Rob Anders falling asleep on the job...again

[littlereddevil]

Call me apathetic but, politics stink.

PCs haven't done much for this country, nor the Liberals. Its just them squawking away at each other at Parliament Hill.

[Savvy27]

After reading the thread, I just want to point out that Anders did not fall asleep in Parliament in this case, he fell asleep (allegedly) during a presentation to the veteran affairs committee that he is sitting on. The presentation was about how to take care of veterans once they have returned from war.

Instead of apologizing, Anders accused the two card carrying veterans of being NDP hacks and supporting Vladimir Putin (they commended some program that the Russian government implement to support veterans).

Everybody seems to be talking about this like he just nodded off again. Being on a committee is pretty much the only way a backbench MP has any impact in government and this guy is falling asleep instead of fulfilling his duty and then publicly slandering two soldiers who served in several conflicts only to come home and create an organization to help get veterans off the street.

Rob Anders is truly a disgrace. It's not a question of politics. He should be removed from the committee, not given the option to resign.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Slava

So where do I find the line about shutting down the oil sands? Every party, including the CPC wants to increase the environmental regulations, oil sands included. Even the provincial government is moving in that direction. The CPC policy is to go the route of cap and trade as well, something that I completely disagree with regardless of the party implementing it.

The Northern Gateway, whether you're for it or against it, will never be built. There is so much opposition to it from the communities that it would basically be jamming it down people's throats there. Every week it seems there are new cities and councils that have voted against it.

It's a serious stretch to think that the Liberals want to shutdown the oil sands when they took no steps to do so during their tenure. In fact we all know that feds in general love the cash from these things. It helps them to fund all kinds of little pet projects.

You're moving the goal posts from the post I replied to.

The Liberal plan was to significantly increase Oil Sands operating and development costs through increased taxes and to implement an undefined and potentially punitive GHG reduction scheme. They further campaigned to end one of the two major methods to get expanded oil-sands production to market.

Both of those platform planks are indeed very much anti-oil sands, which you contended were not part of the Liberal plan.

The results would have been to curtail new drilling and development at least until it was determined whether the GHG plan would make production uneconomical, and would keep us locked into selling our Oil at a 10% discount compared to world prices because we have to sell it to the US.

Drilling is where the large majority of the jobs are in the Oil Sands and the Liberal plan spoke about deliberately slowing down development through these measures. A small change in the royalty regime in Alberta was enough to shut down (Half?) of the rigs drilling here for a couple of years and made a bad situation (poor gas prices) worse, spurring big layoffs. What the Liberals proposed would have been a bigger change than what Stelmach did to us and would have led to a big drop in drilling and thus all of the jobs that goes with it.

It's a defensible argument to say that the Oil Sands development should be slowed significantly (layoffs) or shut down (more layoffs) for environmental reasons or that taxes should be higher but saying that the Liberal platform was something that it was is not defensible. The honourable thing would be to admit that you either didn't know this aspect of the Liberal platform or didn't understand the consequences of it.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

Rob Anders is truly a disgrace. It's not a question of politics. He should be removed from the committee, not given the option to resign.

I agree with this.

I'd like to see him be shuffled out of any official government role until he can prove that he has his act together and would love it if he lost his next nomination, provided it was to an actual conservative.

What I wouldn't like is to be represented by a party that campaigns in opposition to the industry I work in. He has no actual power in government and votes in the house for the economic platform that I most agree with. Until the party kicks him out, he resigns or he is replaced in a nomination battle, he gets my vote.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

I agree with this.

I'd like to see him be shuffled out of any official government role until he can prove that he has his act together and would love it if he lost his next nomination, provided it was to an actual conservative.

What I wouldn't like is to be represented by a party that campaigns in opposition to the industry I work in. He has no actual power in government and votes in the house for the economic platform that I most agree with. Until the party kicks him out, he resigns or he is replaced in a nomination battle, he gets my vote.

They should offer him a nice ambassador role to get him to leave politics. Maybe we could make him the Canadian Representative to Monster Island.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

You're moving the goal posts from the post I replied to.

The Liberal plan was to significantly increase Oil Sands operating and development costs through increased taxes and to implement an undefined and potentially punitive GHG reduction scheme. They further campaigned to end one of the two major methods to get expanded oil-sands production to market.

