Author Topic: Politics in 2017  (Read 59207 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 63,455
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,327
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #475 on: April 14, 2017, 11:44:39 »
All right: I just have to let some serious steam off now:

I've had it with that S.O.B. Prime Minister who thinks he OWNS the friggin Parliament for his personal and family enjoyment.

We have a new honorific citizen, Malalla. A well deserved honour. But the PM's wife is NOT, underline NOT a member of Parliament and has absolutely no business whatsoever being on the floor of the Commons with ther husband. She can be in the gallery, in prominent place,  but the floor is for Parliamentarians (which includes the senators) and the officials of Parliament only.

Who does she think she is ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

If she wants to go there: stand for office and get elected or get the hell out.

P.S.: I am quite disappointed in the person who does "own" the Commons, the president, for not sending a page over to the PM just before the beginning of the proceedings to gently prod him on the fact that it would now be appropriate for his spouse to repair to the gallery.
 

/RANT OFF.

Good rant but a bit (actually very) off.  This is neither unprecedented nor is it innapropriate.   While I agree that both are media hogs that are very photogenic, your assessment and disappointed in who you think owns the Commons is misplaced and way off base.
Optio

Offline PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 127,235
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,831
  • It's all good
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #476 on: April 14, 2017, 15:56:33 »
All right: I just have to let some serious steam off now:

I've had it with that S.O.B. Prime Minister who thinks he OWNS the friggin Parliament for his personal and family enjoyment.

We have a new honorific citizen, Malalla. A well deserved honour. But the PM's wife is NOT, underline NOT a member of Parliament and has absolutely no business whatsoever being on the floor of the Commons with ther husband. She can be in the gallery, in prominent place,  but the floor is for Parliamentarians (which includes the senators) and the officials of Parliament only.

Who does she think she is ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

If she wants to go there: stand for office and get elected or get the hell out.

P.S.: I am quite disappointed in the person who does "own" the Commons, the president, for not sending a page over to the PM just before the beginning of the proceedings to gently prod him on the fact that it would now be appropriate for his spouse to repair to the gallery.
 

/RANT OFF.

Shocking!
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 187,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,408
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #477 on: April 14, 2017, 16:04:46 »
Don't let facts get in the way of good old partisan outrage.

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 363,865
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,568
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #478 on: April 14, 2017, 16:06:29 »
It's only outrageous when the other side does it.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Blair Gilmore

  • Guest
  • *
  • 345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #479 on: April 20, 2017, 09:55:03 »
I'm not a particular fan of Trudeau's government but doing away with prohibition of a common plant is long overdue. The anti-drug warriors are fighting a losing battle and are firmly entrenched after a century of propaganda, alarmist hyperbole and political obstinance. Also, I believe Kellie Leitch's stand against the weed will hurt her chances of becoming the Conservative leader.

In honour of 420, for your reading pleasure, here are my full thoughts on the matter of marijuana and prohibition:

http://www.happydiver.space/?p=380

Offline Tcm621

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 4,800
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 567
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #480 on: April 20, 2017, 12:44:06 »
I'm not a particular fan of Trudeau's government but doing away with prohibition of a common plant is long overdue. The anti-drug warriors are fighting a losing battle and are firmly entrenched after a century of propaganda, alarmist hyperbole and political obstinance. Also, I believe Kellie Leitch's stand against the weed will hurt her chances of becoming the Conservative leader.

In honour of 420, for your reading pleasure, here are my full thoughts on the matter of marijuana and prohibition:

http://www.happydiver.space/?p=380
The plant aspect is completely irrelevant. Lots of plants are dangerous but I do think the money and effort spent of policing marijuana use is a waste. I don't believe it is as harmless as the pro pot movement believes but it is definitely no worse than alcohol which most of the population is capable of using in a responsible manner.

I have some issues with the legislation itself such as the fact that it seems to want to be tough on drugs while at the same time legalizing one. I would have preferred to simply make it legal for anyone over the age of 19 to purchase and revisit it in 5 years to study the effects and consequences.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


Online Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 63,455
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,327
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #481 on: April 24, 2017, 10:00:43 »
In provincial news:  Ontario Liberals announcing pilot for basic guaranteed income.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/wynne-announcement-hamilton-1.4082476

Lovely.  I suppose if your Province is flush with money this could be a good thing but given the enormous debt load and effed up policies on all fronts what could go wrong?

