Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Fun theory but I doubt it happens, the writ period is technically covered.

I was just going by what the article says, and I really don't know what is covered. Sounds in the article as though it's not covered and would expire next month.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So then your complaint should be that Harper has been soft on a Western pipeline, right?

Yep. He hasn't shown any leadership on the issue. The Provinces have a role to play of course, but they are acting like they have a veto and they don't. I agree with you that it would be political suicide for Harper to press a pipeline through BC using federal authority. But he should be showing leadership, the feds have a lot of levers to pull to get provinces to do things they want.

[Slava]

Lets be honest though, even if Harper or any PM were going to try to force that pipeline through, the first nations are going to go to the Supreme Court (along with the people chaining themselves to equipment, protesting and all that stuff). You (Delgar) probably have a better idea of that than me, due to your legal background.

[Kjesse]

I'm not well versed in the area but I have some basics down. This is a great article about pipelines and jurisdiction if anyone cares to read it, written by one of the foremost experts on the topic: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...ticle21887449/

I particularly like this paragraph: "These constitutional principles were the bases on which Canada was built. Had every province felt free to interfere with every interprovincial transportation project at will – or even to threaten it under the guise of unconstitutional “conditions” – there very possibly would have been no national railways and no Canada to speak of."

and then: "Ontario and Quebec long benefited from the national railways in the context of a national federation. Today, Alberta and Saskatchewan need to be able to transport their oil to market, and it is shameful if provinces that long benefited from the very same principles now act on some pretense as if they did not exist."

So that leads to the question, why has Harper shown so little leadership? Why do we always hear about these things between Provinces? West or East, the provinces are acting like they have a veto.

I suppose the factors include increased importance of the environmental issues, that the natives have found they can succeed with the courts where they can't with the politicians, and that some of the biggest corporate players still suffer from irresponsibility with the basics (ie. your pipeline shouldn't leak, and if it does, you detect it immediately).

[Fuzz]

If Harper had shown better leadership on environmental issues, maybe everyone wouldn't be so opposed to pipelines.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You aren't this dense, Slava. I have little doubt that you understand the value of controlling the message.

Are they controlling the message, tbhough?

Especially when you have people pointing out this Jan 2015 article when they were still gov't: http://www.bnn.ca/News/2015/1/9/Digi...consumers.aspx

Canada’s government is considering new tax rules to level the playing field for e-commerce vendors that complain foreign giants such as Amazon.com Inc., Apple Inc. and Netflix Inc. have an unfair edge when selling digital products.

A few short paragraphs in the 2014 federal budget invited input on “ensuring the effective collection of sales tax on e-commerce sales to Canadians by foreign-based vendors,” and whether to enforce mandatory collection, as the European Union and Norway already have.

The consultation has received little public attention, even though it may decide whether Canadian buyers pay tax on millions of digital purchases each year. Consumers could end up paying more for video streaming on Netflix (NFLX.O 2.11%) or music from iTunes if foreign-based companies lose the right to sell digital products tax-free in Canada

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If Harper had shown better leadership on environmental issues, maybe everyone wouldn't be so opposed to pipelines.

The failure to act on environmental issues is worldwide, not limited to Harper. Its now becoming a truly significant issue politically and it has taken a long time to get there. Despite this I still remember when Canada was fighting with the US over "Acid Rain", that was around 1980/81, it was the topic of the day. It became resolved within a decade, but despite this, US coal fired electrical generation has a carbon footprint still 50 times that of the oilsands. So why all this fighting over Keystone?

The cynical view, and I tend to agree with it, is that the US government is not so concerned about the environmental impact, but rather, don't want to give Canadian petroleum easier access to the world market via the Gulf Coast. Their own long term interests include keeping Canadian petroleum captive to themselves over the next 50 years.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

I was just going by what the article says, and I really don't know what is covered. Sounds in the article as though it's not covered and would expire next month.

It states in the article that privilege extends for 40 days after Parliament is dissolved and 40 days before the next sitting. Technically we don't know when the next sitting will begin but it could be within that time frame. Historically it's incredibly unlikely that whoever forms the next government will recall Parliament in the first week but there is nothing stopping it. A judge would really have to put himself out there to try and force him to testify. I'm not a lawyer but I'm guessing there would be some sort of appeal path? if so that would certainly eat up enough time.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If Harper had shown better leadership on environmental issues, maybe everyone wouldn't be so opposed to pipelines.

