Lack of Canadian consumer protection is mind-boggling

32 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Lack of Canadian consumer protection is mind-boggling
gadar

Right wing ideology always leads to watering down of consumer protection. Harper govt had laid off CFIA inspectors working in meat plants and the factories were asked to police themselves. It is just a part of the free market capitalism package.

NorthReport

So why is this happening under the Liberal Pipeline King PM's reign?

gadar

NorthReport wrote:

So why is this happening under the Liberal Pipeline King PM's reign?

Pipeline King is done. So is Pipeline queen. Only Pipeline Jesters remain

gadar

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

NorthReport
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

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.

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

Pitiful!

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

It seems to me that not too long ago you were supporting pipelines.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

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.

 

NorthReport
NorthReport

Canadian NGO urges ingredient disclosure in consumer products

https://chemicalwatch.com/67662/canadian-ngo-urges-ingredient-disclosure...

gadar

JKR wrote:
NorthReport wrote:

Pitiful!

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

It seems to me that not too long ago you were supporting pipelines.

Site C dam.

Jobs Jobs Jobs

Notley

progressive17 progressive17's picture

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."

Sean in Ottawa

The article does not give many examples fo the types of mislabeling. That is unfortunate and something consumers should have access to. The media need to do better as well.

Sean in Ottawa
MapleInTheEye

JKR wrote:
NorthReport wrote:

Pitiful!

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

It seems to me that not too long ago you were supporting pipelines.

A true socialist would support a nationalized, public pipeline. I'm not sure why some progressives disagree with the concept. Its a great idea to make it a crown corporation IMO. Public control, public assets, public benefits.

Trudeau actually re-gained my vote recently. I had started to grow weary of him when he gave up on proportional representation, but honestly when Singh started barking against a nationalized economic project, I realized he wasn't a socialist afterall.

How exactly do Jagmeet and the not-really-socialist socialists anticipate moving goods and services around? Importing American or Saudi oil, or using a public resource to sell oil and allow the benefits to run to the public good?

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.

Pondering

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

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.

MapleInTheEye

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.

Sean in Ottawa

MapleInTheEye -- yes you do have a good point that if anyone has to own it it should be the public where it is more accountable.

I am not convinced that a pipeline is best economically: more money to ship out unrefined raw material that does little support jobs

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 there is the issue of consent from Indigenous peoples: yes there is some becuase they were offered money to participate. Imagine if they were offered the same amount of money to develop in their territory sustainable energy and development that woudl hire their people? This was never presented as a choice.

I also agree that technilogical advances can address climate change -- I disagree that we have enough time for them to do so without drastic action. I worry that the time is up already.

Pondering

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

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. 

Sean in Ottawa

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.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

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.

Yes I agree there. A good first step would be ending any subsidies to the oil industry and requiring them to put a lot more money into clean up funds for the wind down of the industry.

Requiring all new housing to use geothermal where feasible would be another good move. Help could be offered to homeowners to finance the extra cost which would be paid back by utility bills for that residence until it is paid off. 

I think it is Norway that has a pilot project electrifying roadways for cars so they would be charging as they drive. 

I've noticed more and more plug in stations around Montreal but if there is to be a radical increase in electric cars that will have to increase expotentially. 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

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.

Martin N.

gadar wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

So why is this happening under the Liberal Pipeline King PM's reign?

Pipeline King is done. So is Pipeline queen. Only Pipeline Jesters remain

Jesters everywhere are outraged at that remark

Martin N.

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.

Martin N.

Dp

Martin N.

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.

What is this topic about, again. Oh, yeah,

Services like food inspection and fisheries regulation. 

..........sorry.

Sean in Ottawa

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.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:

What is this topic about, again. Oh, yeah,

Services like food inspection and fisheries regulation.

Don't sweat it.  The whole mislabelled fish thing was just NR trying to show us how little it takes to boggle his mind, and how angry he can be on behalf of the people.

But the opportunity to say "Pipeline King" totally beats that.  Now it's a thread about the "Pipeline King".  Jolly good fun, wot?