Justin Trudeau running for Liberal leadership

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Bootsy

It's poor logic to think that the move was a politically motivated one not an environmental one?
If the rest of Canada was so concerned about the environment why exempt one industry in an area of the country where the Liberals just happened to have had a lot of seats ?
Shouldn't all industries have to follow the same standards?

There are a number of plausible, pragmatic reasons for the exemption. For example, at the time, one industry was on the brink of collapse whereas the other was swimming in profits.

Also, the federal government apparently swapped factory emissions targets for fuel efficiency targets on vehicles.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Makarov

There are a number of plausible, pragmatic reasons for the exemption. For example, at the time, one industry was on the brink of collapse whereas the other was swimming in profits.

That's not a reason to exempt them, it's a reason for salaries in the sector to go down.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by SebC

That's not a reason to exempt them, it's a reason for salaries in the sector to go down.

Regardless, the flaw in the argument is that pandering to Ontario = malice towards Alberta.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by rubecube

And AdScam is a drop in the bucket compared to Harper's missing $3 billion.

I hear this all the time - and report indicated that the money was unaccounted for between 2001-2009 - last i checked Harper wasn't in government until 2006. And regardless of who was in power the money isn't "missing" just unaccounted for, which could of mean't not ever spent.

So Harper's missing 3 billion?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Regardless, the flaw in the argument is that pandering to Ontario = malice towards Alberta.

It would've been harmful to Alberta though, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by SebC

It would've been harmful to Alberta though, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but it doesn't make it an intentional act of malice. Would it have been better for Canada as a whole is the most important question. I do find it hilarious when Albertans bitch about Quebec being selfish and only voting for whichever party caters to their interests.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I never insinuated they are covered up, only that they are typically dealt with by a) the company that had the spill, b) the company hired to clean up (sometimes handled internally) and c) the ERCB.

There are hundreds of spills in Alberta a year, most are minor, but they do occur.

A nice overview I just came across.

A 2007 Alberta Energy Utilities Board report on pipeline performance found that between 1990 and 2005, the province’s pipeline system suffered 4,769 pipeline releases of hydrocarbon liquids (most of which were crude oil or synthetic crude). Of those releases, 4,717 were less than 100 cubic metres (1 cubic metre = 1,000 litres), 46 were between 100 and 1,000 cubic metres, and 6 were between 1,000 and 10,000 cubic metres. And in 2006, corrosion of the Rainbow Pipeline caused a rupture and oil spill of 1,260 cubic metres of crude oil twenty kilometres southeast of Slave Lake, the same pipeline that burst last week.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but it doesn't make it an intentional act of malice. Would it have been better for Canada as a whole is the most important question. I do find it hilarious when Albertans bitch about Quebec being selfish and only voting for whichever party caters to their interests.

The answer, of course, being "heck no!" Implementing Kyoto would've been disastrous, but to be fair we didn't really do much in terms of actually implementing it under the Liberals, so I don't see much difference between the (pre-Dion) Liberals and the Conservatives regarding Kyoto. The Conservatives took Canada out of the accord officially, but unofficially we were never really in it.

Regarding Quebec, we resent them for being better than us at getting concessions from the federal government. It's our own fault though because we always vote Conservative.

[killer_carlson]

My job between undergrad and law school was to do some research for a group hired to examine the economic impact of implementing Kyoto.

The economic effects were devastating. if memory serves correct, Alberta and Ontario got absolutely hammered, with the remaining provinces hurt substantially except for two. A cap and trade system transferred enormous wealth into manitoba and quebec. It has been a while since i reviewed the results though.

One thing that blew my mind in the research was the lack of credit given to Canada's enormous carbon sinks in terms of forest and grasslands. There was some good research being done by the university of saskatchewan trying to quantify how much carbon is sequestered in canada. Very difficult to quantify. Canada did a poor job negotiating on this point back when they signed on.

Kyoto is a seperate discussion because both the Libs and the Conservatives failed to act.

Back to justin though, can a Lib supporter please reconcile how justin can make the coments about the senate, yet still try to campaign as a national leader? Seriously.

[Plett25]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Back to justin though, can a Lib supporter please reconcile how justin can make the coments about the senate, yet still try to campaign as a national leader? Seriously.

