Alberta Election Thread - Election Day April 16 2019

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Zarley

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

No, it’s not related to policy or platform. It’s related to the personal integrity of Kenney. You think this man is going to save you? Okay.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by kermitology

No, it’s not related to policy or platform. It’s related to the personal integrity of Kenney. You think this man is going to save you? Okay.

Save us from what? I think you misunderstand why people are going to vote in the UCP.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Save us from what? I think you misunderstand why people are going to vote in the UCP.

Oh, I understand. I just believe that it’s a platform to get you to vote for them and they won’t end up doing anything positive for Alberta. Because it’s coming from a head with zero integrity. Anything to win.

[transplant99]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1116085657183477760

[Dion]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1116114550670053376

[nik-]

Imagine dealing with 18 months of this. I'm so tired

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Regorium

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.

Wait. What? No, it didn't. It literally concluded the exact opposite. I've quoted the relevant portions before. The issue is that it decided it was not in the project scope and therefore the "project" was considered to have no significant environmental concerns and it, and ultimately Canada as the decision maker, failed to properly consider the Species at Risk Act. The Board even used the wording "catastrophic" with respect to a spill on the species.

The decisions and reports are publicly available, you can just read them if you're so inclined instead of spreading misinformation.

https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/Filing/A77045

The Board is of the view that the Southern resident killer whale population has crossed a threshold
where any additional adverse environmental effects would be considered significant. The Board is
also of the view that the current level of vessel traffic in the RSA and the predicted future increase of
vessel traffic in the RSA, even excluding the Project related marine vessels, have and would increase
the pressure on the Southern resident killer whale population. Trans Mountain’s Summary of Existing
and Future Vessel Movements at Five Locations in the RSA indicates that Project-related marine
vessels would represent a maximum of 13.9 per cent of all vessel traffic in the RSA, excluding Burrard
Inlet, and would decrease over time as the volume of marine vessel movements in RSA is anticipated
to grow. While the effects from Project-related marine vessels will be a small fraction of the total
cumulative effects, the Board acknowledges that this increase in marine vessels associated with the
Project would further contribute to cumulative effects that are already jeopardizing the recovery of
the Southern resident killer whale. The effects associated with Project-related marine vessels will
impact numerous individuals of the Southern resident killer whale population in a habitat identified
as critical to the recovery and classifies the effects as high magnitude. Consequently, the Board finds
that the operation of Project-related marine vessels is likely to result in significant adverse effects to
the Southern resident killer whale

The Board agrees with DFO and Trans Mountain that there
is no direct mitigation Trans Mountain can apply to reduce or eliminate potential adverse effects
from Project-related marine vessels. The Board recognizes that altering vessel operations, such as
shifting shipping lanes away from marine mammal congregation areas or reducing marine vessel
speed, can be an effective mitigation to reduce impacts on marine mammals from marine shipping.
However, these potential mitigation measures are outside of the Board’s regulatory authority, and out
of Trans Mountain’s control. The Board encourages other regulatory authorities, such as Transport
Canada or Fisheries and Oceans Canada which regulate the marine environment and marine traffic,
to explore any such initiatives that would aim to reduce the potential effects of marine vessels on
marine mammals.

The Board is of the view that with the implementation of Trans Mountain’s environmental protection procedures
and mitigation, and the Board’s recommended conditions, the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse
environmental effects. Therefore, pursuant to the CEAA 2012, the Board recommends that the GIC decide that the
designated Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects

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

[454] By defining the Project not to include Project-related marine shipping, the Board failed to consider its obligations under the Species at Risk Act when it considered the Project’s impact on the Southern resident killer whale. Had it done so, in light of its recommendation that the Project be approved, subsection 79(2) of the Species at Risk Act required the Board to ensure, if the Project was carried out, that “measures are taken to avoid or lessen” the Project’s effects on the Southern resident killer whale and to monitor those measures.

[455] While I recognize the Board could not regulate shipping, it was nonetheless obliged to consider the consequences at law of its inability to “ensure” that measures were taken to ameliorate the Project’s impact on the Southern resident killer whale. However, the Board gave no consideration in its report to the fact that it recommended approval of the Project without any measures being imposed to avoid or lessen the Project’s significant adverse effects upon the Southern resident killer whale.

