Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Cappy

It's still crazy to me how so many (specifically, Albertans) don't know how equalization works.

Even the freedom USA has federal transfers which transfers huge amounts of federal taxes from rich states (typically, blue) to poorer states (typically, red)

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.

[Monahammer]

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-...alization.html

Here's the breakdown- we can all read it and talk about it equally.

My point was that quebec receiving proceeds of pipeline tolls needs to figure into this equation. I am not sure that it would today for numerous reasons.

[StickMan]

from an old article discussing Trevor Tombe equalization calculator:

Quebec charges below market rates for its electricity, causing its fiscal capacity to appear lower than it is, thus netting it billions more in federal transfers. Merely raising electricity rates to match Toronto drops Quebec’s equalization payment all the way down to $5.1 billion from $13.1 billion.

Another often ignored shortcoming, the equalization formula has many variables to estimate a government’s ability to pay for social services, but none to reflect the lower cost-of-living in recipient provinces. If it only costs $80,000 a year to hire a nurse in New Brunswick but $100,000 in Ontario, Alberta, or B.C., making payments on the premise that New Brunswick needs 100 per cent of its fiscal capacity is not fair. Tombe added a third important variable to the simulator: adjusting in accordance with the Consumer Price Index to reflect the relative cost of services.
With this third sensible reform made to the equalization simulator, Quebec’s payment drops 95 per cent to $700 million, Ontario suddenly gets about half its taxpayers’ money back with a $4.2-billion cheque, and the overall size of the program shrinks by 50 per cent, generating a $10-billion savings to all taxpayers.

Several features of the current approach to equalization arguably make it unconstitutional. It is supposed to help provinces achieve goals, but these are not defined in the federal legislation. Without definitions, there are no operational criteria for judging whether services are essential, or of reasonable quality, or reasonably comparable between provinces, or help the various provinces provide equal opportunities to their residents. Thus, there is also no way to know whether equalization is achieving its constitutional purpose. The lack of definitions and criteria also leads one to the conclusion that the real purpose of the program in practice is simply to redistribute income from taxpayers in all of Canada to certain favoured provincial governments.

Equalization simulator created by Trevor Tombe.

https://financesofthenation.ca/equalization/

[Fuzz]

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.

Isn't that position essentially saying Alberta should have the right to do whatever it wants without regard to the negative impacts it has on the rest of the country? For instance, lets pretend Europe refused to buy Quebec aluminum because Alberta's GHG emissions were too high, but would buy them it if we had a national carbon tax. So now Alberta is infringing on Quebec's ability to use it's resources to make money with their resources. The solution is something Alberta rejects. Should other provinces, and the country, not also have a say?

[Ben_in_Canada]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

This website got some random ####ing girl to the top of a contest in spite of that rule. This matters a lot more. I say #### the rules and go hard. I'll fight Photon myself if he tries to stop it.

Yep, was it Andrew Ha(?) who started that off with an attempted hijack?
I'm waiting to be added to the candidates page, I only got approved yesterday.
I'm not expecting to make that big of a splash at the ballot box, however, it is George Chahal vs a bunch of nobodies (Me included).

I'm going to be running for the Canadian Future Party, a centrist party that will have policies based on facts and evidence.
https://www.thecanadianfutureparty.ca/

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Isn't that position essentially saying Alberta should have the right to do whatever it wants without regard to the negative impacts it has on the rest of the country? For instance, lets pretend Europe refused to buy Quebec aluminum because Alberta's GHG emissions were too high, but would buy them it if we had a national carbon tax. So now Alberta is infringing on Quebec's ability to use it's resources to make money with their resources. The solution is something Alberta rejects. Should other provinces, and the country, not also have a say?

FWIW EU CBAMs will be a bit more technical than a country average like that preventing importing aluminum!

But, why would Alberta be infringing on Quebec if the federal government repealed Carbon Tax? Alberta has it's own industrial emitter program, TIER, and Quebec is part of the Western Climate Initiative which combines their cap and trade market with California.

