Alberta Election Thread - Election Day April 16 2019

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

Surely I’m not the only one old enough to remember Meech Lake or the Charlottetown Accord and what a complete mess that was? Opening the constitution “to just fix this one little thing” means opening it up and dealing with all kinds of junk.

Sure, but there's exponentially many exit ramps one has to drive past before challenging equalization is comparable to blowing billions on power agreements in a cost sense.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by stone hands

My point:

A referendum that has no chance of actually accomplishing anything is a waste of time and money

Please help sway my opinion as to how it wouldn't be a waste of money. Which provinces would we be able to sway to make it a majority vote to agree to change the equalization payment setup in canada

because if the answer is "maybe ontario and saskatchewan and nobody else" then its simply not pragmatic to even waste your time with this, and does nothing except waste tax dollars(the main reason we are so adamant on throwing out the current admin)

https://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp

Alberta, Ontario, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador are the 2019 "have" provinces.

Newfoundland and Labrador absolutely want to change the current system - just not one that would align with the same values of Alberta.

Saskatchewan would likely be the closest ally to Alberta.

Ontario and British Columbia, as haves, would likely be willing to get on board for a discussion.

I do think that the Feds messed up, again, in poor consultation. But I don't think it really matters. Spend money, even if we do get what we want, it gets them all in the room and the outcome is the same - pandering to Quebec. Meh.

[rubecube]

When the current equalization formula was created, there were Conservative majorities both provincially and federally. What aspect of the current political climate lends itself to a better outcome for Alberta now than then?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

Surely I’m not the only one old enough to remember Meech Lake or the Charlottetown Accord and what a complete mess that was? Opening the constitution “to just fix this one little thing” means opening it up and dealing with all kinds of junk.

Correct you are.

Including addressing perceived unfairness of many provinces towards Alberta.

Quebec wrote the playbook on how to get treated federally, alberta will only be following that lead.

Truly there is not a reason not to if the belief is that Alberta come out the other side further ahead....whatever that looks like. I would say they have enough ammo on the fight to get a resource through other provinces alone, never mind the equalization argument.

getting the Feds to the table is step 1, and without getting rulings from the SC or appeals court etc, maybe a real dialogue between all involved helps things to a compromise.

Again, it cannot hurt anything and the masses clamoring about costs etc are merely trying to deflect from the actual reasoning for it to begin with

Alberta feels entirely disenfranchised from the rest of the country and it needs to be dealt with.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Alberta feels entirely disenfranchised from the rest of the country and it needs to be dealt with.

Some do, not all. Personally I feel it is completely unnecessary and wasteful to have a primary strategy of quacking at federal issues and spending tax dollars doing it. It's pointless, and it will be tied up is so much litigation, delays, bureaucracy, and mouth breathing that when all is said and done, it just won't be worth it. It's an incredible gamble at best, which is ironic for a political brand that eschews fiscal responsibility and responsible government.

However, I'm sure it's worth it to for the orgasmic feeling of yelling at Justin and Liberals along the way.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

Surely I’m not the only one old enough to remember Meech Lake or the Charlottetown Accord and what a complete mess that was? Opening the constitution “to just fix this one little thing” means opening it up and dealing with all kinds of junk.

I completely remember them


I do believe that at some point the Constitution is going to have to be opened because frankly the definition of what Canada is and how it works is changing. We've seen it based around provinces ignoring it in terms of trade and transport of goods.


Why not just open it and redefine Canada and the extent of Federal Powers?


Its either that or provincial resentments continue to grow.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Some do, not all. Personally I feel it is completely unnecessary and wasteful to have a primary strategy of quacking at federal issues and spending tax dollars doing it. It's pointless, and it will be tied up is so much litigation, delays, bureaucracy, and mouth breathing that when all is said and done, it just won't be worth it. It's an incredible gamble at best, which is ironic for a political brand that eschews fiscal responsibility and responsible government.

However, I'm sure it's worth it to for the orgasmic feeling of yelling at Justin and Liberals along the way.

Assumingly if transmountain is shelved and the 2 bills are passed, when we are at a point where we are going to go down this road, what do you suggest we do instead?

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

This is a very incomplete understanding of what that ruling was.

First, it was about a secession referendum, it isn't clearly defined if that would apply to all referendums. If effectively declared that a province can unilaterally secede, provided certain conditions are met (one being that there has to be a clear question, in this case the federal government would have to approve it to be bound by it).

It is also clear that the other provinces are brought in, because that is necessary for a Constitutional change to allow it to happen. For this to kick in, it obligates the feds and the other provinces to negotiate. If the other provinces aren't in the negotiation, you can't have a constitutional change, which again brings us back to the question:what is the referendum trying to achieve?

The ruling just specifies "a referendum with a clear question and majority voting in favor". That's it. MBates posted a better explanation of this previously than I could give you, I'd suggest looking up his post in this thread or AB politics to clear up your confusion on this issue.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Some do, not all. Personally I feel it is completely unnecessary and wasteful to have a primary strategy of quacking at federal issues and spending tax dollars doing it. It's pointless, and it will be tied up is so much litigation, delays, bureaucracy, and mouth breathing that when all is said and done, it just won't be worth it. It's an incredible gamble at best, which is ironic for a political brand that eschews fiscal responsibility and responsible government.

However, I'm sure it's worth it to for the orgasmic feeling of yelling at Justin and Liberals along the way.

Find out what the majority thinks on Tuesday night.

And again, you have no idea if its pointless or not. No one does at this point.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Find out what the majority thinks on Tuesday night.

And again, you have no idea if its pointless or not. No one does at this point.