[456] Because marine shipping was beyond the Board’s regulatory authority, it assessed the effects of marine shipping in the absence of mitigation measures and did not recommend any specific mitigation measures. Instead it encouraged other regulatory authorities “to explore any such initiatives” (report, page 349). While the Board lacked authority to regulate marine shipping, the final decision-maker was not so limited. In my view, in order to substantially comply with section 79 of the Species at Risk Act the Governor in Council required the Board’s exposition of all technically and economically feasible measures that are available to avoid or lessen the Project’s effects on the Southern resident killer whale. Armed with this information the Governor in Council would be in a position to see that, if approved, the Project was not approved until all technically and economically feasible mitigation measures within the authority of the federal government were in place. Without this information the Governor in Council lacked the necessary information to make the decision required of it.
....
[470] The unjustified exclusion of Project-related marine shipping from the definition of the Project thus resulted in successive deficiencies such that the Board’s report was not the kind of “report” that would arm the Governor in Council with the information and assessments it required to make its public interest determination and its decision about environmental effects and their justification. In the language of Gitxaala this resulted in a report so deficient that it could not qualify as a “report” within the meaning of the legislation and it was unreasonable for the Governor in Council to rely upon it. The Board’s finding that the Project was not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects was central to its report. The unjustified failure to assess the effects of marine shipping under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and the resulting flawed conclusion about the effects of the Project was so critical that the Governor in Council could not functionally make the kind of assessment of the Project’s environmental effects and the public interest that the legislation requires.

[764] In these reasons I have concluded that the Board failed to comply with its statutory obligation to scope and assess the Project so as to provide the Governor in Council with a “report” that permitted the Governor in Council to make its decision whether to approve the Project. The Board unjustifiably excluded Project-related shipping from the Project’s definition.

[765] This exclusion of Project-related shipping from the Project’s definition permitted the Board to conclude that section 79 of the Species at Risk Act did not apply to its consideration of the effects of Project-related shipping. Having concluded that section 79 did not apply, the Board was then able to conclude that, notwithstanding its conclusion that the operation of Project-related vessels is likely to result in significant adverse effects to the Southern resident killer whale, the Project was not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.

[766] This finding—that the Project was not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects—was central to its report. The unjustified failure to assess the effects of Project-related shipping under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and the resulting flawed conclusion about the environmental effects of the Project was critical to the decision of the Governor in Council. With such a flawed report before it, the Governor in Council could not legally make the kind of assessment of the Project’s environmental effects and the public interest that the legislation requires.
....
[770] Specifically, the Board ought to reconsider on a principled basis whether Project-related shipping is incidental to the Project, the application of section 79 of the Species at Risk Act to Project-related shipping, the Board’s environmental assessment of the Project in the light of the Project’s definition, the Board’s recommendation under subsection 29(1) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and any other matter the Governor in Council should consider appropriate.

I do admit this one is a little harder to really understand as the board does a good job of discussing how bad this project could be to the species in its report. The problem really stems from its conclusion to "recommend that the GIC decide that the designated Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects"..if it had just included "except to marine mammals as a result of the extra traffic" would that have really had a huge effect on the overall decision by the GIC?

It's getting into legalesse. But I guess the appeal judges saw it as "As a result of this project there's the potential significant adverse environmental effects, however, if you don't look at this portion of the project, then there are no environmental effects to worry about" which is somewhat foolish.

[nik-]

But that won't stop increased ferry and cruise ship traffic for some strange reason. I guess those don't add to the critical threshold.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

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

Not sure what you mean. The Federal court quashed the initial approval in the summer 20018. the NEB issued its revised report recommending the fed government approve the TMX expansion in February. The feds initiated renewed consultations with indigenous groups back in the Fall 2018 - under the direction of a retired SCC judge. Plenty of time to finish that process if the goal was to approve the expansion by now.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by kermitology

No, it’s not related to policy or platform. It’s related to the personal integrity of Kenney. You think this man is going to save you? Okay.

Save me? Yikes - this isn't some personality cult here! I know a lot of people care about the personal characteristics of party leaders, but I tend not to get caught up in that stuff. My chief concerns - in this and any other election - revolve around fiscal and economic policy. For the record, I'm neither here nor there on Kenney.