Right. Because literally the most strict environmental regulations in the entire world is not enough for you. What more leadership does he have to show, other than to convince the uneducated masses?

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If Harper had shown better leadership on environmental issues, maybe everyone wouldn't be so opposed to pipelines.

That's bull#### and you know it.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Delgar

The failure to act on environmental issues is worldwide, not limited to Harper. Its now becoming a truly significant issue politically and it has taken a long time to get there. Despite this I still remember when Canada was fighting with the US over "Acid Rain", that was around 1980/81, it was the topic of the day. It became resolved within a decade, but despite this, US coal fired electrical generation has a carbon footprint still 50 times that of the oilsands. So why all this fighting over Keystone?

Baseless. The "world" or other wealthy countries (including China) have done much more than Harper except for Australia. And the U.S. just regulated its carbon emissions from coal plants two days ago so... your point doesn't stand?

The cynical view, and I tend to agree with it, is that the US government is not so concerned about the environmental impact, but rather, don't want to give Canadian petroleum easier access to the world market via the Gulf Coast. Their own long term interests include keeping Canadian petroleum captive to themselves over the next 50 years.

That's not the cynical view, that's the crackpot conspiracy play-the-victim view. Laughable that some people who pretend to be in-the-know willingly believe this. The reason KXL has been stalled is because of mainly environmental activism in the U.S. in response to lack of Canadian action to regulate GHGs. Not some geopolitical chess game spawned up in Viviane Krause's basement.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Right. Because literally the most strict environmental regulations in the entire world is not enough for you. What more leadership does he have to show, other than to convince the uneducated masses?

So getting rid of our waterway protections was a good thing? Systematically dismantling scientific environmental monitoring and silencing scientists who may have something bad to say? Had he shown some leadership in the CO2 game earlier on, I strongly suspect KXL would have had a better chance. I'm not alone on thinking this.

Without the necessary infrastructure, Canada risks missing out on a vast opportunity for wealth and job creation.
How was this allowed to happen? The pipeline companies’ tin ears are partly to blame, but, ironically, so is Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s relentless oil and gas boosterism. Instead of convincing critics Canada could be trusted to develop a carbon-intensive resource in a sustainable fashion, Ottawa instead boasted about Canada’s “emerging energy superpower” status, lashed out at environmentalists and thumbed its nose at international climate change efforts, painting a target on the industry’s back in the process. Just a few weeks ago, Harper stood in the House of Commons and called the idea of federal emissions regulations for the oil and gas sector “crazy” when crude prices are falling (not that he was a fan when they were soaring). This while Canada and other countries were supposed to be laying groundwork for a global emissions deal during a climate change conference in Lima, Peru. “I can’t understand how he could be so careless with the oil industry, particularly the oil sands,” says David Anderson, a former Liberal environment minister. He argues that, in the case of Keystone XL, the federal government has allowed the project to become a poster child for climate change just as Obama is “trying to create an environmental legacy for himself in his last two years.”

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/otta...s-worst-enemy/

He has built the oil industry into the enemy of the other provinces, so it is an easy target for Ontario or Quebec to rally around. What I'm saying is if he had insisted on proper water monitoring at the oilsands and taken CO2 seriously others would be more likely to see Canada and Alberta as developing our oil industry responsibly and be more willing to allow pipelines. Instead, we are now the enemy.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

It states in the article that privilege extends for 40 days after Parliament is dissolved and 40 days before the next sitting. Technically we don't know when the next sitting will begin but it could be within that time frame. Historically it's incredibly unlikely that whoever forms the next government will recall Parliament in the first week but there is nothing stopping it. A judge would really have to put himself out there to try and force him to testify. I'm not a lawyer but I'm guessing there would be some sort of appeal path? if so that would certainly eat up enough time.

You might be right, but is a case to avoid testifying really the best campaign strategy? That seems like it would be pretty damaging. " I have nothing to hide because I didn't know anything, but I will fight tooth and nail to not say that under oath" doesn't give much confidence for some reason.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So getting rid of our waterway protections was a good thing? Systematically dismantling scientific environmental monitoring and silencing scientists who may have something bad to say? Had he shown some leadership in the CO2 game earlier on, I strongly suspect KXL would have had a better chance. I'm not alone on thinking this.


http://www.macleans.ca/politics/otta...s-worst-enemy/

He has built the oil industry into the enemy of the other provinces, so it is an easy target for Ontario or Quebec to rally around. What I'm saying is if he had insisted on proper water monitoring at the oilsands and taken CO2 seriously others would be more likely to see Canada and Alberta as developing our oil industry responsibly and be more willing to allow pipelines. Instead, we are now the enemy.

