Alberta Politics Thread v2

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

When the Feds purchased Trans Mountain I wondered if this might be part of their end game. Would be interesting to see it through as there would then be indigenous groups opposing each other on the expansion (should that part still proceed). Also, it would make for an interesting dynamic in the optics of protesters now protesting literally against indigenous groups.

I'm more curious about what sort of tolls and royalties they would demand. Would they stick to an industry norm or come up with their own?

[CaptainCrunch]

Premiere Notley frustrated by inaction and Radio Silence by the Federal Government


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...tawa-1.4978099


For all of the talk about working with Ottawa and Social license, she got hosed and it fell flat.


The sad thing is that the most powerful lever which is the Federal Climate Plan and the Alberta Carbon tax is already in place and her statement that she wasn't signing on to it because of the pipeline issue is meaningless unless she suspends the Carbon Tax and reaches out to Scott Moe to created a united front.


Realistically for all the tough talk from the Alberta Government, the wine tax, limiting shipments of Oil and Gas to BC, not signing on to the Climate Plan, well she's been long on talk and short on execution.


When the Federal Governments response was to basically throw out loan applications to stuggling companies, which is worthless without certainty, we're talking a major disconnect between Alberta and Ottawa and a growing frustration.

[chemgear]

Not even going to bother with a budget?

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...-free-election

A provincial election without a budget is like a chuckwagon without a driver — it’s likely to run off in crazy directions.

But that scenario could occur this spring. NDP sources confirm the possibility of a budget-free campaign. And that, in turn, could mean that the legislature doesn’t convene at all before voting day.

And maybe, don’t risk a budget at all, especially when it’s guaranteed to look ugly.

We all know what a 2019-20 budget would show: more deficit, rising debt, further challenges to the NDP pledge to balance the budget by 2023-24, and little inclination to cut spending.

[CaptainCrunch]

A budget at this point with the way things look in this province would be the final stake in the NDP heart of many stakes

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I'm more curious about what sort of tolls and royalties they would demand. Would they stick to an industry norm or come up with their own?

Someone who is more of an expert could speak better to this than I can, but the tolls are somewhat controlled and regulated I think. There was some "outcry" (not sure if that's the right word to use here) regarding the toll for TransMountain in the fist place because some parties thought it was too high. That was prior to the government involvement, and it's one of the reasons that I think that the government made a pretty good deal here.

[CaptainCrunch]

Truck Rally to Ottawa cancelled


https://globalnews.ca/news/4846869/a...awa-cancelled/

[Locke]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Not even going to bother with a budget?

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...-free-election

A provincial election without a budget is like a chuckwagon without a driver — it’s likely to run off in crazy directions.

But that scenario could occur this spring. NDP sources confirm the possibility of a budget-free campaign. And that, in turn, could mean that the legislature doesn’t convene at all before voting day.

And maybe, don’t risk a budget at all, especially when it’s guaranteed to look ugly.

We all know what a 2019-20 budget would show: more deficit, rising debt, further challenges to the NDP pledge to balance the budget by 2023-24, and little inclination to cut spending.

Why bother with a budget now? Its not like they've adhered to much of a budget so far. This is probably the most honest thing they've done.

"We dont want to propose a 'budget' per se because we like to live in a world where we can spend without being limited by the external constraints that others would see imposed upon us. When you limit our ability to spend beyond our means you infringe upon our rights!"

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Truck Rally to Ottawa cancelled


https://globalnews.ca/news/4846869/a...awa-cancelled/

People on FB seemed upset at this report as the yellow vest group is still going and they feel this is leading people to believe no rally to Ottawa is happening.

[GGG]

Isn’t the yellow vest group also an anti immigration rally?

It’s weird that this group didn’t disclose why they are canceling.

[Dion]

NDP announces there will be a throne speech on March 18th

Pollster and political commentator Janet Brown said the government has a few options when it comes to Premier Rachel Notley‘s March throne speech, the first being to hold the speech and immediately call an election.

In that case, the election would happen four weeks later.

Another option on the table would be to hold the throne speech, have a short spring session and then call the election, Brown said.

The third option, as Brown sees it, would be that the government has the throne speech, a spring session where they pass a budget and then calls the election.

“Running on a budget is a risky strategy,” Brown said. “If you look at recent history, Jim Prentice dropped a budget and then lost the election. Alison Redford dropped a budget and then almost lost the election. But if you look at [Ralph] Klein years, Klein was sort of more famous for doing a throne speech and not doing a budget.”

However, Brown said if the NDP doesn’t drop a budget, they lose their position to call for the Opposition United Conservative Party to drop a “counter budget” heading into the election.

