Redford: Buyers Remorse?

[Tinordi]

You can take this to the bank.

In the next 10 years carbon will be regulated. The climate impacts are basically impossible to ignore right now.

When that happens and the rate of extraction not only levels but declines the golden goose will die. The decisions that Albertans face in wake of this inevitability is whether they will save those resource rents now or face painful decline in a decade.

But sure enjoy your artificially low tax rays by virtue of no other reason than our political ancestors drawing the borders the way they did.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Agreed. I'll criticize Redford for being a wannabe mommy to the entire province and raiding our piggybank like its her personal spending account. But trying to get the rest of the country on board with our best interests is what a premier should be doing. It isn't her fault that Clark is bat-crap insane.

What about this position is insane?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Barnission

What are you talking about? The pipeline doesn't go through British Columbia without the approval of the provincial government. The federal government can force it through (which they won't), but the BC government could just make it financially unfeasible, along with other things, to have the pipeline there, let alone actually construct it.

I'm talking about the First Nations people, and their outright stance of rejection for the pipeline, and their outright refusal to accept its' construction.

And there you are, it will never happen, because these people have constitutional rights that must be adhered to, and no government will be able to overrule these rights to title, and if they do it will be in the Supreme court faster than you can blink and then consequently rejected or else be in direct violation of the Canadian constitution.

That's why it really is irrelevant what a government (or company, so long as there are key stakeholders like First Nations opposing the plan) wants to do. At this point at least.

The First Nations all approved the PTP line. Not the Northern Gateway.

[Tinordi]

Northern Gateway is intensely unpopular in BC. People do not want a pipeline running through pristine wilderness to a pristine coastline. Clark is simply and finally recognizing this. Saying she's stupid for saying so without receiving added compensation is, well, stupid.

[Barnission]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I'm talking about the First Nations people, and their outright stance of rejection for the pipeline, and their outright refusal to accept its' construction.

And there you are, it will never happen, because these people have constitutional rights that must be adhered to, and no government will be able to overrule these rights to title, and if they do it will be in the Supreme court faster than you can blink and then consequently rejected or else be in direct violation of the Canadian constitution.

That's why it really is irrelevant what a government (or company, so long as there are key stakeholders like First Nations opposing the plan) wants to do. At this point at least.

The First Nations all approved the PTP line. Not the Northern Gateway.

OH, that's what you meant by "sway the bands" lol. I didn't even clue in to that, my apologies.

Still, it was my understanding that the aboriginal reserves can't legally block the pipeline. Here is an article from The Globe and Mail by Tom Flanagan: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/comme...article547673/

But – and this is a crucial point for Northern Gateway – first nations do not have a veto. The court was very clear in Delgamuukw that “the building of infrastructure … can justify the infringement of aboriginal title.” Consultation, accommodation, compensation? Yes. Veto? No.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Northern Gateway is intensely unpopular in BC. People do not want a pipeline running through pristine wilderness to a pristine coastline. Clark is simply and finally recognizing this. Saying she's stupid for saying so without receiving added compensation is, well, stupid.

I would say it was stupid for her not to say so earlier given this isn't exactly news that it's unpopular, and I would say the very fact that BC so adamantly opposes the pipeline virtually dictates a National Energy Strategy stupid as well.

Unless of course that National Energy Strategy addresses that fact right out the gates, and speaks to other aspects of energy, demand, supply, variables, and strategies.

[Barnission]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Northern Gateway is intensely unpopular in BC. People do not want a pipeline running through pristine wilderness to a pristine coastline. Clark is simply and finally recognizing this. Saying she's stupid for saying so without receiving added compensation is, well, stupid.

I live in the Fraser Valley, going on from what people have said here, it's not "intensely unpopular". It's not exactly something people are excited about, but where I live nobody is actively outraged over it. That said, I haven't spoken with anyone from the regions the pipeline will be constructed, nor have I talked to people in Vancouver about it. Different beasts, I imagine.

I'm afraid the only way Enbridge will be given the green light is before the New Year, otherwise we're heading in to an election here, and unless something drastic happens, the BC NDP will be elected.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Barnission

OH, that's what you meant by "sway the bands" lol. I didn't even clue in to that, my apologies.

Still, it was my understanding that the aboriginal reserves can't legally block the pipeline. Here is an article from The Globe and Mail by Tom Flanagan: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/comme...article547673/

Interesting, thanks, I was looking for this the other day. Not sure about it though... cases could vary and further we're looking at 50 bands vs. the 1. I was never sure if they had outright veto or not, but I still am voting not happening on pipeline. Sounds messy either way. Cases may be different.

