Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I'm not so sure. Even well intentioned politicians have an electorate issue.

The problem with Canada is that it's full of Canadians.

Then ####ing leave already. You clearly hate our country. Go. Away.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Other long term option is building access to other markets to remove US leverage. That’s coming soon when the adults are in charge again.

Do you actually think PP will do this?
My biggest concern with him is he'll actually do the opposite and completely sell himself to Trump.

We are already seeing many of the more sure Conservative supporters overlapping with MAGA support, jumping at the opportunity to be the 51st state etc.
I think PP will completely cozy up to Trump and move away from other markets.

This would have some economic benefits for Canada too but reduce leverage from a trade options perspective.
The US will take a lot of control over Canada under a CPC government.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by peterh

Look at Canada, we have terrible leadership, can’t compete on the global market, have less trade between provinces than we do with our largest neighbor, no national identity (except Quebec) and our second largest province wants to leave the dominion, the experiment is failing, time to give in to the Manifest Destiny.

Then get going already. Stop bitching about Canada and go. Bye Felicia.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Do you actually think PP will do this?
My biggest concern with him is he'll actually do the opposite and completely sell himself to Trump.

We are already seeing many of the more sure Conservative supporters overlapping with MAGA support, jumping at the opportunity to be the 51st state etc.
I think PP will completely cozy up to Trump and move away from other markets.

This would have some economic benefits for Canada too but reduce leverage from a trade options perspective.
The US will take a lot of control over Canada under a CPC government.

Liberal policies made us dependent on the US.


As for selling to the US, that's the whole idea.

[Andy83]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Do you actually think PP will do this?
My biggest concern with him is he'll actually do the opposite and completely sell himself to Trump.

We are already seeing many of the more sure Conservative supporters overlapping with MAGA support, jumping at the opportunity to be the 51st state etc.
I think PP will completely cozy up to Trump and move away from other markets.

This would have some economic benefits for Canada too but reduce leverage from a trade options perspective.
The US will take a lot of control over Canada under a CPC government.

Almost exactly like they control us now? I don't think its even possible to have less leverage than we currently have.

With a majority, if that's what we get, it's hard to see a world where OnG infrastructure isn't a major priority in the coming years, especially if prices remain and current levels or higher.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Liberal policies made us dependent on the US.


As for selling to the US, that's the whole idea.

Liberal policies in the past ten years have made us less dependent on the Us than the previous 30 years of Alberta policy ever did. The US dependency is self inflicted. The province spent decades fighting the Central Canada boogeyman ensuring the US stayed as the customer.

‘Let the Eastern Bastards Freeze in the Dark’ was a fun slogan, but now you’re crying about the results the sentiment created.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Liberal policies in the past ten years have made us less dependent on the Us than the previous 30 years of Alberta policy ever did. The US dependency is self inflicted. The province spent decades fighting the Central Canada boogeyman ensuring the US stayed as the customer.

‘Let the Eastern Bastards Freeze in the Dark’ was a fun slogan, but now you’re crying about the results the sentiment created.

The only way to get oil to anyone other than the US is pipelines to the coast and tankers.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Liberal policies made us dependent on the US.


As for selling to the US, that's the whole idea.

Don't disagree about the JT Liberals.
Disagree with Goriders that we'd be less US dependent under CPC.
Sounds like you do too.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

The only way to get oil to anyone other than the US is pipelines to the coast and tankers.

The Liberals got one of those built.

Liberal attempts at building pipelines anywhere but the US in previous decades were fought against. Alberta kept wanting to send oil to the US. Even Energy East died because the prospect of Keystone XL was so much more economical (sure the Liberals took credit because it made political sense to do so, and TC was more than happy to let them, but all they did was cancel a pipeline that was never getting built in the first place, just like they did with Northern Gateway).

Alberta’s egress diversity problems are a result of 40 years of Alberta policy, not ten years of federal policy.

[Manhattanboy]

After the US tariffs are in place Canada will really need to get out of its own way.

