Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Maybe you're too young to remember this, or perhaps you just don't follow news that impacts other provinces, but in 1992 the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans completely shut down the Newfoundland cod fishing industry because it had become unsustainable after decades of mismanagement and overfishing. The cod population in Newfoundland waters had collapsed to a mere 1% of historic levels. The federal ban on Newfoundland cod fishing was only lifted in 2024, 32 years later, and even then fishing quotas are very tightly restricted.

As a direct result of the federal government's intervention, about 37,000 Newfoundlanders employed in the commercial fishing industry and related sectors lost their jobs. The population of the entire province in 1992 (including children, retirees, and non-working adults which make up about 40% of the total population) was 580k, so you can do the math and figure out what a sudden increase of 37,000 newly unemployed adults did to the local economy. If you scale that number up to Alberta's current population, that would be the equivalent of about 315,000 Albertans -- or three times the entire population of the greater Fort McMurray area -- suddenly losing their jobs practically overnight because of a mandate by the federal government.

And yet, I know dozens of Newfoundlanders, and not a single one of them has ever complained about Ottawa the same way so many Albertans do.

Thanks for posting this and you’re right, I wasn’t aware of that previous policy. However you sent me down a hilarious rabbit hole discussion with ChatGPT.

Sounds like the main difference between your example and how the feds have handled Alberta is that the cod fishing banning was an immediate and abrupt economic hit (the jobs number you post align but about a 2.8% GDP hit to Newfoundland) and was very devastating, whereas the tensions with Alberta have been long and protracted over time (NEP then climate / tanker ban / emissions caps). The ban on fishing was a necessary ecological problem in that if they didn’t do it the cod populations would have dwindled to basically extinction. The ban cost Atlantic provinces / Canadians hundreds of millions. In contrast the policy hits to Alberta are much harder to gauge because sometimes the issues Alberta faces are commodity price driven not exclusively policy. Nonetheless Alberta relies much heavier on oil and gas as a sector for its economy (25% of GDP) vs. what cod fishing was to Newfoundland (~7% at the time, call it). Tough to nail economic losses for Alberta but probably could comfortably put foregone revenues into the $50-60B neighborhood quite easily.

Over the 3-4 decades of continual hot/cold policy from the feds to Alberta the industry has been hit with hundreds of thousands of job losses. In the 80’s unemployment went from 3.7 to 12.4% in 4 years and business bankruptcies soared 150% (!!). The no more pipelines act was deemed unconstitutional…

Look there’s lots to discuss / unpack here (I only have so much time to read and reply on CP) and I absolutely will not deny that Albertans absolutely are whiners, like I think that’s a fair characterization honestly, but I think generally people are reasonable and it is fairly evident Trudeau and his policies and approach were largely unreasonable despite the fact he ####ed up private investment and then cornered himself into having to pay for it on public dime. The feds have not been friendly to oil and gas all the time over time and I think that shouldn’t be news or surprising that the then reaction is highly negative and whining. And further that is objectively awful what happened to those Newfoundland folks who relied on this jobs and economic input. If they were to be here today I’d tell them whine away- that is objectively painful to have your livelihood ruined because of government intervention. But I would add that the difference I think is that that policy was ecologically absolutely required whereas stopping Alberta from selling its energy is not at all.

The amount of money foregone by the gov of Canada ####ing around and finding out on oil and gas is colossal. Continues to be colossal and will be in 2027 onwards when we eclipse current pipeline / egress supply. You have a strategic globally desired resource that you’re refusing to sell for reasons truthfully nobody really in the heart understands.

Setting aside that the UN itself believes that a landlocked territory should have a self-determinant right to have access to tidewater to sell its resources and that the government of BC and (for the last few years / up until now) Canada have prevented Alberta from doing so, this colossal amount of foregone money is real even if you can’t accurately calculate it. We have teachers, doctors, unions, health care deteriorating, education deteriorating, infrastructure needing major investments, and this money collected goes to pay for things like that. I don’t understand why any teacher in Alberta would ever be anti-pipeline- it would help the government have access to funds to pay you properly.

Lastly, we should ask ourselves. Why do literally none of the other country’s with oil and gas supply / reserves not restrict themselves from selling it? It’s ONLY Canadians who need to be morally superior or right on the fight against climate change? If you’re the only one refusing to sell a product and there is no material change to climate change regardless of what you do, is it really smart to forego the economic advantages selling the stuff will give you? How can you truly be a climate change / environmental leader if you refuse to sell it?

Anyway thanks for the post / thought on that. It’s a cool little analogy you portray and I was curious if there’s any more out there. Sure, Alberta are whiners, but it’s not for no reason.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

The ban on fishing was a necessary ecological problem in that if they didn’t do it the cod populations would have dwindled to basically extinction.