Both of those platform planks are indeed very much anti-oil sands, which you contended were not part of the Liberal plan.

The results would have been to curtail new drilling and development at least until it was determined whether the GHG plan would make production uneconomical, and would keep us locked into selling our Oil at a 10% discount compared to world prices because we have to sell it to the US.

Drilling is where the large majority of the jobs are in the Oil Sands and the Liberal plan spoke about deliberately slowing down development through these measures. A small change in the royalty regime in Alberta was enough to shut down (Half?) of the rigs drilling here for a couple of years and made a bad situation (poor gas prices) worse, spurring big layoffs. What the Liberals proposed would have been a bigger change than what Stelmach did to us and would have led to a big drop in drilling and thus all of the jobs that goes with it.

It's a defensible argument to say that the Oil Sands development should be slowed significantly (layoffs) or shut down (more layoffs) for environmental reasons or that taxes should be higher but saying that the Liberal platform was something that it was is not defensible. The honourable thing would be to admit that you either didn't know this aspect of the Liberal platform or didn't understand the consequences of it.

The campaign against Northern Gateway (which is what I assume you're alluding to here?) was an issue for me personally. Liberal MLA Kent Hehr wrote an op-ed for the Calgary Herald expressing support for the pipeline and suggested that if we allow tankers through the eastern shores then the West should expect that same treatment. That's still a far cry from "shutdown the oil sands".

I also don't agree that the Liberal position regarding the sands is all that different from the CPC position. You point to policy documents and that's fine but the fact is the CPC policy is also for cap and trade. They haven't acted on that, but I remain unconvinced that a Liberal government would either. We had this argument numerous times in the election thread last year and resolved nothing. I am still of the belief that the whole argument is a pure red herring by the CPC.

I also didn't move any goal posts. It was suggested that the supporters continued to vote for Anders because the other parties want to shutdown the oil sands and that's just patently false. You can point to policies and infer what you want, but it's simply a non-starter.

[Bownesian]

More non-sequiturs.

1) Northern Gateway policy in the last election campaign
What an Alberta MLA says in an op-ed is enormously different from what a federal party platform specifically says about formalizing the informal moratorium on west coast drilling and tanker traffic. Kent Hehr wasn't the leader of the Federal Liberal party, clearly didn't have control over their platform and his comments are completely irrelevant in a discussion about what the Ignatieff Liberals promised to do once in power.

2) CPC position = Liberal position
The CPC policy is cap and trade if the US does the same (knowing they won't) with much more oilsands development friendly GHG targets. They have dropped out of Kyoto and are using regulations to gently encourage better efficiency in industry.

That's a far cry from unilateral carbon pricing, increasing taxes and shutting down routes for export. I don't think that any of this would "shut down the oilsands" but it would have significantly chilled development, as was the explicit plan in the Liberal policy document. Chilling development means oilsands jobs would have ended.

I have clearly displayed that Liberal policy would in fact have negatively affected oilsands development (i.e. policy was anti-oilsands - the comment of yours I replied to). You countered with "So where do I find the line about shutting down the oil sands?", a different contention all together. In a debate, what you did is called moving the goal posts.

I contend that the plan the Liberals ran on would be worse for the industry I work in and economically worse for the province I live in. To me that is more important than having some boob be the guy who rises in the house to support the platform I most agreed with.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

More non-sequiturs.

1) Northern Gateway policy in the last election campaign
What an Alberta MLA says in an op-ed is enormously different from what a federal party platform specifically says about formalizing the informal moratorium on west coast drilling and tanker traffic. Kent Hehr wasn't the leader of the Federal Liberal party, clearly didn't have control over their platform and his comments are completely irrelevant in a discussion about what the Ignatieff Liberals promised to do once in power.

2) CPC position = Liberal position
The CPC policy is cap and trade if the US does the same (knowing they won't) with much more oilsands development friendly GHG targets. They have dropped out of Kyoto and are using regulations to gently encourage better efficiency in industry.

That's a far cry from unilateral carbon pricing, increasing taxes and shutting down routes for export. I don't think that any of this would "shut down the oilsands" but it would have significantly chilled development, as was the explicit plan in the Liberal policy document. Chilling development means oilsands jobs would have ended.

I have clearly displayed that Liberal policy would in fact have negatively affected oilsands development (i.e. policy was anti-oilsands - the comment of yours I replied to). You countered with "So where do I find the line about shutting down the oil sands?", a different contention all together. In a debate, what you did is called moving the goal posts.

