Author Topic: Politics in 2017  (Read 78001 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Bird_Gunner45

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 38,926
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 933
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #825 on: October 04, 2017, 23:19:09 »
Are left wing political violence and right wing political violence really different threats?  If citizens get caught between warring biker gangs, do we try to sub-categorize it as Hells Angels violence or Rock Machine violence and then argue over which “type” of violence is the greater threat?

If political violence is a problem regardless of the perpetrator’s place in the political spectrum, then is it not possible to discuss the problem in terms that are neutral of the offenders’ political alignments?

... also, while I know the topic of political violence has achieved boiling points in the US, this is the Canadian politics thread.  Yes, there are similarities between the countries and a lot of their social phenomena do have the ability to diffuse across the border.  But, there are always differences between the countries’ political and social realities.  If the topic cannot be discussed without reference to Republicans or Democrats and if the discussion requires primarily reference to extreme US occurrences vice reference to anything from this side of the border: then it is probably safe to assume the discussion belongs in one of those US political threads.

Agree. If you are shot by a stray bullet between 2 groups of idiots, it doesn't *really* matter which group shot said bullet. I also agree that Canada is not the US in that we dont have the racial baggage that they do (though, not to the extent we would like to believe we dont). The argument is that neither left nor right wing people are worse in terms of extremists.

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 72,260
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,451
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #826 on: October 05, 2017, 11:02:10 »
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-pro-choice-stance-wont-cost-liberals-in-the-polls-but-their-moral-entitlement-might

Andrew Coyne: Liberals’ moral arrogance on full display in fight over Status of Women chair
- 4 Oct 17
With the current generation of Liberals, on the other hand, the sense of entitlement seems inbred, rooted less in incumbency than in an unvarnished assumption of moral superiority

Just a month ago the Liberals were riding high, with a lead in the polls averaging roughly 12 points. Suddenly, things are a lot tighter. A new Ekos Research poll puts them just one point ahead of the Conservatives, 34-33: a statistical tie. Their lead in the latest Nanos and Ipsos surveys is a little better, at seven points, but Forum Research puts the Conservatives four points ahead, while an Angus Reid poll has it 36 to 33 for the Conservatives as the party that “would make the best government.”

What accounts for this who can say. But one part of it may be a growing weariness with a governing party that appears to believe, almost literally in some cases, that it was born to rule. Previous Liberal governments acquired that arrogance only after many years in office. With the current generation of Liberals, on the other hand, the sense of entitlement seems inbred, rooted less in incumbency than in an unvarnished assumption of moral superiority: a belief, not only that their views are superior to those of their opponents, but that theirs are the only views it is possible for a decent person to hold.

As exhibit A, I give you the recent fiasco at the status of women committee. For those just joining us, the fracas was set off by the Conservatives’ nomination as chair of the committee, Rachael Harder, the party’s critic for the Status of Women portfolio. Thirty years old, smart as a whip, with a background in sociology and youth consulting, Harder is a promising up-and-comer, of a type and vocation one would more typically find in the Liberal caucus.

She has, however, one fatal flaw, at least to the Liberals: she is (sensitive readers may wish to avert their eyes) pro-life, or if you prefer, anti-abortion. Which is to say, she presumably believes there should be some sort of federal law governing abortion, as opposed to the legal void in which it now takes place. It’s not clear how fervently she believes this, or what sorts of limits she would prefer were in place. The Campaign Life Coalition gives her an “amber-light” rating: though she once filled out a questionnaire for the group saying she would work to pass legislation “to protect unborn children” from conception onward, she also reportedly told an all-candidates meeting in 2015 that “she believes every woman should have access to abortion.”

No matter. Any deviation from the status quo on abortion, no matter how slight, is enough to cast one into the pit. Neither does it matter that there would be no chance whatever of Harder using her post as status of women’s committee chair to implement her fiendish plan. The mere knowledge that somewhere within her lurked some small gleam of wrongthink was grounds for disqualification. Or rather, something worse than that: it was not sufficient for the Liberal majority on the committee to defeat her nomination, as eventually they did (later electing another Conservative MP to the chair against her will). No, so intolerable was the very idea that when it was first proposed the Liberals on the committee walked out in protest.

There is, it is true, a lot of posturing at work here. But it is also true that many Liberals (and New Democrats) sincerely believe this: that any woman who does not believe in absolute unrestricted abortion on demand does not truly believe in women’s rights, and as such is unfit for such a post. They are entitled to think that. What marks them apart is their absolute unwillingness to extend the same courtesy to their opponents — or even to recognize that their opponents do not see things that way.