One thing I can already see causing problems is child support payments and childcare benefits as well.

Pure electioneering on their part.  And people will fall for it.
Optio

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 99,770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,726
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #482 on: April 24, 2017, 10:11:06 »
I don't care about the pot issue, about the same danger as alcohol and cigarettes, I find it ironic that we are legalizing pot, while criminalizing smoking....

I suspect pot growers will rue the day everything legal, because then they enter into the hell that is municipal bylaws and hear "Oh your washroom is .5m to close to your food prep area and has to be moved"  [lol:   

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 397,555
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,192
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #483 on: April 24, 2017, 11:25:01 »
... I suspect pot growers will rue the day everything legal, because then they enter into the hell that is municipal bylaws and hear "Oh your washroom is .5m to close to your food prep area and has to be moved"  [lol:   
It's all fun and games until "the rules" kick in  :nod:
Shocking!
It's only outrageous when the other side does it.
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 195,964
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,404
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #484 on: April 24, 2017, 20:58:19 »
In provincial news:  Ontario Liberals announcing pilot for basic guaranteed income.

If it works as well as energy pricing did, I can't wait to see how it turns out.
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 George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 424,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,334
  • Crewman
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #485 on: May 04, 2017, 20:39:34 »
I wonder when the "Blame Harper" BS will stop?

And speaking of "alternative facts"; what about this:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Quote
Opinion / Columnists
Furey: Trudeau tells world media alternative facts about Canada’s 'headscarf bans'

By Anthony Furey, Postmedia Network
First posted: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 12:01 PM EDT | Updated: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 02:03 PM EDT

Once again, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has misrepresented Canadian policy on the world stage.

In the cover story of the most recent issue of Bloomberg Businessweek, Trudeau claims the former Conservative government advocated “headscarf bans”. It’s simply not true.

The PM tells the influential American magazine that in the last election he “was up against a government than ran on snitch lines against Muslims and headscarf bans and a fear-filled narrative that Canadians chose to reject”.

It’s a sloppy take that completely mischaracterizes the former government’s election platform and sends a false message about Canadian politics to the world.

No major political party in Canada has ever proposed a headscarf ban. The closest thing would be Quebec’s failed charter of values, which would have banned the wearing of "conspicuous" religious symbols by public servants in the province. This would have applied to all religions.

Perhaps Trudeau was referring to how back in 2011 the Conservative government did enact a ban on full face veils for the brief one-time occasion when a woman delivers her citizenship oath. A court decision then forced them to defend this law at a time that coincided with the last election.

But this is nowhere near the same thing as banning mere headscarves. A number of countries in the Middle East and Europe have legislated some version of a ban on the more radical niqab or burqa, but no country has banned the commonplace hijab headscarf.

If that is what Trudeau was getting at, he misspoke big time.

Likewise the comment about “snitch lines against Muslims”. The PM is clearly talking about the controversial barbaric practices tip line from the previous election. But to call it a line exclusively against Muslims is only half the story. Regardless of your views on it, there’s no denying it was also intended as a line for Muslims, such as girls who were worried about being victims of honour-based violence.

Canadian readers of the magazine who followed the last election in depth will have the background to read between Trudeau’s gaffes and suss out what he likely means. The majority of the magazine’s international readership will not.

They will think Canadian politicians are advocating broad bans on the hijab and encouraging people to call the cops whenever they spot a regular Muslim person just walking down the street. These are troubling misconceptions to plant in people's minds. (And the magazine at no point fact checked Trudeau’s errors.)

It’s natural for Trudeau to cast his political opponents in a negative light. This crosses the line though. Trudeau talks a big game about unity. Yet all these antics do is divide.

The silver lining is the PM appears to be walking back his #WelcomeToCanada remarks from earlier this year, which wrongly conveyed the message that we have some sort of open borders policy.

When Bloomberg asked Trudeau about being a “champion of immigration” he said: “there are a lot of things that need to be done internationally to allow people to return home rather than just say the solution is to welcome in everyone. Canada can’t take in 60 million people, obviously.”

Good to hear. Maybe the next time he graces the cover of a foreign magazine, he can also take a moment to correct the record about our non-existent headscarf ban.