It's evident that you've bought into this narrative about Kenney that the NDP have been pushing (rather than actually running a campaign), but I think you'd be well served in taking a step back and thinking critically about the content in that link you posted. Aside from being context-less snapshots that are biased by the accompanying text, and the general inadequacy of Twitter as an information medium; the allegations presented are fairly implausible:

- What's conveniently glossed over is that out of 100,000 email addresses, only 49 were flagged by CBC as suspicious - thats's .05%.
- Politics in northeast Calgary are old school. Tammany Hall style machine tactics are commonplace, particularly amongst the Punjabi community. There are all kinds of community bigshots who fancy themselves as power brokers. The type of stuff reported by CBC is unfortunately commonplace (think back to the last Federal Tory leadership race when someone was caught giving out gift cards to pay for memberships). I'm not surprised to see that happening, but it's likely connected to a community organizer rather than some concerted effort by the Kenney camp.
- The financial stuff related to Jeff Callaway is certainly more concerning, however the motive for Kenney to interfere in the leadership race simply doesn't exist. He was always favoured to win by a sizable margin, he would have known this, and in the end he nearly doubled the vote of the nearest competitor. For me, it's these numbers that make the vote rigging allegations implausible. He'd have to be a psychopath to risk everything to game a race he was sure to win regardless.

My point is that it's good to step back and take these things with a grain of salt.

Having said all that - this election is not a referendum on the personal traits of the party leaders, it's about making Alberta an attractive place for capital again. I think Rachel Notley's a fine person and I'd much rather have a beer with her than Jason Kenney, but one party has a decent vision that should work to improve business confidence in this province and the other is comprised of people who fundamentally lack an understanding of how wealth is created in a market economy.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by nik-

But that won't stop increased ferry and cruise ship traffic for some strange reason. I guess those don't add to the critical threshold.

I feel like you're missing the point. The Federal Court of Appeal is not saying the pipeline shouldn't be approved because of whales. It really isn't ruling on the pipeline at all. It's discussing the report of the NEB in this situation.

What it is saying is that despite the Board agreeing that the project related traffic could result in significant (the NEB's word) adverse effects on the whale population, that drawing a conclusion that there were no significant adverse effects was a mistake.

That's what the NEB's role really is. Making a report with recommendations to the Governor in Council to help facilitate a decision. If the report says there are no significant adverse effects, therefore you should approve it, as its ultimately outcome, but there is known adverse effects, there's appears to be a disconnect there. Maybe if its ultimately environment conclusion said, "Hey, there is potential for significant environmental effects on whales but we still recommend it be approved if proper consideration is given to the Species at Risk act by the GIC" and the GIC was "Okay cool, let's approve it despite the whales" that saves their bacon. It's not probably not quite that easy but it would have been a huge leap in the right direction.

And again, I think there's less justification about the whale issue then there is with the consultation issues because (as an idiot non-lawyer) the consultation stuff is much more clear that something went amiss.


In any case, my last post (in this thread) about this because, as my original point was, this isn't Alberta related - it's federal. It had nothing to do with Notley and Kenney wouldn't have made sure the federally run NEB considered the whales had he been in power. The same appeal ruling would have happened and the same pipeline would be on hold until consultation was done.

[TKB]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Save me? Yikes - this isn't some personality cult here! I know a lot of people care about the personal characteristics of party leaders, but I tend not to get caught up in that stuff. My chief concerns - in this and any other election - revolve around fiscal and economic policy. For the record, I'm neither here nor there on Kenney.

It's evident that you've bought into this narrative about Kenney that the NDP have been pushing (rather than actually running a campaign), but I think you'd be well served in taking a step back and thinking critically about the content in that link you posted. Aside from being context-less snapshots that are biased by the accompanying text, and the general inadequacy of Twitter as an information medium; the allegations presented are fairly implausible:

- What's conveniently glossed over is that out of 100,000 email addresses, only 49 were flagged by CBC as suspicious - thats's .05%.
- Politics in northeast Calgary are old school. Tammany Hall style machine tactics are commonplace, particularly amongst the Punjabi community. There are all kinds of community bigshots who fancy themselves as power brokers. The type of stuff reported by CBC is unfortunately commonplace (think back to the last Federal Tory leadership race when someone was caught giving out gift cards to pay for memberships). I'm not surprised to see that happening, but it's likely connected to a community organizer rather than some concerted effort by the Kenney camp.
- The financial stuff related to Jeff Callaway is certainly more concerning, however the motive for Kenney to interfere in the leadership race simply doesn't exist. He was always favoured to win by a sizable margin, he would have known this, and in the end he nearly doubled the vote of the nearest competitor. For me, it's these numbers that make the vote rigging allegations implausible. He'd have to be a psychopath to risk everything to game a race he was sure to win regardless.

My point is that it's good to step back and take these things with a grain of salt.

