Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 06-14-2024, 08:24 PM   #19781
timun
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

You think Farkas actually read the bill though?
timun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2024, 07:24 AM   #19782
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

The press release from the UCP on bill 59 is a fun read. It's got all the Orwellian hits, and fun name calling like "eco-extremists," "lawless government," and doing things "without apology". Good stuff!

Quote:
“The federal Liberal and NDP coalition has passed draconian legislation that will irreparably harm Canadian’s ability to hear the truth about the energy industry and Alberta’s successes in reducing global emissions.
Quote:
“Bill C-59, when it receives royal assent, will prevent private entities from sharing truthful and evidence-based information
I thought bill 59 meant they couldn't lie, so if they aren't lying, what's the problem?

https://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?x...B957AE15E78114
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Old 06-21-2024, 07:26 AM   #19783
Ozy_Flame

Posted the 6 millionth post!
 
Ozy_Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Exp:
Default

I love how the Pathways Alliance basically pulled their content from their website due to this law lol. That's a tell.
Ozy_Flame is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
Old 06-21-2024, 07:38 AM   #19784
puffnstuff
#1 Goaltender
 
puffnstuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: wearing raccoons for boots
Exp:
Default

The ucp arent big fans of the truth
puffnstuff is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to puffnstuff For This Useful Post:
Old 06-21-2024, 07:51 AM   #19785
undercoverbrother
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by puffnstuff View Post
The ucp and their supporters arent big fans of the truth
just added a bit
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993

Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
undercoverbrother is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
Old 06-21-2024, 08:04 AM   #19786
puffnstuff
#1 Goaltender
 
puffnstuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: wearing raccoons for boots
Exp:
Default

I'll allow it...under the new truth parameters its accurate
puffnstuff is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to puffnstuff For This Useful Post:
Old 06-21-2024, 08:04 AM   #19787
Whynotnow
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
The press release from the UCP on bill 59 is a fun read. It's got all the Orwellian hits, and fun name calling like "eco-extremists," "lawless government," and doing things "without apology". Good stuff!



I thought bill 59 meant they couldn't lie, so if they aren't lying, what's the problem?

https://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?x...B957AE15E78114
Bill 59, or the sections pertaining to this issue on climate change is a chilling piece of legislation that should be fired into the sun. Smith can go along for the ride but it’s a really bad piece of work by the liberals.

In essence, companies which are required to do esg reporting today, could actually be then charged against this legislation.

Last edited by Whynotnow; 06-21-2024 at 08:07 AM.
Whynotnow is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Whynotnow For This Useful Post:
Old 06-21-2024, 08:10 AM   #19788
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whynotnow View Post
Bill 59, or the sections pertaining to this issue on climate change is a chilling piece of legislation that should be fired into the sun. Smith can go along for the ride but itís a really bad piece of work by the liberals.

In essence, companies which are required to do esg reporting today, could actually be then charged against this legislation.
From what I've read, it's pretty mild legislation, in that if the competition board says "that sounds like bull####, provide facts, or remove it" and then the company can remove it with no consequence. This all seems...reasonable? Or do we just welcome so much BS these days it gets scary when corporations are held to not lying to us? Maybe one day we can get governments up to the same standard.
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2024, 08:14 AM   #19789
Nufy
Franchise Player
 
Nufy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Exp:
Default

So will the liberals prosecute themselves over the false statements related to the economic benefits of the carbon tax ?
__________________
Nufy is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Nufy For This Useful Post:
Old 06-21-2024, 08:16 AM   #19790
Whynotnow
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
From what I've read, it's pretty mild legislation, in that if the competition board says "that sounds like bull####, provide facts, or remove it" and then the company can remove it with no consequence. This all seems...reasonable? Or do we just welcome so much BS these days it gets scary when corporations are held to not lying to us? Maybe one day we can get governments up to the same standard.
Except the bar for that sounds like bs is very unclear and undefined, as would be the bar for making a complaint and the penalty is a 3 percent tax on global profits. Itís yet another swing at the Canadian energy sector who provides what is today a life saving and needed commodity world wide. We are literally one of the best at what we do and yet we continue to want to harm the industry. Investment is already moving elsewhere, it makes way more sense to do carbon capture and sequestration projects in the US. Same with renewables.
Whynotnow is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Whynotnow For This Useful Post:
Old 06-21-2024, 08:44 AM   #19791
puckedoff
First Line Centre
 
puckedoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Exp:
Default

Yeah the problem with C-59 is that it refers to an unknown 'internationally recognized standards', and has massive potential fines with the onus on the reporting entities to prove adherence to this unknown standard.

It is not clear what disclosure would be allowed vs illegal, so companies are not going to risk it. It will have fallout throughout the industry as banks and governments want more transparent reporting from companies but now it is unclear if they are allowed to provide it.
puckedoff is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to puckedoff For This Useful Post:
Old 06-21-2024, 08:57 AM   #19792
D as in David
#1 Goaltender
 
D as in David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by puffnstuff View Post
The ucp arent big fans of the truth
D as in David is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2024, 10:31 AM   #19793
Ashartus
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by puckedoff View Post
Yeah the problem with C-59 is that it refers to an unknown 'internationally recognized standards', and has massive potential fines with the onus on the reporting entities to prove adherence to this unknown standard.

