Though light on policy, Trudeau offers key glimpses of next Liberal platform

[HiTempguy1]

http://home.mytelus.com/telusen/portal/NewsChannel.aspx?ArticleID=news/capfeed/national/22908867.xml&CatID=National


OTTAWA - Justin Trudeau has made no apologies for offering little in the way of substantive policy prescriptions during the Liberal leadership race.

Indeed, Trudeau has argued it's not the leader's role to hand down commandments from on high to grassroots Liberals. Instead, he's promised that if he becomes leader, he would develop the party's platform from the bottom up, based on consultations from Liberals in particular and Canadians in general.

During the leadership campaign, Trudeau launched a "soapbox" feature on his website in a bid to encourage policy input from average folks.

"This campaign is about conversations, not one-way monologues," he said on the site. "We believe that good ideas can come from any corner, and that Canadians deserve the opportunity to share their concerns and offer up their ideas."

Still, on some select issues, Trudeau has offered some glimpses of where he'd take the party, and the country, if given the chance:

— Democratic reform: Trudeau unveiled a detailed five-point plan aimed at making Canada's electoral system more representative of Canadians' choices and MPs more responsive to the views of their constituents. It includes:

- Requiring all prospective Liberal candidates, including incumbent MPs, to win the right to carry the party banner during an election through open nomination contests.

- Empowering backbenchers by loosening party discipline, allowing Liberal MPs to vote as they see fit on everything except bills implementing elements of the party's 2015 election platform, budget or significant money bills, and "those that speak to the shared values embodied in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms." He'd also strengthen the parliamentary committee system, limit the ability of government to prorogue Parliament and end the practice of introducing huge omnibus bills that aren't readily scrutinized by MPs.

- Reforming Canada's first-past-the-post electoral system so that a party's share of the popular vote is more closely reflected in its share of the seats in the House of Commons. Trudeau would institute a preferential ballot, wherein voters would rank their choices and the winner in each riding would need to capture more than 50 per cent of the vote.

- Creating an arm's-length body to ensure government advertising is not used for partisan promotion.

- Beefing up third-party oversight by independent officers of Parliament, such as the parliamentary budget officer, and agencies, such as Elections Canada.

— National unity: Trudeau has ruled out any attempt to finally secure Quebec's signature on the Constitution, patriated by his father, the late Pierre Trudeau, in 1982 over the objections of the province's separatist government. He says Quebecers aren't interested in re-opening old constitutional squabbles.

He supports the Clarity Act, which stipulates a clear majority of Quebecers would have to vote Yes to a clear referendum question on independence before the federal government would agree to negotiate the terms of a divorce. He is adamantly opposed to the NDP's proposed replacement bill, which would require only a bare majority of 50 per cent plus one vote to trigger negotiations. Trudeau has said he believes Quebec's current language laws are sufficient to protect francophones and don't need to be strengthened.

— Senate reform: Trudeau considers an elected Senate a "terrible idea" that would exacerbate the under-representation of western provinces and potentially result in parliamentary gridlock on issues where the Senate was at odds with the House of Commons. He said he believes better quality appointments, along with 12-year term limits, are all that's required to fix the much-maligned upper house.

— Natural resources: Trudeau is opposed to the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline to carry bitumen from Alberta's oilsands to the B.C. coast, but is open to other, less environmentally problematic pipeline proposals.

He supports the contentious Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport bitumen from northern Alberta to Gulf Coast refineries. He supports foreign ownership, including by state-owned enterprises like China's CNOOC, in the oilsands and other Canadian resources.

He favours putting a price on carbon but has not specified whether that would be through a carbon tax, cap and trade, regulation or some combination. He would not attempt to reinstate the hated national energy program instituted by his father.

