[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[HVC]

Quebec won't let students register to vote. Or something, only read the headline

gawker.com/montreal-is-denying-students-voting-rights-for-no-good-1552001126

[viper37]

Foreigners aren't allowed to vote in provincial elections.  It takes a little more than living as a student in the province, you got to establish real proof of residency: where you file your taxes, do you have a driver's license or health care card from Quebec, etc, etc.

People who are here only for a short while aren't allowed to vote, same as every province.  English medias trying to make a big deal of it, as if the PQ complaining about nothing wasn't enough.  Ah, politics

[Ed Anger]

Gawker. 

[HVC]

As Ed said gawker isn't English media, it's a entertainment site (well, it tries anyway lol). You don't have to take everything so personal

As for taxes, if you spend more then 181 days your a resident for tax purposes and pay tax there. Most students spend more than that at school. In your opinion would that make them a resident for voting purposes?

[garbon]

As for taxes, if you spend more then 181 days your a resident for tax purposes and pay tax there. Most students spend more than that at school. In your opinion would that make them a resident for voting purposes?

How many students are filing income taxes?

At any rate, I'd think filing taxes and/or getting an id from the province/state in question should be sufficient. But if you've got neither?

[Sheilbh]

Sad to see how much CAQ lost in support.

I blame the fact that half of the party is just the ADQ deadbeats.

More importantly, REX!

How are you?

[Jacob]

Hey CC - I keep seeing reports about BC Parks being opened to resource extraction. Stuff like this: http://www.desmog.ca/2014/03/25/bill-4-passes-b-c-parks-now-officially-open-pipelines-and-drilling

Now, the cites are all from leftwing sources, so I'm sure there's another side to this and I'm hoping you can present it to me.

[Grey Fox]

As Ed said gawker isn't English media, it's a entertainment site (well, it tries anyway lol). You don't have to take everything so personal

As for taxes, if you spend more then 181 days your a resident for tax purposes and pay tax there. Most students spend more than that at school. In your opinion would that make them a resident for voting purposes?

It depends where you live.

Students Housing - No vote
Rent Apartment - Vote

[crazy canuck]

It seems Harper suffered another defeat at the Supreme Court.  Marc Nadon won't be joining the Supreme Court, after all, and Harper can't change the rules without changing the Constitution.

Which makes me think he will get another whack on the head with the issue of Senate reform.

Hate to say I told you so, but...

I dont think one has anything to do with the other.  It was reported that Hogg advised the government on the Nadon issue.  I cant really fault the government for following the advice of someone who has been lauded as The authority on constitutional issues for decades.

On the senate reference my view is that the Feds and many of the Provinces are incorrect in their interpretation.  I think the Court will likely accept the submissions of counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae.

[crazy canuck]

Hey CC - I keep seeing reports about BC Parks being opened to resource extraction. Stuff like this: http://www.desmog.ca/2014/03/25/bill-4-passes-b-c-parks-now-officially-open-pipelines-and-drilling

Now, the cites are all from leftwing sources, so I'm sure there's another side to this and I'm hoping you can present it to me.

I think you should spend less time reading trash

Here is what the amendment allows:

(2) Nothing in section 8 (2) or (4) or 9 (2), (4), (7), (9) or (10) (d) prevents the issuance of a park use permit for an activity related to research in a protected area if, in the opinion of the minister,

(a) to do so is consistent with the purpose of the protected area,

(b) the research relates to the improvement of public health or safety,

(c) the research relates to an environmental assessment or a feasibility study, or

(d) the research will inform a decision of the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the Legislature in relation to the boundaries of the protected area.

Now for a group that is always making the point that important public policy issues should be decided on evidenced based scientific study it is surprising that nobody on the left thinks it is inconsistent to be complaining that the Act was amended to allow just that to occur.

[Jacob]

I think you should spend less time reading trash

Well, people quote it in my face, so to speak, so I thought I'd check it out.

Here is what the amendment allows:

(2) Nothing in section 8 (2) or (4) or 9 (2), (4), (7), (9) or (10) (d) prevents the issuance of a park use permit for an activity related to research in a protected area if, in the opinion of the minister,

(a) to do so is consistent with the purpose of the protected area,

(b) the research relates to the improvement of public health or safety,

(c) the research relates to an environmental assessment or a feasibility study, or

(d) the research will inform a decision of the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the Legislature in relation to the boundaries of the protected area.

