Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Ryan Coke]

The obvious solution would be to tie equalization money to allowing a pipeline that helps raise the revenue that goes towards equalization, but politically that is a big problem. Only chance is if a party had a strong majority, and it was pushed through early in their term, so that it might be somewhat forgotten by the time the next election rolls around.

[Fuzz]

That sounds messy. I think if the goal is to share, you do it through pipeline tolls.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Can anyone explain the deal with the actual bounty part? Like why the CCP has a bounty on the other guy?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pau...2025-1.7498693

Tay was seeking the party's nomination in Chiang's riding at that time, and is now running in Don Valley North. In December, Hong Kong police released an arrest warrant and bounty for Tay worth more than $180,000. The Liberal government denounced these types of warrants last year as an attempt to intimidate critics abroad.

Tay runs a YouTube channel that promotes democracy and free speech, and is the co-founder of Canada-based NGO HongKonger Station.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said Monday Tay is "afraid for his life."

It should be pretty self explanatory on why the bounty exists. You had an elected Liberal MP demand for everyone present at a Chinese government influenced media event to kidnap Tay (a political enemy of the communist Chinese government for speaking for Hong Kong and free speech) and collect the bounty at the Chinese consulate.
This isn't the last we will hear of this. It's made international news.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czd317lvdeeo

This is the newspaper in question he spoke at an event for which operates in Toronto and Vancouver as a Chinese government mouthpiece.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_Pao

Again, a reminder we are in the middle of an election with extreme elements of foreign interference readily present and not appropriately addressed, with a new RCMP investigation underway, without any names publicly released after an inquiry despite security clearances, and Mark Carney called this a "teachable moment" instead of the party addressing it.

We had an elected MP incite vigilantism to collect a foreign bounty in the name of a foreign country on a Canadian citizen running in an election for am opposition party, being protected by his party leader.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

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.

Or they just enjoy being contrarians in general. "What does everyone else want? Okay good ,we want the opposite!"


Maybe we should tell them we don't want any pipelines at all.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Ped

Or they just enjoy being contrarians in general. "What does everyone else want? Okay good ,we want the opposite!"


Maybe we should tell them we don't want any pipelines at all.

Still say the best course of action is Expos.

When does the Bell Centre need to be replaced?

[fotze2]

Aren't equalization payments just we pay more tax than Quebec (higher paying jobs etc.) or is there actual one time payments that are made every year on top of that?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by schteve_d

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

They don’t want to assume environmental risks, in particular to waterways and drinking water, while gaining no benefit to their own economy.

https://www.montrealgazette.com/news...cle804519.html

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That sounds messy. I think if the goal is to share, you do it through pipeline tolls.

Sure, as long as the toll income is calculated in the transfer payment scheme, reducing Quebec's take proportionally.

You can't "Share" on both ends, that's just taking advantage.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by schteve_d

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

Simply put, they don't benefit from it directly.

Pipelines (at least until recently) are very unpopular in Quebec as aiding Alberta and Canada while Quebec bears the brunt of any environmental issues without any Quebec resources being sold. It also solidifies anti-federalism sentiment which any Quebec provincial government needs to be mindful, as going against the grain will simply put a more separatist party in place, who is even more anti-pipeline. Quebec, also being a province which has ample hydro, has a population that would see little economic impact if oil and gas was to be killed outright in lieu of electric cars. It shouldn't be a surprise that provinces without oil and gas as an industry would have it's population not care for it.

It's more about "What's in it for me"

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

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).

No no no! The constitution CLEARLY gives the Federal government legislative authority over interprovincial infrastructure that is being built in the national interest, and it does so FOR THIS EXACT REASON. So that no province can hold the country hostage by blocking the construction of projects like these. It'sjust become so normal for it to happen anyway that people now seem to think they're entitled to do so. There is no reason for any constitutional change here - the reason the Feds don't force the issue is because it would give the Bloc more support. It's wholly a political problem and one of the most persistent examples of how the government caters to regional interests to stay in power at the expense of the wellbeing of the country as a whole.