— Education: A Trudeau government's "highest national economic priority" would be to increase the proportion of Canadians with post-secondary education to 70 per cent from the current rate of just over 50 per cent. He has not specified how he'd do it, but has mused about making student loans repayable according to income earned after graduation, creating a personal registered education savings plan program, and working with private and non-profit sectors to increase workplace training. — Economy: Trudeau has said his focus will be on improving the standard of living and economic security of middle class Canadians. He has not provided details, other than to rule out increasing the GST back to 7 per cent from the current 5 per cent and saying he would scrap the Harper government's plan to raise the age of eligibility for old age security to 67 from 65. Trudeau has also ruled out changes to corporate tax rates and the possibility of a so-called "wealth tax" on high-income Canadians. — Gun control: Trudeau has described the Chretien-era long-gun registry as a "failed" policy that he has no plans to revisit. — Marijuana: Trudeau supports decriminalization of pot but has expressed skepticism about full-blown legalization, a position adopted by the Liberal rank and file at last year's policy convention.

[HiTempguy1]

Initially, this sounds good... REALLY good. And that is bad to the average citizen. They'll read the parties info, go "gee whiz, these liberal guys sound peachy keen" and vote for them. But...

Trudeau supports Keystone because IT PROBABLY ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN NOW THAT THE USA IS BECOMING OIL SELF-SUFFICIENT FOR THE NEXT DECADE OR SO. Already he is trying to cripple Alberta. Which becomes even more apparent when you realize ALL OF HIS NATURAL RESOURCE POLICIES HE STATED ARE STRICTLY AIMED AT THE OILSANDS WITHOUT SAYING SO.

Senate reform is important, as the Liberals can appoint whoever they want into power in the senate which is why we are currently blocked there. If it had to be representative, they should be voted in, period.

Clearly, he is his father's son. We're fucked. Conservatives are fucked. Welcome back to being the black sheep of Canada my western brethren, it was a good run :cry:

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
Initially, this sounds good... REALLY good. And that is bad to the average citizen. They'll read the parties info, go "gee whiz, these liberal guys sound peachy keen" and vote for them.

This.

It's all just "feel good" rhetoric that a lot of people will fall for. Now add in all the people that know nothing about politics, but will vote for him because he "seems nice" and has a nice smile (the Layton thing again).

[kertejud2]

Reforming Canada's first-past-the-post electoral system so that a party's share of the popular vote is more closely reflected in its share of the seats in the House of Commons. Trudeau would institute a preferential ballot, wherein voters would rank their choices and the winner in each riding would need to capture more than 50 per cent of the vote.

This is the clever one. A preferential ballot is what favors the Liberals more than anything (say compared to a proportional system) because most people's second choice would be the Liberals if they aren't already voting for them. Unless people are really on top of how it works, it would be almost guaranteed to give the centre party the edge almost every time in the hotly contested ridings. Especially outside of Alberta, most CPC voters' 2nd choice would be the Libs. Most NDP voters' second choice would be the Libs. The Liberal second choices can go either way so there's no distinct advantage to any one party.

[Feruk]

I don't much care for candidates that have no platform and run on a campaign of "I'll do what you want." Shows a lack of intelligence. Having said that, some of the ideas he has are decent. Mainly the elimination of these insanely large bills the Harper government is throwing through. Either way, I've been voting for a while now, and I've noticed it really makes no difference who gets elected. Same shit, different day.

[1barA4]

Key question -- what is his stance on decriminalization of marijuana?

The stoner vote depends on it! :rofl:

[Isaiah]

Originally posted by 1barA4
Key question -- what is his stance on decriminalization of marijuana?

The stoner vote depends on it! :rofl:
I would venture that the majority of stoners don't vote and those who do are going green.

[revelations]

As much as I dislike the dithering Liberals fiscally, they would likely move the country ahead from a present moral standard with things like decriminalizing marijuana.

The war on drugs was lost decades ago because the DEMAND keeps going up. Lets end the stupidity and move on.

[Toma]

Can't wait for another Trudeau. Ill take integrity and common sense and a 'pro average joe' leadership style.

To long have we pandered to the corporate agenda and watched our wealth transferred to the corporations ans siphoned out of canada.

[Toma]

Ps. Oil prices are still very high.... and the province is broke. Programs getting cut. Panic on the horizon.

How does that happen?

Canada is on the verge of economic turmoil. Housing tumbling across the country. If liberals take over in the near future, they will take the helm when the roller coaster is already heading downhill.

It will be just like in the US when Obama took the reigns from Bush. The idiots will blame the left. The intelligent people will know it was the right wing nuts that got us 'here'... and all the left can now do is try and avoid derailment on the way down.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by Toma
Ill take integrity and common sense and a 'pro average joe' leadership style.