I contend that the plan the Liberals ran on would be worse for the industry I work in and economically worse for the province I live in. To me that is more important than having some boob be the guy who rises in the house to support the platform I most agreed with.

Well we are just never going to agree. In your mind you think that the Liberals are bad for the oil sands. The policy of cap and trade is what both the CPC and LPC are on record as endorsing, and I suspect that neither would act. Of course we can't prove this, and it's pure hindsight. You can't prove your point here any more than I can prove mine. Frankly, I just really don't care either. The Liberals were in power and did absolutely nothing to discourage the growth of the oil sands in their tenure. The thread was about a terrible MP that you support disrespecting veterans. Someone suggested the Liberals would shutdown the oil sands. I was arguing that and while I disagree that they are bad for business (that seems to ignore the growth and success of our economy from 1993-2005) I am just bored of arguing in circles.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

I have clearly displayed that Liberal policy, if implemented as written in the policy document, would in fact have negatively affected oilsands development

fyp

You don't have a crystal ball and can't say with any certainty what any actual legislation might have looked like.

Even King Harper has modified Party policy and, in some cases, decided not to implement policies he campaigned on.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Slava

I am just bored of arguing in circles.

Agreed.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

fyp

You don't have a crystal ball and can't say with any certainty what any actual legislation might have looked like.

Even King Harper has modified Party policy and, in some cases, decided not to implement policies he campaigned on.

True enough but a party's policy document should be the best indication of what they plan to do.

On this front the Liberals probably should get a bit of a pass on because their policy included things like abolishing the GST, implementing Pharmacare and Free Daycare programs that they never implemented and may never have intended to... that whole campaign from the left, govern from the right thing. I wouldn't consider this to be a positive feature of that party, except in the most cynical sense in that an economic right-winger can at least hope that they'll change their mind when they regain the levers of power in some future election.

Perhaps the changes that would have affected the Oil Sands fall under the aegis of platform planks that are intended to be forgotten but I doubt it given the temperature of the environmental rhetoric from their supporters in the last two general elections.

I don't mean to imply that changing platforms is the sole realm of any particular party. I do think that when they inevitably do change their mind, they'd better have a good reason and explain it well lest they may find their supporters to have changed allegiances next time around.

[Slava]

Since we ended up arguing about this today, I thought I would post this blog from Paul Wells on what could be the main issue in 2015. Interestingly it happens to note the fact that Harper was pushing cap and trade but has distanced himself, but I digress. This is more about the NDP and CPC and the potential fight between them.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/03/04/b...d-environment/

[RougeUnderoos]

Those lousy veterans are considering legal action against Mr. Anders, and for some stupid reason they don't think he's fit to sleep through any more meetings of the veteran's affairs committee.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...l.html?cmp=rss

The bleeding heart in me kind of agrees with them, but as a pragmatic Albertan dependent on the oil industry, I know our economy would collapse entirely if he gets any bad press or potentially loses his job, so these "veterans" should keep their filthy traps shut.

[Brotato]

Originally Posted by Jiggy

It really pisses me off how my hard earned money goes to pay this losers salary. This country has a lot of hard working people that work long hours to make ends meat, some whom could use all the money that they pay toward taxes. Then you have this idiot, who could probably care less on how much others go through to pay his salary. My dislike for politicians grows every day.

I agree, this guy is an insult to everyone who works in the meat-ends-making factories in Canada! Somebody has to make meat out of the end of the cow... and Andres slept all over them!

[Slava]

I'll just leave this here for Bownesian and Killer Carlson.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle2362119/

[Bownesian]

(taking the bait)

I'm actually in favour of carbon taxes and consumption taxes in general. What I'm not in favour of is increasing the tax base under the cloak of environmentalism and using it to fund new, very costly social programs, and then creating exemptions that favour certain regionally important pet industries. Nor am I in favour of increased taxes going to fund politically top-down energy generation projects that aren't economical and don't save GHG emissions like the Ontario Liberals did. They blew billions on green jobs that disappeared the same minute the subsidies did and microgeneration projects that are totally inefficient pipe dreams that still aren't hooked up to the grid.

