Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 07-12-2019, 10:41 AM   #3961
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

So Trudeau was gathering oil field workers to stand behind him for a big TMX announcment this morning, that's not happening now


https://twitter.com/statuses/1149705602219827200


Turns out the announcement was just another Trudeau slamming Conservative provincial leaders.
__________________
There are brave men outside of our gates, lets go kill them
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2019, 04:24 PM   #3962
SebC
tromboner
 
SebC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
You can't expropriate unceded land.
Fine then, annex the land. Oh wait, can't do that, because it's already part of Canada.
SebC is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to SebC For This Useful Post:
Old 07-12-2019, 05:09 PM   #3963
Mr.Coffee
damn onions
 
Mr.Coffee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov View Post
Firstly, the project still needs to be approved by all regulatory bodies with jurisdiction (National Energy Board, to begin with) unless the federal government wishes to take the position that it is simply above the law.

Second, see section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

So this approach would only be a "no brainer decision" in the most literal sense of those words.
What entities wrote the Constitution Act?

Hint: the government
Mr.Coffee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2019, 06:19 PM   #3964
Makarov
#1 Goaltender
 
Makarov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee View Post
What entities wrote the Constitution Act?

Hint: the government
I don't follow your train of thought here. Are you proposing constitutional amendment? If so, good luck.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Makarov is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
Old 07-12-2019, 06:20 PM   #3965
Mr.Coffee
damn onions
 
Mr.Coffee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
You can't expropriate unceded land. The constitution and the courts have been incredibly clear on this, so yeah, they would be overruling the courts in that situation and it would create a constitutional crisis. And that doesn't even begin to address the myriad of human rights violations you'd likely encounter by trying to force through such a policy.
Overruling the courts may be necessary and in fact we actually may see that happen here. You may define it as a constitutional crisis which kinda tries to make it sound bigger than it is but actually I would argue we are already in a constitutional crisis as provinces so actively work against each other and then Sabre rattle about separation and furthermore the constitution can be changed negotiated and amended. Which may actually be quicker at this point then all this BS.

What you then parlay into some weird human rights violations I would press that actually Canada has already (severely, apparently) violated several human rights issues as a nation upon First Nations in its history. Lastly and most importantly that if we as Canada want to be a Canada that the lefties truly envision, then as far as First Nations go we really do need to cause a Constitutional crisis to open and tear off the bandaid and truly deal with it than whatís happening now anyways. But maybe thatís just me.

And actually furthermore the quality of First Nations people actually also decreases as Canadian quality of life decreases so theoretically they should also want this pipeline even though it does carry essentially negligible and next to zero risk but theyíve been brainwashed by US funding (a nation constructing more pipelines than anyone else on Earth and by a wide margin) into thinking the opposite.

Iím blown away at not only the opposition of this project but by people like you who try to see ďboth sidesĒ of a so obviously one sided issue. You come on here and claim youíre in favour of the pipeline and the continue to post about all these reasons itís impossible. Do you know why in 5 years weíll look back and wonder at all the value, money, economic opportunity squandered that would have needed such little risk and wonder what the #### went wrong? Well it would have been people like you and Makarov and Oling. Reasonable and intelligent people that refused to see the forest for the trees because of team based viewpoints and never on what actually makes sense.

My fear for Canada is how underrated you all estimate this problem. The severity of Alberta being kicked to the curb in terms of an impact on YOUR life. On YOUR quality of living. And you wanna be viewed as this super intellectual ďI see all sidesĒ person trying to argue the other side when you know deep down this is wrong.

Let me ask you straight up, should the pipeline be built? Considering ALL factors. Should the pipeline be built? Yes or no. No diatribe.
Mr.Coffee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2019, 06:21 PM   #3966
Mr.Coffee
damn onions
 
Mr.Coffee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov View Post
I don't follow your train of thought here. Are you proposing constitutional amendment? If so, good luck.
Yes, actually. I think itís needed badly for a wide variety of reasons and furthermore I think you could put money on it coming, probably sooner than later.
Mr.Coffee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2019, 06:37 PM   #3967
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

I think that we're going to see the constitution re-opened and redefined and not that far down the road. Kenney is going to force it with a referendum on equalization.


If this pipeline gets delayed again, I think you're going to get a real explosion of rage in this province and a rise of seperatist sentiment.


Right now with the denial to tide water which is guaranteed under the constitution, the concept of Canada has lost a big advantage.



I still expect that this thing is going to be dragged through the courts long past the next election and the surrender point by the Liberal's if they win is to put Bill C-69 in place and start over again in terms of evaluating the TMX. If that happens then you're going to see a possible referendum on separation in Alberta and Saskatchewan as someone will take political advantage of the anger in the two provinces.