Where have you seen that with this guy though? I don't entirely disagree with the remainder of your post or the next one but I'm not sure what this portion of your thought is based on?

How does a guy who's been in the "1%" (for lack of a better term.....) since he took his very first breath have any real concept of the "average Joe"? Additionally, what track record does he have to show this record of common sense leadership?

I don't think things are great now but so far I'm failing to see how a guy who, if he didn't have his family name, wouldn't have a hope in hell of coming within a country mile of a leadership race can offer any rays of sunshine. Charisma and a slick smile don't really mean shit at the end of the day and he doesn't have an ounce of anything behind him, beyond his daddy's name that people wax affectionate over, that would qualify him to run a country.

Does he? :dunno:

[Toma]

Genetics. His dad was a born leader. Junior is very obviously socialy conscious and always seems to take the side of people over 'agenda'. He is very obviously 'his fathers son'.

It takes a good person to be a peoples leader. Something you almost never see in politics.

I welcome our new overlord and look foreward to the overthrow of the neo con corporate pandering, middle class murdering, dipshits.

[WhippWhapp]

Trudeau is getting my vote.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by Toma
Genetics. His dad was a born leader. Junior is very obviously socialy conscious and always seems to take the side of people over 'agenda'. He is very obviously 'his fathers son'.

It takes a good person to be a peoples leader. Something you almost never see in politics.


Do you not agree though that it takes more than just that?

I'm not saying you're wrong and I am admittedly not thoroughly versed in the guy and his "policy" but, does he really have any? Does he really support any "people" outside of his own societal comfort zone?

So far all I really see is a figurehead who doesn't have any real stance, just a lot of ambiguity that doesn't polarize either end of an argument. I see a guy who wants to run a party and a country without really taking a stance, just push what the party in general decides it wants. And THAT, seems dangerous to me. How the hell can someone like that stand on a world stage? The only way that doesn't seem unsettling is if you're just a dyed in the wool Liberal supporter who thinks anything they do will be right without question.

Historically yes, there have been good things for this country accomplished by the Liberals but so far all I see is sizzle here. It's early though so, time will reveal much I am sure. One thing I can say, he's already miles ahead of anything the worthless NDP could put on the table.....

[Toma]

Belief. Intelligence. Integrity. Incorruptibility.

Enough. Lets see if he has all 4.

Alberta broke? How the fuck did that happen?

[Sugarphreak]

...

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by Toma
Belief. Intelligence. Integrity. Incorruptibility.

Enough. Lets see if he has all 4.


Fair enough. I don't trust him or his ability at this point but, I don't entirely discount him either. I do admit, it will be interesting to see what he does. The coming year should provide for some good TV, so to speak.

Like it or not, I think anyone would have to admit he is the only person on the political horizon who has a legitimate shot at taking the reins of the country. I think the same things that I feel make him dangerous are the ones that COULD make him beneficial. Looking forward to seeing how it will play out.

:thumbsup:


Originally posted by Sugarphreak
NDP have actually started tailoring their political stances to be less socialist and more liberal, I think they are going to be a lot more interesting for the next election.

THAT is more dangerous than Trudeau. God damn NDP trying to lie about who they are and pull the wool over peoples eyes....I'd take the Trudeau Liberals 8 days a week before an NDP wrecking ball.



Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Little too late for the Liberals. Personally I think they peaked when Paul Martin was the finance minister, it was all downhill from there. Now they are ruined, party is made up of people who have no business in politics. IMO He is a good pretty boy figure head with a lot of star power, but no brains to back it up.

I think you'll be suprised as to what he does to the east as far as galvanizing support. He'll have most of Ontario and Quebec lining up to wash his feet by years end. I think he lacks a lot of things but brainpower is not one of them.

[Canmorite]

Unfortunately made up my mind when I read this:


Natural resources: Trudeau is opposed to the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline to carry bitumen from Alberta's oilsands to the B.C. coast, but is open to other, less environmentally problematic pipeline proposals.

Canada needs new market for crude. I think he has a lot of other good ideas though. Shame he's against natural resource development which is essentially the life blood of this country.