I'd like to challenge this as a point of contrast.

While the scenario is very different, I think it is still fair to say there is a immediate need for action of some sort.

You may disagree with the actions taken, but if you are arguing that action now on GHG isn't needed, then you aren't arguing from a credible place. And if you're gonna just point fingers and say everyone else is the problem, then you aren't part of the solution, which makes you part of the problem.

I think the type of concern and scope of concern are in many ways very different but the ecological necessity is very real in both cases.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

There is no onus on Eby to do anything. Everything is on Smith, and she won't do it. If you think Carney will be able to do anything to stop Eby, I have a bridge to sell you. He's just as good at this as Horgan was. This ends the same way as the last one if you think it falls on Eby to do something.

I’ll buy that bridge. Carney is going to crush Eby like the loser he is because Carney knows the feds have all the cards, and isn’t afraid to use them. That’s why Eby wasn’t involved in these conversations.

Maybe instead of you whining about how it’s all on Alberta, you should be whining about how much of your tax money your politicians used starting frivolous and fabricated lawsuits that they knew they were going to lose. It wasn’t Horgan being “good”. It was Horgan doing things he knew were a complete waste of taxpayer money, but knowing he had a complete idiot in Ottawa that wouldn’t call him on his ####.

I guarantee Carney won’t stand for that bull####.

[AFireInside]

nm

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by Firebot

It's odd. You have several people in this thread, traditionally conservative leaning, or centrist and heavily critical of Trudeau most all saying they love what Carney is doing, people voting for Carney, even joining Liberal membership. People generally being very happy with the direction the Liberals and Canada as a whole is going for the first time in a very long time. This is making the CPC redundant or irrelevant, Poilievre has lost all his momentum and spiraling down, and yet there is little defending or excusing happening.

Yes some apparently can't help themselves, are still barking up defending Trudeau's past, or that Albertans are whiners with no redemption possible, or that they could never be happy even when for the first time in a long time, a Liberal led government is actually handing an olive branch instead of manure.

I have yet to hear one of these complainers say their thoughts on Carney's direction. It's like they simply just don't want to admit that Trudeau was a bad PM and they also don't want to acknowledge that the Liberal is a different party today that has gone much further right than they likely want. So they resort to gaslighting about problems that kicked Trudeau to the curb and have us in the current situation. No one has addressed that Notley was dealing with the same crap from Trudeau that Kenney and Smith were, even so much as calling Trudeau and his government tone-deaf. Just ignore it and keep blabbing that Albertans just like complaining. No one has addressed why Trudeau would put Guilbeault in as Ministry of Environment and Climate Change as anything other than a grift against western provinces. They still repeat stuff like be thankful for TMX, which was debated and debunked ad nauseum yet still they proceed.

It's very telling to see the true colours of these folks. This was never about making things better. It's turned into "I just don't like these folks and they should never have nice things because they have opposing views to mine and don't accept change for the better based on my personal terms".

Oh look as I type this, Exhibit A

Please explain what you mean?

I'm from Fort McMurray, my family and friends all still live and work up there, I'm all for getting things developed. I literally said in my posts that there were times where it would be very difficult to get things done, I never said Trudeau was a good PM either. So explain to me how I think my own family shouldn't have nice things. For the record my family doesn't have opposing views to me.

I'll wait.

[Locke]

I saw a #### Carney sticker pasted over top of a #### Trudeau sticker which, I gotta tell ya, I thought was hilarious.

And Carney gets some Carney points just for getting Guilbeault to take his ball and go home. That guy should never have been in a Government position to begin with let alone a Minister of anything.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Firebot

It's odd. You have several people in this thread, traditionally conservative leaning, or centrist and heavily critical of Trudeau most all saying they love what Carney is doing, people voting for Carney, even joining Liberal membership. People generally being very happy with the direction the Liberals and Canada as a whole is going for the first time in a very long time. This is making the CPC redundant or irrelevant, Poilievre has lost all his momentum and spiraling down, and yet there is little defending or excusing happening.

Yes some apparently can't help themselves, are still barking up defending Trudeau's past, or that Albertans are whiners with no redemption possible, or that they could never be happy even when for the first time in a long time, a Liberal led government is actually handing an olive branch instead of manure.

I have yet to hear one of these complainers say their thoughts on Carney's direction. It's like they simply just don't want to admit that Trudeau was a bad PM and they also don't want to acknowledge that the Liberal is a different party today that has gone much further right than they likely want. So they resort to gaslighting about problems that kicked Trudeau to the curb and have us in the current situation. No one has addressed that Notley was dealing with the same crap from Trudeau that Kenney and Smith were, even so much as calling Trudeau and his government tone-deaf. Just ignore it and keep blabbing that Albertans just like complaining. No one has addressed why Trudeau would put Guilbeault in as Ministry of Environment and Climate Change as anything other than a grift against western provinces. They still repeat stuff like be thankful for TMX, which was debated and debunked ad nauseum yet still they proceed.

