Politics in 2016

[Kirkhill]

I think that there are a large number of people who revile him for more concrete reasons than what you just imagined.

Agreed.

One problem that many people have is that they assume their opponents' concerns are not valid.  It can be quite comforting to assume that the opposition is irrelevant.

 

[jmt18325]

Inner city drug problems are part of the reason for legalization.  It's better to regulate something than the make it quasi okay. 

Harper didn't put his proposed Senate changes to a referendum.  Trudeau campaign and won on several key issues.  To expect him to not deliver on those is to expect science fiction.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Agreed.

One problem that many people have is that they assume their opponents' concerns are not valid.  It can be quite comforting to assume that the opposition is irrelevant.

I voted conservative, but lets be real. The conservatives were the same in power and actively tried to destroy the Liberal party. That the Liberals would be the same shouldn't be shocking. The liberals can afford to cater to their voters who, surprisingly, want the things they voted for. They can also afford to cater to basically anyone not-conservative since the conservatives are the only real alternative for federal leadership.

And what's wrong with consulting on an issue like pipelines that clearly affect provinces they run through? The federal government should act as the "higher HQ" for inter-provincial issues. I think that the defence discussion with the public is basically a publicity grab, but the pipelines (and healthcare, federal transfers, inter-provincial trade, etc) are certainly fair ball.

At the end of the days, Conservatives lost, so if the Liberals want to think that their views are irrelevant, than they are in fact irrelevant (since nothing will come of them). Until the conservatives can find leadership who doesn't have the likeability of a prostate exam and stop running on policies that just get shot down by the supreme court (tough one crime) and reflect the changing society than their opinions will continue to be irrelevant. 

 

[PuckChaser]

Inner city drug problems are part of the reason for legalization.  It's better to regulate something than the make it quasi okay. 

Harper didn't put his proposed Senate changes to a referendum.  Trudeau campaign and won on several key issues.  To expect him to not deliver on those is to expect science fiction.

You missed the point. I brought those examples up of not seeking consensus or differing opinions. Trudeau wanted legalized pot, so he's going to do it without consulting anyone but his cabinet. Harper also stopped trying to reform the Senate because he knew he wouldn't get a consensus from the provinces which is required by the Constitution.

Trudeau campaigned and won 40% of the popular vote. 2 years ago the left decried Stephen Harper for not having a popular vote majority and therefore did not have the right to change the moral compass of the nation. Apparently the opposite is not true for Justin Trudeau. He clearly has 40% and gets carte blanche to change our moral compass to pot-smoking, minimum income entitled snobs who hate fossil fuels.

 

[Jed]

I voted conservative, but lets be real. The conservatives were the same in power and actively tried to destroy the Liberal party. That the Liberals would be the same shouldn't be shocking. The liberals can afford to cater to their voters who, surprisingly, want the things they voted for. They can also afford to cater to basically anyone not-conservative since the conservatives are the only real alternative for federal leadership.

And what's wrong with consulting on an issue like pipelines that clearly affect provinces they run through? The federal government should act as the "higher HQ" for inter-provincial issues. I think that the defence discussion with the public is basically a publicity grab, but the pipelines (and healthcare, federal transfers, inter-provincial trade, etc) are certainly fair ball.

At the end of the days, Conservatives lost, so if the Liberals want to think that their views are irrelevant, than they are in fact irrelevant (since nothing will come of them). Until the conservatives can find leadership who doesn't have the likeability of a prostate exam and stop running on policies that just get shot down by the supreme court (tough one crime) and reflect the changing society than their opinions will continue to be irrelevant.

That's all well and good. After Trudeau Sr policies were put in motion and then maintained by Chretein et al, the western provinces of SK and AB took a major economic kicking, made worse by leftist thinking provincial governments.  Liberals are a rare breed in these provinces and will become an even rarer breed unless things turn around.