Exemption-free carbon taxes that replaced personal and corporate income taxes would efficient and useful if they were high enough to make a real difference, (say enough to bump your gasoline or natural gas bill by 25%) but that's not what was proposed in either of the last two elections. Instead, the first iteration targeted one industry's emissions preferentially over heating oil, transportation fuel and industries that are especially important to everything east of Manitoba and funnelled a significant chunk of the funds from that one targeted industry into per-capita (Ontario and Quebec) and lower-income targeted (Ontario and East) social programs. The second iteration I've talked about at length in this thread already and don't need to retread.

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

(taking the bait)

I'm actually in favour of carbon taxes and consumption taxes in general. What I'm not in favour of is increasing the tax base under the cloak of environmentalism and using it to fund new, very costly social programs, and then creating exemptions that favour certain regionally important pet industries. Nor am I in favour of increased taxes going to fund politically top-down energy generation projects that aren't economical and don't save GHG emissions like the Ontario Liberals did. They blew billions on green jobs that disappeared the same minute the subsidies did and microgeneration projects that are totally inefficient pipe dreams that still aren't hooked up to the grid.

Exemption-free carbon taxes that replaced personal and corporate income taxes would efficient and useful if they were high enough to make a real difference, (say enough to bump your gasoline or natural gas bill by 25%) but that's not what was proposed in either of the last two elections. Instead, the first iteration targeted one industry's emissions preferentially over heating oil, transportation fuel and industries that are especially important to everything east of Manitoba and funnelled a significant chunk of the funds from that one targeted industry into per-capita (Ontario and Quebec) and lower-income targeted (Ontario and East) social programs. The second iteration I've talked about at length in this thread already and don't need to retread.

I'm sorry. I stopped reading after the point you increased taxes to curb behavior part. Not everyone has the luxury or ability to not have to drive long distances to work, or just stop using things such as a vehicle. I'm not sure why right wingers feel that its appropriate to utilize punishment to alter behavior (and yes that's punishment).

On topic I don't like rob anders

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

(taking the bait)

I'm actually in favour of carbon taxes and consumption taxes in general. What I'm not in favour of is increasing the tax base under the cloak of environmentalism and using it to fund new, very costly social programs, and then creating exemptions that favour certain regionally important pet industries. Nor am I in favour of increased taxes going to fund politically top-down energy generation projects that aren't economical and don't save GHG emissions like the Ontario Liberals did. They blew billions on green jobs that disappeared the same minute the subsidies did and microgeneration projects that are totally inefficient pipe dreams that still aren't hooked up to the grid.

Exemption-free carbon taxes that replaced personal and corporate income taxes would efficient and useful if they were high enough to make a real difference, (say enough to bump your gasoline or natural gas bill by 25%) but that's not what was proposed in either of the last two elections. Instead, the first iteration targeted one industry's emissions preferentially over heating oil, transportation fuel and industries that are especially important to everything east of Manitoba and funnelled a significant chunk of the funds from that one targeted industry into per-capita (Ontario and Quebec) and lower-income targeted (Ontario and East) social programs. The second iteration I've talked about at length in this thread already and don't need to retread.

Lol, now who's moving the goal posts? I don't want to see a bunch of new programs put in place and haven't argued for that anywhere. I did find it particularly interesting that the Harper Conservatives destroyed Dion for wanting a carbon tax, which is exactly what the oil producers now seem to be coming around to.

Now your argument that the Liberals would somehow destroy the oil sands is looking less likely. It's hard to characterize a policy that the industry is in favor of as somehow gutting the industry.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Those lousy veterans are considering legal action against Mr. Anders, and for some stupid reason they don't think he's fit to sleep through any more meetings of the veteran's affairs committee.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...l.html?cmp=rss

The bleeding heart in me kind of agrees with them, but as a pragmatic Albertan dependent on the oil industry, I know our economy would collapse entirely if he gets any bad press or potentially loses his job, so these "veterans" should keep their filthy traps shut.

That a dumb comment.

Everyone in this thread said anders needs to go

[OzSome]

What does Rob Anders cares? He gets paid and gets full pension tax-free when he retires. The guy doesn't care what ordinary folks says about him. He gets paid whether he sleeps on the job, ignore the people in his area and don't even care about his job. The guy will never change no matter how many people complain about this guy. Politics will never change. He's probably saying "What are you gonna do? Fire me!?" then started making devilish laugh.