It's not just what the NDP did wrong that has been destructive to Alberta, it's also what it failed to do right.
During Alberta’s last election night on May 5, 2015, I was so nauseous I had to have a bowl on my lap just in case.
I had decided I would give Premier Rachel Notley and her government — filled as it was with accidental MLAs — the benefit of the doubt that they would not be the disaster that every other provincial NDP government I’ve ever lived under has been in both B.C. and Ontario — including one I regrettably voted for in my younger years.
Very quickly, however, the NDP government disabused me of my cautious optimism. One of its first acts was to change the Power Purchase Arrangements in an effort to incentivize more sustainable electricity to be built in the province. It was done in such a destructive, ideological, ill-advised and incompetent way that Greg Clark, the Alberta Party incumbent, calls it the “NDP government’s single biggest scandal,” that has cost Alberta taxpayers more than $2 billion while getting nothing in return.
Then the province announced it would hold a royalty review — something that former premier Ed Stelmach did that led to capital leaving Alberta for Saskatchewan and the U.S. Did Notley not learn from Stelmach’s costly mistake? Clearly not.
That decision predictably led to almost one year of uncertainty in the energy industry, resulting in mothballed projects, layoffs and investment leaving the province. Thankfully, ideology gave way to irrefutable evidence and sound recommendations and the ultimate decision was not to substantially change the rates.
Damage to the confidence of the oilpatch in the stability of the investment climate of Alberta was compounded again by Notley when she announced her carbon tax, even though she never campaigned on this “tax on everything.” More layoffs followed, not just in the oilpatch but across every sector of the economy.
When asked recently how much carbon emissions have decreased as a result of the carbon tax, Notley looked stunned by the question and said she didn’t know.
All of these blows to Alberta’s job creators weren’t apparently enough. Notley raised Alberta’s corporate tax rate by 20 per cent (from 10 per cent to 12 per cent) — which at least is something she campaigned on but which unsurprisingly led to capital fleeing this province.
The 2018 Global Petroleum Survey, which evaluated 80 jurisdictions found that Canada’s competitiveness in the oil and gas sector has dropped from the lofty heights of third in 2014 to 43rd. The timing of the decline is not an accident.
But, it’s not just what the NDP did wrong that has been destructive to Alberta, it’s also what it failed to do right that has caused untold damage. Since Feb. 8, 2018, when the feds introduced Bill C-69, Notley and her ministers said and did virtually nothing to oppose the “no-more-pipelines law.” They also said and did virtually nothing on Bill C-48, the law that will ban Alberta oil from being moved by tanker on B.C.’s north coast, (but will allow all other oil to move up and down that coast.)
To say that the NDP has been negligent on both of these files would be a gross understatement. Notley’s inaction on these key files, in my view, is reason enough for her to lose any right to run the province.
Perhaps the most damaging thing of all, however, was how Notley — who said Alberta was “the embarrassing cousin” of Confederation — never objected to Trudeau unilaterally killing the $7.9-billion Northern Gateway pipeline that had been approved by the NEB after a gruelling $500-million regulatory process and was passed by the Harper Conservative government in the House of Commons. Notley never supported that pipeline and Shannon Phillips, her environment minister, actively protested against it.
Deficits in Alberta are way up and Notley has projected our debt to reach almost $100 billion by 2023. According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Alberta’s debt is currently increasing at a rate of $483 per second, and a whopping $15.2 billion in 2018-19 — which is little more than the confiscation of services from future generations.
What’s more, Notley has repeatedly appointed arch opponents of Alberta’s energy industry to oversee it, regulate it and advise on it
Repeated so many times in this thread is the idea that the tribes making the court challenges aren't even directly affected by TMX (often said that they're not even close to it). We know BC is a bit of a mess wrt defining FN territories, but here are some maps.
TLDR: the pipeline runs through the traditional territories of all six FN's. As we get closer to Metro Vancouver, it's harder to get a quick idea of where specific communities are along the route (but the immediate coastline is obviously important). Coldwater, Upper Nicola, and Stk'emlupsemc Te Secwepemc Nation all have communities in very close proximity.
Spoiler!
TMX ROUTE:
Tsleil-Waututh
Squamish Nation
Aitchelitz (couldn't find a specific map, but you can see them labeled just to the left of Chilliwack on this NEB map:
TMX ROUTE:
Upper Nicola Band - In and around Merritt (Nicola Lake is the big body of water between Merritt and Stump Lake labels on the very first map)
Coldwater Indian Band (SW of Merritt) n this diagram, multiple possible routes for the Trans Mountain expansion are shown. In green is the rejected "west alternative" favoured by the Coldwater band.
