Politics in 2018

[Jed]

it really is.

I like it for it shows how much trouble the NDP is.

This civil war has been brewing for some time now,  the labour side of the party and the environmental fanatics.

Now you have the two NDP camps in open economic warfare and the federal NDP has pretty much tried to keep their head down.

Yep, a real live clown show. But it just isn’t funny.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

This is, indeed, searchable.  Here are all the corporate donors in Quebec who contributed to the Liberal Party.  Keep in mind that there are severe limitations on corporate donations in Canada...

http://www.elections.ca/WPAPPS/WPF/EN/CCS/ContributionReport?returnStatus=1&reportOption=5&queryId=bef12a6d202c4123b274373f9c9abe34&sortDirection=asc&sortOrder=0%2C1%2C2&totalRecordFound=1178&current200Page=1&total200Pages=6&reportExists=True&displaySorting=True

The National Post recently created a searchable database where you can do the same thing, but for both Federal and Provincial. You can search by either the recipient or the donor.

http://special.nationalpost.com/follow-the-money/feature

 

[Kat Stevens]

Three socialists sit down in a room to discuss the economy. No punchline, that’s the joke.

 

[Altair]

Had he kept all, or even most, promises (and I truly hope that he does not, and that he has no opportunity to do so after 2019), then I would also take that as an indicator that he is more likely to keep others. Past performance, you see.

Has anybody actually said "will break" in this context? I'm not bothering to go back and look. On the balance of probabilities, however, and given that letting pipelines proceed, or, especially, over-ruling BC, would cost him more votes than he would gain from Alberta, I doubt that he would - willingly and happily - force the issue. I expect him to delay and waffle until the company gives up in frustration.

You're the one saying
I, and others, lack your confidence in that "will".

It may happen. I won't say that it won't. He may become the Country's biggest pipeline enthusiast.

I'd not bet upon that, however, and neither should you.

It is hard to predict people with absolute accuracy.

I thought of this as I watched the news and saw Greenpeace protesters with a Crudeau oil pipeline mock up in London.

What a difference a few months make.

In the pocket of oil companies to the left,  anti pipeline alberta hater to the right,  I guess he's walking the middle ground of compromise.

 

[CBH99]

While she may be applauded for "bold leadership" against this "monumental challenge"...<cough>... I think Notley lost a lot of votes over how she conducted herself in this situation as a whole, specifically targeting the 'civilian population' if you will in order to ensure her own political goals are met.

I'm not debating whether the pipeline needs to be expanded or not.


But instead of keeping this a 'government to government' issue...she continues to target the lower to middle class residents of BC.  First, she limited the amount of wine that BC could export to Alberta.  This had a very real affect on small, family owned businesses including wineries, liquor stores, transport businesses, etc.

Now she wants to make gas so unbelievably expensive, that the residents of BC will FORCE their government to concede if for no other reason than people are going broke over just trying to drive to work, drive their kids around, and live normal lives.


I'm all for tough measures if governments disagree and, for some reason, can't come up with a solution that both parties can accept.  But deliberately making the lives of fellow Canadians difficult, and making them suffer financially - especially when it's the lower to middle class that will be affected the most - isn't very noble, honourable, or Canadian.

Canadian provincial governments should not be deliberately targeting & financially hurting other Canadians, just because they happen to reside in a different province.

As someone who lives in Alberta, I have absolutely zero motivation to see average people in BC suffering due to a political dispute.  It's one of the most un-Canadian things I can think of, and I know from discussing this around the water cooler, I'm not the only one that feels that way.

 

[GR66]

And what exactly is BC’s attempt to stop the pipeline doing to the citizens of Alberta?

Taking away the ability to ship Albertan oil lowers the price per barrel they get, lowers the total volume they can sell, reduces investment in the industry, reduces the tax income received by the government thus reducing the services they can provide.