At some point, I agree with Coffee, its time to rip the band aid off and redefine the constitution because based on provinces ignoring what's in it anyways its an out dated document.
__________________
There are brave men outside of our gates, lets go kill them
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2019, 08:00 PM   #3968
Cliche
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Cliche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wherever you go there you are.
Exp:
Default

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tas...-tmx-1.5209901

Quote:
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau today defended recruiting a known anti-pipeline campaigner to run for the Liberal Party in Quebec, saying there's room for ideological diversity in the party's ranks.

Liberals in the Montreal-area riding of Laurier-Sainte-Marie nominated Steven Guilbeault ó a household name in Quebec, where he is known for his environmental work and ardent opposition to pipelines ó to carry the party's banner in the NDP-held seat in the fall election campaign. Trudeau gave him a hero's welcome with a high-profile campaign launch event in Montreal on Wednesday.
Cliche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2019, 08:41 PM   #3969
Locke
ness Monster
 
Locke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliche View Post
How is that 'Ideological Diversity?'

Seems more like Ideological Unity.
__________________
- "Somebody may beat me, but they're going to have to bleed to do it."
- Steve Prefontaine
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
Locke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2019, 08:46 PM   #3970
rubecube
Franchise Player
 
rubecube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee View Post
Overruling the courts may be necessary and in fact we actually may see that happen here. You may define it as a constitutional crisis which kinda tries to make it sound bigger than it is but actually I would argue we are already in a constitutional crisis as provinces so actively work against each other and then Sabre rattle about separation and furthermore the constitution can be changed negotiated and amended. Which may actually be quicker at this point then all this BS.
When I see posts like this, it honestly leads me to believe you have, at best, a remedial understanding of how the Constitution and our legal system works.



Quote:
Iím blown away at not only the opposition of this project but by people like you who try to see ďboth sidesĒ of a so obviously one sided issue. You come on here and claim youíre in favour of the pipeline and the continue to post about all these reasons itís impossible. Do you know why in 5 years weíll look back and wonder at all the value, money, economic opportunity squandered that would have needed such little risk and wonder what the #### went wrong? Well it would have been people like you and Makarov and Oling. Reasonable and intelligent people that refused to see the forest for the trees because of team based viewpoints and never on what actually makes sense.



Let me ask you straight up, should the pipeline be built? Considering ALL factors. Should the pipeline be built? Yes or no. No diatribe.
It's not "both sidesing" the debate. I'm not even taking a stand on whether the constitution is right or wrong. I'm explaining to you how this works in the real world. Keep in mind that section of the Constitution pertaining to indigenous title is exempt from the notwithstanding clause. There is no legal avenue for the government to take beyond appealing the court's decision.

For the government to go above the court's ruling and jam the pipeline through would essentially mean that government is stating is above the law. If that precedent is set, you are in all essence conceding a dictatorship with zero checks and balances to its authority. Do I really have to spell out why that's a tremendously bad idea? Furthermore, the opposition parties could be well within their rights at that point to call on the Governor General to remove the governing party. Again, I shouldn't really have to explain why that's a very bad mess to put the country in, infinitely worse than just not getting the pipeline built. You think capital flight is bad now, what do you think it's going to look like when companies can't be confident that their rights will be held up in a court of law?

If you want to argue in favour of re-opening the Constitution, that's fine, but keep in kind that that's a year's long process and the last two attempts at it failed miserably. This attempt would likely prove even more difficult.

Yes, I want to see the pipeline built. No, I'm not prepared to sacrifice the rule of law in this country to achieve it.
rubecube is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
Old 07-12-2019, 08:47 PM   #3971
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee View Post
Iím blown away at not only the opposition of this project but by people like you who try to see ďboth sidesĒ of a so obviously one sided issue. You come on here and claim youíre in favour of the pipeline and the continue to post about all these reasons itís impossible. Do you know why in 5 years weíll look back and wonder at all the value, money, economic opportunity squandered that would have needed such little risk and wonder what the #### went wrong? Well it would have been people like you and Makarov and Oling. Reasonable and intelligent people that refused to see the forest for the trees because of team based viewpoints and never on what actually makes sense.

My fear for Canada is how underrated you all estimate this problem. The severity of Alberta being kicked to the curb in terms of an impact on YOUR life. On YOUR quality of living. And you wanna be viewed as this super intellectual ďI see all sidesĒ person trying to argue the other side when you know deep down this is wrong.
Iím 100% pro-pipeline and all for forcing that sucker through, but come on man. The issue isnít one sided, and youíre also overrating the impact by a pretty huge margin.

Thereís an impact, no doubt, but the pipeline nosediving is just going to stunt and slow future growth. As much as you want to build a boogeyman out of it, Alberta without this pipeline isnít going to go back in time 30 years.

