Alberta alienation and independence

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by icecube

Alright I admit that I'm happy certain people aren't doing so well. You for instance. Scratches me right where I itch.

Wow.

Like....way to take the high road dude.

[McG]

I’m surprised by the tone and direction of this thread. Lots and lots of emotional statements and not as many factual debates as I would have thought. My views are my own and like others, extremely unlikely to change.

For me, I’ve lived in a number of provinces and countries around the world so I’m not myopic about this topic.

What would Alberta and Canada look like with $100Billion spent on oil and gas in Canada over the last 5 years? Jobs, tax revenues, support for social programs, just better for the country.

Let’s not kid ourselves, oil and gas is still getting to market without the pipeline. It’s moving by rail. Wait a minute, if it’s moving by rail, isn’t that more risky than a pipeline? I’m honestly not sure, but it does require other less profitable goods to move off the train. Well, how do those goods get to market? By truck and by road. Trucks and roads? More fuel for trucks, and more asphalt and roadworks consuming more fuel. Which roads? BC roads. Can’t have those Prius’ not recharging on the stop and go traffic on highway 1.

Transfer payments. How much money leaves the province and doesn’t return?

Income tax. CRA reports that it is $5Billion lower year over year and almost all is from Alberta, specifically southern Alberta. Calgary is hurting for jobs and I can’t believe that this isn’t a bigger issue.

Is it separation? I’m not sure. I do think that Alberta is taken for granted as “that crazy province out there that sends the “have not” provinces of Ontario and Quebec free money every year”.

That $100 Billion? That’s what Canada has spent on oil and gas from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela over the last 5 years. Human rights, social justice, and distribution of wealth aren’t exactly the strong points of those countries. What would Alberta and Canada look like if that was spent here?

So while I don’t know about separation, I do think that Alberta gets a raw deal. I’m also aware that my post will not change any opinions, but hoping to bring a bit of balance to such an emotional topic.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Building pipelines is hard but not this hard. Not three major projects shelved in 5 years, historic price differential hard. Literally every other oil producing country on Earth can get them built and functional in the space of a couple years. TMX was proposed 6 YEARS AGO. The Americans have built 3,000 miles of pipelines in 2018, Canada has built zero. ZERO.

And yeah Keystone has met difficulties, but only because it's a Canadian pipeline and the foreign money pouring in to keep the gravy train rolling for American refiners doesn't care about domestic US pipelines. We really really have to get out of the mindset that pipelines are too hard, or 6-8 year delays on major projects are normal, or the Government having to buy a project from a private company that was ready to build it on their own dime is OK. It's not. It's a travesty and it's costing us tens of billions.

This is where you and I will need to disagree. Dont get me wrong, I wish it were easier and quite honestly my families well being depends on at least some of these projects going through. However, it's easy to have a strong opinion about "naional interest projects" when you don't have any skin in the game. I think the response would be different if the pipeline cut through your backyard and you got a fraction of the value you think your property is worth. We need to get out of the mindset that large projects can be rammed through without proper consideration for landowner rights. The laws 50 years ago with respect to landowner rights are a lot different than they are today and quite honestly we are better off for it. At the end of the day this project got rejected in the supreme court due to improper consideration for stakeholder rights. We can only hope for every development projects sake that this project now produces a proper road map to get these projects through in the future. A lot of valuable time has been wasted from this lack of clarity, but as much as you may have biases against the national government, this is a court issue, not a government one.

[Red Potato Standing By]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Wow.

Like....way to take the high road dude.

Curious, why are you not calling out the person calling people morons out?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by tkflames

This is where you and I will need to disagree. Dont get me wrong, I wish it were easier and quite honestly my families well being depends on at least some of these projects going through. However, it's easy to have a strong opinion about "naional interest projects" when you don't have any skin in the game. I think the response would be different if the pipeline cut through your backyard and you got a fraction of the value you think your property is worth. We need to get out of the mindset that large projects can be rammed through without proper consideration for landowner rights. The laws 50 years ago with respect to landowner rights are a lot different than they are today and quite honestly we are better off for it. At the end of the day this project got rejected in the supreme court due to improper consideration for stakeholder rights. We can only hope for every development projects sake that this project now produces a proper road map to get these projects through in the future. A lot of valuable time has been wasted from this lack of clarity, but as much as you may have biases against the national government, this is a court issue, not a government one.

I disagree here on a few counts. Find me a land owner that didn’t get more than fair market value for the land that was affected? The people along the right of way including every Aboriginal group on the ROW were in favour.

Then in the general case I disagree with you in general on land rights. The national interest should easily trump land ownership rights. There was proper consultation amount land owners compared to every other infrastructure project ever built in Canada. No other project in the history of Canada considered up and downstream affects of the piece of infrastructure.