Blocking the pipeline is directly attacking the financial livelihood of every Albertan. Notley is simply retaliating in kind to what BC has started.

I don’t live in Alberta, but I imagine most of your fellow Albertans don’t share your sympathy with your BC neighbours when they are effectively crippling your economy.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

This whole pipeline fiasco is something that should have never even evolved in a modern, first world country.

The blame can be laid in equal measures at the feet of politicians at both the federal and provincial levels of government who listen to dogmatic, extremist activists rather than ordinary voters.

If polls are to be believed, more than half of British Columbians want to see the pipeline built. That number has actually increased in the past month.

John Horgan (BC premier) is no dummy. I believe he knows that he has not got a constitutional leg to stand in opposing the pipeline. But, he owes his very survival as premier to the Green Party. And they are absolutely beyond reason on the subject of petroleum products.

Rachel Notley is also no dummy. She knows that this is probably the last pipeline that will ever get built in Canada. If it fails, she is politically finished. She sold the oil industry the line that if they played ball on carbon pricing, the environmental movement would give them a pass on shipping oil. Unfortunately for her (and everyone else) the environmentalists in BC are a bunch of dogmatic absolutists and professional protestors who cannot see that they have largely won the war. By forcing Alberta in a corner, they are going to trigger a backlash.

If Alberta throttles petroleum shipments to BC, it will be an unholy mess and BC will grind to a halt inside of a week. There is no real infrastructure on the west coast to ship in refined petroleum from the US or abroad in any quantity. Not that there is much surplus supply to be had on the west coast of North America.

I do not wish to see a petroleum embargo come to pass, as tempers are high enough and none of this is good for Confederation (sidebar- why is there always a constitutional crisis when a Trudeau is the PM?). But if it does, maybe it would be instructive, if only to remind the average citizen just how reliant they are on petroleum and not to believe the Green Party that Canada can dump oil consumption, tomorrow.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Meanwhile the Lax, a Northern Indian band that is suing the government on the oil tanker ban, is in talks to build a oil terminal at Hyder Alaska, about 3 km from Stewart BC. Life is never dull here. Currently I am reviewing a fuel bunkering facility, a Bulk liquid fuel facility, an LPG facility, with another LPG facility coming in. I just finished a smaller LPG loading facility, all in Prince Rupert. It also seems LNGCanada is closing in on a FID in Kitimat, fingers crossed.   

 

[Rifleman62]

CBH99:

I'm all for tough measures if governments disagree and, for some reason, can't come up with a solution that both parties can accept.  But deliberately making the lives of fellow Canadians difficult, and making them suffer financially - especially when it's the lower to middle class that will be affected the most - isn't very noble, honourable, or Canadian.

Canadian provincial governments should not be deliberately targeting & financially hurting other Canadians, just because they happen to reside in a different province.

I live in BC now, the Okanagan Valley. What the government of BC is doing is targeting Canada. Where do you think the equalization payments paid to 'have not" provinces come from in part? How do you think that revenue is generated? Have you read how much AB oil is discounted? Have you read how much tax revenue and how much the Canadian economy loses because we cannot get our products to other markets? Also, Quebec supports BC's position and stopped the Energy East project.

Have you heard of the BC Speculation Tax (https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2018FIN0009-000501) ? 1% for Canadian citizens and permanent residents who do not live in British Columbia. Thus if you are from e.g. Alberta and own a vacation or future retirement home in Kelowna, besides annual property taxes on your $700K house you will pay annually an additional $7000.

A lot of Albertans own houses in the OK valley. A $700K house is not a luxury property. Of course, to the NDP, nobody should own two properties. Tax the rich, (unlike the federal Liberals tax anything and everything and spend, spend, spend).