Stk'emlupsemc Te Secwepemc Nation (pipeline route is mostly parallel to HWY 5 north and south from Kamloops)
Yes. Just for not the way you want to make it out to be.
Section 35(1) gives First Nations a constitutional right to have meaningful consultation. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court prior and most recently in the Court of Appeals once again.
First Nations have no obligation to support or concede their rights for projects. Nor does anyone in Canada. Thank God. Nor is there any legal issue in accepting outside funds when your interests align.
People have known for decades that First Nations (and every other organization) accept funds from organizations that support their causes. This goes both ways, there's also a lot of money from energy companies being dumped into First Nations. This isn't illegal or secret.
What Canada has an obligation to do is to provide meaningful consultation, a constitutional obligation. If a First Nation doesn't want to come to the table, that's their right, the issue is that they did. They requested a two-way dialogue, they brought up conditions, that went ignored.
Canada has an obligation to consult. In a nutshell (and I'd just recommend reading the decision instead of a rather pitiful summary of it here but) they defer to the NEB. The NEB deferred much of it to the applicant. The applicant met with the First Nations, they wrote notes about their concerns and came up with strategy but was ultimately up to the NEB to determine the conditions of approval where there was disagreements. They told the First Nations that they would tell the NEB of the concerns. The NEB met with the First Nations, they told the First Nations they would tell the Governor in Council about their concerns. The Governor in Council told the First Nations that they couldn't address their concerns because the NEB didn't recommend them. It became a monstrously flawed loop of their concerns being wrote down but never addressed because no party believed it was up to or in their party to address. There's was no Supreme Court recognized two-way dialogue. And again we aren't necessarily talking about crazy requests, some wanted to be assured that they would be notified of spills - something that the applicant, NEB, and ultimately Canada would not concede or address or most importantly discuss specifically.
This isn't about giving them a veto or requiring consent, it's simply giving them an avenue to be consulted and a two-way dialogue that they have a legal right to have that went ignored. If they want to oppose the pipeline (which to be fair, wouldn't you if you aren't getting any answers about how it will affect your drinking water?) that's also their right and if they want to work with other parties that oppose the pipeline, that's perfectly legal.
We've gone over this. You refuse to look at facts or read the decision. You're just mad that they weren't good little Indians conceding their constitutional rights and supporting a project that they have every right to oppose.
It would take far less time and effort to actually read the decision in its entirety than continuing parroting half truths and misconceptions. The same way it would take less time to actual consult with First Nations than continue to fight over an extremely reasonable ruling to upheld the constitution. So that's what's happening.
Buddy in all our interactions I've never ascribed false motives to you and yet you continually do it to me. I already asked you once to stop. This sentence is gross, stop doing it it's making you look like a jackass.
It's their right to be consulted. It's not their right to give consent. The court outlined a process for further consultations over and above what was previously understood to be the standard. That standard will be hard to meet IMO, because having a meaningful discussion with groups that are being paid to obstruct the project on false pretenses is impossible. You're being obtuse about the motives of these FN bands and surely you have to see that they'll never be satisfied with the process of consultation because THEY'RE BEING PAID TO NEVER BE SATISFIED. This process will repeat itself if the pipeline gets going and the only question will be if you and others finally recognize this never ending cycle of disingenuous paid obstruction for what it is. I hope so.
Buddy in all our interactions I've never ascribed false motives to you and yet you continually do it to me. I already asked you once to stop. This sentence is gross, stop doing it it's making you look like a jackass.
It's their right to be consulted. It's not their right to give consent. The court outlined a process for further consultations over and above what was previously understood to be the standard. That standard will be hard to meet IMO, because having a meaningful discussion with groups that are being paid to obstruct the project on false pretenses is impossible. You're being obtuse about the motives of these FN bands and surely you have to see that they'll never be satisfied with the process of consultation because THEY'RE BEING PAID TO NEVER BE SATISFIED. This process will repeat itself if the pipeline gets going and the only question will be if you and others finally recognize this never ending cycle of disingenuous paid obstruction for what it is. I hope so.
There's absolutely no legal right or requirement for consent. Nor is there any legal requirement for them to be happy with consultation. Just that it occurs and Canada gives the opportunity for meaningful two-way dialogue. Present your argument using the decisions based on facts and specifics or stop perpetuating that please. If you think that the judges erred in their decision, it's all publicly available present those paragraphs so we can discuss them in earnest. Because I can post numerous times to the opposite being true and yet you'll ignore it like always.
