Alberta Politics Thread v2

[DiracSpike]

Here's a video of Jason Kenney talking about his proposed "Fight Back" strategy on the pipeline fight. The UCP have been criticized pretty fairly here about not having a platform yet, this is the first real articulation of policy on what I think should be without a doubt the most important election question, who will get us a pipeline quicker and defend the O&G industry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxH8Sz2vSGQ&t

Main points include:

-Well resourced war room to respond to lies about Alberta's Oil Sands industry on Social Media or otherwise
-Litigation fund to support pro-development groups (particularly FN Groups like Eagle Spirit)
-Address flagrant violation of Canada's charity laws by environmental groups, David Suzuki group and the like
-Expects major O&G companies to replicate litigation strategies that American forestry companies have taken against GreenPeace and others.
-If HSBC and others want to boycott Oil Sands players then the Gov of Alberta will likewise boycott them
-Real consequences for partners in the confederation who flagrantly violate interprovincial trade (Looking at you Horgan, you mother####er)
-Wants to identify greatest points of leverage, which is mostly equalization formula, wants to initiate a referendum on that if the Feds won't guarantee a coastal export pipeline.

I've been really impressed with Notley lately and I think she's a very capable politician but this video swings me pretty hard toward voting UCP. We've tried the play nice approach and it didn't work, it's time to get aggressive and show we're not going to back down until we get the coastal export pipeline we need.

[Reggie Dunlop]

"Well resourced war room" sounds like a troll farm.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

"Well resourced war room" sounds like a troll farm.

That's exactly what it is.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

"Well resourced war room" sounds like a troll farm.

"The Friends Of Science"

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Here's a video of Jason Kenney talking about his proposed "Fight Back" strategy on the pipeline fight. The UCP have been criticized pretty fairly here about not having a platform yet, this is the first real articulation of policy on what I think should be without a doubt the most important election question, who will get us a pipeline quicker and defend the O&G industry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxH8Sz2vSGQ&t

Main points include:

-Well resourced war room to respond to lies about Alberta's Oil Sands industry on Social Media or otherwise
-Litigation fund to support pro-development groups (particularly FN Groups like Eagle Spirit)
-Address flagrant violation of Canada's charity laws by environmental groups, David Suzuki group and the like
-Expects major O&G companies to replicate litigation strategies that American forestry companies have taken against GreenPeace and others.
-If HSBC and others want to boycott Oil Sands players then the Gov of Alberta will likewise boycott them
-Real consequences for partners in the confederation who flagrantly violate interprovincial trade (Looking at you Horgan, you mother####er)
-Wants to identify greatest points of leverage, which is mostly equalization formula, wants to initiate a referendum on that if the Feds won't guarantee a coastal export pipeline.

I've been really impressed with Notley lately and I think she's a very capable politician but this video swings me pretty hard toward voting UCP. We've tried the play nice approach and it didn't work, it's time to get aggressive and show we're not going to back down until we get the coastal export pipeline we need.

Looks good to me. These are all things the Government should be doing already IMO.

[Ozy_Flame]

Can someone explain to me what a provincial referendum is going to do other than count how many pissed off and not-pissed off Albertans there are? Provincial referendums in Canada are traditionally consultative or advisory in nature (i.e., plebiscites), even if we would like to treat them as binding.

Seems like a waste of time.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Can someone explain to me what a provincial referendum is going to do other than count how many pissed off and not-pissed off Albertans there are? Provincial referendums in Canada are traditionally consultative or advisory in nature (i.e., plebiscites), even if we would like to treat them as binding.

Seems like a waste of time.

From my understanding a referendum on a constitutional matter like equalization where the citizens in majority demand a change or discussion forces the Federal Government to at least engage in the discussion or come to the table.


I don't think its a waste of time, its at least a move to put the Federal Government's feet to the fire, because you have at least three other governments talking about the equalization formula now.

[CaptainCrunch]

Column in the FP by Jack Mintz of the UofC on ABexit


https://business.financialpost.com/o...#comments-area

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Here's a video of Jason Kenney talking about his proposed "Fight Back" strategy on the pipeline fight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxH8Sz2vSGQ&t

Hallelujah, the nice guy routine isn't working.

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Can someone explain to me what a provincial referendum is going to do other than count how many pissed off and not-pissed off Albertans there are?

Watch the video.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

"Well resourced war room" sounds like a troll farm.

Sounds like a taxpayer-funded propaganda wing. I'd hope this war room includes a balanced council of scientists vetting everything they are addressing - and conversely putting out there for the public to digest. Last thing we need is a troll farm run by UCP staffers and interns who insult or block naysayers on Twitter because they don't like the heat.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Can someone explain to me what a provincial referendum is going to do other than count how many pissed off and not-pissed off Albertans there are? Provincial referendums in Canada are traditionally consultative or advisory in nature (i.e., plebiscites), even if we would like to treat them as binding.

Seems like a waste of time.

I thought similar until I heard an interview with Ted Morton, who explained the benefits of doing so:

In 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada, faced with the Quebec referendum on separation, declared that in a provincial referendum on a proposed amendment to the Constitution, if the voting results in “a clear majority … on a clear question,” the federal government has “a constitutional duty to negotiate” the issue. Indeed, the court said that Ottawa (and the other provinces!) must all negotiate “in good faith” to fulfil this constitutional obligation.

While this rule was laid down in the context of the 1995 Quebec referendum to secede from the rest of Canada, the court went out of its way to phrase its ruling in terms that apply equally to a referendum in any province to amend the Constitution.

