{"id":82865,"date":"2015-09-16T11:40:00","date_gmt":"2015-09-16T11:40:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/resourcework2.devstudio.work\/?p=82865"},"modified":"2024-11-18T16:48:42","modified_gmt":"2024-11-18T16:48:42","slug":"when_resource_questions_turn_political","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/resourcework2.devstudio.work\/?p=82865","title":{"rendered":"“Have you stopped cheating on tests?” and other politically loaded questions"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

There are always examples, too, from election campaigns where candidates are asked questions designed to produce an answer that satisfies the questioner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Take these ones from a questionnaire to candidates in the Burnaby North-Seymour constituency, as presented by an anti-pipeline group.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Do you and your party support diluted bitumen pipeline projects being routed through densely populated regions of Canada? If so, why and if not, why not?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If your party formed the next federal government, would  . . . you ensure that oral cross-examination is a mandatory requirement of the NEB hearing process?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Let\u2019s start with the last one, clearly aimed at forcing the candidate to answer \u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In fact, the National Energy Board already does provide for\u00a0oral hearings<\/a>\u00a0at which intervenors, NEB lawyers and the board may ask questions of sworn witnesses.<\/p>\n<\/div>

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s start with the last one, clearly aimed at forcing the candidate to answer \u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In fact, the National Energy Board already does provide for oral hearings<\/a> at which intervenors, NEB lawyers and the board may ask questions of sworn witnesses. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But \u201cintervenors\u201d are those persons accepted by the NEB as being \u201cdirectly affected by the granting or refusing of a project application\u201d, or having \u201crelevant information or expertise.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What activist opponents of pipeline projects really want is an opportunity for a free-for-all in which dozens, scores or hundreds of people could ask loaded questions (and use them to make anti-project statements) whether or not directly affected by a project, and without truly \u201crelevant information or expertise.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The NEB ruled that 468 Burnaby residents are not \u201cdirectly affected\u201d by the TransMountain pipeline expansion project, and thus are not eligible to make oral presentations. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear a challenge of that decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now back to that first loaded question: \u201cDo you and your party support diluted bitumen pipeline projects being routed through densely populated regions of Canada? If so, why and if not, why not?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Use of \u201cdiluted bitumen\u201d rather than plain \u201coil\u201d is loaded terminology, obviously aimed at product from the Alberta oilsands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here are some items candidates might bear in mind before responding:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The three most common misconceptions about diluted bitumen. \u2014 <\/strong>Trans Mountain Pipeline<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n