Pro-lifers do not get up in the morning thinking “how can I reduce women’s rights today?” So far as they are prepared to let the state intervene in what would otherwise be entirely a personal matter, it is in the profound belief that another set of rights are engaged: those of the fetus she is carrying. They may be wrong about that. Or they may be right, but not to the point that the mother’s rights can be overridden. But whether they are right or they are wrong, it is not a belief that is so far off the map as to warrant this kind of demonization.

Why not? Is it impossible that it could be, even in principle? I’ve seen people argue that nominating Harder for chair of status of women is like giving a Holocaust denier responsibility for promoting religious tolerance. Well now. What would be the signs that pro-lifers had sunk into a similarly marginal, if not depraved state?

Perhaps it would, if the matter were settled law — though other fights, such as for assisted suicide, persisted in the face of legal defeat. But it isn’t: the Supreme Court, in its famous 1988 Morgentaler decision, did not say that no abortion law could be constitutional — only that the one in front of them was not. Indeed, the court was at pains to suggest the kind of law that would pass scrutiny, notably a “gestational” approach, with restrictions applying only in the later stages of a pregnancy. Justice Bertha Wilson, the feminist icon, led the way.

Or perhaps it would, if Parliament had decided on the matter — though again, that has not always or even usually been the signal for other campaigns to give up. But again, that isn’t the case: the House of Commons passed a new abortion law in 1990. It died, rather, on a tie vote of the Senate.

Or perhaps, if public opinion were overwhelmingly against it. Once again, that isn’t so: polls consistently show, nearly 30 years after Morgentaler, that public opinion remains divided on the issue — a small hard-core opposed to legalizing abortion under any circumstances, a larger hard-core adamant that it should be legal in all circumstances, and a large block, even a majority, somewhere in the middle. Moreover, there is no gender gap: men and women are equally likely to believe there should be some restriction on abortion.

Or maybe if Canada were the only country still debating the issue, while abortion on demand was the norm in the rest of the world. But in fact it’s the other way around: Canada is the only country in the democratic world that imposes no legal limits on abortion. Perfectly respectable, socially liberal countries like Sweden, France, the Netherlands etc think it permissible to progressively tighten access after a certain number of weeks.

Maybe they’re all wrong. Maybe we should stay with the status quo. But it is not, I submit, intolerable to take a different view. Yet such is the bubble within which our political and media class operate that we have persuaded ourselves that the rest of the world are the outliers, and Canada, though it is at one logical extreme of the possible approaches, the benchmark of moderatism.

I am explicitly not saying this controversy has anything to do with the Liberals’ recent decline in the polls, which predates it in any event. But the sense of moral entitlement it reveals, the intolerance of differences of opinion, the demonization of opposition, the insufferable smugness? Yeah, it just might.

Photo Caption: Conservative MP Rachael Harder rises during question period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Wednesday, Sept.27, 2017. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Online FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 96,215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,015
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • WordPress Page
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #827 on: October 05, 2017, 18:53:06 »
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-pro-choice-stance-wont-cost-liberals-in-the-polls-but-their-moral-entitlement-might

Andrew Coyne: Liberals’ moral arrogance on full display in fight over Status of Women chair
- 4 Oct 17
With the current generation of Liberals, on the other hand, the sense of entitlement seems inbred, rooted less in incumbency than in an unvarnished assumption of moral superiority

Let me start by saying that I'm a Conservative and dislike the Liberals for numerous reasons, however, on this issue I disagree with my party's position entirely.

The chair of the Status of Women committee is traditionally held by a member of the opposition. The committee has six Liberal, two Conservative and one NDP members.

Of the two Conservative members: Harder has come out as Pro Life and Karen Vecchio as Pro Choice.

Our laws/policy on abortion is not in turmoil. It was settled by the SCC Morgentaler decision and has been working quite acceptably for thirty years. In short those who are Pro Life are free not to have abortions and those who are Pro Choice, have exactly that--a choice--as to whether to have one or not. Doctors and clinics can provide appropriate health care advice on the issue without fear of being arrested by the state.

The committee wisely chose Vecchio as the chair notwithstanding her reluctance to accept the position as it goes against her leadership's choice of Harder.

By putting Harder forward to chair this committee, my party has signalled an intent to abandon the position--which had been so wisely followed by Harper over the years--of leaving the status quo in place. At the very least Harder's nomination is a tone deaf move which shows that Scheer is either being unnecessarily confrontational, naive or just plain stupid.

In my view, nominating a Pro Lifer to a position of leadership in this committee is a bad signal to the country that a future Conservative government under its present leadership would move to impose restrictions and thereby limit the choice available to women. I categorically won't support that.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 186,527
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,749
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #828 on: October 05, 2017, 19:09:29 »
... It was settled by the SCC Morgentaler decision and has been working quite acceptably for thirty years. In short those who are Pro Life are free not to have abortions and those who are Pro Choice, have exactly that--a choice--as to whether to have one or not.