I mean, it's right here in the decision when they talk about the previous Supreme Court decision:
Quote:
[226] Reasonableness review does not require perfect satisfaction (Gitxaala, paragraphs 182-183 and the cases cited therein). The question to be answered is whether the government action “viewed as a whole, accommodates the collective aboriginal right in question”. Thus, “[s]o long as every reasonable effort is made to inform and to consult, such efforts would suffice.” (Haida Nation, paragraph 62, citing R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723 and R. v. Nikal, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013). The focus of the analysis should not be on the outcome, but rather on the process of consultation and accommodation (Haida Nation, paragraph 63)
...
[494] The consultation process does not dictate a particular substantive outcome. Thus, the consultation process does not give Indigenous groups a veto over what can be done with land pending final proof of their claim. What is required is a process of balancing interests—a process of give and take. Nor does consultation equate to a duty to agree; rather, what is required is a commitment to a meaningful process of consultation (Haida Nation, paragraphs 42, 48 and 62).
...
[508] As briefly explained above at paragraph 226, Canada is not to be held to a standard of perfection in fulfilling its duty to consult. The Supreme Court of Canada has expressed this concept as follows:
Perfect satisfaction is not required; the question is whether the regulatory scheme or government action “viewed as a whole, accommodates the collective aboriginal right in question”: Gladstone, supra, at para. 170. What is required is not perfection, but reasonableness. As stated in Nikal, supra, at para. 110, “in … information and consultation the concept of reasonableness must come into play. … So long as every reasonable effort is made to inform and to consult, such efforts would suffice.” The government is required to make reasonable efforts to inform and consult. This suffices to discharge the duty.
(Haida Nation, paragraph 62)
And once again, you stereotype and prescribe your own unfounded beliefs on the entirety of the First Nations with no understanding that they are comprised of many many different peoples and individuals.
Some First Nations approve of the pipeline. Some approve in principal with conditions and considerations, some want more understanding, others want it denied but if not want conditions and others unilaterally reject the pipeline. For what reasons are entirely their own and their right to have. I'm sure you don't take issue with the considerations being pumped into the First Nations for support of the projects, so how much concern should we really have about the inverse? The appeal gets rejected if Canada didn't #### up on their consultation.
Again, it's Canada who didn't meet their legal requirement to consult. This was on Canada, not the First Nations please stop blaming and attributing them for Canada's short falling, or at least don't be offended if you get called out on it.
Last edited by Oling_Roachinen; 04-13-2019 at 05:35 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
0 wait today at the advanced poll I went to. Alberta Party in the end hopefully they get enough of the popular vote that they are clearly the choice over the liberals and the parties can merge and have a unified Center.
The NDP hasn’t done enough to earn reelection. While they are overly vilified for things they can’t comtrol their failure to properly use carbon tax revenues to reduce other taxes, their screw up on the PPAs costing 2 billion, and literally paying people to
Change light bulbs just shows they don’t value tax dollars enough
On the other hand the PC education policy is a microcosm if what’s wrong with them. Non evidence driven policy that plays to the base. The let’s fight Ottawa populism is awful compared to how the freedom conservatives would approach it. And finally just how politically slimy he is.
We know his campaign gave a list of people to Calloway to invite to the debates, we know people in his campaign gave talking points to Calloway, we know people at senior levels of his campaign gave money that wasn’t theirs to Calloway. Now we have the email address membership issues which sound a lot more like lower leveled of the campaign rather than senior levels but it still stinks
So I can’t vote for Kenny and his perversion of democracy.
“The NDP are kind of desperate, looking around for something they can say every day that will change the subject from the economy or from their track record,” he says.
Wall figures they can’t do much else but run hard on the social media trail of candidates and go after Kenney every which way they can.
“The premier’s record on pipelines, which I can attest to personally, is not one of support, I can promise you that. "That’s what I saw first hand.” “They don’t like the energy sector,” Wall says of the Notley NDP. “Deep down where they live they were protesting only a handful of years ago against the sector that pays the bills in this province and for so much of the country.”
Wall remembers the exact day Notley announced the carbon tax she never campaigned on in the last election. “The premier basically says those who criticize our industry, they’re right. Maybe it is dirty oil,” recalls Wall. “So we’re going to tax ourselves. We’re going to charge this indulgence for our sins and maybe get some sort of social licence.” How about Notley on the Keystone XL pipeline? Missing in action. What about the Northern Gateway pipeline? She walked away from demanding the federal government continue on with it.”
“The premier was a very reliable ally of the prime minister at every turn.” He tells a story. Wall pitched Trudeau to cough up cash so oilpatch workers could get back on the job cleaning up abandoned oil and gas wells. Trudeau turned Wall down flat. Notley wasn’t interested in Wall’s idea. She didn’t back Wall.