As equalization is a constitutional matter, a clear majority of Albertans voting against the current scheme would compel the federal government to at least renegotiate the terms of the program. Obviously this is only one interpretation of the SC reference, but I think it would be worth a shot. Especially if a re-think of the program gains traction in Ontario and Saskatchewan.

For the record, I think that equalization is important on a conceptual level - ensuring a baseline equality of service across the federation is a noble goal. There just needs to be an overhaul of the formula - right now equalization incentivizes and rewards poor fiscal policy decisions by the provincial governments on the receiving end of these transfers.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Looks good to me. These are all things the Government should be doing already IMO.

Absolutely. Notley needs to kick it in to high gear very quick.

I don’t like Kenney, and I have serious negative trust in him, but if this is part of his plan and he’s going to truly come out like a bulldog for Alberta, then he has my support.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by ozy_flame

sounds like a taxpayer-funded propaganda wing. i'd hope this war room includes a balanced council of scientists vetting everything they are addressing - and conversely putting out there for the public to digest. Last thing we need is a troll farm run by ucp staffers and interns who insult or block naysayers on twitter because they don't like the heat.

cbc?

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Can someone explain to me what a provincial referendum is going to do other than count how many pissed off and not-pissed off Albertans there are? Provincial referendums in Canada are traditionally consultative or advisory in nature (i.e., plebiscites), even if we would like to treat them as binding.

Seems like a waste of time.

I'd watch the video, it's right at the end around 7 minutes if you don't feel like watching the other stuff. I didn't do the best job of summarizing that part, but the main message is around identifying points of leverage that we have and exploiting them. We definitely don't have many, and sitting around hoping the government does the right thing hasn't worked, they're clearly too worried about losing those sweet sweet Lower Mainland votes.

Putting equalization on the table as something that might change is at least a bit of a pressure tactic on the Feds. I really don't think they want to open up that aspect of the country, especially with Ontario joining the ranks of the malcontents. There's no guarantee it will work, obviously, but it's something. I honestly don't mind being the largest by far contributor to this program but the other side of that coin is we need to be allowed to generate value for the Country. The possibility of Alberta contributing less to the pie might wake some people up.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Sounds like a taxpayer-funded propaganda wing. I'd hope this war room includes a balanced council of scientists vetting everything they are addressing - and conversely putting out there for the public to digest. Last thing we need is a troll farm run by UCP staffers and interns who insult or block naysayers on Twitter because they don't like the heat.

No the last thing we need is the Tides and Union funded propaganda arms of the NDP (Progress Alberta) spreading misinformation without any response, IE: current situation.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Zarley

I thought similar until I heard an interview with Ted Morton, who explained the benefits of doing so:



As equalization is a constitutional matter, a clear majority of Albertans voting against the current scheme would compel the federal government to at least renegotiate the terms of the program. Obviously this is only one interpretation of the SC reference, but I think it would be worth a shot. Especially if a re-think of the program gains traction in Ontario and Saskatchewan.

For the record, I think that equalization is important on a conceptual level - ensuring a baseline equality of service across the federation is a noble goal. There just needs to be an overhaul of the formula - right now equalization incentivizes and rewards poor fiscal policy decisions by the provincial governments on the receiving end of these transfers.

This is why the referendum is a waste of time. The constitution only allows that the Federal Government is responsible for ensuring that the Provinces requiring help, receive it. This is the high level noble part. The formula itself is not part of the constitution, it is completely the preview of the Feds.

To be a constitutional issue, the referendum needs to be something along the lines of either "Do you no longer wish the Federal Government to provide equalization payments to poorer provinces?" or "Should the equalization formula be permanently entered into the constitution?"

I think your view is the same as many Canadians that the formula needs to be changed, mostly in regard to how the CPC changed the formula in 2007 to the 50% resource rule, and not to remove it completely. However making a formula static and unchanged could also be disastrous as it would require a constitutional amendment any time the situation changed and the formula didn't work.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Absolutely. Notley needs to kick it in to high gear very quick.

I don’t like Kenney, and I have serious negative trust in him, but if this is part of his plan and he’s going to truly come out like a bulldog for Alberta, then he has my support.

I share your opinions on Kenney.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Sounds like a taxpayer-funded propaganda wing. I'd hope this war room includes a balanced council of scientists vetting everything they are addressing - and conversely putting out there for the public to digest. Last thing we need is a troll farm run by UCP staffers and interns who insult or block naysayers on Twitter because they don't like the heat.

I mean, did you read the point you are commenting on?

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by belsarius

This is why the referendum is a waste of time. The constitution only allows that the Federal Government is responsible for ensuring that the Provinces requiring help, receive it. This is the high level noble part. The formula itself is not part of the constitution, it is completely the preview of the Feds.

Since we are on the topic of wasting time obstructing Federal jurisdiction, maybe we should ask the bozos in BC and Quebec their opinions on this?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Absolutely. Notley needs to kick it in to high gear very quick.

I don’t like Kenney, and I have serious negative trust in him, but if this is part of his plan and he’s going to truly come out like a bulldog for Alberta, then he has my support.

Do you really see his approach as pro-Alberta? It looks as though the majority of what he is saying he’ll do is basically spend a lot of tax dollars on projects that further the interests businesses, which is fine in itself(to some extent) but if he’s at the same time planning to reduce the deficit, those projects will likely be paid for with funds that would have otherwise gone to public services and other infrastructure projects. I may be wrong but I think there are more albertans who rely on things like roads, schools and healthcare than there are albertans who own businesses in o&g.

The referendum talk is just smoke and mirrors, he’s playing on people’s emotions when he knows, or ought to know, that it will accomplish very little while also costing tax payer dollars to do. He also still hasn’t explained what he will do to actually get the pipeline going.