[indes]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

No no no! The constitution CLEARLY gives the Federal government legislative authority over interprovincial infrastructure that is being built in the national interest, and it does so FOR THIS EXACT REASON. So that no province can hold the country hostage by blocking the construction of projects like these. It'sjust become so normal for it to happen anyway that people now seem to think they're entitled to do so. There is no reason for any constitutional change here - the reason the Feds don't force the issue is because it would give the Bloc more support. It's wholly a political problem and one of the most persistent examples of how the government caters to regional interests to stay in power at the expense of the wellbeing of the country as a whole.

This exactly. I've been banging the "western block" party for a while now because none of the parties have any incentive to do anything for Alberta. Cons have the votes with doing nothing, the libs won't get the votes no matter what they do. 0 benefit for the federal parties to go out on a limb for the Alberta votes that are not for sale.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Sure, as long as the toll income is calculated in the transfer payment scheme, reducing Quebec's take proportionally.

You can't "Share" on both ends, that's just taking advantage.

Technically it would be resource revenue, but because the resource isn't domestic to Quebec, I'm not sure it would fit in like that.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Firebot

I had no idea about the plagiarism angle until it was mentioned here.

What what stupid ass desperate take from Poilievre void of a proper campaign strategy, goddamn. Canadians ####ing care about Trump and being annexed first and foremost, not what Carney wrote 30 years and may or may not have improperly used a source. The election is a single issue one right now that has a strong impact on the ones he want to focus on (inflation / cost of living). You have to talk about Trump

His leaked message to Conservative party supporters today was about fighting hard against "the radical woke Liberals for the future of our country". I kid you not. not a single mention of Trump in his messaging, not a single mention of protecting against tariffs.

His stance worked when everyone was rightfully fully pissed off at Trudeau-Singh and destructive policies, but all attention is on Trump / tariffs / annexation. He thinks the Trump effect will wear off.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poi...ging-1.7497965

His stupid direction will likely cost him the leadership and the CPC an extra 4 years just because they want to make this a fight against wokeness instead of a fight against the US, and don't want to lose that messaging.

PP is in a pickle. If you look at the pools, the conservatives have lost almost zero support. They're on track to have the highest vote share in decades. The reason for the high support is PP managed to hold on to moderates while courting the hard right. If he goes soft on the "woke" and starts hammering the American right, he'll bleed support to the PPC.

He's not going to get many NDP voters and the Liberals have completely consolidated the left and the center leading to historic vote shares by eating away the left's base

PP has to try to get his voters highly, highly, highly energized and hope for a better turnout than the Liberals. The likely outcome of this strategy though is that the prairies go more blue than ever and the Conservatives fail miserably

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Technically it would be resource revenue, but because the resource isn't domestic to Quebec, I'm not sure it would fit in like that.

Yeah, but it would be calculated for Alberta as resource revenue, thus increasing the amount we owe to equalize.

That's why I'm saying it would be a double take if we also paid them a portion of the pipeline toll without accounting for it in those payments too.

As Corsi said though, the federal government has the power to make it happen regardless of Quebec's thoughts on the matter. They are just cowards. Today, right now, is probably the best chance we've had to get that ball over the line though.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

No no no! The constitution CLEARLY gives the Federal government legislative authority over interprovincial infrastructure that is being built in the national interest, and it does so FOR THIS EXACT REASON. So that no province can hold the country hostage by blocking the construction of projects like these. It'sjust become so normal for it to happen anyway that people now seem to think they're entitled to do so. There is no reason for any constitutional change here - the reason the Feds don't force the issue is because it would give the Bloc more support. It's wholly a political problem and one of the most persistent examples of how the government caters to regional interests to stay in power at the expense of the wellbeing of the country as a whole.

A reminder that Quebec has never signed the constitution and any federal imposition on Quebec (such as forcing a pipeline) will just further cement the sovereignty movement, which is already quite high.

[marsplasticeraser]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

They don’t want to assume environmental risks, in particular to waterways and drinking water, while gaining no benefit to their own economy.

https://www.montrealgazette.com/news...cle804519.html

yeah, this is 100% the issue so far.

While there are some people who are against pipelines in any circumstance, there are many more who would be ok with pipelines if it created jobs and benefited them tangibly.

I think there is definitely a moment now to get major projects started to deal with the recession that is coming from the US.