Brown said she’s leaning toward the possibility of a writ drop to accompany the throne speech, meaning the election would happen on or around April 15.
“I don’t think the election would go much later than that,” she said.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4851011/e...throne-speech/

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I'm more curious about what sort of tolls and royalties they would demand. Would they stick to an industry norm or come up with their own?

I under stood the pipeline tolls were regulated if the pipe cross boundaries

I recall that the "underused" interprovincial gas pipeline that was the basis of the Energy east pipeline proposal got a revised tariff from the regulating authority.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

When the Feds purchased Trans Mountain I wondered if this might be part of their end game. Would be interesting to see it through as there would then be indigenous groups opposing each other on the expansion (should that part still proceed). Also, it would make for an interesting dynamic in the optics of protesters now protesting literally against indigenous groups.

I don’t believe there is some pie eyed conspiracy or actual strategic rationale for why the Feds bought the pipeline. I (honestly) think that they (honestly) believe that it was the best way forward. I would say 2 things:

A) they’re hopelessly inexperienced, uneducated and naive as to what the anti pipeline people are willing to be “consulted” with. There is no solution to them not wanting the pipeline. You just need to build it. You know it has to happen. Just build it. There is no reasoning with these people, trust me. They don’t want to be reasoned with, they just want to use Canadian systems and regulations and niceties to stop it- which is not a solution. And;

B) if the private company was going to build it and profit with it, the Canadian government (theoretically) can as well.

Maybe B above is where I am hopelessly naive.


Also- edit- whenever I write “consulted with” in quotes it’s because I mean extorted so it’ll be interesting to see how the Feds like that.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I don’t believe there is some pie eyed conspiracy or actual strategic rationale for why the Feds bought the pipeline. I (honestly) think that they (honestly) believe that it was the best way forward. I would say 2 things:

It was the only way forward. Remember the Federal Government talking about legislation and other steps to ensure the pipeline but they did none of them, instead they sat around and hoped that Kinder would show infinite patience. Instead Kinder gave a deadline to throw up their hands and walk away. The government having done nothing and now in a position where their ability to do anything that would fast track being gone bought the pipeline for billions.


Now they're stuck holding the bag. When this thing went to the courts, the government could have done two things. One name the pipeline in the national interest which would have removed the FAC decision. Or when the decision came down and it was a cloudy nebulous decision that was somewhat nonsensical because for example it didn't look at the economic value of the project they could have appealed it and gotten a clear definition of what they would need to do so that this thing doesn't end up in countless court challenges.

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

A) they’re hopelessly inexperienced, uneducated and naive as to what the anti pipeline people are willing to be “consulted” with. There is no solution to them not wanting the pipeline. You just need to build it. You know it has to happen. Just build it. There is no reasoning with these people, trust me. They don’t want to be reasoned with, they just want to use Canadian systems and regulations and niceties to stop it- which is not a solution. And;

I don't disagree with this at all, except by not appealing the FAC and not getting clarification on what consultation means they have now opened themselves up to new lawsuits and we've seen they're already gathering.



The one benefit to the Government in owning it is if they win a majority in the next election they basically don't have to show any urgency on the project.

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

B) if the private company was going to build it and profit with it, the Canadian government (theoretically) can as well.

Maybe B above is where I am hopelessly naive.


Also- edit- whenever I write “consulted with” in quotes it’s because I mean extorted so it’ll be interesting to see how the Feds like that.

At the end of the day, whether its the Federal Government or private business there's no profitability calculation here because first of all the government killed all of their options by killing or hindering other projects, we've created an environment that these won't get built easily and private companies aren't going to spend the money to bother going through the process of getting permission to get them built.


Even with Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 the Federal Government might have shot themselves in the foot because once those laws are passed and these lawsuits pile up again to halt construction, the Environmental and Environmental Groups will pressure to have projects like Trans-Mountain start at square one and go through the new assessments.


Right now the best idea that I've heard and the only one that might work is the suggested Resource corridor suggested by NB's Premiere. You declare it in the national interest and expropriate the required corridor.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

It was the only way forward. Remember the Federal Government talking about legislation and other steps to ensure the pipeline but they did none of them, instead they sat around and hoped that Kinder would show infinite patience. Instead Kinder gave a deadline to throw up their hands and walk away. The government having done nothing and now in a position where their ability to do anything that would fast track being gone bought the pipeline for billions.

It was not the only way forward. Moving in the armed forces or getting heavily aggressive and as you say declaring it in the national interest of the nation, that has ALWAYS been an option. Including when it was owned by private interest. I believe personally, this is still an option today and furthermore- will eventually be required to get this done. You watch, it's going to come down to federal injunction / expropriation of land / quasi-force (if they decide to build it- I'm not convinced yet).

