Trudeau: “Canada isn’t doing well right now because it’s Albertans who control...

[Slava]

I had much more of a post typed out, and I closed it accidentally. Bottom line, I'm bored with this thread already, but I wanted to help the CPC with their future campaign. I'm not too good with these things, so maybe someone like Joan Crockatt can clean this up. Since they've given their best shot with the NEP and Trudeau during the byelection though, maybe they can start something like this after Christmas:

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by blankall

Hardly a foregone conclusion? Really? When Alberta joined Canada it was under the agreement that they would have SOLE ownership of the natural resources within their border. The constitution is pretty thourough on the topic. It explicitely gives provinces control and ownership over all non-renewable resources.

Really.

Firstly, provincial resource ownership in Alberta is pursuant to the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement, not the British North America Act/Constitution Act.

Secondly, section 91 of the BNA Act grants the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over inter-provincial and international trade (indeed, the federal government continues to regulate inter-provincial and international energy trade through the National Energy Board.)

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

I met Justin Trudeau a few weeks ago in a Q&A session and was actually more impressed by him than I ever was during TV interviews or clips. However, I do not agree with people who think these comments are no big deal. He didn't say that Canada was in trouble because Conservatives from Alberta were running the government, he said that Albertans were the problem. I'm sort of happy this quote was dug up, because this presents a good opportunity to see how he responds to it and explains himself. I'm sure that every person in this thread will reserve judgement until they have listened to him with an open mind and carefully considered his explanation.

Tranny: I'm not sure why you're bringing up the NEP. He has publicly denounced the program and described it as a poorly designed plan to steal the wealth from one region to benefit every other region in the country.

He's no genius, but he is far from an idiot. The comments he made were foolish and divisive though.

As far as I know the only explanation that he's given for his comments is that he is being quoted out of context.

The comments were replayed on Sun TV on Thursday, one day after Mr. McGuinty’s resignation as the Liberal critic for natural resources, and prompted Mr. Trudeau to state they were taken “out of context.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle5579597/

I'm not impressed.

This quote in the article really made me laugh... especially when you take into consideration Justin Trudeau's comments about Albertans...

“Justin knows that Calgary, Alberta, and all of Western Canada are at the very heart of Canada’s future,” the Trudeau campaign said in a statement. “We need to get beyond the divisive politics of the Conservatives and include all Canadians.”

What a bunch of dorks.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Hardly a foregone conclusion. Although Lougheed threatened to challenge the National Energy Program in the courts, he chose not to, and instead negotiated a (largely unsatisfactory) revised agreement. One might speculate that the advice he was receiving from Department of Justice lawyers was that the NEP would likely survive constitutional scrutiny.



Yikes! Hyperbole!

He didn't challenge in court because he didn't trust the courts at the time, and because it was faster for him to announce that he was shutting down I think a quarter of the Alberta oil production which would have caused domestic oil prices to shoot through the roof thus forcing Trudeau to the table.

[Savvy27]

"I'm sorry I said what I did. I was wrong to relate the area of the country that Mr. (Stephen) Harper is from with the people who live there and with the policies that he has that don't represent the values of most Canadians," said Trudeau, who was speaking at the Vancouver Art Gallery, on the final stop of his B.C. tour.

From: http://www.vancouversun.com/Justin+T...#ixzz2D4KcPdVh

I'm not very impressed by the apology. It's just a quote and it hints at him at least differentiating between the values of a political party from the political culture of an entire region, but it seems like they are just trying to bury the story more than wanting to clarify or retract the comments.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

... he didn't trust the courts at the time...

Is that CPC-speak for "he was concerned that the Supreme Court might find that the NEP was intra-vires the powers of the federal government"? If so, that is exactly what I was saying.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Really.

Firstly, provincial resource ownership in Alberta is pursuant to the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement, not the British North America Act/Constitution Act.

Secondly, section 91 of the BNA Act grants the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over inter-provincial and international trade (indeed, the federal government continues to regulate inter-provincial and international energy trade through the National Energy Board.)