The federal government is specifically vested rights over national infrastructure projects. It is their duty to put the needs of all citizens above the needs of specific regions. No, individual provinces should not get a say beyond electing federal representatives, as it materially changes the "deal" in confederation.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Ben_in_Canada

Yep, was it Andrew Ha(?) who started that off with an attempted hijack?
I'm waiting to be added to the candidates page, I only got approved yesterday.
I'm not expecting to make that big of a splash at the ballot box, however, it is George Chahal vs a bunch of nobodies (Me included).

I'm going to be running for the Canadian Future Party, a centrist party that will have policies based on facts and evidence.
https://www.thecanadianfutureparty.ca/

Do you have any insight into what else might be happening within the party for other ridings, in particular Confederation? I'd be interested in giving some serious consideration into voting for you guys if there was a candidate.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Isn't that position essentially saying Alberta should have the right to do whatever it wants without regard to the negative impacts it has on the rest of the country? For instance, lets pretend Europe refused to buy Quebec aluminum because Alberta's GHG emissions were too high, but would buy them it if we had a national carbon tax. So now Alberta is infringing on Quebec's ability to use it's resources to make money with their resources. The solution is something Alberta rejects. Should other provinces, and the country, not also have a say?

As has been discussed ad nauseam on this site, Canada's constitution stipulates that pipelines that cross provincial borders are exclusively the jurisdiction of the federal government. So while provinces should have a voice on what their potential drawbacks are so that an informed decision can be made, the ultimate decision should lie with the federal government on whether the project is for the benefit of Canadians as a whole.

For all of BC's (and many Canadians') grandstanding about Trans Mountain pipeline and fervent opposition to the pipeline, I'd like to see anyone on here argue now that it's built and operational that it's not in the best interest of Canada as a whole. Can you provide an example of where you think a pipeline that's been proposed has been in the negative interest of Canadians?

[Ben_in_Canada]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Do you have any insight into what else might be happening within the party for other ridings, in particular Confederation? I'd be interested in giving some serious consideration into voting for you guys if there was a candidate.

Yes, I believe we have a candidate for Calgary Confederation, he should be approved within the next week.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

FWIW EU CBAMs will be a bit more technical than a country average like that preventing importing aluminum!

But, why would Alberta be infringing on Quebec if the federal government repealed Carbon Tax? Alberta has it's own industrial emitter program, TIER, and Quebec is part of the Western Climate Initiative which combines their cap and trade market with California.

The federal government is specifically vested rights over national infrastructure projects. It is their duty to put the needs of all citizens above the needs of specific regions. No, individual provinces should not get a say beyond electing federal representatives, as it materially changes the "deal" in confederation.

It was meant to be a hypothetical it illustrate how one province demanding one thing could cause others to suffer. Perhaps I should have chosen a less realistic example. But I think the point remains, you can see how the interests of one province are not necessarily neutral to the economies of other provinces. Alberta demanding full unfettered resource development is not a reasonable ask due to the potential for large impacts on others.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

As has been discussed ad nauseam on this site, Canada's constitution stipulates that pipelines that cross provincial borders are exclusively the jurisdiction of the federal government. So while provinces should have a voice on what their potential drawbacks are so that an informed decision can be made, the ultimate decision should lie with the federal government on whether the project is for the benefit of Canadians as a whole.

For all of BC's (and many Canadians') grandstanding about Trans Mountain pipeline and fervent opposition to the pipeline, I'd like to see anyone on here argue now that it's built and operational that it's not in the best interest of Canada as a whole. Can you provide an example of where you think a pipeline that's been proposed has been in the negative interest of Canadians?

I agree that pipelines should be a federal decision. I disagree with Alberta's demands for everything everywhere.



For an example, I still think Northern Gateway was a risky project that had the potential for nation damaging incidents.

[rubecube]

Has anyone read this thing? Holy hell, there are a lot of dog#### policy proposals in here.

https://cpcassets.conservative.ca/wp...3517f7a575.pdf

10. Free Votes

The Conservative Party believes in restoring democratic accountability into the House of Commons by allowing free votes. All votes should be free, except for the budget, main estimates, and core government initiatives.
On issues of moral conscience, such as abortion, the definition of marriage, and euthanasia, the Conservative Party acknowledges the diversity of deeply-held personal convictions among individual party members and the right of Members of Parliament to adopt positions in consultation with their constituents and to vote freely.