For O&G we can make a compelling case that refineries should be built in Canada and we should eliminate foreign oil, and create a situation where we can sell refined products on the global market.

The provinces can create Petro-Ontario, Petro-Quebec, Petro-Maritimes, Petro-BC and then build and operate their own refineries to serve themselves and foreign customers. This eliminates foreign oil altogether, and Canada, and our provinces become major O&G players.

This creates jobs in the short term, uses idle manufacturing labour in the time of tariffs, reducing the hard landing. Also, the provincial corporations take all the profits*, heck you could even earmark these profits for health care, or some other urgent need. 'This hospital built thanks to profits from Petro-Ontario'.

* Let's for now ignore the challenges of government run corporations, I think it's just easier to sell to the public that these pipelines create jobs and will fund the province by XX billion per year.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Yeah, but it would be calculated for Alberta as resource revenue, thus increasing the amount we owe to equalize.

That's why I'm saying it would be a double take if we also paid them a portion of the pipeline toll without accounting for it in those payments too.

As Corsi said though, the federal government has the power to make it happen regardless of Quebec's thoughts on the matter. They are just cowards. Today, right now, is probably the best chance we've had to get that ball over the line though.

I'll admit to not knowing exactly how this all works, but are pipeline exports added in? I'd have assumed it was the value for the resource at sale. So ya, Alberta would sell more oil due to having access to more markets, but isn't that the point? We'll make more money, the fiscal capacity of Alberta increases, but by Quebec getting tolls, their fiscal capacity also increases thus reducing their entitlement amount. How that all shakes out, I have no idea. But it seems to me we don't really need to do anything different.



And again, Alberta is fortunate we have this resource, and being stingy #######s to the rest of Canada because we lucked into it, particularly if they decide to work with us on a pipeline doesn't seem worth it.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by fotze2

Aren't equalization payments just we pay more tax than Quebec (higher paying jobs etc.) or is there actual one time payments that are made every year on top of that?

All Canadians pay the same Federal tax rates based on their income. Albertans pay more on average because they make more on average. All of that tax money goes into the Federal bucket to be spent on all sorts of things. One of the things it is spent on is making equalization payments to have not provinces.

There is no extra payment directly from have provinces to have not provinces. If the equalization program ended tomorrow it would make zero difference to Alberta. Our taxes wouldn't go down, Ottawa would just spend all the equalization money on something else instead, or reduce the deficit.

The actual argument is that Alberta pays more tax to Ottawa than we get back from Ottawa in transfers and services. I'm sure that's true but I haven't seen the actual rolled-up numbers. Our politicians don't make this argument, they always point to equalization because it's a big amount of government spending that Alberta (usually) doesn't get a piece of that other provinces do, and it helps that Quebec comes across as a pig at the trough with it's dodgy accounting of hydro revenue.

They could make the same argument about support for fishermen or any other regional program but they are smaller potatoes and few people hate fishermen.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Firebot

A reminder that Quebec has never signed the constitution and any federal imposition on Quebec (such as forcing a pipeline) will just further cement the sovereignty movement, which is already quite high.

This is wrong. The division of powers as between the federal and provincial governments is set out in the Constitution Act, 1867. That is what gives Parliament legislative authority over some things and the Provinces authority over other things (along with, obviously, over a century and a half of Supreme Court rulings interpreting that document).

The Constitution Act, 1982 is what you are referring to Quebec not having signed. That is not "the constitution". It is a piece of legislation that amended the Constitution. That legislation is primarily concerned with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It has nothing to do with this conversation.

It also has no effect, as Quebec's consent to the amendments to the Constitution were not required, per the Quebec Court of Appeal and the SCC.

[edslunch]

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.

Best case scenario is this:

Carney needs all the progressive votes he can get and he needs Quebec, since the CPCs vote share is holding at near-historic highs. He can't strongly support pipelines if he wants those votes, and he's unlikely to get many conservative votes no matter what position he takes, so he has been pretty mealy mouthed about it.

Post-election, with a majority, he can claim national emergency and pivot to support at least some pipelines and O&G activity, since he's smart enough to know the economic importance and the potential unity issues if he doesn't.

Will he? I guess we'll see.