If they don't decide to build it, Alberta will be ruined. We'll see. I'm betting 60/40 on Alberta being ruined.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

At the end of the day, whether its the Federal Government or private business there's no profitability calculation here because first of all the government killed all of their options by killing or hindering other projects, we've created an environment that these won't get built easily and private companies aren't going to spend the money to bother going through the process of getting permission to get them built.


Even with Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 the Federal Government might have shot themselves in the foot because once those laws are passed and these lawsuits pile up again to halt construction, the Environmental and Environmental Groups will pressure to have projects like Trans-Mountain start at square one and go through the new assessments.


Right now the best idea that I've heard and the only one that might work is the suggested Resource corridor suggested by NB's Premiere. You declare it in the national interest and expropriate the required corridor.

You're not understanding what I'm saying / we're talking about different things.

The government can charge a fee for service along the pipeline once built for product to be transported and receive (Brent?) pricing in international markets.

This fee is why Enbridge was building. Including making production commitments from upstream customers. The pipeline's profitable. The government can make money, theoretically (although maybe not now with the added burden of $4.5B purchase price above and beyond construction costs). Nonetheless, when I hear people say 'government wasted' $4.5B to buy a pipeline that's false.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

It was not the only way forward. Moving in the armed forces or getting heavily aggressive and as you say declaring it in the national interest of the nation, that has ALWAYS been an option. Including when it was owned by private interest. I believe personally, this is still an option today and furthermore- will eventually be required to get this done. You watch, it's going to come down to federal injunction / expropriation of land / quasi-force (if they decide to build it- I'm not convinced yet).

If they don't decide to build it, Alberta will be ruined. We'll see. I'm betting 60/40 on Alberta being ruined.

I don't believe it will ever get to that point because the political calculation has to be factored in. The Liberal base is Quebec, Ontario, BC, Environmentalists and Indigenous. So they absolutely will not push this pipeline to the point where it could go because of that. Alberta and Saskatchwan are minor players in the Liberal's political calculation. If the pipeline doesn't get built it might be less harmful to the Liberals election wise then if it does get built and the Government takes a hard line. We're even seeing it now, Notley wanted help with the train purchase, but the Government isn't even picking up the phone.

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

You're not understanding what I'm saying / we're talking about different things.

The government can charge a fee for service along the pipeline once built for product to be transported and receive (Brent?) pricing in international markets.

This fee is why Enbridge was building. Including making production commitments from upstream customers. The pipeline's profitable. The government can make money, theoretically (although maybe not now with the added burden of $4.5B purchase price above and beyond construction costs). Nonetheless, when I hear people say 'government wasted' $4.5B to buy a pipeline that's false.

I firmly believe that the government didn't buy the project with a profit calculation in mind. They bought it because they were cornered by Kinder Morgan, and they bought it because they can control the public debate on the pipeline if they own it.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't believe it will ever get to that point because the political calculation has to be factored in. The Liberal base is Quebec, Ontario, BC, Environmentalists and Indigenous. So they absolutely will not push this pipeline to the point where it could go because of that. Alberta and Saskatchwan are minor players in the Liberal's political calculation. If the pipeline doesn't get built it might be less harmful to the Liberals election wise then if it does get built and the Government takes a hard line. We're even seeing it now, Notley wanted help with the train purchase, but the Government isn't even picking up the phone.





I firmly believe that the government didn't buy the project with a profit calculation in mind. They bought it because they were cornered by Kinder Morgan, and they bought it because they can control the public debate on the pipeline if they own it.

Para 1- well let me tell you. If you truly believe that, you should move away from Alberta. Because we are absolutely screwed. I don't agree and I don't think we're there yet. There's a level of push back that is necessary and that can still make projects happen. People who: a) like Canada being a nice place to live; b) having jobs c) having an economy d) believing in a place that can raise their children and retire in...

this is the majority of people. And they're starting to get riled up and they're starting to get active and voicing their displeasure and concern. If governments choose to ignore these people, which are the masses, and which are across the entire nation- not just Alberta- it will be at their peril in the long run. So Justin can go play the short-term game and be a ####ing moron or whatever, but he may just absolutely decimate the Liberal brand across the nation if he isn't careful with this. The smart play, is to build this. And to build this, you're going to have to be firm. I mean- REAL ####ing firm. Message sending firm. It'll happen eventually. I guess I should back up. If it isn't with this pipeline, it will be with some other major project, some other infrastructure investment, some other economic engine... something's going to happen that is going to force this issue.

This isn't just a pipeline issue. This is a Canada "are we a country?" issue. "Do we want an economy?" issue. "Do we like our standard of living?" issue.

