Alberta Election Thread - Election Day April 16 2019

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

I'd be surprised if Dion responds to this. He seems to only drive-by post with whatever anti-NDP stuff he finds on Facebook

Sorry to disappoint you but I thanked Fuzz for his post. No need to reply to something that is true.

Go check if you don't believe me

[Dion]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Notley and Hoffman's faces next week

More like this

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

For the group that had 89 conditions, what were they? Were they reasonable? Attainable? Do you really think if they had responded "No" to each of them instead of the general commitment they made that this nation would have been satisfied with that or the FCA would have considered that meaningful two way dialogue?

It's not about satisfying. There is no requirement to satisfy, just to engage, to meaningful consult. A bit more than an acknowledgement, give an explanation for why the conditions/concerns/requests/ were/weren't reasonable/justified/required.

As for the specific conditions, I don't have the complete list but the decision did acknowledge they were reasonable and specific (again give it a read, you very likely to change your mind about this being a political influenced decision). They included some as illustrations and it's heartbreaking if you have a conscious.

They weren't asking for Canada to give them the Northwest Territories and Manitoba in exchange for their support. They were asking to be notified about spills. Yeah, that's what the conditions entailed, I #### you not.

https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-...#_Introduction

[683] To illustrate the nature of the recommendations, section 17.2 of the ICA deals with recommendations to mitigate the Project’s impact on fisheries. Section 17.2.1 deals with Management and Planning in the context of fisheries mitigation. The recommended Management and Planning mitigation measures are:

17.2.1 Management and Planning

5. Stó:lō Fishing representatives will participate in the development and review of Fisheries Management Plans and water course crossing EPPs before construction and mitigation plans are finalized.

6. Stó:lō representatives will provide input on proposed locations for Hydrostatic test water withdrawal and release.

7. [The proponent] will consult with Stó:lō representatives to develop the Emergency Response Plans in the study area.

8. Stó:lō representatives will consult with community members to determine appropriate restoration plans for water crossings including bank armouring, seed mixes or replanting requirements.

9. Stó:lō fishing representatives must be notified if isolation methods will not work and [the proponent] is considering another crossing method.

10. Stó:lō representatives must be notified as soon as a spill or leak, of any size, is detected.

11. During water quality monitoring program, anything that fails to meet or exceed established guidelines will be reported to a Stó:lō Fisheries Representative within 12 hours.

[684] These measures are specific, brief and generally measured and reasonable. If implemented they would provide more detail to the Board’s generic conditions on consultation and require timely notification to the Stó:lō of events that may adversely impact their interests.

Spend three years asking to be notified about spills (and other pretty reasonable requests) and the Board, Trans Mountain and Canada couldn't just give you a straight, "sure if there's a spill in your area you will be notified with in 12 hours." And then they have the audacity to say there was some form of meaningful consultation? Could you imagine. You just want to know the fish you caught aren't contaminated with some reassurance but nope, too much to ask for apparently.

For other requests from other parties it was trickier, some asked for taxes and stuff like that. That would have been a lot harder to navigate and I understand the idea of just trying to avoid it all together. But the stuff above? Everyone who had even a peripheral involvement with Trans Mountain, the Board and Canada regarding this project should be fired and shamed.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

It's not about satisfying. There is no requirement to satisfy, just to engage, to meaningful consult. A bit more than an acknowledgement, give an explanation for why the conditions/concerns/requests/ were/weren't reasonable/justified/required.

As for the specific conditions, I don't have the complete list but the decision did acknowledge they were reasonable and specific (again give it a read, you very likely to change your mind about this being a political influenced decision). They included some as illustrations and it's heartbreaking if you have a conscious.