[Barnission]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Interesting, thanks, I was looking for this the other day. Not sure about it though... cases could vary and further we're looking at 50 bands vs. the 1. I was never sure if they had outright veto or not, but I still am voting not happening on pipeline. Sounds messy either way. Cases may be different.

True. I'm currently trying to find something to suggest otherwise, that the first nations can in fact block the pipeline, but all I am finding right now is irrelevant news headlines, sadly. I'll post if I find something.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Dion

Is it now?



http://www.calgaryherald.com/travel/...#ixzz225CDtCe7

Four more years of this? Ugh. How much should this trip cost Dion? Are there dozens of suitable places to stay in London right now and plenty of cheap flights?

This is it though. No new ideas, no better ways of doing things, no grand vision for Alberta on the global scene. Instead we're looking at four years of we can do it cheaper, we would've spent less and we left our wallet in the car. It's four years of running to the washroom when the bill comes to the table essentially.

Maybe Danielle would've driven her bus to Toronto to save a few hundred bucks on a flight? Maybe they could've stayed at a dive of a hotel and eaten at McDonalds the whole trip, after all they're the official restaurant of the Olympics.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Barnission

I don't understand. The BC NDP, who decide to reject literally everything logical if it means gaining a slight bit of political capital, have unequivocally rejected the pipeline, as you even said.

To claim there is no point in negotiating with British Columbia is ludicrous and asinine. Clark is acting is desperate (she stayed silent on the issue for months, and then came out a few days ago screaming), but there is obviously leeway. Again, as I said, there is too much to lose for Clark to not accept the pipeline eventually.

Seriously, Clark only came to a decision a week ago, put out some outrageous demands that have been sensationalized by the media, and you want to shut the door? That's laughable, to be honest, and I don't mean to be rude, but come on. That's a knee-jerk reaction at best.

The reason there is no point to negotiating with her is she has no incentive to negotiate in good faith. She's going to be ousted in the next election barring something miraculous, such as being able to bring home an absurd share of the royalties from the pipeline. As such she has no reason to be make reasonable demands, because unless she's bringing back an absurd amount of royalty revenue, the people of her province will vote her out (and when I mean absurd, I mean closer to 20% from the 8% they would currently get).

At that point it is too stupid economically for the people of BC to pass up, allowing Christy to sneak in the back door to get re-elected. But if she agrees to the pipeline conditions as is, she'll be tossed out right quick. Christy's first concern is her own self-survival, and as such I'd have no interest in negotiating with her.

[crazy_eoj]

Redford just continues to throw away our resource wealth upon wasteful programs and overpaid public staffing.

The real remorse will be coming when future generations will be paying for these years of absolute waste and inefficiency.

[Tinordi]

Crazy is right

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Redford just continues to throw away our resource wealth upon wasteful programs and overpaid public staffing.

The real remorse will be coming when future generations will be paying for these years of absolute waste and inefficiency.

I actually somewhat agree (and wasn't expecting that!). I suppose the only thing is that I'm not sure that there are a lot of programs and spending that could be cut though. I'm also not so sure that in the province which has seen unemployment now to less than 5% that we could reduce wages in the public sector and actually still have a public sector that would provide the services that remain?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Redford just continues to throw away our resource wealth upon wasteful programs and overpaid public staffing.

The real remorse will be coming when future generations will be paying for these years of absolute waste and inefficiency.

I think that we could have a better discussion about this if you provided some examples of programs that you believe are wasteful or public servants who are overpaid.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I think that we could have a better discussion about this if you provided some examples of programs that you believe are wasteful or public servants who are overpaid.

Take your pick, I don't think Alberta needs to spend more than every other province in confederation for similar or often worse measurable outcomes. Our focus should be delivering value for what we spend instead of just blindly spending and thinking pouring money into the ground provides solutions for anything.

[Tinordi]

Here you go:

http://budget2011.alberta.ca/newsroo...phs.pdf#page=2

Which parts would you start cutting from?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Here you go:

http://budget2011.alberta.ca/newsroo...phs.pdf#page=2

Which parts would you start cutting from?

Other

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Take your pick, I don't think Alberta needs to spend more than every other province in confederation for similar or often worse measurable outcomes. Our focus should be delivering value for what we spend instead of just blindly spending and thinking pouring money into the ground provides solutions for anything.

So, in your view, every government program is wasteful and every public servant is overpaid. And your proposed solution is to deliver more value for what we spend. I wonder why no one else has ever thought of that?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Other

Weak.

Thanks for proving your lack of understanding. Go back to the hole you came from.