Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

No. Use money raised from new large corporate and wealthy individual tax increases. That would raise far more than $35M (which is a fractional amount in health care terms).

Second to my previous post, this makes zero sense?

You have a guaranteed amount of money if you funnel Trudeau's wordly pet project to health care, which far exceeds what you would collect from a capital gains tax

Taxing the wealthy does not give you a guaranteed flow of money, that flow will continually directly and indirectly be reduced

Taxing the rich can lead to reduced revenue if the tax rate is too high. This is because high tax rates can cause wealthy people to reduce their taxable income, work less, or engage in tax planning.

Taxing the rich can generate revenue, but it can also discourage investment and have other negative effects.

Not only are is the capital gains tax revenue being reduced but than any potential future or current payroll, property tax, consumption tax will be reduced.

So it will generate a minimal amount of revenue that will decrease over time.




You are literally your own worse enemy.

[MacDaddy77]

nvm

[MacDaddy77]

[QUOTE=Makarov;9305177]Let's just accept, for the sake of argument, that Alberta is prepared to essentially nationalize energy exporting in Alberta. And let's also suppose that, for some reason, the federal Crown lacks the constitutional authority to charge a tariff to a provincial Crown (I have no idea whether or not this is true - I don't see any obvious reason why it would be true but I'm not going to spend any time thinking about it because of the following).

If those two things are true, the federal government will just achieve its policy goal (of inflicting economic harm on the United States) by prohibiting the export of energy to the United States.


can you point to the specific part of the constitution that allows the federal government to restrict the provinces from exporting/selling their resources outside the country? I found information on section 92A of the constitution amendment but that deals with exports/imports between provinces and not to foreign exports.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Is it really hard to imagine? You have a Liberal party that has stayed in power dividing the country. You have provinces ahem Quebec that has said no pipelines in our backyard, while foreign oil floats up the St. Lawrence daily.

To me, like it or not (which I don't) this is just the end result of decades of frankly unfairness from various governments, especially the current one, and a few chosen provinces who don't really stand up for Alberta (at times demonize it) now upset.

We aren't a country. Have not been for a while. Its sad, and it can make you angry, but how on Earth is Smith in power and feels comfortable to say what she is saying. Oh and sorry "cause stupid" isn't a response.

and as a parting thought, what if our PM just stepped aside properly? Would Tarriffs be an actual threat? Or would Trump be happy to discuss with someone he respects? Just a thought.

awww poor us. . .

The most persecuted group of people in history

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

can you point to the specific part of the constitution that allows the federal government to restrict the provinces from exporting/selling their resources outside the country? I found information on section 92A of the constitution amendment but that deals with exports/imports between provinces and not to foreign exports.

Voila:

91 It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

...
2. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.
...

[Firebot]

I missed the start, but Carney's launch live now for those wants to see it

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.6614784

[MacDaddy77]

^ Thanks but then didn't they assign the control of resources to the governments and therefor the Provincial legislature?

The more i read the more interested I am, dangerous wormhole

[Firebot]

Carney trying to link Poilievre to Brexit lead by UK's Conservative is certainly an interesting take, especially based on what the guy down south is trying to do to Canada.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

^ Thanks but then didn't they assign the control of resources to the governments and therefor the Provincial legislature?

The more i read the more interested I am, dangerous wormhole

I posted this in the Alberta politics thread but the Constitution Act of 1982 lays out what that ownership entails.

A new section of the Constitution Act, 1982 purports to clarify the extent to which provinces may manage their resources, giving them exclusive power to make laws dealing with the development, conservation and management of nonrenewable resources and forestry resources, and to regulate the rate of primary production from these resources. Parliament has paramount jurisdiction to regulate interprovincial and export trade in natural resources, and both levels of government are given full powers of taxation.

[activeStick]

This press conference is great. He inspires a lot of confidence. A much better option than Poilievre.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Firebot

I missed the start, but Carney's launch live now for those wants to see it

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.6614784

I find it interesting that despite having this announcement in Edmonton he didn't have the only Edmonton MP introduce him but rather had the MP from Calgary come up.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

^ Thanks but then didn't they assign the control of resources to the governments and therefor the Provincial legislature?

The more i read the more interested I am, dangerous wormhole

The 1982 amendments to the Constitution Act only give provinces the authority to raise revenue from natural resources production (but interestingly, specifically does not include authority to impose export rariffs on natural resources - that remained exclusively within federal jurisdiction).