Are people actually dumb enough not to be able to read between the lines?

"We're not against abortion and gay marriage. We're just gonna let our members vote on them and see where the chips fall. It's just a total coincidence that all of our members are against these things.

C. DEMOCRATIC REFORM
9. Officers of Parliament
The Conservative Party believes that senior officers such as the Auditor General, Chief Electoral Officer, Comptroller General, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Information Commissioner, and Privacy Commissioner should be appointed by Parliament and report to it.

11. Supreme Court Judge Appointments
The Conservative Party believes that nominees to the Supreme Court of Canada should be ratified by a free vote in Parliament, after receiving the approval of the justice committee of the House of Commons.

12. Senate Reform
The Conservative Party supports the election of senators. The Conservative Party believes in an equal Senate to address the uneven distribution of Canada’s population and to provide a balance to safeguard regional interests.
We believe that wherever the people of a province or territory by democratic election choose persons qualified to be appointed to the Senate, the government should continue the practice of filling any vacancy in the Senate for that province or territory from among those elected persons.

13. Electoral Reform
The Conservative Party believes the discussion of possible changes to the electoral system is valuable in a healthy democracy. In reviewing options for electoral reform, we believe the government should not endorse any new
electoral system that will weaken the link between Members of Parliament and their constituents, that will create unmanageably large ridings, or that will strengthen the control of the party machinery over individual Members of Parliament.

So they want a politicized judiciary and bureaucracy + the ability to gerrymander ridings based on land and not population.

Just say you want an American-style political system.

This is probably the most egregious and goes hand-in-hand with their attitudes on abortion, gay rights, etc.

15. Parliament, the Courts and the Charter

The Conservative Party believes that Parliament, rather than the courts, is the law-making body of Canada.

We support the establishment of a parliamentary judicial review committee to prepare an appropriate response to those court decisions that Parliament believes should be addressed through legislation.

We re-affirm the legitimacy of the entire Charter of Rights and Freedoms including section 33
(notwithstanding clause).

We support legislation to remove authority from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to regulate, receive, investigate or adjudicate complaints related to section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Let's just completely remove the checks and balances provided by the courts and allow parliament to decide what is constitutional.

Removing the mandates afforded to the CHRC and CHRT is disgusting.

How do people see these blatant power grabs that are designed to trample on human rights and go "Yep. This is the party for me?"

[rubecube]

But wait! There's more!

Straight from the Trump 2025 playbook:

19. Protecting Free Speech on Canadian Campuses
The Conservative Party of Canada will incentivize federal funding to Canadian universities that have implemented Chicago Principles. Such a mandate would mean schools must abide by and protect freedom of expression as it is described in the Charter. Failure to protect free expression would result
in losing federal funding.

Another Trump classic. We have too much DEI going on right now!

20. Unfair Hiring Practices
A Conservative government will restore merit in Canada’s innovation by directing hiring practices associated with federal research funding away from ideology and instead emphasizing first and foremost, supporting and retaining Canada’s research talent, irrespective of personal immutable characteristics.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

For an example, I still think Northern Gateway was a risky project that had the potential for nation damaging incidents.

Based on what?

[MrButtons]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The Conservative Party believes that senior officers such as the Auditor General, Chief Electoral Officer, Comptroller General, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Information Commissioner, and Privacy Commissioner should be appointed by Parliament and report to it.

Not sure the CoI and Ethics Commissioner reporting to the people theyre holding accountable seems like it makes much sense.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by MrButtons

Not sure the CoI and Ethics Commissioner reporting to the people theyre holding accountable seems like it makes much sense.

It does if your sole intention is to consolidate power within the governing party.

[MrButtons]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It does if your sole intention is to consolidate power within the governing party.

That wont happen cause everyone can vote freely!!

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Based on what?

The shipping routes through sensitive ecosystems and potential for hazardous conditions there. Less concerned on the pipeline than the loading facility location.

Spoiler!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...acts-1.2678818

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The shipping routes through sensitive ecosystems and potential for hazardous conditions there. Less concerned on the pipeline than the loading facility location.

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.

[Fuzz]

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.

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/