for Alberta

in 2011 Resource revnue was ~$8 Billion
Personal Income tax revenue was ~ $7.4 Billion
Corporate Tax revenue was ~ $3.4 Billion

So those oil companies directly put in $8 Billion from royalties (that doesn't include land sales and lease rentals which is also pretty significant), as well as what I'm sure is a pretty large portion of that $3.4 Billion in Corporate tax, and then indirectly by paying the salaries of a large chuck of the people who put in that $7.4 Billion in Personal tax revenue.

So yeah, I guess it is "We, the tax payers" who are footing the bill for this.

That's the thing, people like you just get upset when they hear anything about oil companies.
You don't give a second thought to the massive benefits you reap from having this industry in your backyard, and just how adversely affected you would be if it were to disappear.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I think I said in another thread this province would be worse off than the maritime provinces without the oil in this province, so I quite understand how important it is. But is it more important than farming? I mean they did survive for tens of thousands of years without oil, but good luck surviving tens of thousands of years without food. So why aren't we doing everything in our power to protect farms from attacks? Because it would be incredibly costly and wasteful to do so, especially when there is a lack of evidence anything has or will be done.

You know its funny, the people who "attack" O&G infrastructure are always called "environmentalists". Explain to me then, why would environmentalists risk possibly destroying ecosystems just to send a message to those O&G companies? I think the likelihood of any major incidents effecting the oilsands is somewhere around 1%, and as such that just doesn't seem like a worthwhile investment. In this case I'd rather save the money for any potential incidents rather than spend millions of taxpayer dollars on the "potential" something goes wrong.

My number one concern isn't bashing O&G companies, its ensuring our government isn't wasting the finite tax dollars they have. I don't hate profits or corporations are anything like that. I hate wasteful spending.

[Azure]

Not sure why you bother arguing with him BBS. I'm not sure how you can possibly be naive enough to think that our natural resources don't need to be protected, and that it isn't a good idea to let private companies hire mercenaries to do the job, considering that there are literally NO private security firms that haven't been involved in numerous 'issues' wherever they deploy.

Also, I'd imagine that we have no idea what kind of threats the RCMP deals with, nor will we ever know. Obviously they feel a need to add extra protection in Alberta in regards to the oil sands.

Nevermind that Daradon seems to be off his rocker. I get that the conservative government seems a bit hypocritical here, but the extremes he's talking about don't exist.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I think I said in another thread this province would be worse off than the maritime provinces without the oil in this province, so I quite understand how important it is. But is it more important than farming? I mean they did survive for tens of thousands of years without oil, but good luck surviving tens of thousands of years without food. So why aren't we doing everything in our power to protect farms from attacks? Because it would be incredibly costly and wasteful to do so, especially when there is a lack of evidence anything has or will be done.

You know its funny, the people who "attack" O&G infrastructure are always called "environmentalists". Explain to me then, why would environmentalists risk possibly destroying ecosystems just to send a message to those O&G companies? I think the likelihood of any major incidents effecting the oilsands is somewhere around 1%, and as such that just doesn't seem like a worthwhile investment. In this case I'd rather save the money for any potential incidents rather than spend millions of taxpayer dollars on the "potential" something goes wrong.

What a stupid argument. Have you ever actually been on a farm? There isn't a lot of 'stuff' there that can be used to 'harm' the environment or create a crap load of damage. Northern Alberta on the other hand has billions upon billions of dollars worth of 'stuff' that can be targeted by terrorists and some pretty serious damage can be done.

At least try not to come off as being completely ridiculous.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Nevermind that Daradon seems to be off his rocker. I get that the conservative government seems a bit hypocritical here, but the extremes he's talking about don't exist.

Of course they don't, because we keep it that way.

It`s natural to despise us, but if we weren't here...

Again, as the one who argued against Colin Powell, and for Gay Rights.

You're welcome.

I saw it, and you are welcome.

Clean water as well? Who knows? I guess we'll see in 5 years.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not sure why you bother arguing with him BBS. I'm not sure how you can possibly be naive enough to think that our natural resources don't need to be protected, and that it isn't a good idea to let private companies hire mercenaries to do the job, considering that there are literally NO private security firms that haven't been involved in numerous 'issues' wherever they deploy.

Also, I'd imagine that we have no idea what kind of threats the RCMP deals with, nor will we ever know. Obviously they feel a need to add extra protection in Alberta in regards to the oil sands.

Nevermind that Daradon seems to be off his rocker. I get that the conservative government seems a bit hypocritical here, but the extremes he's talking about don't exist.

You do realize they mostly get deployed to war zones right? Fort Mac ain't no war zone.

It seems to me whatever they are doing in the oilsands at the moment is working. Again, show me the evidence we need to spend more to protect the province and I'll be cool with. I'm sorry I require more justification than just "Trust us" before spending tax dollars. Remember spending more for something can only be offset two ways: Cuts elsewhere or tax increases. At a certain point you can't cut anymore, so obviously the end result will at some point be higher taxes, which I am against. Thats all I want here, is efficient spending of the tax dollars you and me and many others work hard to pay.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I think I said in another thread this province would be worse off than the maritime provinces without the oil in this province, so I quite understand how important it is. But is it more important than farming? I mean they did survive for tens of thousands of years without oil, but good luck surviving tens of thousands of years without food. So why aren't we doing everything in our power to protect farms from attacks? Because it would be incredibly costly and wasteful to do so, especially when there is a lack of evidence anything has or will be done.

You know its funny, the people who "attack" O&G infrastructure are always called "environmentalists". Explain to me then, why would environmentalists risk possibly destroying ecosystems just to send a message to those O&G companies? I think the likelihood of any major incidents effecting the oilsands is somewhere around 1%, and as such that just doesn't seem like a worthwhile investment. In this case I'd rather save the money for any potential incidents rather than spend millions of taxpayer dollars on the "potential" something goes wrong.

My number one concern isn't bashing O&G companies, its ensuring our government isn't wasting the finite tax dollars they have. I don't hate profits or corporations are anything like that. I hate wasteful spending.

Did we survive without oil? Sure.
Did we see anywhere near the level of prosperity we enjoy now without it? Absolutely not.

As for your comparison about protecting farms vs protecting O&G infrastructure, you've got to be kidding.
What are the consequences of bombing one farm? Ahhhh....some over cooked beef????
What are the consequeces of bombing one O&G facility? Well, anything form some dented pipe to the catastrophic contamination of a major watercourse, to a major impact on the provincial economy.
Why don't you use those same arguments against protecting nuclear power stations. Surely I mean we survived thousands of years without nuclear power, so clearly protecting farms is a useful analog to use when suggesting protecting nuclear plants is wasteful.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Azure

What a stupid argument. Have you ever actually been on a farm? There isn't a lot of 'stuff' there that can be used to 'harm' the environment or create a crap load of damage. Northern Alberta on the other hand has billions upon billions of dollars worth of 'stuff' that can be targeted by terrorists and some pretty serious damage can be done.

At least try not to come off as being completely ridiculous.

No? You couldn't put toxic chemicals into the food? That doesn't concern you in any way?