Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 04-24-2019, 12:51 PM   #21
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
This could be Kenney's NDP moment...
The heck does this mean? You aren't trying to draw a parallel with the PPA debacle, are you? Surely not.
__________________
"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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2019, 02:02 PM   #22
Weitz
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
This could be Kenney's NDP moment...


https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/kenney-election-promise-could-spell-trouble-for-in-situ-oil-sites

I'd love to see the Feds try and take over the AER's jurisdiction. That would be an interesting lawsuit.

But this seems like grasping at straws by a terrified Federal government to me.
Weitz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2019, 02:04 PM   #23
OMG!WTF!
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
The heck does this mean? You aren't trying to draw a parallel with the PPA debacle, are you? Surely not.

Yes I was. It's obviously quite different but potentially equally stupid and costly. And it's a "get it out of the way early on so the rubes forget about in in four years" kind of thing like the PPA issue was supposed to be.
OMG!WTF! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2019, 02:07 PM   #24
Weitz
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
Yes I was. It's obviously quite different but potentially equally stupid and costly. And it's a "get it out of the way early on so the rubes forget about in in four years" kind of thing like the PPA issue was supposed to be.
Right but currently AFAIK the Feds don't have any power over insitu development. I don't know if passing a law would suddenly take away provincial rights.
Weitz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2019, 02:08 PM   #25
corporatejay
Franchise Player
 
corporatejay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dion View Post
I think he has some valid points.

It raises the question of weather people with deeply religious views should be running for a seat in politics when it comes to social issues. You'd better have the politically correct beliefs or you're going to be demonised and belittled for what you believe. More to the point, you're a horrible person if you don't believe in my views.

Notley did make it divisive with her rigid stance on social issues. Kenney is against abortion and was continually attacked with Notley having you believe that Kenney would change abortion rights if he became Premier.

If your views are archaic and regressive then yes. It's also not the "views' that are problematic, but trying to legislate on those views when they violate basic human rights guaranteed by the constitution.
__________________
corporatejay is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to corporatejay For This Useful Post:
Old 04-24-2019, 02:14 PM   #26
OMG!WTF!
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz View Post
Right but currently AFAIK the Feds don't have any power over insitu development. I don't know if passing a law would suddenly take away provincial rights.

That's bill C-69 for ya
OMG!WTF! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2019, 02:16 PM   #27
Weitz
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
That's bill C-69 for ya
Well except for this little thing called the constitution. I don't know the specifics and legalities of all this of course but development of resources is a provincial right in the constitution.
Weitz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2019, 02:27 PM   #28
OMG!WTF!
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz View Post
Well except for this little thing called the constitution. I don't know the specifics and legalities of all this of course but development of resources is a provincial right in the constitution.

So you've missed all this bill c-69 stuff over the past few months? Yeah, it's a total constitutional schmozzle but here we are.
OMG!WTF! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2019, 02:40 PM   #29
Weitz
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
So you've missed all this bill c-69 stuff over the past few months? Yeah, it's a total constitutional schmozzle but here we are.
Well its one thing to have it apply to pipelines like TMX which are Federal jurisdiction, but another to have it apply to insitu development which is provincial. Maybe I wasn't really paying attention well enough but that was the first I have heard it applied to provincially controlled industry development.
Weitz is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Weitz For This Useful Post:
Old 04-24-2019, 02:41 PM   #30
AFireInside
Powerplay Quarterback
 
AFireInside's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dion View Post
I think he has some valid points.

It raises the question of weather people with deeply religious views should be running for a seat in politics when it comes to social issues. You'd better have the politically correct beliefs or you're going to be demonised and belittled for what you believe. More to the point, you're a horrible person if you don't believe in my views.

Notley did make it divisive with her rigid stance on social issues. Kenney is against abortion and was continually attacked with Notley having you believe that Kenney would change abortion rights if he became Premier.
How did she make it divisive? Her stance was that people should be treated fairly wasn't it? Maybe there is something I'm missing.