I think you need to take a step back because being this fearful of whatís happening is only going to drive you mad. Look at the economic outlook. It sucks, but itís not ďapocalyptic wastelandĒ suck. Alberta with figure itself out, itís just going to be another long stretch of what weíre already going through.

Albertans in general got pretty used to the gravy train. Now the meat is dry, but thereís still food on the table. We may not be top dog anymore. We may start lagging behind other provinces, things will definitely slow right down. But youíre going to be ok.

You need to get a grip. And I donít say that to be offensive, but for your own sanity, get a grip on reality.
PepsiFree is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Old 07-12-2019, 09:04 PM   #3972
Mr.Coffee
damn onions
 
Mr.Coffee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree View Post
Iím 100% pro-pipeline and all for forcing that sucker through, but come on man. The issue isnít one sided, and youíre also overrating the impact by a pretty huge margin.

Thereís an impact, no doubt, but the pipeline nosediving is just going to stunt and slow future growth. As much as you want to build a boogeyman out of it, Alberta without this pipeline isnít going to go back in time 30 years.

I think you need to take a step back because being this fearful of whatís happening is only going to drive you mad. Look at the economic outlook. It sucks, but itís not ďapocalyptic wastelandĒ suck. Alberta with figure itself out, itís just going to be another long stretch of what weíre already going through.

Albertans in general got pretty used to the gravy train. Now the meat is dry, but thereís still food on the table. We may not be top dog anymore. We may start lagging behind other provinces, things will definitely slow right down. But youíre going to be ok.

You need to get a grip. And I donít say that to be offensive, but for your own sanity, get a grip on reality.
Hey man fair enough. I probably do come across as a little chicken little because I am so close to all of it. I also just find it mind bogglingly stupid. So stupid in fact, I am shocked the country is continuing down this path. But I get it and youíre probably right.
Mr.Coffee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2019, 09:09 PM   #3973
Mr.Coffee
damn onions
 
Mr.Coffee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
When I see posts like this, it honestly leads me to believe you have, at best, a remedial understanding of how the Constitution and our legal system works.





It's not "both sidesing" the debate. I'm not even taking a stand on whether the constitution is right or wrong. I'm explaining to you how this works in the real world. Keep in mind that section of the Constitution pertaining to indigenous title is exempt from the notwithstanding clause. There is no legal avenue for the government to take beyond appealing the court's decision.

For the government to go above the court's ruling and jam the pipeline through would essentially mean that government is stating is above the law. If that precedent is set, you are in all essence conceding a dictatorship with zero checks and balances to its authority. Do I really have to spell out why that's a tremendously bad idea? Furthermore, the opposition parties could be well within their rights at that point to call on the Governor General to remove the governing party. Again, I shouldn't really have to explain why that's a very bad mess to put the country in, infinitely worse than just not getting the pipeline built. You think capital flight is bad now, what do you think it's going to look like when companies can't be confident that their rights will be held up in a court of law?

If you want to argue in favour of re-opening the Constitution, that's fine, but keep in kind that that's a year's long process and the last two attempts at it failed miserably. This attempt would likely prove even more difficult.

Yes, I want to see the pipeline built. No, I'm not prepared to sacrifice the rule of law in this country to achieve it.
So no I am not a constitutional scholar although I did read through Makarovs link there on Section 35 which Iím not entirely sure proved his point and as I read it I kept thinking it was actually proving mine due to the massive uncertainty but whatever.

But I guess all Iím saying here is that the more I think about this situation the more I think the constitution probably will be reopened. Like given the stances of all respective stakeholders I think that is a likely outcome. And yeah like investor confidence at this point is irrelevant because, there is none. Like- itís gone. So thatís a no lose factor there anyway. In fact only to gain by trying to get predictable systems and rules in place from an investor standpoint.

And I think youíre light on a year actually but regardless it still may be the fastest way to build it I guess. Anyways Pepsi is right, I should probably take a chill pill on it all.
Mr.Coffee is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Mr.Coffee For This Useful Post:
Old 07-12-2019, 09:16 PM   #3974
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee View Post
Hey man fair enough. I probably do come across as a little chicken little because I am so close to all of it. I also just find it mind bogglingly stupid. So stupid in fact, I am shocked the country is continuing down this path. But I get it and you’re probably right.
Absolutely it is mind-bogglingly stupid. That, we can 100% agree on.
PepsiFree is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2019, 09:23 PM   #3975
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee View Post
Overruling the courts may be necessary and in fact we actually may see that happen here.


