[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

Yeah, here it is - it does cover the $2/L for gas and the jet fuel angle, but it also says:

Vancouver gas prices would indeed spike

.... However, other analysts aren't quite as apocalyptic as McTeague. "The logistical system for petroleum products is highly robust," said Michael Ervin with Kent Group petroleum consultants. A classic example is Hurricane Katrina. Despite a major region of U.S. oil production being shut down with little warning, North Americans were never subjected to particularly devastating price spikes. Although closing the pipeline would cut off 300 gas stations' worth of fuel to B.C., Ervin forecasts a temporary price spike no higher than 20 cents.

Very quickly, most of B.C. wouldn't notice

It's very hard to blockade a place with a port. B.C. can import refined products from as far away as China. Meanwhile, there are plenty of Washington State refineries ready to start sending gasoline over the border in a moment's notice. All of these methods would be a few cents' more expensive than the Trans Mountain pipeline, but given the volatile pricing of a product like gasoline, it's unlikely that it would be particularly noticeable at the pump. At any one time, B.C. also has a fair amount of stored petroleum. The Trans Mountain Pipeline is unique in its ability to carry multiple petroleum products at once. At any one time, the pipeline can contain a rainbow of crude oil, jet fuel and diesel. This means that B.C. terminals all maintain large gasoline storage tanks to tide them over while the pipeline is moving crude. In a sudden shutdown Vancouver already has enough gasoline and jet fuel on hand to keep cars on the road and planes in the air until American supplies can plug the gap.

However, it could ironically mean more oil spilling on B.C.

One of the main reasons B.C. is opposing an expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline is because it would bring more tankers to West Coast waters. One ironic twist of a pipeline shutdown is that B.C. would need to bring in their fuel with more barges in the Salish Sea, more oil trains on railroad tracks and more oil trucks on highways. All of these methods are much more precarious than a pipeline, so Alberta could score a poetic victory in that a suddenly pipeline-free B.C. would almost certainly start experiencing more spills.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/could-alberta-bring-b-c-to-its-knees-by-shutting-off-the-oil

If Alberta cuts of gas, diesel, and jet fuel useful for BC and it does not bring the province to its knees - but we make do with fuel from elsewhere - I think it would only harden the opposition further.

[Barrister]

I don't think Alberta has any legal way to block petroleum to BC.  Wine was a particularity given that alcohol distribution is government controlled.

[Barrister]

Oh gosh - reports that Doug Ford won the Ontario PC Leadership?

[HVC]

Guess they want their own Trump.

[Camerus]

Having to choose between Ford and Wynne makes me glad I don't live in Ontario anymore. 

[Barrister]

Have you hosers been following the Jagmeet Singh stories of the last couple of weeks?  He's the new NDP leader.

Well apparently he got his start in politics advocating for various Sikh causes, including support for an independent "Khalistan" in the Punjab.  Now there's nothing inherently wrong with that - but there have been numerous killings and terrorist acts (including blowing up an airliner) done by Sikh terrorists.  Sagmeet Singh denounces violence in general, but he was present at numerous public meetings were the use of violence was defended.  He also waffles when some known Sikh terrorists are named.

I understand that he wants to advocate for Sikh causes (he called on the Canadian government to recognize certain actions in 1984 in India as genocide against the Sikhs), but he's the leader of a national political party.  When reporters start asking him about such topics he should just say "those are issues for India and its citizens to decide.  I'm running to be the leader of Canada" and then just shut up.  He was going to have enough issues by being a party leader wearing a turban to begin with (as well as being our first major party leader of colour I believe).  By having Sikh issues and Khalistan continually being brought up it makes it seem more like he's running to be a Sikh leader, not a Canadian leader.

I looked around, this story seems like it gives a good starting point on the various stories that have come up:
http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-complex-history-of-sikh-trauma-will-make-or-break-jagmeet-singh/

[saskganesh]

Thanks Beeb. I'll check that out.

[Grey Fox]

Don't be an hypocrite, B.

[Valmy]

I am excited for this Canadian-led NATO crusade to liberate Khalistan from the evil Pakistani and Indian imperialists.

[Barrister]

Don't be an hypocrite, B.

???

[Grey Fox]

including support for an independent "Khalistan" in the Punjab.  Now there's nothing inherently wrong with that

[Barrister]

including support for an independent "Khalistan" in the Punjab.  Now there's nothing inherently wrong with that

I repeat:

???

[Malthus]

including support for an independent "Khalistan" in the Punjab.  Now there's nothing inherently wrong with that

I repeat:

???

I looks like he's thinking that if there is nothing inherently wrong with supporting an independence movement in India, then there is nothing inherently wrong with supporting one in Canada - namely, that of Quebec.

This makes sense, assuming the situation in India and Quebec is the same ... a rather large assumption. 

Also, assuming that you hold that there is something "inherently wrong" with supporting Quebec independence (as opposed to, say, holding that there is nothing inherently wrong with it, but it isn't the optimal solution).

[Grey Fox]

That's what I'm thinking. You RoC type, including Singh, should shut up about every & all independence movement anywhere in the world, less it makes you a hypocrite when it gets time to deny us our freedom of choosing our own independence or not.

[Barrister]

That's what I'm thinking. You RoC type, including Singh, should shut up about every & all independence movement anywhere in the world, less it makes you a hypocrite when it gets time to deny us our freedom of choosing our own independence or not.

Who is denying Quebec the freedom to choose?

You guys already had two referendums on the topic!  How much more freedom do you want???