For example, if you don't agree on abortion that's fine but it's none of your business what someone else does. You can still be against it without stopping others from choosing that. The government insisting on keeping that legal is only divisive if you try to infringe on others rights to do what they want.

If someone can't separate their deeply religious views from their political position they should not be running. Your religious views shouldn't influence public policy. I know that's tricky because everyone has different beliefs but they should be doing what's best for everyone not what's best for them.

For example, I know that of doctors that are religious and don't believe in birth control but they do their job and prescribe it or refer to a doctor that will. That's the correct approach. If a doctor simply denied birth control to someone requesting it they shouldn't be practicing.
AFireInside is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AFireInside For This Useful Post:
Old 04-24-2019, 03:03 PM   #31
crazy_eoj
Powerplay Quarterback
 
crazy_eoj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AFireInside View Post
How did she make it divisive? Her stance was that people should be treated fairly wasn't it? Maybe there is something I'm missing.

For example, if you don't agree on abortion that's fine but it's none of your business what someone else does. You can still be against it without stopping others from choosing that. The government insisting on keeping that legal is only divisive if you try to infringe on others rights to do what they want.

If someone can't separate their deeply religious views from their political position they should not be running. Your religious views shouldn't influence public policy. I know that's tricky because everyone has different beliefs but they should be doing what's best for everyone not what's best for them.

For example, I know that of doctors that are religious and don't believe in birth control but they do their job and prescribe it or refer to a doctor that will. That's the correct approach. If a doctor simply denied birth control to someone requesting it they shouldn't be practicing.
I think the entire point is that the NDP spent most of their campaign villainizing people for their viewpoints (some decades ago) regardless of their position on having that reflected in their opinion on public policy.

An appropriate criticism may be: in church you said X, but if elected what would you do about XY?

Instead they tried to attack something like: "(S)He once said X so he clearly is a racist/homophobe/bigot who is clearly ushering in an era of nazism".
crazy_eoj is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to crazy_eoj For This Useful Post:
Old 04-24-2019, 03:24 PM   #32
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
Yes I was. It's obviously quite different but potentially equally stupid and costly. And it's a "get it out of the way early on so the rubes forget about in in four years" kind of thing like the PPA issue was supposed to be.
It's nowhere near as stupid. It's, frankly, not stupid at all. The PPA thing was just a gaffe based on not reading an existing contract with a profit-driven private actor. They were always going to exercise their rights under contract to maximize their return. It's dollars and cents.

This is nothing like that - it's a dispute between a provincial government and a federal government over how matters in the province should be run. It is a policy debate. In other words, if the Federal government takes punitive measures, they are casting themselves in the role of the "bad guy", which is exactly the role Jason Kenney wants them to play for his populist, "those Eastern bastards are trying to put their foot on the throat of us good, upstanding Western Canadians" rhetoric. It's going to be a part of the campaign in the fall, and Kenney is going to do whatever he can to try to see the CPC win that election.

And frankly, he'd be right - the Federal Government attempting to effectively extort the province to sign on to its measures, failing which it will punish the province with damaging legislation, is overreach. Its constitutional legality is also debatable, but first and foremost, it comes across as blackmail. "Do what we say, or else". In short, it actually is the LPC trying to put their foot on Albertan throats to placate its base elsewhere, which makes it a particularly easy sell for Kenney, Wall, Moe, Ford, et al.

There is no parallel to be drawn between the two. One was an accident produced by incompetence with no upside whatsoever. The other is a deliberate, calculated political move.
__________________
"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 offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Old 04-24-2019, 04:08 PM   #33
OMG!WTF!
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
It's nowhere near as stupid. It's, frankly, not stupid at all. The PPA thing was just a gaffe based on not reading an existing contract with a profit-driven private actor. They were always going to exercise their rights under contract to maximize their return. It's dollars and cents.

