[Newsbot]

Title: Tories exempt project from environmental lawsuits
Category: Environmental
Posted By: BeaverFever
Date: 2012-10-19 09:51:44
Canadian

[BeaverFever]

Gee...another 'isolated incident' of Tories doing the end-run around environmental protection with absolutely no pattern or agenda at all, right?

[andyt]

Well if those enviro-nazis would just keep hounding them...

[Robair]

On this one, it sounds like there's a legit reason for it. I'm unclear as to wether or not it will still have the same evniornmental standards and oversight while the project is being built.

[BeaverFever]

Doesn't sound like a legit reason to me at all. If they're not breaking environmental laws, then why are they so worried about being sued for it? If the lawsuit is frivolous and baseless,it will fall apart on its own and the gov't can counter-sue for legal expenses.

Would you pass a law exempting someone from the criminal code on the basis that they might be falsely accused of a crime some day?

[Robair]

I don't know the history, don't know enough about it. Don't care to research it, doesn't affect me.
But it sounds like our government is trying to preempt the type of BS we've had to fight re. softwood lumber...

[Xort]

BeaverFever wrote:

Doesn't sound like a legit reason to me at all. If they're not breaking environmental laws, then why are they so worried about being sued for it? If the lawsuit is frivolous and baseless,it will fall apart on its own and the gov't can counter-sue for legal expenses.

Because they want to build the bridge in the next 10 years not the next 30. The asshole that owns the Ambassador Bridge will do everything he can to try and hold onto his hugely profitable local monopoly. Which covers funding pointless lawsuits ment to hold up construction of competition

Quote:

Would you pass a law exempting someone from the criminal code on the basis that they might be falsely accused of a crime some day?

Criminal law is very different than a civil lawsuit. No need for that sort of protection.