They weren't asking for Canada to give them the Northwest Territories and Manitoba in exchange for their support. They were asking to be notified about spills. Yeah, that's what the conditions entailed, I #### you not.

https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-...#_Introduction


Spend three years asking to be notified about spills (and other pretty reasonable requests) and the Board, Trans Mountain and Canada couldn't just give you a straight, "sure if there's a spill in your area you will be notified with in 12 hours." And then they have the audacity to say there was some form of meaningful consultation? Could you imagine. You just want to know the fish you caught aren't contaminated with some reassurance but nope, too much to ask for apparently.

For other requests from other parties it was trickier, some asked for taxes and stuff like that. That would have been a lot harder to navigate and I understand the idea of just trying to avoid it all together. But the stuff above? Everyone who had even a peripheral involvement with Trans Mountain, the Board and Canada regarding this project should be fired and shamed.

You’ve made some great posts here, thanks. But you also sound like a guy who’s never had to do consultation in BC. There is no level of consultation that will achieve what you and many others think it will achieve because people are using the system to fight projects every step of the way to further an American agenda.

That’s the point you’ve fundamentally missed. Your point about consultation on spills is excellent and accurate and I agree but then you immediately yourself go onto say that “well yeah there were others that wanted trickier things”. EXACTLY.

And for the naysayers that say there are no options or nothing we can do again you are wrong. There are things that sound eccentric or escalated or whatever, but they are options.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

You’ve made some great posts here, thanks. But you also sound like a guy who’s never had to do consultation in BC. There is no level of consultation that will achieve what you and many others think it will achieve because people are using the system to fight projects every step of the way to further an American agenda.

That’s the point you’ve fundamentally missed. Your point about consultation on spills is excellent and accurate and I agree but then you immediately yourself go onto say that “well yeah there were others that wanted trickier things”. EXACTLY.

Again, read the decision and it's not above giving them what they want. It's about showing that you heard, and giving them reasons and justifications. Compromises when possible even. The implication is that now someone has to go out and actual do it.

But consultation does not mean satisfaction.

And the hands of the justices were tied by that pesky constitution. They had to determine if there was meaningful consultation, not how it can be done. And they clearly showed that there was a lack of meaningful consultation. Ergo the decision.

Also we have to be careful about getting trapped in the "these very specific First Nations don't want the pipeline, so who cares about actually consulting with a different First Nations with reasonable concerns and respecting their treaty rights" line of thinking. Let's not stereotype them all as one, we have a decision which I think anyone who reads can see that there was a lack of meaningful consultation, so why go out of our way to try and justify stepping on the rights of First Nations at this point?

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

And for the naysayers that say there are no options or nothing we can do again you are wrong. There are things that sound eccentric or escalated or whatever, but they are options.

The easiest thing that 'we' could have done, and have now done, is actually go and consult with the First Nations and give some thought about the tankers and whales? Why not see what happens with that first? What's more rational, going and talking to an Indigenous group to see there concerns and try and make reasonable accommodations - like letting them know when a spill has occurred - or seceding from Canada?

[Mr.Coffee]

Lol there are no treaty rights in BC that’s exactly the problem.

Also yeah you think all this doesn’t mean full satisfaction??? That’s exactly what Bill C 69 will be- get ready for it. That’s Trudeau’s goal. Listen to how he talks about these projects.

Also why the marine environment impact assessment? Makes no sense and is a standard not applied to any other industry. If we think it does make sense than every single boat or tanker or ferry or whatever should be subject to same. In fact MORESO the Bc ferries which may have actually more detrimental impacts to marine life.

So many double standards, goal posts moving, nebulous terms, and unfair practices and this is how we get this.

We’ll see what happens Oling but I can assure you, Canada without an oil industry is worse off and that’s the rapid direction we are headed, regardless if people think we are being fair or reasonable or responsible or whatever.

We’ve pushed industry too far. That much is clear.

[Regorium]

I'm not surprised about the indigenous consultation one. I'm definitely surprised about considering the killer whales.

Consider that ferries and cruise ships and every other type of ship has exponentially more impact on killer whales, I'm surprised that the judges thought it was a reasonable request to ask TMX/NEB to do a study on killer whales. It's just outside of their scope.