The human beings with the biggest stake in this matter would likely, if given their choice, dispute your concept of acceptability, freedom, and choice.

But they are given no choice whatsoever.

None at all.

Online FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 96,215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,015
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • WordPress Page
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #829 on: October 05, 2017, 19:24:59 »
The human beings with the biggest stake in this matter would likely, if given their choice, dispute your concept of acceptability, freedom, and choice.

But they are given no choice whatsoever.

None at all.

So now we both know where each of us stand on this issue and since I know you won't change my mind and, I suspect that I won't change yours, we should probably not waste our time debating it.

That said, I think my party was out to lunch on this issue not only because I think they are fundamentally wrong but because that road leads to political suicide in this country.

 [cheers]
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Online mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 428,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,374
    • The job.
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #830 on: October 05, 2017, 19:36:10 »
Even has its own mega-thread,

Abortion Issues - Mega Thread [MERGED]
https://army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=105125.75
Get on the bus. Take a ride with us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2lSGnPl-ww

Online YZT580

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 16,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 499
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #831 on: October 05, 2017, 21:06:37 »
We are discussing only one element of qualification here and it is not even as Coyne said regarding an issue that would be brought forward by the committee. It is a disgrace that a person who does not totally follow a pre-set mind-set is not allowed a place of leadership for fear that she may contaminate the rest of the group. Free thinking as long as it is the same thought as mine?

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 186,527
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,749
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #832 on: October 05, 2017, 21:16:45 »
Just another Sunny Way.

Offline ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 197,974
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,449
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #833 on: October 06, 2017, 00:30:38 »
As Patton said "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking."
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 72,260
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,451
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #834 on: October 06, 2017, 09:54:40 »
Quote
What accounts for this who can say. But one part of it may be a growing weariness with a governing party that appears to believe, almost literally in some cases, that it was born to rule. Previous Liberal governments acquired that arrogance only after many years in office. With the current generation of Liberals, on the other hand, the sense of entitlement seems inbred, rooted less in incumbency than in an unvarnished assumption of moral superiority: a belief, not only that their views are superior to those of their opponents, but that theirs are the only views it is possible for a decent person to hold.

To me, the quote above is the main thrust in the article with the rejection of Ms Harder as the proof. IMHO the quote above fits the Liberals, the current Trudeau government, exactly and that's why I posted it.
+100 « Last Edit: October 06, 2017, 14:00:06 by Rifleman62 »
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 72,260
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,451
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #835 on: October 06, 2017, 14:23:21 »
Two related articles.

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/10/05/a-pipeline-dies-in-the-wake-of-lac-megantic-being-forgotten?token=6cd7d989fd79b2b3dc80a87fe17e6e45

A pipeline dies in the wake of Lac Megantic being forgotten
-  MARK BONOKOSKI – 5 Oct 17

TransCanada’s cancellation Thursday of the Energy East pipeline may be a victory for myopic environmentalists, but it is also an indictment of the Trudeau Liberals.

Under Justin Trudeau’s leadership, the Liberals imposed stringent greenhouse gas regulations on TransCanada that do not apply to foreign entities — including those ruled by despots and human-rights abusers — that are shipping crude by ocean-going tankers for off-loading at Canada’s east-coast ports.

So, it was hardly a level oil field.

It has not been a good week for the prime minister. On Wednesday, Trudeau was embarrassingly berated on Parliament Hill by First Nation demonstrators over his government’s undeniable botching and projected indifference concerning the inquiry into murdered and missing indigenous women and girls.

“How dare you come out here and say that you support our families?” asked B.C.’s Connie Greyeyes.

“How dare you come out here and say these things?”

And then came TransCanada pulling the plug on a pipeline project from Alberta’s oilsands to refineries in Saint John, N.B., that would have provided upwards of 15,000 construction jobs, and another 1,000 positions down the road.

The Energy East pipeline, 4,600 kms in length, would have been the longest pipeline in North America, with the capacity of safely moving 1.1-million barrels of oilsands and Saskatchewan crude a day to refineries on the East Coast.

If there was ever a mega-project, this was it.  It carried a $15.7-billion price tag, and would have provided billions in tax revenues.

Gone, too, is TransCanada’s Eastern Mainline project which would have added new natural gas pipelines and gas-compression facilities in southwestern Ontario and Quebec where most of the country’s home and industrial gas consumers are located.