With Trudeau Jr emulating Obama up here, I expect that our country will begin to see the divisiveness that is very evident in the US right now.  A sure way to put a country in economic and morale decline.

Now more than ever we need our political leaders to show true, sustained leadership.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I suppose roughly 40-50% of Canadians more or less revile Trudeau from the get-go, since 60% chose a non-Liberal candidate and most of the NDP supporters I know don't hold an opinion of Liberals much above the one they hold of Conservatives.

>Trudeau campaign and won on several key issues.  To expect him to not deliver on those is to expect science fiction.

Politicians fail to deliver on what they campaigned on, and manage to deliver on what they didn't campaign on, all the time.  The expectation is reasonable, not science fiction.  The Liberals will deliver what they choose to deliver and believe they can deliver without doing themselves a political mischief.

 

[Altair]

You missed the point. I brought those examples up of not seeking consensus or differing opinions. Trudeau wanted legalized pot, so he's going to do it without consulting anyone but his cabinet. Harper also stopped trying to reform the Senate because he knew he wouldn't get a consensus from the provinces which is required by the Constitution.

Trudeau campaigned and won 40% of the popular vote. 2 years ago the left decried Stephen Harper for not having a popular vote majority and therefore did not have the right to change the moral compass of the nation. Apparently the opposite is not true for Justin Trudeau. He clearly has 40% and gets carte blanche to change our moral compass to pot-smoking, minimum income entitled snobs who hate fossil fuels.

Yeah, well,  those leftists were very very stupid or very very ignorant on how our electoral system works.

To base a argument on the stupid and ignorant isn't the best way to go in my honest opinion.

What is the point of making a election promise if it isn't kept?

He said he would legalize weed. People voted for him because they want legalized weed. And now he's suppose to what, consult everyone and their mother before doing so?

He said what his plan was, he told everyone what he would do if elected and now he's doing it. Same as the Conservatives or ndp would have done.

Again, to those on the left who said that stephen harper wasn't legitimate because he only got 40 percent if the vote? Hypocritical, ignorant or idiots or perhaps all 3. Same as the CPC supporters who are saying that now.

 

[Altair]

I suppose roughly 40-50% of Canadians more or less revile Trudeau from the get-go, since 60% chose a non-Liberal candidate and most of the NDP supporters I know don't hold an opinion of Liberals much above the one they hold of Conservatives.

>Trudeau campaign and won on several key issues.  To expect him to not deliver on those is to expect science fiction.

Politicians fail to deliver on what they campaigned on, and manage to deliver on what they didn't campaign on, all the time.  The expectation is reasonable, not science fiction.  The Liberals will deliver what they choose to deliver and believe they can deliver without doing themselves a political mischief.

The cynicism in politics is very evident when a politician is being criticized for doing exactly what they promised they would do if elected.

 

[PuckChaser]

What is the point of making a election promise if it isn't kept?

He said he would legalize weed. People voted for him because they want legalized weed. And now he's suppose to what, consult everyone and their mother before doing so?

We're not talking about keeping election promises. You said he would govern on consensus and work with people. I've provided big references where he hasn't. Fulfilling a campaign promise that 40% of Canadians may or may not have voted for (I didn't agree with all of the Tory campaign but they got my vote anyways) isn't a consensus.

You guys keep changing the topic and going onto tangents. Trudeau uses consensus whenever it suits him politically, not as his primary means of getting stuff done. If it was his primary means, he'd have public consultations on legalized marijuana, instead of imposing his view.

 

[Altair]

We're not talking about keeping election promises. You said he would govern on consensus and work with people. I've provided big references where he hasn't. Fulfilling a campaign promise that 40% of Canadians may or may not have voted for (I didn't agree with all of the Tory campaign but they got my vote anyways) isn't a consensus.

You guys keep changing the topic and going onto tangents. Trudeau uses consensus whenever it suits him politically, not as his primary means of getting stuff done. If it was his primary means, he'd have public consultations on legalized marijuana, instead of imposing his view.