[Toma]

Originally posted by Canmorite
Unfortunately made up my mind when I read this:



Canada needs new market for crude. I think he has a lot of other good ideas though. Shame he's against natural resource development which is essentially the life blood of this country.

Why? Crude is gonna fall in price. We need to diversify to ensure we do not repeat the disaster that was the 80s.

Also, we should maximize our cut of what we already produce.

Banking on oil alone is a naive recipe for doom.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by Toma

To long have we pandered to the corporate agenda and watched our wealth transferred to the corporations ans siphoned out of canada.

If you think that would change under Junior, think again. They've got they're hands in too many pockets. He's just Nenshi on a national level. Lots of great ideas that will never see fruition.

[M.alex]

Alberta needs to fall and we need 20% interest rates again. Too many fat cats here :thumbsup:

[Canmorite]

Originally posted by Toma


Why? Crude is gonna fall in price. We need to diversify to ensure we do not repeat the disaster that was the 80s.

Also, we should maximize our cut of what we already produce.

Banking on oil alone is a naive recipe for doom.

It is? When, and by how much? I'll sell some crude oil futures then.

It may fall temporarily, but like you said diversifying is key. Asia may pay WTI or Brent + a premium for oil, while North American pricing may dip. Having that option is important I think.

We also could sell gas and NGLs to Asia, but I'm assuming he's against that as well.

You're right that oil/nat gas alone will not fund Canada, but it does a lot.

[m10-power]

i always thought quebec would be first to separate, if he gets elected i think alberta will start playing the quebec threat game. his father damn near ruined us with his nep bullshit.

[autosm]

If the Libs ever get into power it will be the National Energy Program all over again for Alberta.

Better Dead than voting Red........:thumbsdow

[Toma]

Originally posted by m10-power
i always thought quebec would be first to separate, if he gets elected i think alberta will start playing the quebec threat game. his father damn near ruined us with his nep bullshit.
NEP had nothing to do with it. Just coincidental timing to a much wider crash.

Read up on it. World wide economic troubles, stupid interest rates, oil glutt

Yes, right winger dummies still believe it was the NEP alone lol. But some people believe in little green men and santa clause.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


If you think that would change under Junior, think again. They've got they're hands in too many pockets. He's just Nenshi on a national level. Lots of great ideas that will never see fruition.


Nenshi on a national level.

Good analogy.

Corporations will crush this little kid even more so than crushing Harper.

[Isaiah]

Originally posted by m10-power
his father damn near ruined us with his nep bullshit.
That was 30 years ago, probably before you were born. Let it go and kindly step off the bandwagon.

If the NEP is your argument against Justin Trudeau, or even the Liberal Party for that matter, you should do a little bit of research and come up with some substantial points.

As for having 'nearly ruined' us, that's quite the statement considering that less than 20 years after the end of the NEP, Alberta was the only province able to declare itself completely debt free and with a reserve fund worth billions.

The concept is called utilitarianism and is simply taking the course of action that maximizes utility. Simply put, it is the philosophy of doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. If you still don't get it, think of it as amputating a limb because it will save a life. It sucks being the limb but during the 1980s, in the wake of high inflation and oil prices, that's what Alberta was.

The sooner you get that Alberta crested silver spoon out of your mouth the sooner you'll stop sounding like a spoiled little rich brat.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Isaiah

That was 30 years ago, probably before you were born. Let it go and kindly step off the bandwagon.

If the NEP is your argument against Justin Trudeau, or even the Liberal Party for that matter, you should do a little bit of research and come up with some substantial points.

As for having 'nearly ruined' us, that's quite the statement considering that less than 20 years after the end of the NEP, Alberta was the only province able to declare itself completely debt free and with a reserve fund worth billions.

The concept is called utilitarianism and is simply taking the course of action that maximizes utility. Simply put, it is the philosophy of doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. If you still don't get it, think of it as amputating a limb because it will save a life. It sucks being the limb but during the 1980s, in the wake of high inflation and oil prices, that's what Alberta was.