[Firebot]

Carney is also trying to distance himself from Trudeau, effectively calling the Liberals (still lead by Trudeau today) a complete failure on the economy.

Is he a Liberal, or a Conservative? He's quite literally giving all the soundbites to the Conservatives on a silver platter? Not even remotely diplomatic about it.

[iggy_oi]

The most frustrating part about how Smith has handled these tariffs is that she effectively took away any leverage she would have had if she had publicly supported the other premieres first.

I’ve said it before that I have no issue with her meeting with Trump, in fact I think that it’s important to have dialogue with his camp and the idea of giving them what equates to the silent treatment out of spite is counterproductive. But I think her appeasement approach has taken away an opportunity for her to work with the other provinces to further our interests over the long run while simultaneously further entrenching us in the current system of only having one major market that hasn’t been working.

In my opinion a better approach would have been to say to the provinces you need our help right now and we’re willing to help you, but we also need your help in return so we need you to play ball. From a negotiation perspective it is always better to have something on the table that the other party doesn’t want to lose that you are willing to continue giving them if they give you something you want.

Her approach has been we’re not going to give you anything because you haven’t worked with us in the past, so if you give us something now that we’ve already harmed you we’ll consider helping.

I’m sure someone will try and flip that around to say that is the approach other provinces have take with us. Without agreeing or disagreeing on whether that has occurred we can all probably come to the conclusion that that approach really hasn’t helped anyone. So if we want our government to be the “grown-ups” in the room we have to change our approach. It’s rare for two sides that dig their heels to get anything of substance done.

It just seems like a really great opportunity for the province of Alberta and Canada as a whole has been squandered by someone who is a lousy negotiator and acting in her own self interest by being more concerned with convincing her base that she’s “standing up to Ottawa”.

Even if she is successful in getting oil and gas exports excluded from Trump’s tariff(which could happen), the smarter play in the long run would have been to use this rare moment of leverage to set us up better in the long run by increasing our capacity for overseas exports. Frankly had she played this a little more tactfully she could have potentially gotten both

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

^ Thanks but then didn't they assign the control of resources to the governments and therefor the Provincial legislature?

The more i read the more interested I am, dangerous wormhole

This is a pretty simple explanation:

A new section of the Constitution Act, 1982 purports to clarify the extent to which provinces may manage their resources, giving them exclusive power to make laws dealing with the development, conservation and management of nonrenewable resources and forestry resources, and to regulate the rate of primary production from these resources. Parliament has paramount jurisdiction to regulate interprovincial and export trade in natural resources, and both levels of government are given full powers of taxation.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia....esource-rights

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Carney is also trying to distance himself from Trudeau, effectively calling the Liberals (still lead by Trudeau today) a complete failure on the economy.

Is he a Liberal, or a Conservative? He's quite literally giving all the soundbites to the Conservatives on a silver platter? Not even remotely diplomatic about it.

He's really trying to play up the outsider aspect which feels like it is coming straight from the Trump 1.0 playbook when he was running for the Republican nomination and the general election.

Also, I'm not a french speaker but I'm wondering what francophones think about his fluency with that language? His french doesn't sound very good and comes across as broken to me. It definitely doesn't sound as good as Trudeau or PP or even Freeland.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

He's really trying to play up the outsider aspect which feels like it is coming straight from the Trump 1.0 playbook when he was running for the Republican nomination and the general election.

To be fair that strategy worked out pretty well.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by belsarius

I posted this in the Alberta politics thread but the Constitution Act of 1982 lays out what that ownership entails.

lol yeah this one.

Slow on the draw.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Carney is also trying to distance himself from Trudeau, effectively calling the Liberals (still lead by Trudeau today) a complete failure on the economy.

Is he a Liberal, or a Conservative? He's quite literally giving all the soundbites to the Conservatives on a silver platter? Not even remotely diplomatic about it.

So a qualified, non-conspiracy centre-right candidate? Sounds like a problem for the the CPC.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Also, I'm not a french speaker but I'm wondering what francophones think about his fluency with that language? His french doesn't sound very good and comes across as broken to me. It definitely doesn't sound as good as Trudeau or PP or even Freeland.

It's Poilievre level, better than O'Toole. I don't see this as a detriment, where it was for O'Toole for example in the french debates.