What I want to hear from PP and Carney, and from municipal and provincial leaders as well, is a serious commitment to reducing regulatory hurdles and eliminating red tape.

Want to start a business, build a house, do a major transaction, great, permits and approvals should take days or a couple of weeks, and this should apply to every industry and sector.

And we need to work to eliminating interprovincial trade barriers. There’s an article today in the Financial Post that doing so could result in a significant boost to GNP.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Andy83

I could turn it right back around, and say if she has no say in any of this as you suggest, why is everyone so up in arms about her supposed anti-team Canada treachery? If she has no authority, no impact on negotiations, what she says or does shouldn't matter, right? But we both know that's a load of horses##t. Or maybe you don't. That's a you problem.

This has already been already to you multiple times, and to others several times over. You’re confused. Having no authority does not mean you can have no impact on negotiations. You’re panicked arguing that even the mention of an empty threat has an impact on negotiations, so it shouldn’t be a stretch for you to figure out how a Canadian official, even unauthorized, hurts negotiations, unless you’re entirely unfamiliar with how negotiations work.

Originally Posted by Andy83

Agree or disagree with Trumps statements regarding tariffs, it's what he's said. He's the trading partner we have to deal with. It's the path he's said he's chosen. Nothing we can do about that. You can either realize he's a narcissist that just says a bunch of things (often ridiculous) hoping it gets him a better deal, and fight for a deal that works for Canadians, or you can follow him, play his game, and say a bunch of stupid #### too. Issuing ridiculous empty threats, again, unless you are willing to burn it all to the ground, is definitely not productive, or in Canadas best interest. If you can't comprehend how even an empty threat can still be damaging, that's a you problem.

You’re talking yourself in circles here. How is saying “everything is on the table” damaging to negotiations and your position?

Trump apparently says ridiculous things to get himself a better deal, so what Canada should do is respond by “fighting” (vague definition) to get a better deal, but we should make sure that “fighting” doesn’t include anything ridiculous, includes (unnamed) tariffs that aren’t as damaging, doesn’t include being prepared for if comments aren’t just bluster, includes rogue premiers with no authority knocking on his door and attempting to advocate for their own interests with no authority, and results in a “better” deal for Canadians which Trump is simply going to give us because we were gentle, took whatever he gave, and could even put up a unified front for an hour.

Sounds like a great plan.

Originally Posted by Andy83

lIf you can't comprehend how advocating for a win-win deal, is fundamentally different from getting a deal done, well, again, that's a you problem.

How do you advocate for a win-win deal when you have no terms, no experience, no authority, and no backbone?

Originally Posted by Andy83

Your first question, more so "this one little one", referring to Canadas largest export, paints a pretty clear picture how disingenuous you truly are.

Oh, so it’s a big deal is it? And if we pulled that trigger it’d likely harm the US considerably? I mean putting a tax on our largest export… seems expensive for them. You’re right, we should consider doing it.

I keep answering your questions. You refuse to answer mine. I can only guess why that is when all I’m asking is for you to expand on things you’ve actually said. You can keep throwing an insult into every second line if you want, but it’s pretty clearly projection at this point.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

The Liberals got one of those built.

Liberal attempts at building pipelines anywhere but the US in previous decades were fought against. Alberta kept wanting to send oil to the US. Even Energy East died because the prospect of Keystone XL was so much more economical (sure the Liberals took credit because it made political sense to do so, and TC was more than happy to let them, but all they did was cancel a pipeline that was never getting built in the first place, just like they did with Northern Gateway).

Alberta’s egress diversity problems are a result of 40 years of Alberta policy, not ten years of federal policy.

Alberta doesn't have the jurisdiction to build a pipeline anywhere outside of the province so claiming that it is Alberta policy which dictated not being able to build a pipeline to the east is quite a stretch. If Alberta could enact policy like that there would have been a pipeline running to Quebec a long time ago.