It is not clear what disclosure would be allowed vs illegal, so companies are not going to risk it. It will have fallout throughout the industry as banks and governments want more transparent reporting from companies but now it is unclear if they are allowed to provide it.
There's a lot of uncertainty in how things can be interpreted. A lot of research organizations supporting studies on greenhouse gas reduction technologies have pulled down their websites too until there is clarity - even if they are confident in their positions no one wants the expense and hassle of being the first case in the courts.
Ashartus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2024, 10:56 AM   #19794
powderjunkie
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Exp:
Default

So has anybody been imprisoned over pronouns yet, or was that just a bunch of hysteria?

I'll admit I have not read deeply into this issue, but on the surface I think it is an excellent idea. It's time to start pushing back on this descent into disinformation idiocracy. Whether this is the best place to start I don't know, but it does not seem unreasonable to me.

We already have laws related to deceptive marketing, but I suspect enforcement is consumer driven, which does not apply very well to some of this.


If companies are rushing to take down information, that suggests to me that there is likely a lot of snake oil out there. While it would be a burden to deal with, there would also be no better marketing than to successfully defend yourself against this - especially as one of the first cases. I would be excited - not scared by this (if I were legitimate).
powderjunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
Old 06-21-2024, 11:09 AM   #19795
Whynotnow
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie View Post
So has anybody been imprisoned over pronouns yet, or was that just a bunch of hysteria?

I'll admit I have not read deeply into this issue, but on the surface I think it is an excellent idea. It's time to start pushing back on this descent into disinformation idiocracy. Whether this is the best place to start I don't know, but it does not seem unreasonable to me.

We already have laws related to deceptive marketing, but I suspect enforcement is consumer driven, which does not apply very well to some of this.


If companies are rushing to take down information, that suggests to me that there is likely a lot of snake oil out there. While it would be a burden to deal with, there would also be no better marketing than to successfully defend yourself against this - especially as one of the first cases. I would be excited - not scared by this (if I were legitimate).
Thatís not always the case that there was so much disinformation out there, it can be, and is in this case that the legislation was written with such a bias and open end that nobody is really sure where the ground is now.

Believe it or not there are good companies out there, trying to do good work in emissions reduction who donít know what they are able to say right now. Thatís a bad state to be in and the Feds caused this.
Whynotnow is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Whynotnow For This Useful Post:
Old 06-21-2024, 01:14 PM   #19796
powderjunkie
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whynotnow View Post
That’s not always the case that there was so much disinformation out there, it can be, and is in this case that the legislation was written with such a bias and open end that nobody is really sure where the ground is now.

Believe it or not there are good companies out there, trying to do good work in emissions reduction who don’t know what they are able to say right now. That’s a bad state to be in and the Feds caused this.
How so?

Why don't we look at it in context, and tell me how it differs from the rest of 74.01:

Previous Law:
Spoiler!



New Law:

Spoiler!


I wonder if companies panicked and removed all of their marketing when 74.01 (b) was initially introduced? Or did they just make sure the claims they weren't marketing were not total BS? Or if they had marketing statements that were 'technically true' but you know - not really honestly true in good faith - did they simply go ahead and adjust those statements or had *fine text caveats?


And those penalties are nothing new...they've already applied to the other subsections of 74.01

Spoiler!


Totally reasonable to assume that the bolded won't apply, and it'll be straight to millions in penalties. Because that totally must have happened a lot with the other paragraphs under 74.01 and I'm sure some folks will chime in with numerous examples. Please. I looked at couldn't find them.

But actually there is zero reason to believe that good faith behaviour that happens to not absolutely nail a 100% perfectly honestly and technically true standard will feel any more repercussions than Honey Nut Cheerios currently get for telling me how good they are for my heart. Which is nothing. Or maybe someday they'll be forced to change it to "not as bad for your heart as the other #### we sell with even more sugar"
powderjunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
Old 06-21-2024, 01:58 PM   #19797
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

So it's OK to have a provincially funded propaganda department to deceive us, but not OK to have Federal laws in place to protect us from the deception?
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Old 06-21-2024, 02:36 PM   #19798
Whynotnow
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
So it's OK to have a provincially funded propaganda department to deceive us, but not OK to have Federal laws in place to protect us from the deception?
No, both examples we are talking about are bad in my opinion.
Whynotnow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2024, 03:02 PM   #19799
powderjunkie
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whynotnow View Post
No, both examples we are talking about are bad in my opinion.
How so? Can you explain why you think it is biased and unreasonable?


Quote:
that is not based on an adequate and proper test thereof, the proof of which lies on the person making the representation;
It is the exact same language as the consumer product paragraph. Perhaps you can cite examples where that has gone wrong?
powderjunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2024, 03:25 PM   #19800
Kybosh
#1 Goaltender
 
Kybosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: An all-inclusive.
Exp:
Default

C-59 is only going to result in less transparency regarding ESG. No company, O&G or otherwise, is going to say anything about ESG publicly.
Kybosh is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:03 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021