This is nothing like that - it's a dispute between a provincial government and a federal government over how matters in the province should be run. It is a policy debate. In other words, if the Federal government takes punitive measures, they are casting themselves in the role of the "bad guy", which is exactly the role Jason Kenney wants them to play for his populist, "those Eastern bastards are trying to put their foot on the throat of us good, upstanding Western Canadians" rhetoric. It's going to be a part of the campaign in the fall, and Kenney is going to do whatever he can to try to see the CPC win that election.

And frankly, he'd be right - the Federal Government attempting to effectively extort the province to sign on to its measures, failing which it will punish the province with damaging legislation, is overreach. Its constitutional legality is also debatable, but first and foremost, it comes across as blackmail. "Do what we say, or else". In short, it actually is the LPC trying to put their foot on Albertan throats to placate its base elsewhere, which makes it a particularly easy sell for Kenney, Wall, Moe, Ford, et al.

There is no parallel to be drawn between the two. One was an accident produced by incompetence with no upside whatsoever. The other is a deliberate, calculated political move.

Um sure. Except that you're assuming Kenney actually knew this was the deal Notley made and that he is acting with a plan as you've described.


Quote:
Whether Kenney knew of the implications for in-situ sites before he promised to lift the emissions cap is unclear.

Kenney's reaction to this today was...aaaaah no comment.



And if it does play out as you described, Kenney would single handedly decimate the remains of our largest industry in order to make Albertan even more angry at those bastards in Ottawa? Well that is a head scratcher. We're already pretty pissed off. And that does sound a lot like Notely trying to make us mad at past conservative governments and their scary love of companies like Enron. Both effectively throw us under the bus for stupid political gain.


But none of this has really happened yet and I assume Kenney will wise up to the reality of the situation.
OMG!WTF! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2019, 04:28 PM   #34
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Kenney would "single handedly" decimate an industry? By... what, allowing the federal government to extort the province? This is a federal decision, and arguably an illegal one, yet you're blaming Kenney for not paying the ransom demanded by the LPC? That's an insane take. This is like saying that if you refuse to give your wallet to a mugger and he stabs you, you've "single handedly" put your own life in danger.

Equally insane is your suggestion that an Edmonton Journal article which says it's "unclear" whether he knew about this means he didn't know about this. The UPC response was that application to in situ projects was only one of many issues with Bill C-69 that they hope to talk to the Federal Government about. That would seem to suggest that the party had some inkling that this was on the table.
Quote:
But none of this has really happened yet and I assume Kenney will wise up to the reality of the situation.
Do you really think he's going to capitulate to the federal government on this, given his campaign rhetoric and his strategy ever since he took over the party? Or is he going to say, "look what the Liberals are trying to do, isn't it awful, I promise to fight them every step of the way"? The question is rhetorical.
__________________
"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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2019, 04:39 PM   #35
OMG!WTF!
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

So who's vote is Kenney trying to win by allowing the feds to kill what's left of our industry with bill c-69? If the bill passes and if the federal libs win another mandate, it's law. No amount of calculated lobbying on Kenney's part is going to protect this industry. It's a 100 mega ton cap or literally nothing. That's not going to win Kenney any votes much less new votes.

Frankly I dont believe he knew about this deal during the election because his promise to eliminate the cap would have been predicated on killing bill c-69. Either way it's a dumb promise to make...almost like he hadn't read the contract.
OMG!WTF! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2019, 04:45 PM   #36
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
So who's vote is Kenney trying to win by allowing the feds to kill what's left of our industry with bill c-69? If the bill passes and if the federal libs win another mandate, it's law. No amount of calculated lobbying on Kenney's part is going to protect this industry. It's a 100 mega ton cap or literally nothing. That's not going to win Kenney any votes much less new votes.
Whose.*