I mean NEB ended up saying the obvious anyways, which is that 6 extra tankers a week is not going to have any significant impact on the killer whales, but it definitely should not be in their scope.

No other marine traffic in the Salish Sea considers the killer whales, why should TMX be singled out? Through this court order, I'm wondering what other companies should be forced to do a marine assessment - for example, a cruise company that wants to increase the number of cruises they offer, or BC Ferries trying to increase capacity by running more frequently.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Lol there are no treaty rights in BC that’s exactly the problem.

Sorry, should have said Aboriginal Rights. It's Section 35.
"“35(1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal people in Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed."

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Also yeah you think all this doesn’t mean full satisfaction??? That’s exactly what Bill C 69 will be- get ready for it. That’s Trudeau’s goal. Listen to how he talks about these projects.

Trans Mountain was approved and then the appeal decision came from a separate entity in the form of the Court of Appeal saying we didn't consult -and providing ample evidence. Again, by judges not associated with Trudeau.

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Also why the marine environment impact assessment? Makes no sense and is a standard not applied to any other industry. If we think it does make sense than every single boat or tanker or ferry or whatever should be subject to same. In fact MORESO the Bc ferries which may have actually more detrimental impacts to marine life.

If a project is going to increase ferry traffic and potential for spills and potentially harm sensitive species, it's not too much for the regulatory body overseeing the project to consider that aspect. Again, consider. All the NEB had to do was say, we've looked at the studies, predictions, models, evidence, but instead they said it was out of scope and there was no environmental effects. It was pretty contradictory and the decision made a good case about it.

Your acting like these judges are evil cartoon characters twirling their mustaches in evil laughter but the decision paints a perfectly reasonable if unfortunate (for Albertans...) outcome.

[Mr.Coffee]

The other sorta not talked about issue is that consultation formally is supposed to be the NEB’s responsibility that they’ve in practice sloughed off to industry for decades.

So if the problem is consultation is not being properly conducted....... who’s fault really is it here? Oh yeah the government.

Also where was the complaints when BC was acting unconstitutional to Alberta on this one??

[monkeyman]

Does anyone know how many extra tankers the LNG project is going to add to the BC coast, and if an assessment was done on that?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

So if the problem is consultation is not being properly conducted....... who’s fault really is it here? Oh yeah the government.

Yes. I think we finally agree on something. Assuming you mean Federal Government via the NEB. And I get where the NEB is confused but again that goes back to the Federal Government.

The point was, there wasn't proper consultation. Alberta got ####ed because of the Federal Government, but it's not something Kenney would have been able to stop.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I'm not surprised about the indigenous consultation one. I'm definitely surprised about considering the killer whales.

Consider that ferries and cruise ships and every other type of ship has exponentially more impact on killer whales, I'm surprised that the judges thought it was a reasonable request to ask TMX/NEB to do a study on killer whales. It's just outside of their scope.

I mean NEB ended up saying the obvious anyways, which is that 6 extra tankers a week is not going to have any significant impact on the killer whales, but it definitely should not be in their scope.

No other marine traffic in the Salish Sea considers the killer whales, why should TMX be singled out? Through this court order, I'm wondering what other companies should be forced to do a marine assessment - for example, a cruise company that wants to increase the number of cruises they offer, or BC Ferries trying to increase capacity by running more frequently.

I believe ferry traffic is projected to increase significantly as well.

Transportation Minister Claire Trevena said the comprehensive report has tasked her staff to work on a long-term vision for the ferry system “and to connect coastal communities in a more integrated manner.”

Trevena released the report while announcing that the province will restore 2,700 round-trip sailings on 10 ferry routes that were cut in 2014.

https://www.timescolonist.com/busine...014-1.23643411

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

Stop me if too far off topic, but why are elections in Canada still being held on a Tuesday? Has everyone just given up on attempting to raise voter turnout?

Move it to a Saturday, or have fixed dates with a holiday..