The reason? The same stringent Canada-only environmental regulations that took the Energy East pipeline out of play, but continues to allow foreign fuels to flow into Canada without the same onerous regulations.

Quebec Premier Phillippe Couillard and Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre, the two loudest opponents of Energy East, would appear to have very short memories, and therefore dismissive of the fact that pipelines are arguably the safest method of moving crude, a commodity that is still vitally necessary and thus far irreplaceable.

Have they forgotten Lac Megantic, or don’t they care?

Would they rather have Canadians continue to bail out Bombardier than have Quebecers feel safe when freight trains roll through their towns in the middle of the night?

As a reminder, 47 Quebecers burned to death on that tragic day back in July 2013 when an unattended 74-car freight train carrying tankers filled with crude rolled down the hill and exploded in the town, destroying almost half of Lac Megantic’s downtown core.

Lisa Raitt, now deputy leader of the federal Conservatives, had to deal with the aftermath of that disaster while transport minister in the government of former PM Stephen Harper.

And she took direct aim Thursday at Trudeau for the cancellation of the Energy East pipeline.

“I want to be very clear,” she said. “Today’s announcement is not a result of a sudden decision by TransCanada.

“It’s a result of the disastrous energy policies promoted by Justin Trudeau and his failure to champion the Canadian energy sector.”

“He forced Canadian oil companies to comply with standards that are not required for foreign countries,” she added.

 “And these decisions have allowed companies operating in Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Algeria to ship oil to Canada with an advantage over companies like TransCanada that employ middle-class Canadians.”

But she was not done.

“Everything Justin Trudeau touches becomes a nightmare,” she said.

Would that she were wrong, but she isn’t.



http://m.edmontonsun.com/2017/10/05/lorne-gunter-justin-trudeaus-response-to-energy-east-cancellation-is-laughable

Justin Trudeau's response to Energy East cancellation is laughable - Lorne Gunter -5 Oct 17

Almost the moment TransCanada announced Thursday it was ending its attempt to build the $15-billion Energy East Pipeline from Alberta to New Brunswick, the federal Liberal government began insisting this was purely a “business decision.”

Don’t look at us, Trudeau government spokespeople insisted. World oil prices and all that, don’t ya know.

Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr insisted “it’s not up to me to explain why TransCanada made this decision on the basis of what’s in its interest … Nothing has changed in the government’s decision-making process.”

That’s a laugh.

The Trudeau Liberals have moved the goalposts on TransCanada substantially at least twice in the two years they’ve been in power.

Back in January 2016, just two months after being sworn in, the Liberals announced that National Energy Board (NEB) pipeline hearings – which at that time already involved months of testimony from hundreds and even thousands of witnesses – would be made even more complex and drawn out. Later they announced the timeline would be changed from 18 months to three years.

Then just this past August, the NEB announced that during their review of Energy East, they intended to hold TransCanada to account for all greenhouse emissions created by the fossil fuels that travelled through the 4,500-kilometre line, which would have had a 1.1-million-barrel-a-day capacity.

Typically, enviro reviews of pipelines take into account the emissions caused by building and operating the line. But the new Liberal NEB intended to hold TransCanada accountable for the emissions caused by extracting the oil from the ground and from consuming it after it exited Energy East – even if it was first put on a tanker and consumed somewhere overseas.

That doesn’t sound as if “nothing has changed,” as Carr insisted Thursday.

The Liberals, and especially Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, have also been extremely vague about whether they support Energy East. That too has caused investors to get skittish.

Trudeau has refused to engage Quebec politicians, such as Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre, when they have made outrageous accusations against the pipeline. An “expert” panel appointed by the Liberals recommended moving the hearings side of the NEB out of Calgary to Ottawa (a move that was later rejected) and Trudeau has repeatedly refused to explain what he considers adequate consultation with First Nations.

All that uncertainty, plus significant tax changes on oil and gas exploration contained in the Liberals’ 2017 budget, is likely what caused TransCanada to throw up its hands and shut down Energy East.

If this were just a “business decision” based on a soft world oil market, how come TransCanada is continuing with other pipeline projects in other countries, such as the Grand Rapids Pipeline in the States?

World oil prices are the same everywhere. All that’s different is the anti-oil atmosphere in Canada.

If TransCanada’s decision is based on business factors, it is the federal government that changed the factors.

It’s also not too much of a stretch to wonder whether this isn’t what the Trudeau Liberals wanted all along, because it saves them from having to make voters and politicians in Quebec unhappy.

It’s also interesting that our own Premier Rachel Notley’s first instinct was the same as the federal Liberals’ – blame this entirely on business. In her official statement she never once even hinted that Trudeau and the Liberals had a hand in it.