Having said all that - this election is not a referendum on the personal traits of the party leaders, it's about making Alberta an attractive place for capital again. I think Rachel Notley's a fine person and I'd much rather have a beer with her than Jason Kenney, but one party has a decent vision that should work to improve business confidence in this province and the other is comprised of people who fundamentally lack an understanding of how wealth is created in a market economy.

Couldn’t have said it any better myself.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Having said all that - this election is not a referendum on the personal traits of the party leaders, it's about making Alberta an attractive place for capital again. I think Rachel Notley's a fine person and I'd much rather have a beer with her than Jason Kenney, but one party has a decent vision that should work to improve business confidence in this province and the other is comprised of people who fundamentally lack an understanding of how wealth is created in a market economy.

I believe that's in the eye of the beholder. Some may see attracting capital coming back, but others may see something different - nothing is for sure. Personally all I see happening so far is a lot of quacking and noise making at the federal government on a variety of topics (pipelines, carbon tax, Bills, equalization, etc.), an over-reliance on trickle-down economics and a fundamental misunderstanding or refusal to understand that we are no longer the same energy industry that existed 10-15 years ago.

Then we have Andrew Scheer coming into town in support of Kenney's campaign (not to mention the Harper's I believe). The Conservative agenda is in full force. I'm sure Doug Ford is readying the party wagon for a march down Queen Street.

Kenney may succeed - but my guess is that he won't repair much in this province, he'll simply be a placebo for voters concerned about the economy and thinking conservative economics will fix everything.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by transplant99

https://twitter.com/user/status/1116085657183477760

NDP is scraping the bottom of the barrel here with these decisive tactics. I'm actually kind of shocked just how bad the NDP has come off when you look at stuff like this, the fake UCP "another BOZO" signs, lame attack ads, etc. I fail to see where the NDP is socially any more progressive than the UCP which is essentially the basket they are putting all their eggs in.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Oh, I understand. I just believe that it’s a platform to get you to vote for them and they won’t end up doing anything positive for Alberta. Because it’s coming from a head with zero integrity. Anything to win.

Is this what you are referring to when discussing integrity?

https://globalnews.ca/news/5154020/a...ake-ucp-signs/

Just asking.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

NDP is scraping the bottom of the barrel here with these decisive tactics. I'm actually kind of shocked just how bad the NDP has come off when you look at stuff like this, the fake UCP "another BOZO" signs, lame attack ads, etc. I fail to see where the NDP is socially any more progressive than the UCP which is essentially the basket they are putting all their eggs in.

When you literally have nothing else to go on, I guess fearmongering is the vision of the NDP to try to hang on to power.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Is this what you are referring to when discussing integrity?

https://globalnews.ca/news/5154020/a...ake-ucp-signs/

Just asking.

This is literally no different than people drawing swastikas on NDP signs. It's also no different than people posting Pikachu or satirical signs on their own volition. Both UCP and NDP parties have no involvement with any of these signs and incidents and it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

This is literally no different than people drawing swastikas on NDP signs. It's also no different than people posting Pikachu or satirical signs on their own volition. Both UCP and NDP parties have no involvement with any of these signs and incidents and it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

I personally choose to believe that Notley is sneaking around in the middle of the night in a pickup truck driven by Joe Ceci, gleefully hammering the signs into random lawns.

They then celebrate by going out for a nice, debt funded, steak dinner. Joe has his filet well done, with ketchup.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by kermitology

You think this man is going to save you? Okay.

Originally Posted by Zarley

I think Rachel Notley's a fine person and I'd much rather have a beer with her than Jason Kenney, but one party has a decent vision that should work to improve business confidence in this province and the other is comprised of people who fundamentally lack an understanding of how wealth is created in a market economy.

Save? Is that the new narrative spin from NDP supporters if they can't hang on to power?

"Haha, we lost the election but now YOU deal with this mess we left the province in. Suckers!"

It's going to take decades of various governments just to try to fix the debt that's been run up these 4 years nevermind the new borrowing costs we are now carrying as a result.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

This is literally no different than people drawing swastikas on NDP signs. It's also no different than people posting Pikachu or satirical signs on their own volition. Both UCP and NDP parties have no involvement with any of these signs and incidents and it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

The only picture I saw of what you're referring to was a sauwastika. Was probably pulled off by a NDP supporter, especially considering the tactics they've been pulling this cycle. Pretty sure actual white supremacists know that "their" swastika turns to the right, not to the left, always to the right.

Hey, why do nazi skinheads wear red suspenders anyways? He doesnt have to tell you!