The sooner you get that Alberta crested silver spoon out of your mouth the sooner you'll stop sounding like a spoiled little rich brat.
Thanks for the lesson! Congrats on joining Toma on my ignore list

[Seth1968]

taking the course of action that maximizes utility

If this is true, then we need to kill the drain on the economic system. That is, vegetable seniors, drug addicts, alcoholics, and anyone else who gets tax payers money to live.

Let's take your statement further.

The animal/insect kingdom has been around for millions of years before humanity. What happens when one of such can no longer pull their weight? They get left behind to die as carrying such on their back would "minimize utility".

[Isaiah]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2

Thanks for the lesson! Congrats on joining Toma on my ignore list
Unlike Toma, who is also on my ignore list, I am not an extremist. I question whether you've ignored me because I presented a valid argument that you're unable to dispute or whether it's because I've argued in defence of the Liberal Party and you're a typical western conservative.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2
Thanks for the lesson! Congrats on joining Toma on my ignore list

Why? What's wrong with opposing points of view?


I don't even understand ignoring Toma to be honest......

(or am I on it too? :eek: )

[Isaiah]

Originally posted by Seth1968


If this is true, then we need to kill the drain on the economic system. That is, vegetable seniors, drug addicts, alcoholics, and anyone else who gets tax payers money to live.

Let's take your statement further.

The animal/insect kingdom has been around for millions of years before humanity. What happens when one of such can no longer pull their weight? They get left behind to die as carrying such on their back would "minimize utility".
That's extremism. I'll stay within the boundaries of pragmatic discussion by saying that Pierre Trudeau, in ratifying his energy minister's program, was trying to do what was best for the country as a whole - since as prime minister he represented the country as a whole.

The difficult decisions, like the NEP, and War Measures Act, are the actions that define strong leaders and set them apart from mere populists. It is those unpopular and difficult actions that they know will alienate a segment of the population, that differentiates a true leader acting in the best interests of the people from vote-hungry politicians acting in their own self interests in pursuit of their next mandate.

[Toma]

Originally posted by Isaiah

Unlike Toma, who is also on my ignore list, I am not an extremist. I question whether you've ignored me because I presented a valid argument that you're unable to dispute or whether it's because I've argued in defence of the Liberal Party and you're a typical western conservative.

Extremist??? lol :poosie:

Yeah, I do admit that the older I get, the lower my patience for absolute stupidity and idiots.

But I would not call me an extremist ;)

PS. I liked your other post. "Entitled" people never seem to get it.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by Toma


Why? Crude is gonna fall in price. We need to diversify to ensure we do not repeat the disaster that was the 80s.

Also, we should maximize our cut of what we already produce.


You understand that in order to do these two things, we need Northern Gateway right? We can sell oil to Asia without having to discount the price, therefore the revenue generated goes up.

All his campaign will be is more of the "Education is a right, making six figures is a right, all the people in the west are keeping you from having these things."

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE


Why? What's wrong with opposing points of view?


I don't even understand ignoring Toma to be honest......

(or am I on it too? :eek: ) Nah I only have a few people ignored, and you're not one of them. Toma completely ruins threads with utter nonsense and hypocracy, threads are drastically easier to read when his posts don't show up. I took things off topic though.

[Toma]

Originally posted by FraserB


You understand that in order to do these two things, we need Northern Gateway right? We can sell oil to Asia without having to discount the price, therefore the revenue generated goes up.

All his campaign will be is more of the "Education is a right, making six figures is a right, all the people in the west are keeping you from having these things."

"We" won't make more. We will still get the same lousy cut, but bleed our limited resource faster.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by Toma
Also, we should maximize our cut of what we already produce.

Stalemach tried that. It worked great.... for Saskatchewan.


Originally posted by Toma


"We" won't make more. We will still get the same lousy cut, but bleed our limited resource faster.

The problem with energy resource is that you are trying to get it out ASAP before it's no longer needed.

Just look at the coal industry.

[Toma]

Originally posted by Xtrema


Stalemach tried that. It worked great.... for Saskatchewan.



The problem with energy resource is that you are trying to get it out ASAP before it's no longer needed.

Just look at the coal industry.

That wasn't any type of "try".

It's simple.... it just must be done. If they would rather exploit Saskatchewan, cool, it would be a good way to "nationalize" oil, without heavy handed tactics.