The Energy East cancellation, though, must put an end to Notley’s “social licence” fantasy. Spending billions on “green” energy and forcing the shutdown of coal power has done nothing — nothing! — to get pipelines built, which was the original whole goal.

All the carbon tax and billions in green spending has done is drive more Albertans out of work and dive our treasury deeper into debt.
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 72,260
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,451
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #836 on: October 07, 2017, 16:39:25 »
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-deliverology-where-are-thy-successes

Rex Murphy: Deliverology, where are thy successes? - 6 Oct 17
Has Trudeau delivered on his promise to strike the perfect balance between Energy and the Environment? Why no, it looks like a real bust

An utterly unreliable source, nowhere close to the prime minister and his inner circle, who wishes to remain anonymous, and in whom I have hardly any trust whatsoever, tells me the Trudeau government may be seeking a refund from their Deliverology Guru.*

The shaman of Deliverology (a barbarous and most uninspired coinage) is Mr. Michael Barber. A shortcut for understanding what he does is to think of him as a kind of Tony Robbins for immature governments. A deliverologist is a slick confidence booster for the unprepared, for those who sweep into public office (sometimes much to their own surprise) and who promised the moon and most of the outlying planets in the hope to get there, and are now in desperate need of a hired astronomer (or consultant) to get them off the hook.

Trudeau and his top advisers brought Sir Michael into the game to teach them how to deliver (how to promise they needed no help on; Liberals promise as salmon go upstream — it’s their innate compulsion and gift). But now, at mid-point in the Trudeau term, where’s the beef?

Trudeau brought Sir Michael into the game to teach them how to deliver
 
Did Trudeau deliver on a new electoral system by getting ride of first-past-the-post? Nein. No delivery there. Perfect failure. As were the vaporous hearings on electoral reform, which were scuttled by the very minister who set them up.

Has he repaired the country’s relationship with First Nation’s people? Uh Uh. The MMIW inquiry might be compared to a drawing room farce, were the subject matter not so sensitive. It has appalled the very people it was set up to serve, brought tears from many who once saw it as an instrument of mercy, and has lost the best people to conduct the inquiry through their resignations. Huge, messy, sad flop on a very sensitive file. I guess Mr. Barber and the crackerjack wisdoms of Deliverology, here, once again, failed, yes, to deliver.

Tax reform. There is no need to detail this chaos. The video file from the Oakville town meeting with the finance minister provides all you need to see on how well this is not going over. Deliverology failure once again.

And now to the biggest file of all. Energy and the Environment
 
And now to the biggest file of all. Energy and the Environment. Striking the Balance. Social Licence and the Carbon Dioxide Tax. Has Trudeau delivered on the promise to strike the perfect balance between Energy and the Environment? Well, if your idea of the perfect balance is one end of the scale hitting the roof (that would be the Green end), and the other collapsed on the floor (that would be the Energy and Pipelines end), then he has. However, if you’re more inclined to see balance as two scales more or less in equilibrious harmony, then it’s a real bust.

Thursday, TransCanada, having spent close to a billion dollars already trying to move Energy East forward, announced it was not going ahead with the project. It rightly, though diplomatically, put the blame on the overreach of the National Energy Board, with the expanded scope of its regulations and requirements. A huge $15-billion project cancelled. This, mere weeks after Petronas walked away from any even more gigantic enterprise of some $36 to 39-billion. Some five or six major outside investors have left the Alberta oilfields. All of this after Fort McMurray almost burnt to the ground, oil prices dropped, and jobs lost have run into the tens of thousands.

And then there’s Trans Mountain, which the government has “approved.” I drop the scare quotes because, while Trudeau has indeed offered approval to Trans Mountain, he is at his most tepid, formulaic, dutiful and uninspiring when doing so. Catch him at a WE day hootenanny if you want to hear him really make a pitch. Or at a Women of the World séance in full trumpet blast on the wonders of male feminism. In such settings, the accents of commitment, determination and enthusiasm are at full pitch. On Trans Mountain, he whispers. On the environmental side of this famous balance, he’s Elmer Gantry on steroids. On the oil industry, he’s a silent spectator, bringing to my mind the phrase from Hamlet: “you who are but mutes and witness to this act.”

This is stirring very real and drastic tensions within the Confederation
 

Plus, the B.C. pipeline is under the gun of its new NDP government and the three Greens who are keeping that party in power. They have pledged to “kill” the pipeline. Those who think the Western pipeline has a better chance than the Eastern one (now cancelled) are feeding on the fumes of exhausted optimism. Deliverology, where are thy successes?

