Alberta Election Thread - Election Day April 16 2019

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by stone hands

...

The leverage is in kicking all of this off, and the Feds appetite for the risk potential of equalization being changed (which is small, admittedly) vs just doing what should have been done all along and ensuring the construction of coastal export pipelines. It's a desperate move for a desperate situation and unfortunately we're there. Unemployment, the Province being under curtailment, capped out takeway capacity, and the ever present threat of the differential blowing out again causing us to sell the world's cheapest crude for $5/bbl. It's desperate times man, that's the other side of this equation that people aren't appreciating. If cabinet approves TMX and it starts construction this year with guarantees of being able to export bitumen through Port of Vancouver we have no problems. If not, if it's delayed, the vital economic interests of Alberta are under threat and it's time to act and start pulling #### like this. I appreciate that stopping something is easier than building something but look at all the success Horgan has had at blatantly flaunting clear constitutional and Federal gov authority, it really doesn't seem to count for much these days.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by accord1999

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

Right, but the formula itself is in the hands of parliament. I guess the referendum could be to remove equalization altogether.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

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.

The program being...taxes? Lol. Trying to connect the issues and in essence blackmail the Federal Government to remove the constitutional rights of First Nations to be consulted isn't going to prevent a full blown constitutional crisis, it's going to amplify it a million times over.

Again, not that you care, as you've made it abundantly clear the facts don't matter to you, but the Trans Mountain expansion was stopped because of a constitutional right of First Nations to have meaningful consultation.

What you want, the ability for provinces to have input into the formula for the equalization payments, already exists. Although, I think it's fair to say that the Federal Government did a #### job on that this time around when it was renewed until 2024.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

The program being...taxes? Lol. Trying to connect the issues and in essence blackmail the Federal Government to remove the constitutional rights of First Nations to be consulted isn't going to prevent a full blown constitutional crisis, it's going to amplify it a million times over.

Again, not that you care, as you've made it abundantly clear the facts don't matter to you, but the Trans Mountain expansion was stopped because of a constitutional right of First Nations to have meaningful consultation.

What you want, the ability for provinces to have input into the formula for the equalization payments, already exists. Although, I think it's fair to say that the Federal Government did a #### job on that this time around when it was renewed until 2024.

I know it's tough to keep up but we're talking about future steps to take if TMX doesn't go ahead after this additional round of consultations.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I know it's tough to keep up but we're talking about future steps to take if TMX doesn't go ahead after this additional round of consultations.

But give some specifics example as to why wouldn't it?

Not just "Trudeau hates Alberta" but give some example as to why it wouldn't and why you think this previously approved project would not move forward that is in the Trudeau's government's ability to control. That isn't a constitutional issue...

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

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.

You're still avoiding who the parties that negotiate are. The other provinces would have to beat the table, too. You're thinking this is just leverage between Alberta and the federal government, when it would have to be Alberta trying to find leverage with the other 10 provinces AND the federal government. Not sure you'll like what they find (especially when one of the provinces you'd hope to be on your side is one you want the federal government to walk over).



This idea that this is what Quebec uses to get what they want is just silly. They had two referendums that both failed and neither actually held the federal government to anything. If this is what you think he step towards progress is, you're out to lunch.



Also, the province doesn't pay into the program, so it can't make threats to hold back money.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

But give some specifics example as to why wouldn't it?

Not just "Trudeau hates Alberta" but give some example as to why it wouldn't and why you think this previously approved project would not move forward that is in the Trudeau's government's ability to control. That isn't a constitutional issue...

The main hurdle this project faces is cabinet approval in May, after the new and improved consultations are done. That isn't their control?

Also knock it off with the strawman crap of tossing in a "Trudeau hates Alberta" reason, I've never said that I haven't done the same to you.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

The main hurdle this project faces is cabinet approval in May, after the new and improved consultations are done. That isn't their control?

You mean by the same cabinet that approved it already? Why are we assuming anything is different - except the owner of the pipeline lol.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

You're still avoiding who the parties that negotiate are. The other provinces would have to beat the table, too. You're thinking this is just leverage between Alberta and the federal government, when it would have to be Alberta trying to find leverage with the other 10 provinces AND the federal government. Not sure you'll like what they find (especially when one of the provinces you'd hope to be on your side is one you want the federal government to walk over).