It's very telling to see the true colours of these folks. This was never about making things better. It's turned into "I just don't like these folks and they should never have nice things because they have opposing views to mine and don't accept change for the better based on my personal terms".

Oh look as I type this, Exhibit A

I must be great to be Justin Trudeau... he gets to have sex with Katy Perry and will never have to pay a dime for lodgings since he gets to live rent free inside of Conservatives heads.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Locke

I saw a #### Carney sticker pasted over top of a #### Trudeau sticker which, I gotta tell ya, I thought was hilarious.

And Carney gets some Carney points just for getting Guilbeault to take his ball and go home. That guy should never have been in a Government position to begin with let alone a Minister of anything.

You can't ask for a better PM! He will be the best since Chretien.

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

You can't ask for a better PM! He will be the best since Chretien.

He's easily the most intelligent and competent PM we've had in a very long time, especially on the economic front. If anyone can steer us through these rough waters, it's him.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by direwolf

He's easily the most intelligent and competent PM we've had in a very long time, especially on the economic front. If anyone can steer us through these rough waters, it's him.

The Cons were idiots not to welcome him in because he wasn't a deplorable They would have won a super majority against the Libs easily.

instead they have a yapdog lameduck piece of kyit! hahahahahaha

[Mr.Coffee]

Eby says we can build the pipe but not lift the tanker ban.

Cool! Makes sense! Thanks Dave!

One country. Elbows up.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Eby says we can build the pipe but not lift the tanker ban.

Cool! Makes sense! Thanks Dave!

One country. Elbows up.

That's great news! We can build the pipe since we have the provincial blessing, and the federal waters are outside their jurisdiction, so we're good to go!

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Eby says we can build the pipe but not lift the tanker ban.

Cool! Makes sense! Thanks Dave!

One country. Elbows up.

We have been told by some of the more savvy individuals well versed in the industry that the tanker ban isn't really a tanker ban because eeny teeny tankers can still come in. Eby should know better than to call it a ban.

Originally Posted by Wolven

Which policy is destructive or toxic? At worst the tanker "ban" is inconvenient. "Oh no, tankers can carry 12,500 or less tons of crude but not 12,501 or more tons. waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" (not an actual ban on tankers)

[Firebot]

On another note, "elbows up" Guilbeault speaks up.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cli...rney-9.6998944

Guilbeault said the federal government had been making progress on climate change but is rolling it back to “please Alberta.”

“In exchange for what? Because I looked at that agreement and I don’t understand why they did that.”

“Over the past few months, several elements of the climate action plan I worked on as minister of the environment have been, or are about to be, dismantled: the consumer carbon pricing, the Zero Emission Vehicle standard, the oil and gas sector emissions cap, the framework to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies and the Clean Electricity Regulations,” Guilbeault wrote.

“If my resignation from cabinet raises awareness and that people say ‘OK, perhaps we have gone a little too far in one direction and perhaps we have to steer the ship back a little,’ if it can serve that purpose, it will be a good thing,” he said.

Basically he's upset because Canadians elected a pragmatic PM over an ideological one for once and he can't get his glees rejecting projects like the Lac Saguenay LNG terminal project anymore and telling off the Nova Scotia premier where he can stuff his cap and trade plan.

Any more of the remnants of the Trudeau crew want to quit? I'm all for it and hope they take Guilbeault's lead to take a hike and let responsible government prevail for once.

It's funny how all of a sudden we have resignations, last straws and we have gone too far, when talking of partial reversal of some Trudeau era policies that some try to claim are not destructive policies. Funny how that works.

[Fuzz]

Nobody cares, Stephen. Time to go away.

[The Yen Man]

I like the direction Carney's taking because he's more of progressive conservative IMO, where his policies will align a lot more with my views, but he's not going to be socially regressive like the right wing lunatics.

[Ashartus]

Guilbeault to me is an excellent example of why you should never have ideologues in cabinet positions, at least not on the portfolio where they have an ideological position. They end up focusing on their own agenda instead of balanced governance.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Locke

I saw a #### Carney sticker pasted over top of a #### Trudeau sticker which, I gotta tell ya, I thought was hilarious.

And Carney gets some Carney points just for getting Guilbeault to take his ball and go home. That guy should never have been in a Government position to begin with let alone a Minister of anything.

We are at the point where results don't matter anymore. Guilbeault out of the picture is a huge win for any conservative supporter. We aren't at the critical level of the US, but party loyalty is eroding our democratic principles as tribalism increases with Canadians.