I see we've completely crossed the bridge into crazytown now?
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
CorsiHockeyLeague is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2019, 09:55 PM   #3976
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC View Post
Fine then, annex the land. Oh wait, can't do that, because it's already part of Canada.
Basically you are asking for a constitutional amendment to enforce the results of colonialism. A consequence of that would likely be armed rebellion.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2019, 10:30 PM   #3977
rubecube
Franchise Player
 
rubecube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee View Post
So no I am not a constitutional scholar although I did read through Makarovs link there on Section 35 which Iím not entirely sure proved his point and as I read it I kept thinking it was actually proving mine due to the massive uncertainty but whatever.



But I guess all Iím saying here is that the more I think about this situation the more I think the constitution probably will be reopened. Like given the stances of all respective stakeholders I think that is a likely outcome. And yeah like investor confidence at this point is irrelevant because, there is none. Like- itís gone. So thatís a no lose factor there anyway. In fact only to gain by trying to get predictable systems and rules in place from an investor standpoint.



And I think youíre light on a year actually but regardless it still may be the fastest way to build it I guess. Anyways Pepsi is right, I should probably take a chill pill on it all.
I think you're right that there's probably enough appetite on all sides to re-open it. The problem isn't re-opening it, it's reaching a deal that satisfies the amending formula. Meech Lake and Charlottetown were unmitigated disasters that pretty much ruined the Mulroney Conservatives. Good luck finding any federal party that has the appetite to wear that boondoggle again.

Hell, I'm not even sure the current amending formula would hold up under a court challenge, as I imagine FNs would likely want and could be granted more of a say in the matter than what the current formula stipulates (which is none).
rubecube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2019, 09:39 AM   #3978
Roughneck
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Roughneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the middle
Exp:
Default

I wonder what Lougheed or Klein would have thought about Alberta leading the charge for giving the federal government land expropriation power that couldn't be checked by the courts or provinces.



I'm not sure I like pro-federalist Alberta.




But if we're going to open up the Constitution for the betterment of the country as a whole, you might as well reduce provincial power as much as possible, as they're the largest barrier to nationwide cooperation.
Roughneck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2019, 03:45 PM   #3979
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

that's it, he's stupid and broken


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tru...211103?cmp=rss


Quote:
With only 100 days left until the election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau likes his chances of picking up seats in Alberta.
"We are going to, not just bring back our MPs, but bring back more MPs to Ottawa," he told a crowd of supporters in Calgary on Saturday.

Lets see, Kent Hehr voted for Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. Fled like a coward during the vote to apologize to Mark Norman. Was abusive to a Military Family in his time in Veteran Affairs and abusive towards people talking to him about Thalidomide survivors. He created a hostile work environment and was accused of sexual harassment. Yup, that piece of trash is absolutely winning his seat back.



Quote:
n December 2017, Hehr was accused of making insensitive remarks to a group of thalidomide survivors. In a meeting early that year, the members of the group accused Hehr of inappropriate touching, saying "Well you don't have it so bad. Everyone in Canada has a sob story", and in reference to their reduced life expectancy "So you probably have about 10 years left then now, that's good news for the Canadian government."[23] He denied making the statement.

Quote:
Shortly after, a wife of a veteran suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder came forward accusing him of poor treatment during a meeting in October 2016. The woman said he was "very condescending", gave her only two minutes of his time, when asked a question about the government denying maternity benefits he replied "Well, Ms. McCrea, that is the old question, like asking ... 'When did you stop beating your wife?'",[24] and when asked about support for her family he allegedly responded "you married him, he's your responsibility".[25]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hehr


Then there's Randy Boissaunault. The king of arrogance and obstruction, Who also voted for Bill C-68 and C-48.



And then there's the energy minister in Sohi, who comes across as a ditherer and weakling, voted for Bill C-69 and C-48 and helped architect those bills with McKenna.



I think its more likely that Albertan's would vote for a 3 eyed alien who's platform was "we're going to eat your kids and enslave your comely sisters and wives" then voting for those three.


I would expect that there will be no Liberal MP's in Alberta, this province feels more disenfranchised then it did under his old man during the NEP.



I expect one Liberal MP in Saskatchewan and that's Goodale.
__________________
There are brave men outside of our gates, lets go kill them
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2019, 04:13 PM   #3980
DiracSpike
Powerplay Quarterback
 
DiracSpike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: BELTLINE
Exp:
Default

And then people will wonder why Alberta only votes for the Conservatives. Even though the Liberals literally passed a law to blockade our largest export.

I live in Hehrs riding and talking to my buddies he's been making the rounds around the condo buildings so I really hope I'll have a chance to chat with him. It'd be interesting to get his rationale on why 69 and 48 aren't complete dog #### and why he voted for them. I mean I know the real reason he voted for them was to toe the party line but it'll be amusing hearing him struggle through his answer.
DiracSpike is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:42 PM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016