[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

Heh I though a "national energy strategy" was a dirty phrase in Alberta. 

National Energy Program is the dirty phrase.  You know the one that forced Alberta to sell for less than market rate. 

As is the move by BC.  If Alberta oil cannot be shipped from BC ports then the same effective result will occur.

One would assume that one potential effect of any "national" strategy would be to give other provinces (which make up the rest of the "nation" and tend to consume oil) some sort of say in pricing decisions, which would be, from Alberta's POV, a bad thing.

I wouldnt assume such a thing.  My assumption is that a national strategy would involve the infrastructure for moving energy from place to place.

You have already pointed out, in the case of BC, how decisions concerning infrastructure can have effect on price.

My point is that a "national" strategy could have that effect writ large. It may not be anything as crude as the NEP, but rather a manipulation of the infrastructure costs.

No, the point is that we need to create a national policy to ensure the opposite.  ie that infrastucture can be created in an efficient manner.  Otherwise there is no point.  Alberta (and if they are at all sane, BC and Saskatchewan) would never agree to the kind of strategy you are assuming.

[Malthus]

No, the point is that we need to create a national policy to ensure the opposite.  ie that infrastucture can be created in an efficient manner.  Otherwise there is no point.  Alberta (and if they are at all sane, BC and Saskatchewan) would never agree to the kind of strategy you are assuming.

You are assuming that a policy created on a national scale would reflect the reasonable needs of one of the provinces, and not the unreasonable political requirements of all of them.

Past experience of Canadian federalist politics suggests that this may be slightly naive. 

[crazy canuck]

Past experience of Canadian federalist politics suggests that this may be slightly naive. 

Past experience also teaches me that a national strategy has no hope of being formed if it does not address the issue I raised. 

If Alberta, Saskatchewan (and BC when it comes to its senses) are not on board it is not going to happen.

[crazy canuck]

I havent really been following the election in Quebec but Charest sure looks like crap.  If anyone wants to run for public office they should take a look at what it has done to that guy.

[Malthus]

I havent really been following the election in Quebec but Charest sure looks like crap.  If anyone wants to run for public office they should take a look at what it has done to that guy.

From what I've read, Party Quebecous is pushing a "secularism charter" that would prohibit wearing or display of religious symbols in public institutions ... except the cross. 

Though I haven't actually read the proposal. Maybe it isn't really as offensive as it appears in its paraphrase in the Anglo press. 

[Josephus]

It's mostly the usual Moslem stuff that they want to ban.

[viper37]

I havent really been following the election in Quebec but Charest sure looks like crap.  If anyone wants to run for public office they should take a look at what it has done to that guy.

From what I've read, Party Quebecous is pushing a "secularism charter" that would prohibit wearing or display of religious symbols in public institutions ... except the cross. 

Though I haven't actually read the proposal. Maybe it isn't really as offensive as it appears in its paraphrase in the Anglo press. 

I tried learning about that, see if it was true, so far, nobody has answered me.  All I know is they want to keep the cross in the National Assembly, wich is fine by me.  No prayers anywhere though (about fucking time).

On their site, there's no details on their proposed charter.

It's not the worst thing they are proposint though.  They want to ban english public superior education.  Only 100% private institutions will be able to teach french and non commonwealth immigrants in english.  Fucking morons.

[Jacob]

Past experience also teaches me that a national strategy has no hope of being formed if it does not address the issue I raised. 

If Alberta, Saskatchewan (and BC when it comes to its senses) are not on board it is not going to happen.

How is BC being insensible right now?

From my POV, I don't object in principle to a pipeline through BC. My primary concern is that very little of the benefits from the pipeline will accrue to BC. That, in itself, is not terrible; except for the part where the risk is primarily borne by the province of BC. If there's a leak, it's our nature that's going to get messed up, it's our taxpayers who are going to pay for the clean up, and should a leak happen near a community, it's our population that's going to deal with the health risks and damage to property values etc.

For my part, I'm happy to support the pipeline if the benefits accruing to BC are big enough that it seems worthwhile to assume the risk or if the risk is carried by someone else (i.e. we send the bill for clean up and health problems and compensation for people negatively impacted to someone else).

The problem is that Enbridge and Alberta, as far as I can tell, have come and said "let us build the pipeline through BC, it's going to be great for us!" As for the risk the answer seems to be "don't worry, it'll be fine!" That won't cut it, and it's allowed the usual environmentalists and anti-capitalists to garner a huge amount of support in the general population. I don't think they would've had this support  if there'd been a solid rebuttal to criticism centring around the tangible benefits to BC and the sharing of risk. They bungled the PR, and it might be too late to turn it around at this point.