Everything you mentioned that he wasn't doing by concensus he promised during the election campaign. 

What is a potential leader to do,"I won't do an thing I promise to do during this election campaign without full concensus from everyone involved unless I get 50 percent plus 1 of the popular vote!"

I laugh because prime minister trudeau is using concensus on some issues, pushing through his agenda and election promises on others. He's getting flak for both.

Cherry on top is that the former prime minister would only use one method and I don't remember you complaining about that then.

 

[Journeyman]

I laugh because prime minister trudeau is using concensus on some issues....

Even then, he's so blatantly situating the estimate -- the Defence Policy Review as the most obvious example [acknowledging that's a whole separate thread].

Notwithstanding, the "comment guidance" skewing discussion towards 'OK kids, is it going to be peacekeeping or completely disband the military,' if he was remotely serious and/or being advised by less-politicized people, there's a clear requirement for:
- a security policy to first determine what threats and risks (yes, they're different things) Canada is facing and broadly how to address those; then
- a foreign policy review to determine where those problems can be addressed by diplomacy and development; only then
- a defence review, aimed ruthlessly at filling the remaining security gaps, NOT how can we get more money to Bombarier, et al.

But the government isn't looking for a legitimate defence review, merely a shallow way to say "consensus" while slashing Defence.


Disclosure: I don't personally care about his hair, or selfies, who is paying for his nanny (or his kids' nanny either), or even whether people buy their pot from dubious people or their normal non-government sources.  Our country's security is pretty important to me, and thus far he's proven to be the dilettante others have claimed him to be.

 

[dapaterson]

But the government isn't looking for a legitimate defence review, merely a shallow way to say "consensus" while slashing Defence.


Disclosure: I don't personally care about his hair, or selfies, who is paying for his nanny (or his kids' nanny either), or even whether people buy their pot from dubious people or their normal non-government sources.  Our country's security is pretty important to me, and thus far he's proven to be the dilettante others have claimed him to be.

But is he more or less of a dilettante than his predecessor, who was equally disinterested in Defence, and who committed to multi-year, multi-billion dollar reductions to Defence?

 

[Journeyman]

But is he more or less of a dilettante than his predecessor, who was equally disinterested in Defence, and who committed to multi-year, multi-billion dollar reductions to Defence?

But at least he was honest less dishonest about it.  He announced that his intent was to balance the budget; our current PM has announced that 'I campaigned on deficit spending, but I lied massively about just how indebted I intend to drive Canada.'  Now, in an attempt to claim "consensus" on gutting Defence, he has Minister Sajjan hawking this flawed Policy "Review."

 

[Kirkhill]

Just one comment:

There is the Prime Minister.  There is the Liberal Party.

I believe that the Prime Minister strives for consensus.  He doesn't want to upset people. 

The Liberal Party has no such compunctions. They have a demonstrated history of pragmatism.

The Prime Minister lives with the Liberal Party and Gerald Butts.  He does not live with Albertans. 

When push comes to shove and he has to decide who he is going to disappoint who is he most likely to side with?

The bigger issue may be how long can he keep faith with himself and his beliefs as the number of people he disappoints piles up.

I am willing to accept that the Prime Minister is a well-meaning individual who honestly believes that he can achieve his goals because they are so self-evidently obvious that nobody could reasonably oppose them.  I just don't happen to share his optimism or many of his views.

 

[Altair]

Just one comment:

There is the Prime Minister.  There is the Liberal Party.

I believe that the Prime Minister strives for consensus.  He doesn't want to upset people. 

The Liberal Party has no such compunctions. They have a demonstrated history of pragmatism.

The Prime Minister lives with the Liberal Party and Gerald Butts.  He does not live with Albertans. 

When push comes to shove and he has to decide who he is going to disappoint who is he most likely to side with?

The bigger issue may be how long can he keep faith with himself and his beliefs as the number of people he disappoints piles up.