But wait I thought an NDP or Liberal government would spell disaster for Alberta in some fictious future according to Resolute.

Instead your pointing to actual history on how the Harper Government has been a disaster to Alberta?

What am I to think?

The walls around my epistemic closure bubble are thick. Impervious even to critical thinking.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So getting rid of our waterway protections was a good thing? Systematically dismantling scientific environmental monitoring and silencing scientists who may have something bad to say? Had he shown some leadership in the CO2 game earlier on, I strongly suspect KXL would have had a better chance. I'm not alone on thinking this.

So what does "getting rid of our waterway protections" mean to you?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle4622873/

Read that. Do you actually conclude that Harper is trying to destroy the environment by allowing provinces and municipalities to handle their own minor waterways?

And for the rest of your stuff, let's be real. There's literally nothing that Harper could've said or done in the last 10 years to convince you that KXL was a good idea. Don't try to spin yourself as some sort of fence-sitter that only hates pipelines because Harper is a big jerk.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Are they controlling the message, tbhough?

Especially when you have people pointing out this Jan 2015 article when they were still gov't: http://www.bnn.ca/News/2015/1/9/Digi...consumers.aspx

Yup. Today's morning show on X92.9 is a good example. While they did poke fun at Harper's Netflix tweet, as well as the Twitter reaction - "Harperizing" Neflix shows ("Orange is the new Government" was easily the best) - they also said this (close paraphrase): "Harper talked about his love of Netflix and would protect against a tax that he says the others would implement."

So while a lot of people are paying attention and reading articles like the one you post. All it took was a couple ignorant radio hosts to put the message Harper wanted out to a much larger group of people who will mostly only learn about the "issues" via disc jockeys. And that is just one radio station in one city.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

But wait I thought an NDP or Liberal government would spell disaster for Alberta in some fictious future according to Resolute.

Instead your pointing to actual history on how the Harper Government has been a disaster to Alberta?

What am I to think?

The walls around my epistemic closure bubble are thick. Impervious even to critical thinking.

Putting aside the fact that you are a hypocritical troll, you are also arguing a false dichotomy.

The opinion that the NDP would be an economic disaster for Alberta has no relationship to someone else's opintion that the Conservatives have been a disaster for Alberta.

Also, it's cute that you are trying to argue that economic protectionism isn't a thing in the US. Once again, via false dichotomy.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yup. Today's morning show on X92.9 is a good example. While they did poke fun at Harper's Netflix tweet, as well as the Twitter reaction - "Harperizing" Neflix shows ("Orange is the new Government" was easily the best) - they also said this (close paraphrase): "Harper talked about his love of Netflix and would protect against a tax that he says the others would implement."

So while a lot of people are paying attention and reading articles like the one you post. All it took was a couple ignorant radio hosts to put the message Harper wanted out to a much larger group of people who will mostly only learn about the "issues" via disc jockeys. And that is just one radio station in one city.

I suppose when you completely make up an issue, you can 100% control the message of this totally made up issue. I think Harper and the CPC thought they were being hip and cool in trying to attract younger voters (who use Netflix) with this one. Instead outside CPC supporters, he's getting lambasted and this is generally being thought of as a total embarrassment given that there are tons of real issues to talk about.

So if the goal was to have a message "CPC, more embarassing to Canadians than the other parties", mission accomplished I suppose.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Regorium

So what does "getting rid of our waterway protections" mean to you?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle4622873/

Read that. Do you actually conclude that Harper is trying to destroy the environment by allowing provinces and municipalities to handle their own minor waterways?

And for the rest of your stuff, let's be real. There's literally nothing that Harper could've said or done in the last 10 years to convince you that KXL was a good idea. Don't try to spin yourself as some sort of fence-sitter that only hates pipelines because Harper is a big jerk.

Given your response, I assume you have just read my opinion wrong. I am for KXL. I think most of the pipelines proposed are a very good idea, with the exception of Northern Gateway. I am for our oil industry. Just becuase I am, does that mean I need to support Harper? Hell no. I think his stances have caused more problems than solutions. You know the old expression, "catch more flies with honey than vinegar" well I think if Harper had done more to placate critics we would have more success. That's my opinion, and I'm not alone on it.

[Resolute 14]

Certainly Clay, a vocal subset of voters who were going to criticize Harper anyway are criticizing Harper. But that isn't the group he is targeting.