Now for a group that is always making the point that important public policy issues should be decided on evidenced based scientific study it is surprising that nobody on the left thinks it is inconsistent to be complaining that the Act was amended to allow just that to occur.

The claim is that the various environmental assessment and feasibility studies are generally related to potential resource extraction in parks and/or to the construction of pipelines etc through them.

... and it does seem, from what you quoted, that these feasibility studies can be used to justify changing boundaries of the parks, right? In point (d).

The narrative that's being sold to me is that resource extractors are going to be able to see if there are worthwhile (for them) potential extraction projects in natural parks, and that if so the government may go ahead and allow such extraction projects (by changing the boundaries etc).

[crazy canuck]

I think you should spend less time reading trash

Well, people quote it in my face, so to speak, so I thought I'd check it out.

Here is what the amendment allows:

(2) Nothing in section 8 (2) or (4) or 9 (2), (4), (7), (9) or (10) (d) prevents the issuance of a park use permit for an activity related to research in a protected area if, in the opinion of the minister,

(a) to do so is consistent with the purpose of the protected area,

(b) the research relates to the improvement of public health or safety,

(c) the research relates to an environmental assessment or a feasibility study, or

(d) the research will inform a decision of the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the Legislature in relation to the boundaries of the protected area.

Now for a group that is always making the point that important public policy issues should be decided on evidenced based scientific study it is surprising that nobody on the left thinks it is inconsistent to be complaining that the Act was amended to allow just that to occur.

The claim is that the various environmental assessment and feasibility studies are generally related to potential resource extraction in parks and/or to the construction of pipelines etc through them.

Yeah, exactly.  These groups are always in favour of evidence based decision making when it favours an outcome they like but if research might lead to a decision they dont favour then research is the root of all evil.

[Jacob]

Yeah, exactly.  These groups are always in favour of evidence based decision making when it favours an outcome they like but if research might lead to a decision they dont favour then research is the root of all evil.

Ah, I see.

I think the notion is that there shouldn't be any kind of resource extraction related activities in provincial parks; that being the purpose of provincial parks.

Opening it up to evidence based decision making is still one step closer to allowing resource extraction in parks. I think the desire for evidence based decision making is related to what goes on outside the park-system, with the notion that provincial parks should remain sacrosanct and untouched by any industrial/ extractive use.

[crazy canuck]

I think the notion is that there shouldn't be any kind of resource extraction related activities in provincial parks; that being the purpose of provincial parks.

Opening it up to evidence based decision making is still one step closer to allowing resource extraction in parks. I think the desire for evidence based decision making is related to what goes on outside the park-system, with the notion that provincial parks should remain sacrosanct and untouched by any industrial/ extractive use.

Yes, again, exactly.  It is ok to make decisions they favour with not evidence at all - ie nothing should ever happen in Parks because, well that would just be wrong.  That position of course ignores the fact that all kinds of things already happen in our Parks. The amendment was made to simply clarify the decision making process that must now be used for the government to allow research to occur.  Research!

If the David Suzuki's of the world are correct, no researcher in their right mind would ever find it feasible to run a pipeline through a park.  But I don't buy all his rhetoric

[Jacob]

Yes, again, exactly.  It is ok to make decisions they favour with not evidence at all - ie nothing should ever happen in Parks because, well that would just be wrong.  That position of course ignores the fact that all kinds of things already happen in our Parks. The amendment was made to simply clarify the decision making process that must now be used for the government to allow research to occur.  Research!

If the David Suzuki's of the world are correct, no researcher in their right mind would ever find it feasible to run a pipeline through a park.  But I don't buy all his rhetoric

Okay, so there's agreement on the substance - this is to facilitate the process of deciding whether it's okay to, for example, have pipelines go through provincial parks - but not on the spin where it's "that's a decision that should be based on reasoned evidence" vs "provincial parks shouldn't have pipelines running through them; yet this is an industry driven push to manufacture political cover for doing just that."