I am willing to accept that the Prime Minister is a well-meaning individual who honestly believes that he can achieve his goals because they are so self-evidently obvious that nobody could reasonably oppose them.  I just don't happen to share his optimism or many of his views.

If the prime minister wants to help pay for everything the liberal party and it's supporters want he needs economic growth. Or to raise taxes. The latter is politically risky.

If economic growth is the way to go, kneecapping alberta isn't the way to go about it.

There were a couple of articles in the last week or two about how he's been talking about how to quickly get pipelines approved.

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-trudeau-convinced-that-pipeline-strategy-must-be-top-priority

Justin Trudeau has told his senior lieutenants to draw up plans to make the Energy East pipeline and the Trans Mountain expansion in British Columbia a reality.

The prime minister has been convinced by his finance minister, Bill Morneau, and other influential voices around the cabinet table that the pipelines have to be built to achieve the ambitious economic growth targets his government has set.

But the problem for the Liberals is that this conviction has to be conveyed subtly to a public that has decidedly mixed views on oilsands expansion and pipelines.

The prime minister has never been an advocate of a Canadian future without oil. He supported the Keystone XL pipeline, and explicitly stated that no country that found 170 billion barrels of oil would leave it in the ground.

But people with knowledge of the matter suggest he has recently issued instructions that a pipeline strategy has to be top priority.

The government will make the ultimate decision on whether to approve the proposals, starting with Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain application, on which cabinet is expected to rule by Christmas.

Opposition to pipelines is greatest in B.C., where a December 2014 Angus Reid Institute poll suggested only 46 per cent supported the Trans Mountain expansion, and in Quebec, where only one in two Quebecers back Energy East. But there is broad support in the oil-producing provinces and Atlantic Canada, where the Liberals hold every seat.

With a provincial election due in May 2017, the Liberals are conscious that Christy Clark’s B.C. Liberals will need to be wooed. Her government opposes the Kinder Morgan expansion but Ottawa could engineer a deal that meets a number of the five requirements Clark suggested need to be fulfilled to win her approval — benefits for First Nations, a “fair share” of the economic spoils for B.C., and a world-leading marine oil-spill response system.

The Quebec government of Philippe Couillard may be easier to persuade, since the premier wants the federal government to invest $1 billion in Bombardier, the jewel in the province’s aerospace crown.

The Trudeau government has introduced new regulations for pipelines that include a climate change test and greater consideration of indigenous rights.

But government sources suggest the environmental case for these two pipelines can be made by pointing out that any increase in production in western Canada will be offset by declines in production overseas. In 2015, Saudi Arabia, which has no oversight on the environmental impact of its production, accounted for 10 per cent of Canada’s oil imports. An Ontario Energy Board study into Energy East suggested the maximum increase in greenhouse gas levels would be 1.6 per cent from current levels.

A broader public concern than greenhouse gas increases is safety, and the belief is that the public can be persuaded transporting oil by pipeline is preferable, and safer, than shipping by rail. A Leger poll in March suggested Quebecers prefer pipelines over other delivery options.

The Liberals are aware that Trudeau will have to perform a delicate balancing act on the file — he has established credibility on the environment and polls suggest he is trusted to make the right decision by a majority of Canadians (unlike his predecessor). He has made much of openness, evidence-based policy and acting as a referee, not a cheerleader, on the pipeline process.

At the same time, he is said to have become convinced that Canada’s future prosperity requires securing a world price for its crude.

The first test of the new policy will be Kinder Morgan. The National Energy Board has completed its review and its final decision is pending, before the file is passed on to cabinet. NEB hearings into Energy East have not yet started.

The government has promised a complete overhaul of the NEB to “restore confidence” in its review process.

As important will be the impact on public opinion of non-governmental organizations like Environmental Defence, which applauded the inclusion of a climate test that assesses projects against Canada’s commitment to keep the change in global temperatures below 1.5 C.