[crazy canuck]

except for the part where the risk is primarily borne by the province of BC. If there's a leak, it's our nature that's going to get messed up, it's our taxpayers who are going to pay for the clean up,

That is where there the position is not sensible.  In fact it is not BC taxpayers who will pay for clean up of a leak.  Interprovincial piplines fall within Federal jurisdiction (which is why there is a federal review panel considering whether it should be approved).  The Province actually has nothing to do with the project other than issuing the odd building permit for some associated works.

What BC should be doing is going straight to the Feds and asking what safeguards are going to be put in place in terms of funding for such clean up and more importantly imo funding for communities who might be adversely affected by spills/leaks.  The Feds will then require appropriate indemnities from the company for that sort of thing.

Instead, in a terrible example of political pandering, our Premier played to the fears of the electorate expressed in your post because it is a lot easier to pander than to educate.  In the course of that she turned what could have been BC's strongest ally in pressuring the government for concessions (Alberta) into our strongest foe by suggesting that Alberta should pay directly.  Something which challenges everything about the Federal structure of our country and ignores decades of negotiating transfer payments between the Feds and the Provinces.

[Neil]

Alberta need to retaliate by refusing to allow goods that entered the country through a BC port to pass through the province.

[Grallon]

The 1st debate in the Qc election has ended a few minutes ago.

Verdict:

- Jean Charest (Liberal Party - Prime Minister): 'l'homme à abattre' - he went on the offensive in a rearguard fashion.  In other words his reputation and that of his party are severely damaged by years in power and constant allegations of nepotism and corruption.  So he tried to present a brave front.  It might have been more effective if he had managed to be less arrogant...

- Pauline Marois (Parti Québécois - Opposition Leader): 'the front runner' - she's been at it for so long she can't shake the detestable 'langue de bois' she's constantly using - even though you can feel sincerity beneath it.

- François Legault (once upon a time a minister in the PQ government - now Leader of the 'Coalition Avenir Québec' - officially neither federalist nor separatist): ' the 'new' guy ' - he has the most annoying voice!  At time he sounded like an adolescent trying to appear older than he is but whose voice keeps breaking, and at other times like a vulgar used-car salesman...  An amateur incapable of disguising his naked ambition.

- Françoise David (co-leader of Québec Solidaire - socialist *and* separatist party) - The real novelty in this debate.  She was surprisingly coherent and articulate.  I'd rather hear her than her co-leader Amir Khadir who's addicted to splash.  I'd vote for her is she was running in my riding.



G.

[Jacob]

That is where there the position is not sensible.  In fact it is not BC taxpayers who will pay for clean up of a leak.  Interprovincial piplines fall within Federal jurisdiction (which is why there is a federal review panel considering whether it should be approved).  The Province actually has nothing to do with the project other than issuing the odd building permit for some associated works.

Seems a pity no one has brought that message to the public.

What BC should be doing is going straight to the Feds and asking what safeguards are going to be put in place in terms of funding for such clean up and more importantly imo funding for communities who might be adversely affected by spills/leaks.  The Feds will then require appropriate indemnities from the company for that sort of thing.

Instead, in a terrible example of political pandering, our Premier played to the fears of the electorate expressed in your post because it is a lot easier to pander than to educate.  In the course of that she turned what could have been BC's strongest ally in pressuring the government for concessions (Alberta) into our strongest foe by suggesting that Alberta should pay directly.  Something which challenges everything about the Federal structure of our country and ignores decades of negotiating transfer payments between the Feds and the Provinces.

Yeah, that's pretty weak really especially for the BC Libs. I mean, I'd expect the NDP to represent the environmentalists and the people suspicious of big oil. Does Christy Clark really think she can get any votes from the NDP by outflanking them in that direction? I don't follow BC politics that closely, so I'm not sure... what's going on here? What's her thinking here? Is it personal somewhere, or is there a political angle that makes sense given the facts?

But yeah, in any case the PR has been bungled. It's not that I follow this super closely or anything, but I've heard plenty of talk about why the pipeline is not a good idea. I haven't heard anyone make a calm case for why it's a good idea, and all I really need is affirmation that the risks are being handled well (so there won't be a problem), and if there is a problem that it'll be taken care of well. I've heard some suggestions about increasing the disaster response infrastructure on the West Coast to deal with a potential spill amongst other things and so on, but ultimately no one seems to be making the sensible pro case in BC.

I guess that's why you're disappointed. You'd expect the BC Liberals to be making that case.

[Neil]

Not with a woman as premier you wouldn't.

[crazy canuck]

Seems a pity no one has brought that message to the public.

It has, but sanity is often drowned out by hysteria.  The HST was a good example of that. 

I guess that's why you're disappointed. You'd expect the BC Liberals to be making that case.

Exactly so.

[Jacob]

It has, but sanity is often drowned out by hysteria.  The HST was a good example of that.

Yeah. I try not to think about that.

Who's brought that message out in BC?

I guess that's why you're disappointed. You'd expect the BC Liberals to be making that case.

Exactly so.

So why aren't they? Is it as simple as they think there's more votes in getting in the way of "big oil"?