I hope AB shuts off POL to BC.
,
http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/morton-equalization-payments-have-always-been-about-keeping-quebec-happy

Morton: Equalization payments have always been about keeping Quebec happy - 7 Apr 18

Extract: In 2018-19, equalization payments will rise to a new high of $19 billion. Sixty-two per cent will go to Quebec, while Alberta taxpayers will contribute about $3 billion. This amount is actually only a portion of approximately $20 billion of net federal transfers out of Alberta this year. Two other federal programs — the Canada Health Transfer and Canada Social Transfer — have a transfer effect. The same is true for federal benefit programs such as employment insurance, Old Age Security and the Canada Pension Plan.

Each year, Albertans collectively pay in much more in that we receive back. Understanding the transfer effects of these other federal programs explains how it is that between 2007 and 2015, Alberta’s net contribution to the federal government was $221 billion, or an average of over $24 billion a year.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_payments_in_Canada

Quebec will receive the most from equalization payments in the 2018-2019 year.[1] However, per capita, PEI benefits the most.

In the 2018–2019 year, the following provinces will receive equalization payments:[1]

Quebec ($11.732 billion)
Manitoba ($2.037 billion)
Nova Scotia ($1.933 billion)
New Brunswick ($1.874 billion)
Ontario ($963 million)
Prince Edward Island ($419 million)
Equalization per citizens 2016-2017

Provinces / Per Citizen / Total

PEI / $2,573 / $380 million
NB / $2,259 / $1.708 billion
NS / $1,822 / $1.722 billion
Manitoba / $1,328 / $1.736 billion
Quebec / $1,206 / $10.03 billion
Ontario / $166 / $2.304 billion
Source: Government of Canada (http://blogues.radio-canada.ca/geraldfillion/tag/perequation/)

The following provinces will not qualify for equalization payments in 2018–2019:[1]

Alberta
British Columbia
Newfoundland and Labrador
Saskatchewan

 

[Lumber]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/colten-boushie-family-united-nations-study-systemic-racism-1.4625818

Sorry to distract you from your pipeline debate...

I feel like I would get crucified if I shared on Facebook the following comments, but I am honestly getting extremely frustrated with the way this case has blow up. It irked me enough I felt the need to share my thoughts here.

I honestly feel somewhat embarrassed for the country at some of the comments that Boushie's family just made to the UN. Maybe I'm putting too much stock into their presence at a UN forum, but I feel like what they said about Canada and our justice system are just not true, and is therefore embarrassing to be said in front of the whole UN. One line in particular:

"Colten was not a thief. He was a kind and generous young man," she told the forum."

I read the entire judges decision. A "thief" is exactly how I would describe Colten Boushie, at least on the day of the incident. Could you come to any other conclusion if you actually read the facts of the case?

Another quote:

"The systemic injustices, the acquittal and the decision not to appeal show that justice is not equally applied to Indigenous people in Canada."

The whole thing, but specifically the part in yellow, does not demonstrate discrimination in the justice system. It simply shows that the prosecution was not able to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the trial was conducted without any errors, eliminating the possibility of an appeal. Again, read the judgment.

Perhaps it's the fact that I'm a white cis-gendered male from an upper-middle class family of European ancestry who's never had to deal with discrimination or poverty, but I feel like I'm a pretty good critical thinker, and I see absolutely no reason case necessitating a UN investigation, a Royal Commission, and an overhaul of our criminal justice system.

Final note, I'm getting tired of being referred to as a "settler" or a "colonist". I was born here. My parents were born here. All of my family was born here. I don't have any close relatives in the "old" country, and that's only on one side of the family, the rest have been here for 3 hundred years.

I don't know any other home than here, this is my home. Stop grouping me with those who showed up 300 years ago to sell bibles and buy beaver pelts.

/endrant

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

There is monkey wrench that may be thrown into the equation today: The Supreme Court is supposed to release its ruling in the Gerard Comeau "taking Quebec bought beer into New Brunswick" inter provincial trade rules case.