It's the whole federation man, it said so in that part I quoted for you. I don't know how the whole negotiation would go and neither would you, but there's a group of Alberta Sask Ontario and NB forming that pulls a tonne of leverage.

This idea that this is what Quebec uses to get what they want is just silly. They had two referendums that both failed and neither actually held the federal government to anything. If this is what you think he step towards progress is, you're out to lunch.

You're right, neither held the Federal government to anything. Because they failed. You know both those referendums failed right?

Also, the province doesn't pay into the program, so it can't make threats to hold back money.

Obviously, good thing no one said 'let's hold back the money'

[Oling_Roachinen]

The good thing about Kenney is I actually do think he's intelligent. A corrupt and terrible person, absolutely, but intelligent. He's just using this rhetoric to get his base in a frenzy, I don't think he's going to go full Trump "We'll get a pipeline built and we'll have the First Nations pay for it." He knows the referendum is useless and knows that the pipeline decision is coming up anyways and given the relatively minute hurdles in the Court of Appeal the Trudeau Government will, again, be able to approve Trans Mountain and then the other minor hurdles coming from the BC government will be able to be fought through the courts while the shovels are in the ground.

The idea that Trudeau, who already approved the project, who has expressed his support for the project, and has bought the project, is going to go against it this time around and that Kenney needs to strongarm them is pretty comical.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

You mean by the same cabinet that approved it already? Why are we assuming anything is different - except the owner of the pipeline lol.

Assuming? You asked me about reasons it could fail. I told you.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Obviously, good thing no one said 'let's hold back the money'

we'll continue to pay into this program

The implication being if they didn't get the pipeline built, we wouldn't continue to pay into the program. If that wasn't the case, I'd love to know what you intended people to get from that given the context.



That of course glosses over the fact that the province doesn't actually pay into the program in the first place, so it can't really put 'continuing to pay' on the table anyway.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Assuming? You asked me about reasons it could fail. I told you.

Yes, so the whole plan revolves on the assumption that Trudeau's government will take a complete 180 on a project they intend to buy. And that the other provinces will support Alberta's idea to not give them money. You don't see why people think this is a waste?

[CaptainCrunch]

You've got to think that the last thing that Trudeau wants is a fracturing confederation when he moves to the election.



But we have BC and Alberta fighting and that fighting is going to get worse. Sask telling the Feds to pound sand. Quebec doing their usual actions. The maritimes are upset.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Yes, so the whole plan revolves on the assumption that Trudeau's government will take a complete 180 on a project they intend to buy. And that the other provinces will support Alberta's idea to not give them money. You don't see why people think this is a waste?

Which brings us all the way 360 degrees back to where I explained to you that this is a hypothetical discusssion on IF TMX doesn't go ahead.

People are entitled to thinking it's a waste there's definitely reason to think that it could be.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

The implication being if they didn't get the pipeline built, we wouldn't continue to pay into the program. If that wasn't the case, I'd love to know what you intended people to get from that given the context.



That of course glosses over the fact that the province doesn't actually pay into the program in the first place, so it can't really put 'continuing to pay' on the table anyway.

We as individual Albertans pay in to the program. We wouldn't pay in to the program if it didn't exist, which is the context of that quote. you're right there's no giant cheque signed by Rachel Notley that we can withhold.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

We as individual Albertans pay in to the program. We wouldn't pay in to the program if it didn't exist, which is the context of that quote. you're right there's no giant cheque signed by Rachel Notley that we can withhold.

That ominous sounding "program" we pay into is called federal tax.

Equalization payments just use a formula, ironically the one Kenney's Federal Government came up with, to determine how to redistribute some of the federal taxes we pay.

[Roughneck]

Take away "the program" and the amount Albertans pay to the feds stays the same.

[Dion]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1116778883699834880

https://twitter.com/user/status/1116202186613166080

[Oling_Roachinen]

Wait, Notley doesn't think it's a good idea to vote for Jason Kenney?