The feds have the ability to regulate. That's entirely different from ownership and actually collecting a portion of the funds. They can tell us who we can sell to, within reason, but they can't take a piece of the pie.

Edit: The idea is that Alberta doesn't have the right to, for example, make trade agreements with China. Clearly, the federal government represents Canada in international diplomacy. That doesn't equate to partial federal ownership.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Is that CPC-speak for "he was concerned that the Supreme Court might find that the NEP was intra-vires the powers of the federal government"? If so, that is exactly what I was saying.

I think he was saying he didn't trust the left leaning, trudeau-appointed judiciary that was currently dominating the supreme court.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Slava

I had much more of a post typed out, and I closed it accidentally. Bottom line, I'm bored with this thread already, but I wanted to help the CPC with their future campaign. I'm not too good with these things, so maybe someone like Joan Crockatt can clean this up. Since they've given their best shot with the NEP and Trudeau during the byelection though, maybe they can start something like this after Christmas:

Funny, but you lose points for using Comic Sans.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by blankall

The feds have the ability to regulate. That's entirely different from ownership and actually collecting a portion of the funds. They can tell us who we can sell to, within reason, but they can't take a piece of the pie.

Originally Posted by The British North America Act, 1867

91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,
...
3. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.

For example, the federal government of Canada already "takes a piece of the pie" by taxing all gasoline sold in Canada (through both sales taxes and excise taxes.)

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Why can't he be more like his father, or his brother?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I think he was saying he didn't trust the left leaning, trudeau-appointed judiciary that was currently dominating the supreme court.

I suppose you are referring primarily to the appointment (as recommended by Trudeau) of Chief Justice Laskin (a well known federalist). Fair enough, although it is worth noting that Laskin is generally most famous for his dissents and for his decision in the 1981 Patriation Reference, which was largely a rebuke to Trudeau's proposal to unilaterally patriate the BNA Act without provincial consent.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by blankall

That doesn't equate to partial federal ownership.

As far as I can tell (and I'm certainly no expert on the subject), the National Energy Program did not grant partial ownership of Alberta's energy resources to the federal government (indeed, to do so would have been directly inconsistent with the Natural Resource Transfer Agreement.)

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Why can't he be more like his father, or his brother?

I don't get it.

Muerte?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

I don't get it.

Muerte?

Black humor.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Makarov

For example, the federal government of Canada already "takes a piece of the pie" by taxing all gasoline sold in Canada (through both sales taxes and excise taxes.)

I would argue that any taxes that specifically target natural resources are unconstitutional. General income or sales taxes that happen to target income from people who are making money of natural resources are acceptable.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

If we did a poll of true CPC supporters, I would feel very confident in predicting at least 75% of them would like to kick Quebec out of Canada.

Oh, okay, I get it. You're insane. That clears things up. I can ignore you safely.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

So did you vote for the Liberal Party during the Chretien/Martin years when they gave us balanced/surplus budgets while simultaneously lowering both personal and corporate taxes?

Yes - my last vote for the Liberal party was for Paul Martin's liberals in 2004.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Thanks to Slava for these from the Calgary Centre Thread..


If we did a poll of true CPC supporters, I would feel very confident in predicting at least 75% of them would like to kick Quebec out of Canada.

Interesting idea. Do it here on CP and lets see what the results are.
Personally I think you may be wrong.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Oh, okay, I get it. You're insane. That clears things up. I can ignore you safely.

You really don't think so? Whenever I read something from a conservative, whether here or elsewhere, the complaining about Quebec getting special treatment, and the transfer programs and all that is out of control. When the PQ won the past election, many here were hopeful it would mean they would seperate. So you may think its insane, but I'm just going off what I see. Many CPC supporters do not like Quebec in any way shape or form. They view it as a parasitic leech for which Alberta (aka CPC's home turf) is paying for their very existence.

Edit: Just for fun, here's a poll that states 1/4 of ALL Canadians want to kick Quebec out and nearly half either do or aren't sure. So I really don't think 75% is that much of a stretch.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canad...182711116.html