Everyone loves the informative reporting from The Narwhal so here is their write up on Energy East:
https://thenarwhal.ca/montreal-oppos...east-pipeline/

[Andy83]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Liberal policies in the past ten years have made us less dependent on the Us than the previous 30 years of Alberta policy ever did. The US dependency is self inflicted. The province spent decades fighting the Central Canada boogeyman ensuring the US stayed as the customer.

‘Let the Eastern Bastards Freeze in the Dark’ was a fun slogan, but now you’re crying about the results the sentiment created.

I'd agree with most things, ignoring petroleum products, we are probably less dependent on the US than we were 10 years ago, but you can't really ignore 20-25% of our exports. What are we to do? Let it "rot"? Because we sure as hell don't have the capacity to do much else with it.

Say what you want about pipelines east and west, how they were scrapped for one reason or another. There are other valid contributing factors, but anti pipeline legislation and rhetoric sure hasn't helped our current situation. All that being said, it's speculation at best as to whether or not these projects would have been finished, or even successful with the full support of the government, but that's also not really the point.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Alberta doesn't have the jurisdiction to build a pipeline anywhere outside of the province so claiming that it is Alberta policy which dictated not being able to build a pipeline to the east is quite a stretch. If Alberta could enact policy like that there would have been a pipeline running to Quebec a long time ago.

Alberta literally fought against this. A pipeline to the East was part of the NEP. Becoming energy self-sufficient rather than needing buy foreign oil was a federal goal in the 60s and 70s, and Alberta fought against it every step of the way because it was better (see: cheaper) to sell as much to the US as possible.



Again, 'Let the Eastern Bastards Freeze in the Dark' was in response to "Central Canada" trying to get Alberta oil. The NEP was a federal attempt to strong arm getting it. Tariffs on oil exports were an attempt to make it more economical to get oil sold in Canada rather than sell to the US. Oil export requirements in NAFTA were celebrated by guaranteeing a supply to our most lucrative customer, but those requirements meant that finding other export markets wasn't in the cards until well into the 2000s.

[Andy83]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This has already been already to you multiple times, and to others several times over. You’re confused. Having no authority does not mean you can have no impact on negotiations. You’re panicked arguing that even the mention of an empty threat has an impact on negotiations, so it shouldn’t be a stretch for you to figure out how a Canadian official, even unauthorized, hurts negotiations, unless you’re entirely unfamiliar with how negotiations work.



You’re talking yourself in circles here. How is saying “everything is on the table” damaging to negotiations and your position?

Trump apparently says ridiculous things to get himself a better deal, so what Canada should do is respond by “fighting” (vague definition) to get a better deal, but we should make sure that “fighting” doesn’t include anything ridiculous, includes (unnamed) tariffs that aren’t as damaging, doesn’t include being prepared for if comments aren’t just bluster, includes rogue premiers with no authority knocking on his door and attempting to advocate for their own interests with no authority, and results in a “better” deal for Canadians which Trump is simply going to give us because we were gentle, took whatever he gave, and could even put up a unified front for an hour.

Sounds like a great plan.



How do you advocate for a win-win deal when you have no terms, no experience, no authority, and no backbone?



Oh, so it’s a big deal is it? And if we pulled that trigger it’d likely harm the US considerably? I mean putting a tax on our largest export… seems expensive for them. You’re right, we should consider doing it.

I keep answering your questions. You refuse to answer mine. I can only guess why that is when all I’m asking is for you to expand on things you’ve actually said. You can keep throwing an insult into every second line if you want, but it’s pretty clearly projection at this point.

I'm answering your relevant questions, expanded several times over, you just don't get it. Whether its willful ignorance, or plain lack of comprehension, I'm not entirely sure, but thats got nothing to do with me, what i am familiar with, or my experience. Thats all on you.

And cry all you want about mud slinging, you are right there in the muck with me.

Not much more to say.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

The Liberals got one of those built.