Until someone can tell be what makes pipeline special the current process is ridiculous.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by tkflames

This is where you and I will need to disagree. Dont get me wrong, I wish it were easier and quite honestly my families well being depends on at least some of these projects going through. However, it's easy to have a strong opinion about "naional interest projects" when you don't have any skin in the game. I think the response would be different if the pipeline cut through your backyard and you got a fraction of the value you think your property is worth. We need to get out of the mindset that large projects can be rammed through without proper consideration for landowner rights. The laws 50 years ago with respect to landowner rights are a lot different than they are today and quite honestly we are better off for it. At the end of the day this project got rejected in the supreme court due to improper consideration for stakeholder rights. We can only hope for every development projects sake that this project now produces a proper road map to get these projects through in the future. A lot of valuable time has been wasted from this lack of clarity, but as much as you may have biases against the national government, this is a court issue, not a government one.

There's an unclear definition of stakeholder though - the previous definition was that if you are directly affected (cutting through your backyard, as you said), you needed to be consulted and compensated. I will definitely say that people along the pipeline right-of-way are more than fairly compensated for their troubles.

Now it just seems like it's literally anybody is a stakeholder. How do you get anything done when anyone has a veto? That's the thing that needs to be updated and dealt with.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GGG

I disagree here on a few counts. Find me a land owner that didn’t get more than fair market value for the land that was affected? The people along the right of way including every Aboriginal group on the ROW were in favour.

Then in the general case I disagree with you in general on land rights. The national interest should easily trump land ownership rights. There was proper consultation amount land owners compared to every other infrastructure project ever built in Canada. No other project in the history of Canada considered up and downstream affects of the piece of infrastructure.

Until someone can tell be what makes pipeline special the current process is ridiculous.

I think the federal government has a “consultation problem” in general. They were told the same thing regarding Northern Gateway, right? The courts were specific here in noting that this consultation does not mean a veto, and I view that as a positive.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by tkflames

This is where you and I will need to disagree. Dont get me wrong, I wish it were easier and quite honestly my families well being depends on at least some of these projects going through. However, it's easy to have a strong opinion about "naional interest projects" when you don't have any skin in the game. I think the response would be different if the pipeline cut through your backyard and you got a fraction of the value you think your property is worth. We need to get out of the mindset that large projects can be rammed through without proper consideration for landowner rights. The laws 50 years ago with respect to landowner rights are a lot different than they are today and quite honestly we are better off for it. At the end of the day this project got rejected in the supreme court due to improper consideration for stakeholder rights. We can only hope for every development projects sake that this project now produces a proper road map to get these projects through in the future. A lot of valuable time has been wasted from this lack of clarity, but as much as you may have biases against the national government, this is a court issue, not a government one.

Except that the actual landowners for the pipeline path signed on, the people that didn't are protest groups and people that are away from the pipeline.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

Curious, why are you not calling out the person calling people morons out?

Curious, have you read icecubes posts before?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Curious, have you read icecubes posts before?

We don’t need to call each other morons.

[Red Potato Standing By]

Meh, was just curious as I said.

[DirtyMike]

I am increasingly bearish on Canada's future overall: slowing economy, aging population, brain drain of our best talent to the US, no cultural identity, few strong industries, few globally recognized "made in Canada companies", and a federal government that can't seem to get it right.

Alberta separation probably isn't an answer, but if Albertans are not happy, I think this is an appropriate discussion and not something to be "embarrassed" about.

I also have to laugh at those pointing to the healthcare system as a reason Alberta would fail on its own. Healthcare is not free as evidenced by our 40%+ tax rate, and drug prices in Canada are some of the highest in the world.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by McG

That $100 Billion? That’s what Canada has spent on oil and gas from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela over the last 5 years. Human rights, social justice, and distribution of wealth aren’t exactly the strong points of those countries. What would Alberta and Canada look like if that was spent here?

There's no way that number is correct. Saudi oil imports have averaged around 70 to 100 thousand barrels per day for the last couple of years, and I haven't check but I'm pretty sure that we don't import from Venezuela(very little reason to do so). At $100 per barrel that's $18 Billion out of $10 Trillion of economic activity.

[Weitz]

I’m shocked that a Canadian would ever defend importing Saudi oil. That’s so pathetic.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by DirtyMike

I am increasingly bearish on Canada's future overall: slowing economy, aging population, brain drain of our best talent to the US, no cultural identity, few strong industries, few globally recognized "made in Canada companies", and a federal government that can't seem to get it right.

Alberta separation probably isn't an answer, but if Albertans are not happy, I think this is an appropriate discussion and not something to be "embarrassed" about.

I also have to laugh at those pointing to the healthcare system as a reason Alberta would fail on its own. Healthcare is not free as evidenced by our 40%+ tax rate, and drug prices in Canada are some of the highest in the world.