More on LINK.

Seems to be a lot of "Alternate News/Facts" coming out of this Government lately. 
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 184,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,813
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #486 on: May 05, 2017, 20:10:51 »
Charles Moore in today's Telegraph says it all for me.

Why I am a Tory: "Being unintellectual – even, on occasions, plain stupid – the Conservatives don’t carry that dreadful weight of needing to prove you are doctrinally correct which bedevils life on the Left. They find it easier to confront reality."   Now if only the Canadian party could come to the same understanding.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/05/not-theresa-may-great-party-keeps-renewing/

Quote
No one has ever fully explained the most persistent phenomenon in European democratic political history – the success of the Conservative Party. Its very name implies it is behind the times. To some, it reeks of the few, not the many. Yet in the century in which the many have been allowed to vote at all, they have chosen a wholly or predominantly Conservative government two thirds of the time. Friday’s local election results confirm the general view that they will do so again on June 8. In the world crisis of the elites, only the Tories have managed to change sides and stay on top at the same time.

Why? Although I have no neat answer, I suggest it is partly because the Conservatives have fewer prejudices than their rivals. This sounds a weird thing to say – the Tories are always supposed to be more racist, sexist, stuffy etc than the others. Indeed, their present leader once warned them against becoming the “nasty party”. Yet it is, in practice, true.

Being unintellectual – even, on occasions, plain stupid – the Conservatives don’t carry that dreadful weight of needing to prove you are doctrinally correct which bedevils life on the Left. They find it easier to confront reality. In February 1975, their overwhelmingly male, old-soldier-dominated parliamentary gang, fed up with two election defeats, chose a woman to be their leader. They cast aside their prejudices because they thought she was “a brave girl”. She went on to win the next three general elections.

To this day, by contrast, the Labour Party has not chosen a woman leader. Its attitude to women is infected by doctrine: it seeks the unattainable, perfect feminist, rather than the best person to run the country.

Last year, the Tories did it again. The world gasped at the chaos which ensued when David Cameron lost the EU referendum which he himself had called. After a sharp tussle of betrayal and assassination, however, the Conservatives picked, without a contest, a woman from the losing side. Within days, order was restored. Untroubled by the logical thought-processes which afflict rationalists in politics, the Tories had felt their way to the solution.

Now Theresa May is seeking an electoral mandate, and her enemies lie prostrate before her.

Nobody thinks of Mrs May as a flexible sort of person, but she has won herself an astonishing degree of freedom. She supports free trade, yet is scooping up protectionist votes. She herself voted Remain, but is now so well trusted by most Leave voters that she has swallowed Ukip whole. She is the Oxford-educated wife of a prosperous City man, yet she has become the scourge of the boss class. She sits for plush Maidenhead, but, as Friday’s results show, is going down big in the West Midlands and the east end of Glasgow. Her planned election trips do not concentrate on leafy heartlands, but include raids on enemy territory such as Manchester and Leicester. She has convinced people that she is decent and straightforward, yet boasts about being “a bloody difficult woman”.

Her main opponents are much more prejudiced than she. They fall into three groups. (Until Friday’s results, I might have mentioned four, but the poor Liberal Democrats seem to have relegated themselves.)

The first are the out-and-out Remainers, who probably constitute about half of those who voted Remain last year. They are such prisoners of their European prejudices that they have become professionally pessimistic. In their house journals, such as the Financial Times, they grasp at every straw of evidence that the economy is doomed. They can be presented – often unfairly – as people who just don’t like their country very much. In different ways, Tony Blair and George Osborne are both trying to become their spokesmen. Mrs May easily can place them on the wrong side of history.

Next comes Jeremy Corbyn. His prejudices are magnificently impervious to evidence, and were already perfectly formed before he entered Parliament a third of a century ago. His dream of Britain as Castro’s Cuba or Chavez’s Venezuela will never die, but it will never win either. Mrs May needs him just where he is.

Last comes Jean-Claude Juncker. I argued last year that he was a massive plus for the Leave campaign, but it never occurred to me how much this gift would go on giving.

Mr Juncker’s prejudices lead him to believe that for the European Union to win, everyone else must lose. This makes dealing with him unpleasant, but also simple. At that famous dinner with Mrs May last week, she said she wanted Brexit to be a success. He replied: “Brexit cannot be a success.”