"we" tax payers invented oil sands extraction, at OUR cost. We can re form a "petro canada" owned by "us", and then enjoy the FULL benefit.

Oil is not rocket science. EVERY country that has nationalized their limited resource has benefited, while we managed to get into Debt. Weird.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Isaiah

That's extremism. I'll stay within the boundaries of pragmatic discussion...

Such pragmatism has no bounds.

All typical political parties cater to corporations and live to stay in power. There is no such thing as the greater good.

Right from our "Gestapo" police, to an education system that teaches propaganda, useless information, and a total lack of critical thinking.

Democracy my ass.

True democracy would start by dismantling power of the federal government, and letting each province make their own decisions.

[m10-power]

Originally posted by Isaiah

That was 30 years ago, probably before you were born. Let it go and kindly step off the bandwagon.

If the NEP is your argument against Justin Trudeau, or even the Liberal Party for that matter, you should do a little bit of research and come up with some substantial points.

As for having 'nearly ruined' us, that's quite the statement considering that less than 20 years after the end of the NEP, Alberta was the only province able to declare itself completely debt free and with a reserve fund worth billions.

The concept is called utilitarianism and is simply taking the course of action that maximizes utility. Simply put, it is the philosophy of doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. If you still don't get it, think of it as amputating a limb because it will save a life. It sucks being the limb but during the 1980s, in the wake of high inflation and oil prices, that's what Alberta was.

The sooner you get that Alberta crested silver spoon out of your mouth the sooner you'll stop sounding like a spoiled little rich brat.

Ok Dad, funny I lived through and was directly impacted by the NEP. My issue is the eastern need to control the wealth in Alberta's resources. The NEP was specifically designed to fund the eastern population during the energy crisis, which resulted in Albertans taking a larger hit. So it's fine to save the east at the expense of the west in your opinion, I don't agree.

NEP did not lead to Alberta having no debt, had nothing to do positive in that matter.

Seems for far too many years we have been paying a much larger portion of the total bill and getting shit for it. Blah blah blah dirty oil sands, stop the pipelines, but please keep the money coming in...I personally would gladly vote to leave the nation if this shit keeps happening.

Trudeau getting in charge will do nothing good for Alberta, if you think it will your smoking some good shit or drinking the cool-aid.

[Toma]

Originally posted by m10-power


Ok Dad, funny I lived through and was directly impacted by the NEP. My issue is the eastern need to control the wealth in Alberta's resources. The NEP was specifically designed to fund the eastern population during the energy crisis, which resulted in Albertans taking a larger hit. So it's fine to save the east at the expense of the west in your opinion, I don't agree.

NEP did not lead to Alberta having no debt, had nothing to do positive in that matter.

Seems for far too many years we have been paying a much larger portion of the total bill and getting shit for it. Blah blah blah dirty oil sands, stop the pipelines, but please keep the money coming in...I personally would gladly vote to leave the nation if this shit keeps happening.

Trudeau getting in charge will do nothing good for Alberta, if you think it will your smoking some good shit or drinking the cool-aid.

Well, first.... Do we live in a country called CANADA, or a country named Alberta??

Second, the rest of your shit is wrong. Even how you spelled Kool Aid.

The feeling of entitlement people feel just because they live in Alberta...sickening. me me me. mine mine mine. :drool:

[HiTempguy1]

Toma doesnt drink the koolaid, he is the koolaid maker. Much more dangerous. I've always wondered if toma has ever done any work for cash and not reported it? If so, he is the largest hypocrite on this site for all of his blustering about bullshit. Does he pay his fair share in taxes? (Probably not).

[FraserB]

Originally posted by Toma


me me me. mine mine mine. :drool:

No shit.

I don't work 13hrs a day on a 6/1 rotation so some lazy fuck in the east can sit on welfare. I do it so I can buy a house and the things I want. You want a piece of the pie, work for it.

There is plenty of work out here, no reason why they can't come west and do a bit of work for the money they are under the impression they are entitled to. The only people who advocate the redistribution of wealth are those who either don't have it or don't want to work for their own.