Canada right now comes off like a country that hates businesses. Can you blame outsiders for having that perception?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by tkflames

This is where you and I will need to disagree. Dont get me wrong, I wish it were easier and quite honestly my families well being depends on at least some of these projects going through. However, it's easy to have a strong opinion about "naional interest projects" when you don't have any skin in the game. I think the response would be different if the pipeline cut through your backyard and you got a fraction of the value you think your property is worth. We need to get out of the mindset that large projects can be rammed through without proper consideration for landowner rights. The laws 50 years ago with respect to landowner rights are a lot different than they are today and quite honestly we are better off for it. At the end of the day this project got rejected in the supreme court due to improper consideration for stakeholder rights. We can only hope for every development projects sake that this project now produces a proper road map to get these projects through in the future. A lot of valuable time has been wasted from this lack of clarity, but as much as you may have biases against the national government, this is a court issue, not a government one.

No, this is not the correct way to look at it. If we allow NIMBYism to take hold we really will become a 3rd world country.

Do you think Canada having transportation systems that cross our nation are not good? Are you not an advocate for the TransCanada highway or the CPR? People, products and resources need to move. That’s the reality. Landowners that are along a ROW should be compensated for loss (and trust me they absolutely are), nuisance, etc., and they should be consulted with and heard. But they should not have veto rights to projects that are in the benefit of the greater good- which TMX is.

A good example of consultation would be “hey, don’t build the pipeline right through my house, make it go around it”. Done. A bad example of consultation is “hey, I stand to make money from the Tides foundation to unequivocally block your pipeline” or “hey now I have been given enough power by nebulous consultation guidelines that I can extort you.”

If most people shared your viewpoint we wouldn’t have the country we do today and I’m not sure you’ve really thought deep enough about this. At some point we as a nation have to stand up and use our practicality, but it doesn’t look like we have any anymore.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I’m shocked that a Canadian would ever defend importing Saudi oil. That’s so pathetic.

I guess you'll be okay for Canada to ban oil export to China because they have been holding millions of Uyghurs in concentration camps.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by GGG

I disagree here on a few counts. Find me a land owner that didn’t get more than fair market value for the land that was affected? The people along the right of way including every Aboriginal group on the ROW were in favour.

Then in the general case I disagree with you in general on land rights. The national interest should easily trump land ownership rights. There was proper consultation amount land owners compared to every other infrastructure project ever built in Canada. No other project in the history of Canada considered up and downstream affects of the piece of infrastructure.

Until someone can tell be what makes pipeline special the current process is ridiculous.

Clearly there wasn't...the supreme court which is responsible for upholding our laws confirmed this. As a general note, I want this pipeline and major energy projects to go through. I have reiterated this point. However, thinking that with a change of government or through separation you will suddenly get your way is naive. Also, thinking that the motivation for people opposing this pipeline and project is to screw Albertans is also naive.

There needs to be a clear roadmap for consultation. Consultation is not building a consensus, but it is also not ignoring a potential high risk activities because it is arbitrarily defined as "out of scope". This is what the court has said and they are not wrong on this front. If you dont believe that an impact assesment should not have been done on tanker traffic in a harbor as part of the overall project risk assessment, I would love to hear your reasons why. In terms of consultations, I agree that it is difficult to define a stakeholder (I.e. Is squamish nation because they see immediately adjacent but Vancouver island nations out?) I believe that there needs to be a clearer definition of roadmap for defining this going forward that is court acceptable.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

No, this is not the correct way to look at it. If we allow NIMBYism to take hold we really will become a 3rd world country.

Do you think Canada having transportation systems that cross our nation are not good? Are you not an advocate for the TransCanada highway or the CPR? People, products and resources need to move. That’s the reality. Landowners that are along a ROW should be compensated for loss (and trust me they absolutely are), nuisance, etc., and they should be consulted with and heard. But they should not have veto rights to projects that are in the benefit of the greater good- which TMX is.

A good example of consultation would be “hey, don’t build the pipeline right through my house, make it go around it”. Done. A bad example of consultation is “hey, I stand to make money from the Tides foundation to unequivocally block your pipeline” or “hey now I have been given enough power by nebulous consultation guidelines that I can extort you.”

If most people shared your viewpoint we wouldn’t have the country we do today and I’m not sure you’ve really thought deep enough about this. At some point we as a nation have to stand up and use our practicality, but it doesn’t look like we have any anymore.

You are putting words in my mouth so that you can go on a tangent using cliche talking points. The reality is that whether you want to accept it or not, building the Trans Canada HWY today would be more difficult. No amount of separation angst, government anger or other means of projecting your frustration will change that without turning this into a 3rd world country. Just because it is more difficult, does not mean it is not a worthwhile endeavour. I would also suggest you have a look back at who built the TCH since it was in the national interest.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Except that the actual landowners for the pipeline path signed on, the people that didn't are protest groups and people that are away from the pipeline.

A valid point and one that I strongly agree with (outside of the city or Burnaby who is clearly not signed on). Not every group currently seeking influence should have it, but the sphere of legitimate influence needs to be greater defined. I dont agree that Alaska should have an influence, but the port of Vancouver is certainly affected. Where does Squamish Nation fall on this sphere....much more difficult to define. There needs to be a roadmap on drawing those lines more clearly about who should be consulted and who should ultimately have influence

Note that I am not a proponent of consensus, but clearly there is something missing in the process with respect to consultation.