Liberal attempts at building pipelines anywhere but the US in previous decades were fought against. Alberta kept wanting to send oil to the US. Even Energy East died because the prospect of Keystone XL was so much more economical (sure the Liberals took credit because it made political sense to do so, and TC was more than happy to let them, but all they did was cancel a pipeline that was never getting built in the first place, just like they did with Northern Gateway).

Alberta’s egress diversity problems are a result of 40 years of Alberta policy, not ten years of federal policy.

No reasonable, informed person believes this.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Andy83

I'd agree with most things, ignoring petroleum products, we are probably less dependent on the US than we were 10 years ago, but you can't really ignore 20-25% of our exports. What are we to do? Let it "rot"? Because we sure as hell don't have the capacity to do much else with it.

I legitimately have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Say what you want about pipelines east and west, how they were scrapped for one reason or another. There are other valid contributing factors, but anti pipeline legislation and rhetoric sure hasn't helped our current situation. All that being said, it's speculation at best as to whether or not these projects would have been finished, or even successful with the full support of the government, but that's also not really the point.

What is the point, then?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

No reasonable, informed person believes this.

What do reasonable, informed people think about the economics of Energy East in 2017?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Alberta literally fought against this. A pipeline to the East was part of the NEP. Becoming energy self-sufficient rather than needing buy foreign oil was a federal goal in the 60s and 70s, and Alberta fought against it every step of the way because it was better (see: cheaper) to sell as much to the US as possible.



Again, 'Let the Eastern Bastards Freeze in the Dark' was in response to "Central Canada" trying to get Alberta oil. The NEP was a federal attempt to strong arm getting it. Tariffs on oil exports were an attempt to make it more economical to get oil sold in Canada rather than sell to the US. Oil export requirements in NAFTA were celebrated by guaranteeing a supply to our most lucrative customer, but those requirements meant that finding other export markets wasn't in the cards until well into the 2000s.

You are very much misinformed, mis-characterizing things and misrepresenting what happened. A pipeline was never part of the NDP and was not proposed. One of the intentions of the program was to try to provide a more secure, domestic source of oil to the east but the transportation mechanism was never part of the plan. What was established was price controls, increased taxation schemes on producers and a revenue/taxation model that would have increased federal revenue on the sale of oil. Alberta opposed the NEP on the grounds of all of those proposals as they were detrimental to the industry and economy here.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

You are very much misinformed, mis-characterizing things and misrepresenting what happened. A pipeline was never part of the NDP and was not proposed. One of the intentions of the program was to try to provide a more secure, domestic source of oil to the east but the transportation mechanism was never part of the plan. What was established was price controls, increased taxation schemes on producers and a revenue/taxation model that would have increased federal revenue on the sale of oil. Alberta opposed the NEP on the grounds of all of those proposals as they were detrimental to the industry and economy here.

The NEP disagrees with you, "pipeline" is mentioned 19 times.

With initiatives in the Program such as financial support for the Vancouver Island gas pipeline, the province can move rapidly to reduce its oil dependence, using its own energy sources.

In the past, the absence of transportation systems has denied Atlantic Canada access to assured supplies of Canadian oil and gas. The federal government has decided that the natural gas pipeline system should bé extended beyond Montreal to Quebec City and the Maritimes. This pipeline should be engineered in a way that facilitates economical reversal of flows, bearing in mind that Atlantic gas resources may be sufficient to support sales outside the region...
...The Government of Canada will, however, involve itself in the mainline, if necessary, to ensure that it proceeds quickly. Prompt action will permit construction of the pipeline with minimum delay, with a target of having gas available to Maritime consumers by 1983

In deciding to approve the proposal to "pre-build" portions of the
Alaska Highway Natural Gas Pipeline, and to export additional volumes of
Canadian natural gas through this facility, the Government of Canada was
especially conscious of the need to provide early markets and substantial cash flow to Canadian gas producers. It was particularly mindful of the financial difficulties of the small companies, many of them Canadian owned.

https://publications.gc.ca/collectio...2-80-4-eng.pdf