Adam Scott, a program manager at Environmental Defence, said the federal policy stipulates the government look at what can be controlled in its own jurisdiction, negating the argument about any emissions increases being offset by cuts abroad.

He also dismissed the idea that oilsands crude would find its way to the east coast by rail were the pipeline not built.

“It’s not economical and there isn’t the physical capacity to shift the oil that distance,” he said.

By cooling the rhetoric, resetting the regulatory process and privately courting moderate opponents, Trudeau’s approach has yielded more progress than the Harper government’s determination to bulldoze all opposition.

The dilemma now being posed internally is how best the federal government should use its influence to hasten the process still further.

#leadership.

Ya, really disappointing words for alberta right there. Let's not forget that energy east is incredibly popular in the maritimes as well, and the Prime minister may have swept all of that regions seats recently.

The man went to new York and praised pipelines to college students. How pipelines are good for the environment.

I really doubt his plan is to stick it to alberta, especially when he needs alberta economy to rebound, his base in the maritimes wants EE to happen and that Notley needs a pipeline to happen or the next premier of alberta is certain to be a carbon tax/price destroyer pollution be damned Wildrose or PC member. Top it off with the recent political separation between the federal and alberta provincial NDP and the alberta  NDP being closer to the center where the federal liberals are and I really really doubt that Justin trudeau wants to stick it to alberta.

 

[Kirkhill]

Can we just tone down the vocabulary a bit?

I never suggested he wanted to "stick it" to Alberta.  Although in the past he has voiced an affinity for Quebec that he apparently does not have with Alberta.  To be expected as that is where he grew up and lives.

As I take your point at face value, if he ends up achieving pipelines, for which I will applaud him and his party, then I am sure that there are many others who voted for him in 2015 who will be, at least, scratching their heads.

To decide is to make enemies.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

This thread has become a very good one, with polite discourse and all around respect for other's opinions. We don't need to backslide with comments like:

"the next premier of alberta is certain to be a carbon tax/price destroyer pollution be damned Wildrose or PC member."

Let's stop it right here and carry on properly.

---Staff---

 

[Altair]

This thread has become a very good one, with polite discourse and all around respect for other's opinions. We don't need to backslide with comments like:

"the next premier of alberta is certain to be a carbon tax/price destroyer pollution be damned Wildrose or PC member."

Let's stop it right here and carry on properly.

---Staff---

fair enough. My words were harsh and confrontational.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/wildrose-leader-vows-to-kill-the-ndp-3-billion-carbon-tax-if-elected

“I can’t tell you that the Wildrose wouldn’t bring in a carbon tax in the future, but I can tell you this particular carbon tax would be eliminated because it is not a true carbon tax,” Jean said in a year-end interview. “It is just a back-door PST.

“Would it be difficult to eliminate? It might take some time to do so.”

Premier Rachel Notley scoffed at Jean’s promise, taunting him to campaign on it next election, which isn’t expected until 2019.

“I actually don’t even agree that he would do it,” Notley told the Herald. “He would have so many people telling him it’s a bad idea that he wouldn’t do … but by all means, run on it.”

The NDP government announced last month it would implement an economywide carbon tax on Jan. 1, 2017 in an attempt to curb the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated in the province.

Money raised from the carbon tax will be used for rebates to low-income Albertans, to help communities affected by the planned phase-out of coal-fired power and reinvested in measures to reduce GHG emissions — such as green infrastructure and energy efficiency programs — among other areas. 

However, economists contend Alberta’s program is not truly revenue neutral as it is in British Columbia, where all of that province’s carbon tax revenue is used to lower other taxes or provide rebates.

Jean says Notley’s carbon tax will create a $3-billion slush fund the government can use for anything it wants, but it won’t stop people from polluting or get new oil pipelines built to new markets.

He said a carbon tax like British Columbia’s, if correctly utilized, can change consumer behaviour and reduce carbon emissions — but only if money raised is offset by equal tax decreases elsewhere.