I suspect the rationale will be eerily similar to a Conservative reconciliation of Stephen Harper's firewall letter and Harper's suitability for PM.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Kyoto is a seperate discussion because both the Libs and the Conservatives failed to act succeeded to not act.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Good old Tranny. Demands the highest standards and burden of proof wrt to Rob Ford, doesn't give a lick what the truth is wrt Trudeau.

You better get over to the 'Robocall' thread. Someone is saying bad things about Stephen Harper. He needs you now, more than ever.

LOL...ok Jean Junior.

Explain this please....

“We have 24 senators from Quebec and there are just six from Alberta and six from British Columbia. That’s to our advantage,” Trudeau said.

Who is "our"?

You seem to believe you addressed this earlier...you didnt. Even the Premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan are wondering as well....

Alberta Premier Alison Redford and Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall both said they’re “disappointed” Trudeau said the current Senate gives Quebec an advantage over economically powerful B.C. and Alberta.

“He opposes abolition because Senate status quo gives advantage to Quebec over the West,” Wall wrote on his Twitter account.

Redford stated on Twitter that there is “no need to pit” B.C. and Alberta “against regions,” adding: “We need elected, equal Senate, accountable to Canadians.”

[Smartcar]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Who is "our"?

You seem to believe you addressed this earlier...you didnt. Even the Premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan are wondering as well....

At the same time as being leader of the Liberal party, he's the member for Papineau. So obviously in an interview with la Presse, "our" would mean the people he directly represents. It's not pitting regions against each other, it's merely making a statement of fact.

Elected without equal, never mind effective, is a dumb idea and would give the senate legitimacy it does not deserve given the current distribution of seats.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Smartcar

It's not pitting regions against each other, it's merely making a statement of fact.

Nobody is stupid enough to believe that.

"We have 24 senators from Quebec and there are just six from Alberta and British Columbia. It’s to our advantage."

Yup, that doesn't pit regions against each other at all.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Smartcar

At the same time as being leader of the Liberal party, he's the member for Papineau. So obviously in an interview with la Presse, "our" would mean the people he directly represents. It's not pitting regions against each other, it's merely making a statement of fact.

Elected without equal, never mind effective, is a dumb idea and would give the senate legitimacy it does not deserve given the current distribution of seats.

You can play the spin game all you want, that's your perogative.

Fact is, and its abundantly clear, is that a leader of a federal party, who has a lot of support on this board alone, has focussed on dividing the country with his stance on where PM's should come from and what is best for his home area. Not whats best for Canada, as you state yourself, but whats best for him in order to get elected. Thats fine BTW, but lets call it what it is. Political pandering without a single bit of regard for a large chunk of the country he wishes to govern.

I have no problem with that if he states it as part of his platform...but he wont.

[transplant99]

A timely opinion piece in todays Herald about this very subject

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...251/story.html

[FlamesAddiction]

Personally, I think with our parliamentary system, an elected senate would just become a redundant house of representives. An appointed senate may not be the most democratic way of doing it, but it ensures representation from groups of national significance that wouldn't stand a chance in elections. It also allows them to have a rational 2nd look without having to worry about election factors.

Although, I think the bigger problem may be the actual parliamentary system to begin with (as it's already a flawed democracy), but I don't see a Canadian Republic within my lifetime unfortunately.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Fact is, and its abundantly clear, is that a leader of a federal party, who has a lot of support on this board alone, has focussed on dividing the country with his stance on where PM's should come from and what is best for his home area. Not whats best for Canada, as you state yourself, but whats best for him in order to get elected. Thats fine BTW, but lets call it what it is. Political pandering without a single bit of regard for a large chunk of the country he wishes to govern.

That's okay, maybe he'll get elected by pandering to his home province and turn his back on it in record time.

Like Harper.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by psycnet

that's okay, maybe he'll get elected by pandering to his home province and turn his back on it in record time.

Like harper.

lol!!

[MarchHare]

Some of you get so worked up over the most trivial things.

He was speaking to a Quebec audience via a member of the Quebec media. Perhaps his point would have been better made if he had said "It's to Quebec's advantage," but it's not out-of-line for him to use the word "our" in that context.

And, of course, you're completely ignoring that he was explaining how the current system is unfair to Alberta and BC and that if Canada is to reform the upper chamber, then those provinces should have more senators.

Man, I'm far from a Trudeau fan, but at least criticize him over something of substance.