My friend, I know it's pointless

Like I said, Alberta's best chance is to hope Scheer wins in October and the feds bend over backwards to service Alberta's demands and convince almost every other province it's in the best interest for them too. This is really out of Kenney's control, so it's just an incredible waste of time and money.

[Slava]

Well I don’t fall into the “it’s too much money” camp because I think elections and referendums are fine. They’re good for democracy and I also don’t buy into the idea of voter fatigue. It takes five minutes by most accounts, and is hardly fatiguing.

I’m also warmer today on the idea of alienation than I’ve ever been, and certainly more than in years past. But I do think we’d end up opening a lot of issues and deal with all kinds of special interests coming forward.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Voter fatigue is about the campaigns themselves, not the process of voting. This one is only one month and everybody is sick of it. Just imagine if it were America where between Presidential elections and midterms, campaigning is basically 50% of every six year cycle.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Voter fatigue is about the campaigns themselves, not the process of voting. This one is only one month and everybody is sick of it. Just imagine if it were America where between Presidential elections and midterms, campaigning is basically 50% of every six year cycle.

American politics is entertaining as hell, especially right now. It's a roller coaster of drama and intrigue.

That said, it's far more fun to watch from the outside looking in. Fire me into the sun if I had to endure that as a voter. I feel for our American citizen brethren here on CP

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

The ruling just specifies "a referendum with a clear question and majority voting in favor". That's it. MBates posted a better explanation of this previously than I could give you, I'd suggest looking up his post in this thread or AB politics to clear up your confusion on this issue.

So it's not about getting Provinces to join or lead a mutiny, just trying to make the Feds uncomfortable

If it's for a Constitutional amendment the other provinces must be involved, otherwise there's nothing that can actually be done with regards to the question. So again I ask: what are you negotiating?



This idea that causing a ruckus is how Quebec kept getting its special treatment and not because Quebec is a large voting bloc that is willing to vote for whomever gives them what they want, is being dishonest. If Quebec only ever voted for the Liberals, en masse, regardless of whether or not they were given any money, they wouldn't get anywhere near as much as they have gotten. But they can swing elections, they can make majorities, and they're willing to accept all offers. Alberta doesn't do this, make the feds as uncomfortable as you want, there is nothing to gain for any federal party to give in (CPC included, which is why they didn't do it either). Kenney knows this better than anybody in this election.



Make the feds uncomfortable? What a waste of time. This is the federal government, regardless of who it is, they live in a perpetual state of being uncomfortable.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

My friend, I know it's pointless

No, you really don't.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by transplant99

No, you really don't.

Hahaha.

We should have a beer some time and talk politics.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

If it's for a Constitutional amendment the other provinces must be involved, otherwise there's nothing that can actually be done with regards to the question. So again I ask: what are you negotiating?



This idea that causing a ruckus is how Quebec kept getting its special treatment and not because Quebec is a large voting bloc that is willing to vote for whomever gives them what they want, is being dishonest. If Quebec only ever voted for the Liberals, en masse, regardless of whether or not they were given any money, they wouldn't get anywhere near as much as they have gotten. But they can swing elections, they can make majorities, and they're willing to accept all offers. Alberta doesn't do this, make the feds as uncomfortable as you want, there is nothing to gain for any federal party to give in (CPC included, which is why they didn't do it either). Kenney knows this better than anybody in this election.



Make the feds uncomfortable? What a waste of time. This is the federal government, regardless of who it is, they live in a perpetual state of being uncomfortable.

This is what MBates said from the Alberta politics thread:

"Following the legal principles set out in the Quebec Secession Reference, a province can hold a referendum with a clear question and create the legal obligation for the rest of confederation to come to the negotiating table to seek a constitutional amendment.

Secession is one type of constitutional amendment that can be pursued via this process. There is nothing that would be principally different about seeking any other constitutional negotiation by way of a clear provincial referendum:"

Quote:
The Constitution is the expression of the sovereignty of the people of Canada. It lies within the power of the people of Canada, acting through their various governments duly elected and recognized under the Constitution, to effect whatever constitutional arrangements are desired within Canadian territory, including, should it be so desired, the secession of Quebec from Canada.

Quote:
Although the Constitution does not itself address the use of a referendum procedure, and the results of a referendum have no direct role or legal effect in our constitutional scheme, a referendum undoubtedly may provide a democratic method of ascertaining the views of the electorate on important political questions on a particular occasion.

So this clear precedent forces parties to negotiate. That's the point, and it's possible. In regards to what to negotiate? I don't know there's lots of ways to word it around, ultimately I think it would be putting the equalization formula or it itself on the table. The point is say 'hey, Federal government, you can kick off a full blown constitutional crisis or you can ensure the construction of a coastal export pipeline and we'll continue to pay into this program as is.' You can join the waste-of-time truthers if you want but right now this is a hypothetical to find and exploit leverage points. I'm sure the federal government doesn't want to preside over bitter provincial infighting, constitutional crises, or atlantic canada/quebec losing their meal ticket. It's a bit of a bluff but it's something. Something more substantial than the tact taken in the last four years that has failed spectacularly.

[rubecube]

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe equalization is part of the constitution. It's an act of parliament, so I'm not sure if the same rules regarding forcing the feds to the table apply, but I'm happy for one of the lawyers here to spell it out for me.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe equalization is part of the constitution. It's an act of parliament, so I'm not sure if the same rules regarding forcing the feds to the table apply, but I'm happy for one of the lawyers here to spell it out for me.

Section 36 (2):


Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.



https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-16.html

[stone hands]

...