Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Mr.Coffee]

I mean I guess theoretically you can still build to anywhere south of the tip of Vancouver island… to Churchill… is that the plan?

There must be more to why he’s sticking to it. Makes no sense. Like how real is the tariff threat / trade war if this is his position?

[edslunch]

I thought I heard we was open to changing who has approval on what but I can’t find a source. I’d suggest he clarify this ASAP if that’s the case.

[GGG]

https://www.westernstandard.news/amp...nker-ban/63634

What do you think was actually said? This appears to be the source for this information. The article contains no quotes

It comes as he refused to repeal Bill C-69, the ‘No New Pipelines Act’ at a rally in Winnipeg on Tuesday. Under C-69, Carney would maintain a tanker ban on Canada’s West Coast that effectively kills oil export pipelines from Alberta, including Northern Gateway.

On Tuesday in Winnipeg, Carney committed to maintaining Bill C-69, The No New Pipelines Act is elected prime minister.

While Carney has stopped short of outright rejecting Energy East, he has suggested that Quebec’s opposition alone would be enough to block it — despite growing calls for Canadian energy exports to European markets struggling with energy security.

The lack of a direct quote suggests a lack of context. Anyone have a better source?

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Corey Hogan for the Liberals in Calgary Confederation.

https://bsky.app/profile/daveberta.b.../3llretevjpc2i

So excited to have a good candidate to stop Nixon. Way better than Keeper.
Let's do this Calgary Confed.

[Locke]

Are they electing Spiro Agnew?

Because I think he's been dead since the late 90s.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

https://www.westernstandard.news/amp...nker-ban/63634

What do you think was actually said? This appears to be the source for this information. The article contains no quotes

The lack of a direct quote suggests a lack of context. Anyone have a better source?

You can find the CPAC. He said they don’t have plans to repeal Bill c-69, but would be moving forward with simplifying the approval process for projects of a national interest, go forward with a “one project, one approval” mandate, and accept provincial assessments and approvals in place of federal ones to avoid duplication. He reiterated their commitment to working with indigenous groups.

So basically a nothing burger for the average person, but red meat for the low info conservative who has bought every thing they’ve been sold about c-69 from cons like PP.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I'm beginning to think he is what we think he is i.e. worse than Butts

He'll ruin this country

“Beginning to think”?

Why do you guys pretend you’re even capable of putting your bias aside?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

“Beginning to think”?

Why do you guys pretend you’re even capable of putting your bias aside?

Lol

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

“Beginning to think”?

Why do you guys pretend you’re even capable of putting your bias aside?

It's Carney's environmental bias we are most worried about. He doesn't seem to be going out of his way to allay our fears.

[Looch City]

Carney could be a literal saint sent from the Greek Gods but if he says ONE thing even remotely, slightly, just barely, against our BELOVED OIL AND GAS SECTOR then wtf he's the devil!

Out with the devil!

How do you even compete with that? Conservatives in this country are a lost cause. Good grief.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

It's Carney's environmental bias we are most worried about. He doesn't seem to be going out of his way to allay our fears.

We can just hope the average voter doesn’t need quite so much coddling.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Looch City

Carney could be a literal saint sent from the Greek Gods but if he says ONE thing even remotely, slightly, just barely, against our BELOVED OIL AND GAS SECTOR then wtf he's the devil!

Out with the devil!

How do you even compete with that? Conservatives in this country are a lost cause. Good grief.

Going this far in reaction doesn't help either. The fact is, exploiting Canada's natural resources for the benefit of the country is the best course forward. It would raise the standard of living of Canadians and really not alter the global climate change metrics.

The best case scenario would be if the Liberals decide to go forward quickly with Energy East, because it is in the national interest. Why would it be better for the Liberals than the Conservatives to be in control of this project. (This is with the caveat that they don't drag their feet at any point) The Liberals are more likely to not insist on corporate involvement all the way through. They can exact higher royalties or lease of the pipe.

The cons are too in bed with corporate Canada, but the only issue with the Liberals is lack of will. They grow a backbone, and they are the better choice. They are wishy-washy, and a flawed Conservative party is the better choice.

[starseed]

Three candidates booted from the conservatives in a little more than a day. I thought they would be better.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/vancouver/art...-race-tuesday/

I'm beginning to think that there is a serious problem with how Pierre chose the people that would run with him in this election. The election he has been trying to provoke for a long time.

I might just change my mind and start thinking Pierre has poor judgement that he is only doing this now that courting the PPC votes has proven to have come at too high a cost.

Any bets on who is next? I'm betting on the Conservative candidate for Campbell River who is a residential school denier. Lots more to go to shed the deplorable label!

[GGG]

I think booting candidates as things arise is positive. It’s a negative that there isn’t better vetting but it shows they know that they need to appeal to the general public to obtain power. So to be having 1% of candidates get through the vetting process and being forced to resign isn’t unreasonable.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

It's Carney's environmental bias we are most worried about. He doesn't seem to be going out of his way to allay our fears.

I think there's a good chance that having a good understanding of short term economic needs and the way they need to be balanced with longer term economic sustainability is more sensible conservative thinking that bias, and that your interpretation of his historical comments on the environment might be more of a display of your bias' than his.

One of his more famous works on the Tragedy of the Horizons gets right to the tension of maintaining existing needs, while collectively working to ensure we can maintain our economy in the future, and while generally applied to climate change in this century, I think there are many examples of that are not directly related to GHG emissions.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by starseed

Three candidates booted from the conservatives in a little more than a day. I thought they would be better.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/vancouver/art...-race-tuesday/

I'm beginning to think that there is a serious problem with how Pierre chose the people that would run with him in this election. The election he has been trying to provoke for a long time.

I might just change my mind and start thinking Pierre has poor judgement that he is only doing this now that courting the PPC votes has proven to have come at too high a cost.

Any bets on who is next? I'm betting on the Conservative candidate for Campbell River who is a residential school denier. Lots more to go to shed the deplorable label!

As opposed to the Liberals?

https://www.cbc.ca/lite/story/1.7496581

https://www.cp24.com/federal-electio...ive-candidate/

We should be happy the only 2 parties that matter in Canada are booting idiotic candidates. Finally both parties may actually start acting like adults

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by GGG

https://www.westernstandard.news/amp...nker-ban/63634

What do you think was actually said? This appears to be the source for this information. The article contains no quotes






The lack of a direct quote suggests a lack of context. Anyone have a better source?

How does anyone expect Energy East to get built in Quebec?

That's the problem. Quebec says no, you can't build a pipeline.

Perhaps a constitutional change giving natural resources and their distribution to the feds, but somehow I don't think Alberta would be on board with that (to be honest I don't know if I am).

I think the federal government needs to work with Quebec to find a way to make it happen. But what that way is, I dunno?

The best I can come up with is:

Federal Goverment: Builds pipeline for Energy East

Quebec Gets: New baseball park, surrounding entertainment district, all of which is downtown, and federal government support to bring the Expos back.

You get Montreal on board, you get Quebec on board.

[Ped]

All parties have problems vetting people in that they don't really do it. The Conservatives end up booting more because they tend to attract candidates with more views that could be considered offensive by large groups of people.


Literally their campaign playbook is just to not say stupid stuff until after the election but even then, many can't help themselves.

[schteve_d]

I, for real, don't even know. What is Quebec's basis for the opposition to a pipeiine?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by schteve_d

I, for real, don't even know. What is Quebec's basis for the opposition to a pipeiine?

They actually really want one, but find it so much more enjoyable to piss off Albertans, because we make it so easy for them. Think of it as a decades long Just 4 Laughs gag. They got us good.