It has never been easier to vote. I decided to vote today, googled Alberta election, got a link to the page, clicked "find voting station" then "directions". Was there in 10 minutes, voted in 5 minutes without a voter card. A holiday is just ridiculous.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

Does anyone know how many extra tankers the LNG project is going to add to the BC coast, and if an assessment was done on that?

Edit: sorry didn’t realize you said LNG tankers

Up to 35 total (up from 6)...and the new standards are impacting other forms of shipping.

Highly recommended this ARC Energy podcast interview with the Transmountain CEO

https://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/...438664577?mt=2

[calf]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Proportionally 20%, grossly 2%. Both figures are correct, both are useless on their own. Maybe we can all just be accurate/honest and say from 10% to 12%?

For Provincial taxes. The Federal rate stayed the same at 15%, and is calculated virtually the same way. So, a company's total tax bill went from 25% to 27%, or a 8% proportional increase.

[Corral]

If Notley and Trudeau are as chummy as the UCPers would like us to believe, one would think that the Liberals would perhaps have approved TMX in time for Notley to take credit for securing bitumen to tidewater.

Bold Prediction: If the UCP win the election, the Liberals will kill TMX to ensure Kenney gets no credit for the pipeline. There are plenty more federal Liberal votes to gain in the lower mainland than there is in the entire province of Alberta.

[kermitology]

Thread:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1116114506281709570

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Regorium

No other marine traffic in the Salish Sea considers the killer whales, why should TMX be singled out? Through this court order, I'm wondering what other companies should be forced to do a marine assessment - for example, a cruise company that wants to increase the number of cruises they offer, or BC Ferries trying to increase capacity by running more frequently.

I'd imagine regulators for these activities already have this included in their process (or certainly will now if they don't already).

Judges can only rule on the cases in front of them. If someone wants to present a compelling court challenge to one of these other proposed activities that was insufficiently, the outcome would likely be similar.

The corollary would actually be if there was a plan to build a giant new cruise ship port - of course the marine environment would have been top of mind in the approval process with Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans...but, what if they failed to consider the impact to the town it will be a part of. Is it unreasonable to consider what happens to the 5000 tourists that step off each ship that comes to port?

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

You’ve made some great posts here, thanks. But you also sound like a guy who’s never had to do consultation in BC. There is no level of consultation that will achieve what you and many others think it will achieve because people are using the system to fight projects every step of the way to further an American agenda.

This will surprise no one, but each FN also has it's own agenda. They don't give two craps about the American agenda. Of course, they're not going to refuse support (financial, strategic, or otherwise). Their desired outcomes may align, but it's simply BS to diminish their concerns on this alone. I'd be very interested to see a detailed post similar to what Ollig has down that actually breaks down their concerns. That would actually advance the conversation compared with bitching about TIDES & co. playing chess while our gov't and industry play checkers.

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Also why the marine environment impact assessment? Makes no sense and is a standard not applied to any other industry. If we think it does make sense than every single boat or tanker or ferry or whatever should be subject to same. In fact MORESO the Bc ferries which may have actually more detrimental impacts to marine life.

Whataboutism. Again, feel free to file a court challenge. Or send a letter to Depts of Fisheries/Oceans and Transportation. Do you think environmental regulations for those activities haven't gotten tighter over the years, too?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Corral

If Notley and Trudeau are as chummy as the UCPers would like us to believe, one would think that the Liberals would perhaps have approved TMX in time for Notley to take credit for securing bitumen to tidewater.

Bold Prediction: If the UCP win the election, the Liberals will kill TMX to ensure Kenney gets no credit for the pipeline. There are plenty more federal Liberal votes to gain in the lower mainland than there is in the entire province of Alberta.

Please do some more reading on the timeline of TMX approvals and speedbumps to date before commenting again.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Thread:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1116114506281709570

People are really grasping at straws here - not a single comment in that hyperbolic "takedown" is relevant to policy or platform. What an embarrassment.