Faced with such hostility, what can she do but fight, and how can most British voters avoid siding with her? When Mrs May emerged from Downing Street on Wednesday to denounce Mr Juncker’s “threats”, one feared she might be going over the top. But she is right that “there are some in Brussels who do not want these talks to succeed”. It is as well to say so now, using the plain English language which, Mr Juncker announced on Friday, is “losing importance” in Europe. Insulted by people like him, voters instinctively gravitate to the Prime Minister, even those who wish we hadn’t voted Leave in the first place.

All of the above make it almost freakishly easy for Mrs May’s campaign team to craft her message. Sir Lynton Crosby, who is in charge of the concepts, is never happier than when a clear and sombre choice presents itself, hence “strong and stable leadership”, ad nauseam. If I were a Tory candidate, I would find it hard to obey the strict orders not to indulge in the party’s habitual vice of complacency.

But there is a caution to be entered here. Mrs May has been shown the focus groups. They all say that she is more popular than her party. Therefore, she is advised, she must campaign as Theresa May, not as its leader. In her counter-attack against Mr Juncker, she used the word “me” five times. She ended by inviting voters to “give me your backing to lead Britain”. At no point did she use the word “Conservative”.

Prime Minister Theresa May accuses EU officials of trying to influence election
00:29
All great party leaders reach out beyond their party. The two previous successful leaders of the past 50 years – Margaret Thatcher and David Cameron – did that notably. But all depend upon their party too, and once they forget that fact, things start to go wrong. Claim all the credit, and you will get all the blame.

By “party”, I do not mean just activists, constituency associations and parliamentary colleagues, but that whole wider, looser, deeper structure of culture, history, class, money, media and (yes, even among Conservatives) ideas from which Conservative success somehow emerges.

So far, Mrs May’s public performance has been an impressive example of her party’s strange capacity for renewal which I describe above. In private, though, there are already too many who feel unthanked and too few who are working out the future. What Mrs May calls the “overriding task” of Brexit is concealing the lack of thought about what sort of country we want to be when we leave. If she thinks this election is all about “me”, she is riding for a fall – though not, probably, on June 8.


The Tories have been riding with a loose rein for a long, long while.   In the modern era their success could arguably be said as originating with the time Disraeli beat Gladstone to the punch and gave the vote to the working man - causing poor old Gladstone to go apoplectic and seek out more prostitutes to save.

As to Moore's advice to Theresa:  she should listen.   Maggie wasn't safe.  Nor John Major.  Nor many others before and after.  But that will be after the election and probably after 2019.

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 424,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,334
  • Crewman
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #487 on: May 14, 2017, 13:37:50 »
For anyone who watches Question Period in the House of Commons, this is very appropriate:



If one wanted to look like an idiot, not answering a simple question eighteen times in a row, is the way to go.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Online Scott

    - apparently an antagonist.

  • Likes fire and loud noises.
  • Chief of Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 176,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,401
  • El Scorcho Diablo
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #488 on: May 15, 2017, 17:08:19 »
Rona Ambrose leaving Federal politics.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rona-ambrose-conservative-mp-1.4116233

Quote
Interim Conservative Leader Rona Ambrose is leaving federal politics, CBC News has confirmed.

The Edmonton MP will make the announcement Tuesday in Ottawa, sources tell CBC News. Ambrose informed the Conservative Party of her decision on Friday. The news was first reported Monday by iPolitics.

Conservatives are to pick their new leader at a convention on May 27 and Ambrose is expected to stay on as interim leader until then.

She will step down as MP after the spring sitting of Parliament ends in June, sources who spoke to CBC News on condition of anonymity said.

More to come
Be nice for no reason.

Offline Rocky Mountains

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 295
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #489 on: May 15, 2017, 17:26:12 »
Rona Ambrose leaving Federal politics.