If, as I suspect they will, the court's majority rules that Article 121 of the Constitution means what it plainly means, which is that provinces do not have the power to put up any barrier to inter provincial trade (which would fall squarely within exclusive federal power only), then Ms Notley's Act allegedly giving her the power to stop shipping of crude to any specific out of province location would clearly be unconstitutional.

Personally, I believe that it is unconstitutional even before such determination. Alberta allegedly bases its power to enact it on its power over their natural resources. That certainly gives them power over regulating who, where, when and how to extract the resource from the ground, and with what compensation or payment the province should get from the extractor for the resource. However, once extracted, it ceases to be a "natural resource" and becomes product that is subject to laws on transportation and trade. Both of these aspects, when inter-provincial, fall squarely within exclusive federal jurisdiction. So her Act, which delves into permitting transportation - or not - outside of the province fails that constitutional test.

If Trudeau had guts, he would tell Alberta that, should it try to enact that law, he would use the Federal disavowal power and make it known he will do this, followed in the same speech by announcing that he is actually going to introduce immediately a motion in Parliament to have the Kinder Morgan pipeline formally declared a "work for the general advantage of Canada or two or more provinces", which would take any aspect of it out of provincial jurisdiction. That would signal to both sides that recess is over and it's time to act like adults again.

Such actions could, and if he was politically savvy, would be followed by Mr. Hogan going to the Lt.-G. and asking for the assembly to be dissolved. He would explain himself as follows to the public: "As you all know, In order to form a stable government for this province after the last general election, I had to agree to a promise extracted from me by the Green party of B.-C. to do all I could to stop the Kinder Morgan pipeline. In view of the recent federal declaration that it is a work of national interest, we have now used every reasonable avenues to effect that aim but the Green party will not release me from doing more, even if of little use. Therefore, I have asked the Lt.G. to dissolve the assembly and call a general election. I did this so that you can relieve this government of its promise to the Green party and I ask that you return this government to power with a majority this time, so that we can move forward together and this government can go on to deal with more pressing matters of importance to all."

I bet you he would get a majority government if he acted in such a proper way showing respect for the electorate.

 

[larry Strong]

“......the Supreme Court of Canada ruled provincial trade barriers are constitutional as long as they’re aimed at a valid purpose within the province’s jurisdiction, with only an incidental effect on trade. Canada’s constitution simply “does not impose absolute free trade across Canada,” it declared.....”.      http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/free-the-beer-case-loses-at-supreme-court-as-provincial-trade-barriers-are-upheld-as-constitutional     

 

[Rifleman62]

Never expect that ruling.

NDP get a majority in the next BC election? Never.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Rifleman62, by dragging the damn Equalization Payments into the picture - without understanding how it works - you force me once again to trying explain it so this scarecrow gets put back in the closet where it belongs.

Let's see if I can make it simple:

The fact that a province gets equalization while another doesn't get any does not mean in any way form or shape that the province not getting equalization or its inhabitants are the ones paying for the "receiving" province.

Equalization is paid from the government of Canada's consolidated fund, into which every single Canadian or Canadian corporation pays in the same exact even and fair manner wherever they may live. In particular, and since the Federal government taxes natural resources fairly lightly (as they are a provincial resource), it means that taxing industry, commerce and individuals make up most of the federal revenues. This leads to something like the following, for instance: Since Ontario provides 45% of Federal revenues (though they are only 39% of population), the Ontarian tax base pays 45% of the equalization of each province that receives some gets. You can do the same for each province. So Albertans, for instance contribute 16% of Federal revenue from 12 % of the national population and thus the Alberta tax base pays 16% of equalization to the receiving provinces. Meanwhile, even PEI provides .2% of the national revenues of Canada, and thus the PEI tax base contributes .2% of the equalization payments made to each receiving province.

Since all Canadians are taxed wherever they are on the same equal basis, the only thing you can say about provincial disparities between contributions to the Federal consolidated revenue in relation to their population is that in those provinces where there is a greater contribution than proportional population is made, the residents are either making more money or the province has a lower unemployment rate - in other words they are provinces where the economy is better - but its citizens are still treated equally to all Canadian in the same circumstances as they are. 