“I think, frankly, out of deference to Justin Trudeau.”
The Following User Says Thank You to chemgear For This Useful Post:
A Calgary landlord who was filmed ripping a campaign sign off his lawn has apologized to the candidate involved.
Gar Gar, who is running for the Alberta Party in Calgary-East, posted a video on Twitter Wednesday showing a man breaking the sign after Gar had installed it at a renter’s request.
On Friday, the candidate posted an update on social media that the landlord, identified as Steve, had contacted him by email to apologize and to offer to pay for any damage to the sign. A few hours later, Gar shared a photo of the pair shaking hands over cups of coffee.
“He just came back and said, ‘it was a bad day that I had, and I don’t like any signs, regardless of which party. I just don’t want to be involved in politics.’”
Gar said he accepted Steve’s apology, and told him that he also owed an apology to the tenant.
“I think it comes back to her rights … she had a fear that day,” Gar said. “He said that’s the second thing he would do right after, to go apologize to her.”
Gar said he also plans to go talk to the renter and make sure she’s OK.
Anecdontally, I am hearing that a lot of people are voting for the Alberta party. I don't expect it to be enough to win a whole bunch of seats though. I keep hearing the same thing from people. They feel a need for change from the NDP but they don't like and/or can't trust Kenney so they vote AP.
I voted AP exactly for that reason as well. If the UCP elected pretty much anyone other than Kenney they would have had my voted. Maybe we'll all be surprised by a huge AP win on Tuesday just like the previous NDP win.
The Following User Says Thank You to calgarygeologist For This Useful Post:
Anecdontally, I am hearing that a lot of people are voting for the Alberta party. I don't expect it to be enough to win a whole bunch of seats though. I keep hearing the same thing from people. They feel a need for change from the NDP but they don't like and/or can't trust Kenney so they vote AP.
I voted AP exactly for that reason as well. If the UCP elected pretty much anyone other than Kenney they would have had my voted. Maybe we'll all be surprised by a huge AP win on Tuesday just like the previous NDP win.
I can see the AP getting over 10% maybe 15% of the vote.
I'm one of those people. I have a UCP membership and I'm voting AP. Anyone but Kenney.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
I was at U of A today, and while it was student central and Notley's riding, the polling station was close by and there were quite a few students in line to vote. I also heard a surprising amount of chatter for the Alberta Party, considering I thought Notley would be getting the full house. Not a single peep or audible/visual sign for UCP support anywhere on my campus area visit today.
I solidify voted UCP ,I work in o&g and the NDP are a horrific option not only to our industry but to this province in general. If the top two front runners were AP and UCP I’d have to weigh my options but there is no way I can tolerate another four years of Notley and her band of left wing nuts in charge of this province.
Buddy in all our interactions I've never ascribed false motives to you and yet you continually do it to me. I already asked you once to stop. This sentence is gross, stop doing it it's making you look like a jackass.
It's their right to be consulted. It's not their right to give consent. The court outlined a process for further consultations over and above what was previously understood to be the standard. That standard will be hard to meet IMO, because having a meaningful discussion with groups that are being paid to obstruct the project on false pretenses is impossible. You're being obtuse about the motives of these FN bands and surely you have to see that they'll never be satisfied with the process of consultation because THEY'RE BEING PAID TO NEVER BE SATISFIED. This process will repeat itself if the pipeline gets going and the only question will be if you and others finally recognize this never ending cycle of disingenuous paid obstruction for what it is. I hope so.
You've submitted a great many chunks of text that ultimately boil down to nothing more than your feelings. You're typically 80% reasonable, but then you throw in a bold, unmerited statement (you continually ascribe false motives to the FN groups, and ascribe personal motivations and/or incompetence to the judges, etc.)
I've challenged you several times to provide more evidence, but you've yet to take me up. Plenty more giant blocks of text from you though, so it doesn't seem to be a time issue...
1. Without a search engine or doing any research right now, can you summarize the specific concerns of any/all of the FN groups?
1a. If the answer is no, how can you possibly know what their motivations are?
1b. If the answer is yes, please share it and explain why any/all of the groups don't actually care about the concerns they've raised? (feel free to do more research for this part - I'd love to see a post from you that actually includes real evidence...)
This is my second election voting AP, I preferred Greg Clark as a leader compared to the hijacking by the old PC crowd which led to Mendel, but I do think they have the best platform at present and don't have the Kenney stank. Doesn't really matter in my riding as its a UCP stronghold.