To your second para- 299%- absolutely unequivocably the government had profits and the business upside in mind. I believe they are idiots, but I give them at least that much credit. Even if it was just one bullet on a powerpoint presentation given to Trudeau by some political science summer student in Ottawa, I guarantee the point was made- "well, they were going to make money off it, why don't we buy it?"

Then they made a tragically poor evaluation, massively overpaid it, and didn't understand (nor consult with expertise) as to what they were getting.

edit- I should add. I thought it was interesting Trudeau used the terminology (paraphrasing) "Alberta is in a crisis". Yeah man, but, this isn't just Alberta. This is Canada. CANADA- is in crisis. CANADA, is in an economic crisis.

a) when your country for decades, based on geography and with a small population, has anchored its' economic engine to resource development and;
b) When foreign capital flees the way it has been, because they see the writing on the wall which is;
c) the absolute tremendous risk that is investing in Canada due to regulation and NIMBY'ism and being controlled by foreign interests (the States) then

yeah. This is a Canadian economic crisis. GM is leaving. Why? They don't make money. What companies in Canada make money? What companies are doing really well in Canada? And we need to recognize, again I have said this repeatedly on here. These are things that get measured in 3-5-10 year intervals. Not one year over the other. My friends all tell me 'but Coffee, look at economic stats and 2017 and things are all peachy'. Great! Let's talk about today. Let's talk about the future.

It's one thing to have a tax system that is high. It's one thing to have regulations that are strong. It's another, to have regionalism issues. It's another, to have NIMBYism on resource projects. And it's even more to have strong environmentalism proponents. And EVEN MORE- it's the worst of all- to have foreign special interest groups enter your country and invest in ways to unfairly manipulate all or some of these levers to push certain agendas.

Canada is in an economic crisis. Time to face the facts and get with reality. Time to adjust.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

Not that I agree with what I about to post but I think it is worth framing the argument from the other point of view.

you are being colonial. These traditional lands were not lost through war or ceded through treaty and are not inhabited by Canadians. So why because Ottawa draws a line on a paper does that make it Canada. On what grounds did these bands give up sovereignty to these lands? What jurisdiction does Canada have other than their own self declaration.

International recognition, enforcement power. Canada has annexed the land, be it declared or undeclared. Do these chiefs not follow Canadian law? Would they not expect to find themselves in a Canadian jail, should they murder a colleague? Do they not accept benefits from the government? If they were to travel outside the country, what passport would they travel on? Would any country recognize a Unist'ot'en passport?

Originally Posted by GGG

Giving people privilege based on birthright sounds about what white males have been doing the last few hundred here’s. Why when it benefits the current inhabitants of the land is that no longer okay.

Because you can't fix racism with more racism. People who would never accept the rule of a hereditary chief in their own life are forgetting their principles here out of convenience.

[SebC]

Awesome news that might deserve it's own thread:

New construction zone safety regulations will require contractors to cover up speed-reduction signs on provincial highways when workers are not present and there are no safety concerns.

[....]

“We are also limiting the distances of lane closures where lane closures appear to be much more lengthy than they should be. They will be limited to a maximum of three kilometres,” said [Transportation Minister Brian] Mason."

Edmonton Journal

[Dion]

It has begun

United Conservative MLA Dave Hanson is partly blaming “over-the-top rhetoric” from the NDP for vandalism to his constituency office in St. Paul.

The front windows of the office were shattered by large rocks Tuesday night. Nobody was hurt.

In a Wednesday news release, the MLA for Lac La Biche-St. Paul-Two Hills said his office received an email from a person who took responsibility for the vandalism and attributed the actions to what Hanson called “over-the-top rhetoric” on Twitter from Community and Social Services Minister Irfan Sabir.

Specifically, the Twitter post suggested the UCP would eliminate AISH payments.

“These claims are patently false. Not only have there been no such commitments, but this falsehood is demonstrably untrue, having been repeatedly debunked,” Hanson said.

That’s not to say Hanson thinks the NDP are responsible for the attack or are behind the attack.

“Individuals are responsible for their own actions,” he said.

“That said, with an election expected soon, this incident should be a reminder for responsibility. Fear-mongering and peddling false claims for political gain can cause undue distress when programs and services people depend on are being used as a political ploy.”

https://calgaryherald.com/news/polit...b-cdcdb85f88bd

[Ped]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't believe it will ever get to that point because the political calculation has to be factored in. The Liberal base is Quebec, Ontario, BC, Environmentalists and Indigenous. So they absolutely will not push this pipeline to the point where it could go because of that. Alberta and Saskatchwan are minor players in the Liberal's political calculation. If the pipeline doesn't get built it might be less harmful to the Liberals election wise then if it does get built and the Government takes a hard line. .

Read an article today but can't remember where that an Angus Reid poll suggests 2/3 of Canadians everywhere except Quebec think Canada needs pipelines.