Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This makes no sense to me, but maybe there's something I am unaware of... can you explain how these ecosystems are more sensitive than, for example, those involved in the Coastal Gaslink route that was recently finished.

Doesn't LNG basically evaporate when exposed to ambient conditions? Obviously it would still have some negative environmental effects, but it's nothing like an oil spill in a marine environment.

[Blaster86]

It's not party policy to hate gays and control women's bodies but also we're not going to stop any of our MPs from doing it.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

It's not party policy to hate gays and control women's bodies but also we're not going to stop any of our MPs from doing it.

"Here we go with the secret agenda stuff again." - Every CPC supporter on this board.

Guys, it's not secret. They're telling you who they are. Believe them.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by rubecube

"Here we go with the secret agenda stuff again." - Every CPC supporter on this board.

Guys, it's not secret. They're telling you who they are. Believe them.

They'll moderate once elected.

[Blaster86]

I never thought I'd say this, but I long for the days of Stephen Harper's CPC. Yeah, all the same crazies were there but he kept a lid on them and didn't let them share their ####ing insanity.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

An incident with a gas tanker, while bad, wouldn't be nearly as devastating as an oil spill. And lets not pretend these don't happen, we recently had a ship clog up the Suez canal, and other crash into and destroy a stationary bridge.

Given the violence of winter storms, and the strength of tides in the area, a disabled oil tanker could easily turn into a devastating disaster quickly.

I'm not going to die on this hill, I'm just pointing out there are reasonable grounds to be worried about the possibilities. Since, you know, it's happened before with the Valdez north of there. And it's still a problem.

https://hakaimagazine.com/news/wound...0-years-later/

We can't just let fear stop us though. If the concern is specifically oil spilling, then substantial measures can be put in place to mitigate the risk as much as possible. I am in favor of derisking using $ but not just blocking a project out of fear for a potential outcome.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Doesn't LNG basically evaporate when exposed to ambient conditions? Obviously it would still have some negative environmental effects, but it's nothing like an oil spill in a marine environment.

I don't think there would be major marine implications to a marine environment similar to an oil spill but a release of LNG would have a substantial CO2 equivalency in terms of green house gas, and obviously if a catastrophic failure were to happen in port, the resulting fire/explosion could be substantial.

[Badgers Nose]

We could see the warning signs during C19, but it is clear now that free trade and global supply chains are an experiment that is ending. It always relied on the USA to police routes and keep everything flowing.

Five years ago we were scrambling to get meds and supplies because manufacturing had moved to other parts of the world. Now the nation that kept the cargo moving says that they don't want to do that anymore, and that they are going to punish our exports to their markets.

Whether it's the Libs or Poli, Canada has to be more self-sufficient. We need to bring some critical manufacturing back here (tax breaks/investments/whatever we have to do), and we need a proper national energy corridor - it should be as big a priority as increasing our defense spend (very high).

Sure they want our oil, we sell it to them dirt cheap and they refine it and sell it back to us for huge profits - we really need to refine here. It should be nationalized (Petro Canada style) if we can't find anyone to build them (East/Central/West).

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

We can't just let fear stop us though. If the concern is specifically oil spilling, then substantial measures can be put in place to mitigate the risk as much as possible. I am in favor of derisking using $ but not just blocking a project out of fear for a potential outcome.

My issue with pipelines is always a legacy issue. What measures are in place that makes sure that these things remain safe and operational 100 years from now? Let alone 200 years from now.

Does this come at the cost of tax payers, or are measures in place to gather funds from corporations to ensure that resources are available?

https://thenarwhal.ca/hidden-danger-...-of-pipelines/

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

My issue with pipelines is always a legacy issue. What measures are in place that makes sure that these things remain safe and operational 100 years from now? Let alone 200 years from now.

Does this come at the cost of tax payers, or are measures in place to gather funds from corporations to ensure that resources are available?

Yeah, this is a very reasonable concern especially given the amount of assets that the same/similar companies have left abandoned within our province, requiring public funds to fix.
I would also support some for of bond or insurance required that prevented this. However, historically liability on this scale requires government backstopping of some sort.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

We can't just let fear stop us though. If the concern is specifically oil spilling, then substantial measures can be put in place to mitigate the risk as much as possible. I am in favor of derisking using $ but not just blocking a project out of fear for a potential outcome.

It's not fear, it's a risk analysis. I think that particularly location is too risky, others are free to disagree. I've spent time on the water in storms and heavy tides, and I don't care how big a ship you are in, if you lose power or steering, things go from fine to "oh ####!" in seconds, and they've got a lot of islands to navigate around.


I'm not sure what mitigation you are thinking could be done. But I don't think we should just say "####in' send it buddy!" every time a new resource project is dreamed up.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

They'll moderate once elected.

The wild thing to me is that we had posters on here who would have happily voted for this garbage simply out of spite.

Which sort of goes back to earlier points I've made about how neoliberalism is essentially a gateway drug to fascism.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

My issue with pipelines is always a legacy issue. What measures are in place that makes sure that these things remain safe and operational 100 years from now? Let alone 200 years from now.

Does this come at the cost of tax payers, or are measures in place to gather funds from corporations to ensure that resources are available?

https://thenarwhal.ca/hidden-danger-...-of-pipelines/

As we've seen in Alberta, Conservatives have always been on top of making sure industry cleans up the mess they've left behind them *cough*orphaned wells*cough*, with zero expense to the taxpayers.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

It's still crazy to me how so many use the "there's no direct equalization payment" or "equalization isn't an extra payment" as some sort of gotcha about how equalization works and that Albertans' issues with it are misguided somehow.

The issue is that, like edslunch admits, Alberta contributes more than it receives because Albertans make more on average. Well Albertans make more on average because of an industry that generates a tremendous amount of wealth for Albertans, which is passed along to the rest of the country via equalization payments.

That's where Albertans get pissed. Ya there's no extra or direct equalization payments, but by actively hurting the industry that provides the source of that additional wealth, you are hurting both Albertans and the rest of the country.

So how does Alberta, or the Government of Alberta, have the right to complain about federal taxation? it doesn't.

It's not Alberta's money. So the Alberta Government can shut the #### up about it.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

It's not party policy to hate gays and control women's bodies but also we're not going to stop any of our MPs from doing it.

In an open vote, how many Canadian MPs do you think would support legislation restricting abortion?

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

In an open vote, how many Canadian MPs do you think would support legislation restricting abortion?

That there are any is the problem. But realistically I think 20-25% are tone deaf enough to actually do it.

Edit - you said Canadian, not conservative. Closer to 10% for the whole house.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

In an open vote, how many Canadian MPs do you think would support legislation restricting abortion?

They only need 172. Do you really want to gamble on women's rights like that?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

In an open vote, how many Canadian MPs do you think would support legislation restricting abortion?

According to this, all current ones:


https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/media/anti-...ps-current.pdf

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

They only need 172. Do you really want to gamble on women's rights like that?

They wouldn’t get 50. Before the Liberals imposed party consensus on the issue, there were 4 Liberal MPs who were pro-Life. And any non-Conservative (and most Conservatives) who voted to restrict abortion would be kissing their political careers goodbye.

Abortion is a political non-issue in Canada because the overwhelming majority of the electorate doesn’t want to restrict it, not because parliament has made debate about it verboten.

From the same source:

80% of Canadians favour “a woman's right to an abortion if she so chooses,” with 63% strongly in favour. Eleven percent are opposed, with 5% strongly opposed.
https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/media/posit...nion-Polls.pdf

[edslunch]

Craziest chart I can remember