Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[dammage79]

They should have went with Charest.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's not that we're smarter than them. They're just beholden to special interests and right-wing lunatics, and they can't pivot too hard without driving a bunch of them away.

It's similar to why the Democrats refused to pivot towards better policies for working class people instead of trying to move right to capture Republican voters. Everyone with a half a brain knew that was a terrible strategy, but it's what the DNC donors asked them to do, so they obliged.

I don’t know if I buy this whole he’s beholden to Trump like people or whatever, but whatever the case, if it’s a strategy that will end up being beholden to extremes or special interest groups and don’t sort of broadly align with centrist people it is a bad strategy and in my opinion will never win a Canadian federal election, so, yeah, pretty stupid.

[GGG]

I think there is still risk that Carney Igantiaffs himself. His Carbon tax plan is to expand the Carbon tax onto imports and hide it. It’s correct economically but if people catch on it could sink him.

His comments around the price of steel were bad

He is not a politician So still lots of opportunities for him to sink himself.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Torture

Odd how it seems to primarily be right leaning English speaking commentators that have a problem with Carney's French while Chantal Hebert says that it's fine if a bit rusty and that Quebecers are defending it.
I'm not qualified to judge his French language skills but he seems to be polling fine in Quebec.

Monday's debate doesn't look like it was particularly good for Carney and his French.

The first major French test for federal Liberal leadership hopeful Mark Carney came during Monday's debate in Montreal, and it proved to be a tough slog.

One political science professor echoed what many commentators in Quebec said following the French-language debate — Carney's mastery of the language was the weakest of the four candidates, who included former finance minister Chrystia Freeland, former government House leader Karina Gould and ex-MP Frank Baylis.

Carney's lack of regular exposure to French in recent years was on display as he put himself forward for a job that requires a command of Canada's two official languages, McGill professor Daniel Beland said in an interview Tuesday. But Carney's performance should be looked at in perspective, Beland said.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/car...ance-1.7468412

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by troutman

Can we not use “dippers” to describe NDP supporters? It’s meant as a childish insult.

Dipper has a very different meaning amongst Indo-Canadians, so if I called Jagmeet a dipper, it would have nothing to do with the party .

I never knew this was an NDP term/dig.

[Johnny Makarov]

All these Libs are wayyyy too nice.... ugh

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think there is still risk that Carney Igantiaffs himself. His Carbon tax plan is to expand the Carbon tax onto imports and hide it. It’s correct economically but if people catch on it could sink him.

His comments around the price of steel were bad

He is not a politician So still lots of opportunities for him to sink himself.

Yeah, tons of time still. The Conservatives under Campbell and the Liberals under Turner both had leads after a leadership change but eventually got slaughtered. That said, I do think the context is a bit different:

1) Eventual winners Mulroney and Chretien were pretty strong leaders and very formidable opponents. Nothing I've ever seen from Poilievre puts him in that category and his enduring personal unpopularity makes it an easier hill to climb.

2) There's no real comparison to the current situation with the US in those past elections. If the friction with Trump doesn't die down before the election, it's going to be tough for the Conservatives to not be damaged by it.

Another thing that's working against the Conservatives is that their current base of support is among low propensity voters. The last poll I saw showed virtually their entire foundation of support being built on males under the age of 49 (and primarily those under 35). They were 23 points back among women and about 15 points back in the 49+ demographic. Those people don't turn out with the same reliability as older voters do.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think there is still risk that Carney Igantiaffs himself. His Carbon tax plan is to expand the Carbon tax onto imports and hide it. It’s correct economically but if people catch on it could sink him.

His comments around the price of steel were bad

He is not a politician So still lots of opportunities for him to sink himself.

I'm telling you, come out and support a massive expansion on the oil & gas industry and nobody will care about the carbon tax.

Given the whole situation in the US, there is also no reason we can't have gas & diesel refining capabilities in Canada that produce fuel for the entire country. That would lower costs quicker than the carbon tax increases them.

Canada's oil & gas companies have found ways to produce their product with the lowest emissions in the world. We can continue doing so while lowering emissions year after year.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm telling you, come out and support a massive expansion on the oil & gas industry and nobody will care about the carbon tax.

Given the whole situation in the US, there is also no reason we can't have gas & diesel refining capabilities in Canada that produce fuel for the entire country. That would lower costs quicker than the carbon tax increases them.

Canada's oil & gas companies have found ways to produce their product with the lowest emissions in the world. We can continue doing so while lowering emissions year after year.

Expanding refining in Canada would increase costs of diesel and require subsidies or import Tarrifs to support. You get more socialist by the day.

[puffnstuff]

Who would build these refineries? The govt?

[Azure]

I guess it depends on why you think more refining isn't being built.

Right now we're refining about 2 million barrels per day. Shipping oil south, even at a discount, and then buying it back in the form of fuel against the US dollar should be more expensive than building more refining capacity in Alberta (closest to the source), and moving the fuel east / west as needed, no? Something we already do daily.

Why can't the refineries in Alberta that are already processing Alberta oil be upgraded to produce more diesel as an example?

I'm honestly tired of hearing its not cheap or not quick. And I think the rest of Canadians are as well.

Economics aren't the only issue preventing this. A mountain of red tape also doesn't help.

[Azure]

Just a quick input into Chat GPT because I'm lazy.

Building new refineries in Canada to produce gasoline, diesel, and other crude-based products—like jet fuel, lubricants, or petrochemicals—could make sense on paper. It’s a way to squeeze more value out of Alberta’s oil sands crude while meeting local fuel demand. But the reality’s a beast—let’s dive into why it’s tough, and where it might work.