 

[Jed]

Did I miss something this morning OGBD? I thought the Supreme Court ruled exactly opposite of your expectations this morning.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

You didn't miss anything, Jed. They ruled the opposite of my expectation. Haven't read the ruling yet, but from the tidbits reported on the news, it doesn't make much sense to me. It appears they would have simultaneously ruled that a province cannot impose a charge on goods coming from another province, but that they can create and impose monopolies within their own province for certain goods.

I am baffled, but maybe I won't be anymore after I read the whole thing.  :dunno:


BTW, that doesn't change my view that Notley's Act is still unconstitutional on other grounds.

 

[larry Strong]

BTW, that doesn't change my view that Notley's Act is still unconstitutional on other grounds.

I wish I could find the article I read where inside sources at the weekend meeting between the Drama teacher and the 2 Premiers stated Notley told Horgan to his face that she had no intentions of putting it into force.

She does not have the intestinal fortitude.

Cheers
Larry

 

[Altair]

I wish I could find the article I read where inside sources at the weekend meeting between the Drama teacher and the 2 Premiers stated Notley told Horgan to his face that she had no intentions of putting it into force.

She does not have the intestinal fortitude.

Cheers
Larry

two words.

Jason.  Kenney.  If she isn't hard on BC and hogan Jason Kenney continues to rally albertans around hin saying that she isn't standing up for them,  and he will.

Notley is facing an election in not too long,  she cannot afford that. She would rather it be struck down by the courts.

 

[Altair]

Also,  interestingly,  BC says that its unconstitutional for alberta to stop oil shipments to BC.

https://www.google.com/amp/business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/alberta-should-cut-off-b-c-s-oil-supplies-as-a-form-of-protest-it-has-used-that-tactic-before-against-ontario/amp

Since at least the 1970s, the province has had authority to prohibit shipments of energy products outside the province.

Former PC premier Peter Lougheed once cut the volume of crude oil sent to eastern refineries, as part of his epic battle with Ottawa over control of the industry.

Energy Minister Don Getty, later the premier, stopped signing permits for natural gas going down the pipeline to Ontario refineries.

It was a protest against federal policy that discouraged refining in Alberta.

“What really bothered us were the petrochemical plants in Sarnia,” Getty told me in 2011, recalling the episode with delight.

“The government and the companies had decided that the future development of second stage industry was going to happen there, using our feedstock.

“So we just stopped sending it to them. I had authority to approve all shipments eastward, and all those documents just piled up on my desk, because I didn’t sign.

The next thing we knew, Bill Davis (the Ontario premier) was phoning Peter and saying, ‘Hey, we have to come and see you, because we’re out of gas here.’”

The Lougheed PCs also won a Supreme Court ruling against a federal export tax slapped on oil and gas shipped to the U.S.

Currently, the export permit system is handled by the Alberta Energy Regulator and applies to natural gas. The Notley government, never reluctant to change laws and regulations, could easily broaden that power and take it back into the energy minister’s office.

Not sure that would go their way in court.

 

[Jed]

Also,  interestingly,  BC says that its unconstitutional for alberta to stop oil shipments to BC.

https://www.google.com/amp/business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/alberta-should-cut-off-b-c-s-oil-supplies-as-a-form-of-protest-it-has-used-that-tactic-before-against-ontario/amp
Not sure that would go their way in court.

Well, with the way the Supreme Court seems to be making decisions,you may be right.  I’m sure many people in Alberta and Saskatchewan will begin to think what is the point of being in a Canada that spends decades raping and pillaging these two provinces solely for the benefit of socialist minded larger provinces.  We see the law of the land continually being biasedly applied and the embarrassment of watching every Tom, Dick and Harry minor minority having their pet peeves being addressed all the while the people suffer at the hands of incompetent government.