“In this case, it’s just a tax grab,” said the Wildrose leader. “It’s clear the agreement has brought us no closer to building pipelines.”

Alberta’s carbon tax starts at $20 a tonne of carbon emissions in 2016, rises to $30 in 2017 and “will increase in real terms each year thereafter,” according to government documents.

One estimate contained in the report by the province’s climate change advisory panel speculates the carbon tax could eventually rise to $100 a tonne by 2030.

“It could potentially cost Albertans a lot of money,” Jean said. “I think most Albertans would be absolutely shocked.”

He said the NDP didn’t campaign last spring on levying a $3-billion carbon tax and they certainly didn’t seek the approval of Albertans to potentially raise it to $100 a tonne.

“They didn’t campaign on any of it,” Jean said. “It’s an ideological outburst that I think was in essence a secret agenda during the campaign.”

The NDP government contends Alberta must take action to protect the environment, address climate change and help the province win approval in other jurisdictions to build more oil pipelines.

Notley said future carbon tax increases will be “very much defined” by surrounding jurisdictions.

The premier said that if a price in carbon is levied across North America, which she believes is not beyond the realm of possibility, then it would increase the capacity of Albertans and the economy to sustain a higher carbon price.  

“It really very much depends on what happens around us,” she said.

Jean said the NDP committed “political suicide” by implementing its carbon tax.

“The clear difference between the Wildrose and the NDP is we believe this should be done in a way that protects consumers and is done through the strength of the free market,” he said. 

At $30 a tonne, it’s expected Alberta’s carbon tax will boost the price of gasoline by seven centres per litre, and natural gas by $1.68 per gigajoule.

Along with higher power prices and fuel costs, it’s expected the “total annual cost to an average household of approximately $500 in 2018, rising to $900 per year in 2030, assuming Alberta’s carbon price increases at two per cent above inflation,” states the province’s climate change panel report.

Jean said the NDP carbon tax will cost $1,000 per Alberta family.

Some industry and environmental groups support the NDP carbon tax — Notley’s plan was endorsed in November by major oil companies including Suncor, Cenovus, Shell Canada, and Canadian Natural Resources, as well as the Pembina Institute, Forest Ethics and Clean Energy Canada — but the deal doesn’t come with broad industry support, Jean said.

“Even some of the major players were left out of the negotiations,” he noted.

Alberta is the largest provincial emitter of greenhouse gases in the country, generating about 37 per cent of all emissions in Canada in 2013. Currently, only the largest industrial emitters pay a carbon levy of $15 per tonne over their reduction targets, with the tax increasing to $20 on Jan. 1.

The Wildrose leader stressed that he believes action needs to be taken to address climate change, but it has to be effective without destroying the Alberta economy.

“Making sure we have a clean healthy environment is obviously a high priority for any government, but that doesn’t mean we have to sacrifice our oil and gas sector, our agriculture sector and every other sector,” he added. 

His words not mine.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Tax increases tend to militate against economic growth.

I suppose that most western countries are enduring one of those periods during which "bad luck" has caught up - innovation and enterprise are losing ground to regulation creep.  Many governments are reduced to hoping that there is some magic button that will fix low growth.  I doubt one exists.  Meanwhile, they (governments) slowly strangle themselves in the belief that more decision-making power concentrated in their hands and more requirements imposed upon others will move the masses to prosperity (underpants gnome economics).

1. More government.
2. ???
3. Prosperity!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Regulation creep is a function of a democracy, politicians are always looking for a way to one up their opponents and proposing new laws and regs to “fix something” is often the way they do it. Also Canadians are very much a “Someone needs to do something” (as in government) or “There should be a law against that” Followed by “I don’t know why I should comply with these laws, they were written for the other guy”
I have stopped blaming the politicians, really it’s the voters who are the problem. One good thing the CPC did is impose a 1 regulation in, 1 regulation out rule that helps limit regulation growth, has not been removed yet.