Start with the upside. A new refinery could process Alberta’s 3.4 million barrels per day of crude—mostly heavy bitumen—into a mix of high-demand stuff: gas and diesel for cars and trucks, plus jet fuel (aviation’s still growing) and petrochemical feedstocks like naphtha or propylene for plastics and chemicals. Canada’s petrochemical sector is underdeveloped—most crude gets shipped raw to the U.S., where they turn it into higher-value products. A multi-product refinery could keep that profit at home, diversify the economy, and maybe even export to the Prairies or northern U.S. Alberta’s got the raw material in spades, and pipelines like Enbridge’s Mainline could feed it.

Now the brutal part: cost. A greenfield refinery producing, say, 200,000 barrels per day might run $10-15 billion, based on recent projects like Saudi Aramco’s Jazan ($17 billion) or even Husky’s canceled 150,000-barrel West White Rose ($8 billion before it died). Adding complexity—specialized units for lubricants or petrochemicals—could push it higher. Refining margins are fickle; you might make $15 per barrel on a good day, but global oversupply or a recession tanks that fast. With EVs cutting into gas demand long-term, you’d need those extra products (jet fuel, chemicals) to justify the investment. Break-even could take 15-20 years, and that’s if oil prices cooperate.

Engineering’s a challenge too. Alberta’s crude is heavy—API gravity around 20-25—so a new refinery needs cokers, hydrocrackers, and hydrogen plants to turn it into lighter fuels and products. That’s pricier than a simple gasoline-focused plant. Multi-product output means more units—catalytic reformers for jet fuel, alkylation for high-octane gas, fractionators for petrochemicals. It’s doable; Suncor’s Edmonton refinery already makes some jet fuel alongside gas and diesel. But scaling that up requires land, skilled labor (Canada’s short on refinery engineers), and a massive power supply—think gigawatts, with carbon costs tacked on.

Then there’s the regulatory gauntlet. Canada’s Impact Assessment Act could delay a new refinery 3-5 years—environmental reviews, emissions caps, Indigenous consultations. Carbon pricing ($65/tonne now, $170 by 2030) hits hard; a 200,000-barrel plant might emit 2-3 million tonnes of CO2 yearly, adding $200-500 million in annual taxes unless it’s ultra-efficient. Public opposition’s fierce too—look at Energy East or Coastal GasLink. Alberta’s pro-oil government might fast-track permits, but Ottawa’s net-zero obsession leans toward windmills, not oil stacks.

Where could it happen? Alberta’s the spot—near Edmonton or Fort Saskatchewan, where crude’s already flowing and industrial zones exist. Tie it into existing pipelines (Keystone, Trans Mountain) and rail for export. A smaller, modular refinery—say, 50,000 barrels per day—might dodge some costs and red tape, focusing on diesel (trucks aren’t going electric soon) and petrochemicals (global demand’s up 4% yearly). Partner with a chemical giant like Dow or BASF to split the bill and lock in buyers.

Could it work? Yes, if oil stays above $70, margins hold, and Canada bets on crude over renewables. You’d get fuel price stability, jobs (thousands during construction, hundreds permanent), and a petrochemical edge. But the risk is brutal—billions up front, decades to profit, and a world shifting green. What’s your take—gamble on oil’s future, or too late to the party?

[Fuzz]

If there was a business case for it, it would have been done. Businesses like to make money. So I can only assume we refine enough diesel in Alberta to match our consumption and exports. Are we importing diesel? If not, why would a company decide to refine more?



The lower mainland imports refined product because it's cheaper than building a refinery. Maybe a case could be made for eastern Canada, if we had more pipeline capacity that way.

[Geraldsh]

Yes, the government will have to build the refineries and pipelines we need as well as railroads and whatever other infrastructure we need to remain a sovereign nation. No one else can navigate the red tape successfully.
Thank you Trump for giving us the kick in the butt we need to make this happen.

[Fuzz]

Figure 1. From crude oil production (A) to diesel fuel use in Alberta (E), showing that transportation fuels dominate refined petroleum products (C) and diesel production from Alberta oil is about nine times diesel demand in the province (D). Figure compiled by CESAR with data from the National Energy Board, Alberta Energy Regulator, Energy Information Administration (USA) and Statistics Canada.

https://www.cesarnet.ca/blog/zero-em...ic-opportunity


So ya, why refine more diesel?

[Azure]

Alberta likely ships between 50,000 and 100,000 b/d of refined diesel east to provinces like Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and occasionally Ontario via pipelines like the Enbridge Mainline, supplemented by rail.

Also, obviously not JUST talking about refining diesel. Think a little bigger, perhaps? I know that is hard for you but lets try, k?

[Geraldsh]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://www.cesarnet.ca/blog/zero-em...ic-opportunity


So ya, why refine more diesel?

We must be selling what we don’t use ourselves, are we selling it profitably? If so why not sell more?

[Fuzz]

Without export capacity how does it make sense?


And even if we did have export capacity, refineries are incredibly expensive, so it would still make more sense financially to export the raw(or upgraded) product. The fact that no business has done that is the signal it isn't economically viable. So are you going to fund it?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Geraldsh

We must be selling what we don’t use ourselves, are we selling it profitably? If so why not sell more?

Limited export capacity and markets that can be served more economically efficiently from other sources.

[Azure]

Pipelines are incredibly expensive as well, but even at $34b Trans Mountain expansion sure seems like a hell of a deal right now.