Energy East’s withdrawal is close to putting a seal on any break from the (effective) barrier to Alberta getting its product to outside markets. The regulatory fences that have been erected, and this Liberal government’s emphatic embrace of vague environmentalism and the cloudy cause of global warming amount to a witting or unwitting boycott of that province’s principal resource. The huge investments in energy that Canada could and should be receiving are going to other countries, and jobs and prosperity with them. The industrial policy of the Trudeau government on oil is almost masochistic. And if we think of the opposite — its support of Bombardier, a jet fuelled enterprise — it is schizophrenic as well.

And that is stirring very real and potentially drastic tensions within the Confederation. We had one bout of Western alienation under Trudeau 1. It would be wise to avoid another under Trudeau 2, although it very much looks like we will not.

* Mr. Barber is not actually a guru — a spiritual, usually Indian mystic or wiseman. But then again, Deliverology is not exactly an “ology” either.

Photo Caption: Sir Michael Barber, a hired government coach of sorts, is flanked by Heritage Minister MŽlanie Joly (L) and Environment Minister Catherine McKenna as they head to morning meetings at the Delta Lodge at Kananaskis west of Calgary, Alta., on April 26, 2016.

Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 132,442
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,524
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #837 on: October 07, 2017, 19:42:21 »
Ah yes, Enviromental Barbie.
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Offline ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 197,974
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,449
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #838 on: October 10, 2017, 01:09:08 »
So... helping the middle class? Perhaps not so much:

Trudeau's tax hounds salivate over discounted hot dogs

Who would have thought retail sales clerks, hardly perceived as at the top of the financial food chain, were such tax-evading scofflaws that the Trudeau Liberals would be unleashing the taxman on them?

More at LINK and lest I be accused of spreading fake news... CTV News

What's next? Airmiles, CT money?



*Staff edit: fixed CTV ink.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2017, 10:28:11 by Good2Golf »
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 132,442
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,524
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #839 on: October 10, 2017, 06:19:23 »
So... helping the middle class? Perhaps not so much:

Trudeau's tax hounds salivate over discounted hot dogs

Who would have thought retail sales clerks, hardly perceived as at the top of the financial food chain, were such tax-evading scofflaws that the Trudeau Liberals would be unleashing the taxman on them?

More at LINK and lest I be accused of spreading fake news... CTV News

What's next? Airmiles, CT money?

Fake news!  Fake News!  I couldn't get the CTV link to work and it IS the Sun...  >:D
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 103,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,912
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #840 on: October 10, 2017, 14:03:26 »
I wonder if CPC will play the Saudi oil angle, the only problem will be then selling arms to Saudi and still buying their oil after the CPC wins an election.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 94,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,821
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #841 on: October 10, 2017, 14:50:01 »
Colin, Saudi Arabia is completely insignificant to Canada's energy markets.

To use the last available figures that are complete, 2014, Canada was:

Producing 3.5 Million barrels per day of crude; exporting 2.6 million barrels per day, thus keeping 1.1 million barrels per day for Canadian refineries. These refineries imported a further 600,000 barely per day, of which (fifth most important supplier @ approx. 10%) Saudi Arabia accounted of 60,000 barrels per day. Meaning that, overall, SA contributes less than 3% of Canada's crude needs, while we in Canada, produce in excess of 300% of our needs.

Canada'a other suppliers - not to mention our own internal capacity to produce crude oil - can make up any loss of Saudi Arabia without even bating an eye.

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/energy/files/pdf/2014/14-0173EnergyMarketFacts_e.pdf

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 103,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,912
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #842 on: October 10, 2017, 16:22:06 »
One has to ask why import any? As for feedstock, the refinery out here, can only get a small portion from the existing pipeline network (Trans mountain) The rest of the feedstock has to be barged in from the US.

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 132,442
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,524
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #843 on: October 10, 2017, 16:30:34 »
We may have the oil but now we cannot get it to the refinery in St John.  Thanks to the efforts of some.
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 189,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,462
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #844 on: October 10, 2017, 16:37:35 »
Colin, Saudi Arabia is completely insignificant to Canada's energy markets.

To use the last available figures that are complete, 2014, Canada was:

Producing 3.5 Million barrels per day of crude; exporting 2.6 million barrels per day, thus keeping 1.1 million barrels per day for Canadian refineries. These refineries imported a further 600,000 barely per day, of which (fifth most important supplier @ approx. 10%) Saudi Arabia accounted of 60,000 barrels per day. Meaning that, overall, SA contributes less than 3% of Canada's crude needs, while we in Canada, produce in excess of 300% of our needs.

Canada'a other suppliers - not to mention our own internal capacity to produce crude oil - can make up any loss of Saudi Arabia without even bating an eye.
Is unrefined oil the whole picture?  How much already refined product do we import?