If the LPC win another majority, I assume he will engage in a constitutional challenge, just as he is with respect to the carbon tax. If that challenge fails, perhaps he will capitulate at that point. No idea.
Quote:
Frankly I dont believe he knew about this deal during the election because his promise to eliminate the cap would have been predicated on killing bill c-69. Either it's a dumb promise to make...almost like he hadn't read the contract.
What contract? What the #### are you talking about? Either he knew about it and is going to use it as a campaign issue to raise holy hell about in the fall, or it was a secret deal between Notley and the Trudeau government, in which case he couldn't have possibly known about it and there was therefore no oversight on the part of the UPC. And in either case, it's a policy squabble between two orders of government, not a breach of contract by a provincial government where the counterparty to said contract is a private actor.

Your comparison was dumb. Just stop digging.
__________________
"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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2019, 04:51 PM   #37
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
This could be Kenney's NDP moment...


https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/kenney-election-promise-could-spell-trouble-for-in-situ-oil-sites

There doesn’t appear to be anything in the bill regarding In Situ oil sands specifically or the 100 Megaton limit. So is this a future amendment to the bill that is being proposed as a threat? If so I think categorizing it as a PPA moment isn’t correct. It’s also something that could always be walked back by either side.

I suspect that this eventually plays out over TMX where cabinet will place the 100 megaton cap and an Alberta Carbon tax as conditions for the pipeline to be in Canada’s interest. Then Kenny needs to decide to sue and drag the pipeline or accept the terms.

The prudent choice is to take the loss, build the pipeline and then fight the constitutionality of the decision once the pipeline is operating.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Old 04-24-2019, 04:52 PM   #38
Dion
Not a casual user
 
Dion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AFireInside View Post
How did she make it divisive? Her stance was that people should be treated fairly wasn't it? Maybe there is something I'm missing.

For example, if you don't agree on abortion that's fine but it's none of your business what someone else does. You can still be against it without stopping others from choosing that. The government insisting on keeping that legal is only divisive if you try to infringe on others rights to do what they want.

If someone can't separate their deeply religious views from their political position they should not be running. Your religious views shouldn't influence public policy. I know that's tricky because everyone has different beliefs but they should be doing what's best for everyone not what's best for them.

For example, I know that of doctors that are religious and don't believe in birth control but they do their job and prescribe it or refer to a doctor that will. That's the correct approach. If a doctor simply denied birth control to someone requesting it they shouldn't be practicing.
She was divisive throughout much of her time as Premier because she ruled in absolutes that meant you are either with us or against us. There can be no middle ground.

You can be against abortion and other social issues but she assumes that these people will try to influence policies once elected. Kenney has said he will not let his views on abortion infringe on others rights to get one.

I also think Kenney would not allow any religious member of his party to influence policies with their views. At least I would hope so.
__________________
Dion is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dion For This Useful Post:
Old 04-24-2019, 04:53 PM   #39
OMG!WTF!
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

Yes...whose. My bad.

My reference to contract was metaphorical in that it seems similar to Notely going ahead with policy without having all the info available. Whether it was a deal in public or not, it is obviously not something Kenney can move forward on. Pick all the constitutional battles you want. But sledge hammering what amounts to a fairly good deal negotiated on our behalf is dumb. PPA level dumb.

My point in posting this was that it could become Kenney's PPA. Nothing has happened yet but it's not going to play out the way you've described....a calculated populist uprising by Kenney.
OMG!WTF! is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to OMG!WTF! For This Useful Post:
GGG
Old 04-24-2019, 04:55 PM   #40
Dion
Not a casual user
 
Dion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corporatejay View Post
If your views are archaic and regressive then yes. It's also not the "views' that are problematic, but trying to legislate on those views when they violate basic human rights guaranteed by the constitution.
Excellent points. I too agree that religion should not be allowed as a means legislate policies. Keep it to yourself and don't foist your views on Albertans.
__________________
Dion 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 06:35 PM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




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