Great news!  Perhaps she'll be replaced by a conservative.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 184,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,813
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #490 on: May 15, 2017, 17:58:13 »
Rona Ambrose leaving Federal politics.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rona-ambrose-conservative-mp-1.4116233

I wish her well.  I thought she would have made an excellent Prime Minister.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 99,576
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,960
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #491 on: May 15, 2017, 18:19:26 »
This is a big loss. She would have been a strong team member and right-hand woman for whoever leads the party. All Canadians owe her a thank you for the job she has done as interim leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
Many persons have a wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification, but through fidelity to a worthy purpose.
- Helen Keller

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 22,064
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,128
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #492 on: May 16, 2017, 15:14:18 »
Great news!  Perhaps she'll be replaced by a conservative.
More than likely a libertarian.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 99,770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,726
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #493 on: May 18, 2017, 15:37:19 »
Great news!  Perhaps she'll be replaced by a conservative.

In general Canadians don't want anyone to far to the right or the left, the voting public is a bit like a drunk staggering down the road attempting to follow the centreline, they may veer a bit right and bit left, but have no desire to fall into the ditch on either side. Except for BC.......

It's quite possible we see a NDP-Green coalition government, at least for a short time, that will energize them at the federal level no doubt.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 184,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,813
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #494 on: May 19, 2017, 11:11:22 »
In general Canadians don't want anyone to far to the right or the left, the voting public is a bit like a drunk staggering down the road attempting to follow the centreline, they may veer a bit right and bit left, but have no desire to fall into the ditch on either side. Except for BC.......

It's quite possible we see a NDP-Green coalition government, at least for a short time, that will energize them at the federal level no doubt.

Mayhap it is time for Alberta to secure the Yellowhead.   
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 99,770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,726
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #495 on: May 19, 2017, 12:15:02 »
then you be like Afghanistan, no ports and surrounded by hostile neighbours, but you can call yourself "Albertstan"  ;D 

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 104,105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,349
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #496 on: May 19, 2017, 14:54:30 »
I grew up in Alberta.

At what point does a significant enough portion of the Alberta electorate decide that they are done being Confederation's whipping boy for every environmental ill in Canada and decide that they have more in common with Montana and North Dakota than they do with BC or Ontario?

This is not a "science fiction" type question. There is anger smouldering in Alberta. It would not take very much to ignite that anger into something Ottawa would have a great deal of difficulty quelling.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 184,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,813
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #497 on: May 19, 2017, 15:08:16 »
then you be like Afghanistan, no ports and surrounded by hostile neighbours, but you can call yourself "Albertstan"  ;D

I'm afraid you misapprehend me.   [:D



Which direction to Danzig?  [:p
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 86,425
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,708
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #498 on: May 19, 2017, 15:18:50 »
Well, as usual SKT, Quebec has already done all the work for everyone else: If Alberta wants to leave, the Supreme Court has traced the process and the Clarity Act of Mr. Dion has set the stage for defining what the federal government considers sufficient proof of intent before starting negotiation ... Oh! and all other provinces have a say in Alberta's departure - after all, all the other provinces claimed so high and loud when it was Quebec who threatened to leave.  ;D ;D ;D

On a more serious note, I think the anger in Alberta now has a lot more to do with the low price of oil on the international market causing the industry to shut down left right and centre than Alberta being the "environmental whipping boy"  of every ill in Canada. First of all, every single province and the central government are the "whipping boys" of the environmental movements in Canada and have been for a long time and second, if Alberta thinks that would disappear if they joined with Montana and the Dakotas, they obviously are unaware of the power of environmental movements and the regulation of the EPA in place there - they could be in for a rude awakening.

Remember, just because the US did not sign on certain international environmental agreements doesn't mean they have been idle. They in fact have probably done more on the environment front than Canada has, even under past Liberal governments, while claiming (in Canada's case) loudly to be in favour of the Agreements we wilfully signed.

Just sayin' pardner.

  :cowboy:

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 184,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,813
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #499 on: May 19, 2017, 15:26:26 »
OGBD

What you ain't getting is that industry is shutting down left and right in part because of low prices - but the prices aren't that low historically speaking - but because the Federal Government has stated categorically that their intention is to shut down the industry.  The time line doesn't matter.  There is no future.  It is pulling out because the local government has put a limit on development.  Their is no future.  It is pulling out because "our fellow Canadians" won't allow us to ship our product to market, either east or west.  And in the east "our fellow Canadians" would rather buy our competitors' products.

And to top it all off, they still want us to send cash.

(Stopping to breathe before I say something I will regret.)

Cheers.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"