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 103,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,912
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #845 on: October 10, 2017, 17:13:36 »
The only major refinery on the West Coast is scheduled for a major revamp and will be down for quite some time, all of the product will have to come either by road from Alberta or barge from Cherry Point

Online Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 22,654
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,164
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #846 on: October 11, 2017, 13:16:35 »
Two related articles.

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/10/05/a-pipeline-dies-in-the-wake-of-lac-megantic-being-forgotten?token=6cd7d989fd79b2b3dc80a87fe17e6e45

A pipeline dies in the wake of Lac Megantic being forgotten
-  MARK BONOKOSKI – 5 Oct 17

TransCanada’s cancellation Thursday of the Energy East pipeline may be a victory for myopic environmentalists, but it is also an indictment of the Trudeau Liberals.

Under Justin Trudeau’s leadership, the Liberals imposed stringent greenhouse gas regulations on TransCanada that do not apply to foreign entities — including those ruled by despots and human-rights abusers — that are shipping crude by ocean-going tankers for off-loading at Canada’s east-coast ports.

So, it was hardly a level oil field.

It has not been a good week for the prime minister. On Wednesday, Trudeau was embarrassingly berated on Parliament Hill by First Nation demonstrators over his government’s undeniable botching and projected indifference concerning the inquiry into murdered and missing indigenous women and girls.

“How dare you come out here and say that you support our families?” asked B.C.’s Connie Greyeyes.

“How dare you come out here and say these things?”

And then came TransCanada pulling the plug on a pipeline project from Alberta’s oilsands to refineries in Saint John, N.B., that would have provided upwards of 15,000 construction jobs, and another 1,000 positions down the road.

The Energy East pipeline, 4,600 kms in length, would have been the longest pipeline in North America, with the capacity of safely moving 1.1-million barrels of oilsands and Saskatchewan crude a day to refineries on the East Coast.

If there was ever a mega-project, this was it.  It carried a $15.7-billion price tag, and would have provided billions in tax revenues.

Gone, too, is TransCanada’s Eastern Mainline project which would have added new natural gas pipelines and gas-compression facilities in southwestern Ontario and Quebec where most of the country’s home and industrial gas consumers are located.

The reason? The same stringent Canada-only environmental regulations that took the Energy East pipeline out of play, but continues to allow foreign fuels to flow into Canada without the same onerous regulations.

Quebec Premier Phillippe Couillard and Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre, the two loudest opponents of Energy East, would appear to have very short memories, and therefore dismissive of the fact that pipelines are arguably the safest method of moving crude, a commodity that is still vitally necessary and thus far irreplaceable.

Have they forgotten Lac Megantic, or don’t they care?

Would they rather have Canadians continue to bail out Bombardier than have Quebecers feel safe when freight trains roll through their towns in the middle of the night?

As a reminder, 47 Quebecers burned to death on that tragic day back in July 2013 when an unattended 74-car freight train carrying tankers filled with crude rolled down the hill and exploded in the town, destroying almost half of Lac Megantic’s downtown core.

Lisa Raitt, now deputy leader of the federal Conservatives, had to deal with the aftermath of that disaster while transport minister in the government of former PM Stephen Harper.

And she took direct aim Thursday at Trudeau for the cancellation of the Energy East pipeline.

“I want to be very clear,” she said. “Today’s announcement is not a result of a sudden decision by TransCanada.

“It’s a result of the disastrous energy policies promoted by Justin Trudeau and his failure to champion the Canadian energy sector.”

“He forced Canadian oil companies to comply with standards that are not required for foreign countries,” she added.

 “And these decisions have allowed companies operating in Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Algeria to ship oil to Canada with an advantage over companies like TransCanada that employ middle-class Canadians.”

But she was not done.

“Everything Justin Trudeau touches becomes a nightmare,” she said.

Would that she were wrong, but she isn’t.



http://m.edmontonsun.com/2017/10/05/lorne-gunter-justin-trudeaus-response-to-energy-east-cancellation-is-laughable

Justin Trudeau's response to Energy East cancellation is laughable - Lorne Gunter -5 Oct 17

Almost the moment TransCanada announced Thursday it was ending its attempt to build the $15-billion Energy East Pipeline from Alberta to New Brunswick, the federal Liberal government began insisting this was purely a “business decision.”

Don’t look at us, Trudeau government spokespeople insisted. World oil prices and all that, don’t ya know.

Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr insisted “it’s not up to me to explain why TransCanada made this decision on the basis of what’s in its interest … Nothing has changed in the government’s decision-making process.”

That’s a laugh.

