“Any argument, I guess, that would oppose those findings, in our opinion, aren’t necessarily based in fact.”
On the one hand, I kind of agree that the arguments presented so far seem pretty thin and were addressed by the report already. So would agree with this statement for those arguments.
On the other hand, this seems to discount the possibility that there might be any counterargument against the approach in the report period, regardless of that counterargument’s validity. In terms of safety, I’ve not seen any yet, but I at least allow for the possibility that some might exist.
Though, the fact that the provincial gov’t hasn’t provided any yet, despite being highly motivated to do so, might mean that there aren’t really any.
Even so, I think one should take the attitude of being open to addressing any counterarguments as they come in on rather than dismissing everything outright in advance.
The government’s undermined their own position to an extent by suggesting that they would go ahead and do the search if they were more assurred of success.
Agreed 100% - it’s like arguing that the search magically becomes more safe if there was a guarantee that the victims would be found, which doesn’t make sense. The risk is the same regardless. (Well, I suppose if they make the findings right away without having to search the entire landfill, that might reduce the risk due to less overall exposure, but even with a guarantee there’s no reason to assume the findings would happen right away as opposed to at the very end of the three year time frame after most of the dump was searched).
Though I do wonder - why not just give a token approval from the province, and then let the feds take over and nationalize the landfill? The federal gov’t then take on the bill so the provincial gov’t gets what it wants, and the families get the search they want as well. Seems like an everybody wins scenario.
On the one hand, I kind of agree that the arguments presented so far seem pretty thin and were addressed by the report already. So would agree with this statement for those arguments.
On the other hand, this seems to discount the possibility that there might be any counterargument against the approach in the report period, regardless of that counterargument’s validity. In terms of safety, I’ve not seen any yet, but I at least allow for the possibility that some might exist.
Though, the fact that the provincial gov’t hasn’t provided any yet, despite being highly motivated to do so, might mean that there aren’t really any.
Even so, I think one should take the attitude of being open to addressing any counterarguments as they come in on rather than dismissing everything outright in advance.
The government’s undermined their own position to an extent by suggesting that they would go ahead and do the search if they were more assurred of success.
Agreed 100% - it’s like arguing that the search magically becomes more safe if there was a guarantee that the victims would be found, which doesn’t make sense. The risk is the same regardless. (Well, I suppose if they make the findings right away without having to search the entire landfill, that might reduce the risk due to less overall exposure, but even with a guarantee there’s no reason to assume the findings would happen right away as opposed to at the very end of the three year time frame after most of the dump was searched).
Related: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/wesley-hallam-landfill-search-manitoba-victims-1.6909498
I thought that this was also a particularly good take: https://kbin.social/m/Canada/p/902052/Canada-The-provinces-are-more-keen-to-blame-the-federal
Though I do wonder - why not just give a token approval from the province, and then let the feds take over and nationalize the landfill? The federal gov’t then take on the bill so the provincial gov’t gets what it wants, and the families get the search they want as well. Seems like an everybody wins scenario.