The Trudeau Liberals have moved the goalposts on TransCanada substantially at least twice in the two years they’ve been in power.

Back in January 2016, just two months after being sworn in, the Liberals announced that National Energy Board (NEB) pipeline hearings – which at that time already involved months of testimony from hundreds and even thousands of witnesses – would be made even more complex and drawn out. Later they announced the timeline would be changed from 18 months to three years.

Then just this past August, the NEB announced that during their review of Energy East, they intended to hold TransCanada to account for all greenhouse emissions created by the fossil fuels that travelled through the 4,500-kilometre line, which would have had a 1.1-million-barrel-a-day capacity.

Typically, enviro reviews of pipelines take into account the emissions caused by building and operating the line. But the new Liberal NEB intended to hold TransCanada accountable for the emissions caused by extracting the oil from the ground and from consuming it after it exited Energy East – even if it was first put on a tanker and consumed somewhere overseas.

That doesn’t sound as if “nothing has changed,” as Carr insisted Thursday.

The Liberals, and especially Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, have also been extremely vague about whether they support Energy East. That too has caused investors to get skittish.

Trudeau has refused to engage Quebec politicians, such as Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre, when they have made outrageous accusations against the pipeline. An “expert” panel appointed by the Liberals recommended moving the hearings side of the NEB out of Calgary to Ottawa (a move that was later rejected) and Trudeau has repeatedly refused to explain what he considers adequate consultation with First Nations.

All that uncertainty, plus significant tax changes on oil and gas exploration contained in the Liberals’ 2017 budget, is likely what caused TransCanada to throw up its hands and shut down Energy East.

If this were just a “business decision” based on a soft world oil market, how come TransCanada is continuing with other pipeline projects in other countries, such as the Grand Rapids Pipeline in the States?

World oil prices are the same everywhere. All that’s different is the anti-oil atmosphere in Canada.

If TransCanada’s decision is based on business factors, it is the federal government that changed the factors.

It’s also not too much of a stretch to wonder whether this isn’t what the Trudeau Liberals wanted all along, because it saves them from having to make voters and politicians in Quebec unhappy.

It’s also interesting that our own Premier Rachel Notley’s first instinct was the same as the federal Liberals’ – blame this entirely on business. In her official statement she never once even hinted that Trudeau and the Liberals had a hand in it.

The Energy East cancellation, though, must put an end to Notley’s “social licence” fantasy. Spending billions on “green” energy and forcing the shutdown of coal power has done nothing — nothing! — to get pipelines built, which was the original whole goal.

All the carbon tax and billions in green spending has done is drive more Albertans out of work and dive our treasury deeper into debt.
Let me start by saying that the cancellation of energy east has nothing to do with the environment, the economy or safety.

It was 100 percent political.

And looking at it from a political perspective it made 100 percent sense.  If approved, PM Trudeau would have had to fight with environmentalists in not only BC, but also in vote rich Ontario and Quebec. People really upset would flock to the NDP, not conservatives, potentially splitting the vote on the left, benefiting the CPC as a result. Not worth it to pick up a few( very few) votes in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

That all being said, Trudeau has not left Alberta out in the cold.

Keystone XL looks like it will be built in the states, 830,000 barrels a day.

He approved transmountain, 300,000 barrels a day to 890,000, increase of 590 000 barrels a day.

He approved line 3 replacement, upping capacity from 390 000 barrels a day to 790 000 barrels a day, increase of 400 000 barrels per day.

So in all, he's increased pipeline capacity for Alberta by 1 820 000 barrels of oil per day. He did so without angering leftists in ontario and quebec, sacrificing votes in BC in the process.

So politically, he's juggled it well.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 879,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,233
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #847 on: October 11, 2017, 17:39:51 »
Trudeau did absolutely nothing for Keystone XL. It was held up in the US by Obama and approved by Trump. Unless you can prove he lobbied for it's construction, those barrels per day increase are not Trudeaus. Energy East would have brought more oil to NB refineries, creating jobs in hard times on the East Coast.

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 132,442
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,524
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #848 on: October 11, 2017, 18:11:23 »
But it fits into some folks narratives that way...
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Online Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 22,654
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,164
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #849 on: October 11, 2017, 18:21:39 »
Trudeau did absolutely nothing for Keystone XL. It was held up in the US by Obama and approved by Trump. Unless you can prove he lobbied for it's construction, those barrels per day increase are not Trudeaus. Energy East would have brought more oil to NB refineries, creating jobs in hard times on the East Coast.
he's on record saying he supported it, but fine, taking that out,  he's increased capacity by 990 000 barrels a day, with a extra 830 000 barrels a day coming from external forces.

Not exactly like he's ignored the need for pipelines.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.