[ExtraSlow]

The consitution says that oil and gas belongs to ALBERTA, not to CANADA. If we want to reopen constitutional debate, I'm game, but I'll bet the easterners wouldn't be interested in paying us a portion of the profits off their fish, hyrdo power, wind power, mines or timber.

[Toma]

Originally posted by FraserB


No shit.

I don't work 13hrs a day on a 6/1 rotation so some lazy fuck in the east can sit on welfare. I do it so I can buy a house and the things I want. You want a piece of the pie, work for it.

There is plenty of work out here, no reason why they can't come west and do a bit of work for the money they are under the impression they are entitled to. The only people who advocate the redistribution of wealth are those who either don't have it or don't want to work for their own.

But there is no immigration policy in Alberta. I mean, they let everyone in.

We are all Canadians.

That is how a country has to be run. For the benefit of the majority, not the minority. It''s not fair to have this feeling of entitlement simply because of your postal code. Christ, we got high school drop outs making $100k a year.

Some people in Alberta who have it easy, like to sling mud and call the rest of Canada that is in recession "lazy". But it's nothing but luck and geography. Easy to JUDGE people when you are a "have" (not by skill or personal attribute, but by georgraphy, on average), versus a "have not" It's not practical or desirable to move the whole country to Alberta so they can maybe have a job lol

And I would rather share "our" oil wealth with the rest of Canada, then let greedy oil corporations bleed us dry and siphon resource money out to foreigners.

[KRyn]

Originally posted by Toma


Oil is not rocket science. EVERY country that has nationalized their limited resource has benefited, while we managed to get into Debt. Weird.

Please elaborate on this, I am interested in what you have to offer in this statements defense.

[FraserB]

So in your utopia everyone would have a nice new car, a house, a post secondary education and a job that pays them $60k a year?

As much as people like to think, none of these things are a right and as Extraslow pointed out, the oil and gas belongs to Alberta, not to Canada. For people with ambition and who want to, there is nothing stopping them from moving to where the money is and doing very well.

There a ton of "have nots" in Alberta, living here doesn't automatically guarantee you success. But when you want to turn everyone into a "kinda of have" is when you start to get issues. Those who work hard and try to get ahead are typically rewarded, you want to reward everyone regardless of their effort.

You want to talk about luck and geography, why don't we expand that and give away some of our revenues to those who were unlucky and born in Africa and live in poverty. The only difference is geography and by your argument, Canada should be sharing with the rest of the world. I also don't think that all the people who are doing well in the O&G business and using their skilled trades or their post secondary education would attribute their success to luck.

[LOLzilla]

Originally posted by FraserB
the oil and gas belongs to Alberta, not to Canada.

But the advertising on the media says its the Canadian Oil sands now? :rofl: And using your logic, the land that the pipeline needs to cross in BC and belongs to British Columbia. It will never happen.

[LOLzilla]

Originally posted by KRyn


Please elaborate on this, I am interested in what you have to offer in this statements defense.

Norway.

The Norwegian government owns 80% of petroleum production, and retains roughly 85% of the net petroleum revenues mainly through a 78 percent company tax and through direct access mechanisms.

In Alberta and Canada, ownership and control have been controversial issues. At present, virtually the entire industry is owned by foreign and domestic private interests, which have taken the lion’s share of the petroleum wealth.

According to one estimate, the Alberta government has averaged just 9 percent of the economic rent from the oil sands over the last 15 years; and the federal government now takes (after tax breaks) a paltry 7 percent of oil company revenues through the general corporate income tax.

The Norwegian government has been very effective in distributing the benefits of oil wealth both regionally and throughout its population, thanks to a generous social welfare system, an equitable labour relations system and a progressive tax system. It has maintained one of the lowest levels of income inequality in the world.

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/commentary/canada-vs-norway-petro-path-not-taken

[Toma]

Originally posted by FraserB
So in your utopia everyone would have a nice new car, a house, a post secondary education and a job that pays them $60k a year?

As much as people like to think, none of these things are a right and as Extraslow pointed out, the oil and gas belongs to Alberta, not to Canada. For people with ambition and who want to, there is nothing stopping them from moving to where the money is and doing very well.

There a ton of "have nots" in Alberta, living here doesn't automatically guarantee you success. But when you want to turn everyone into a "kinda of have" is when you start to get issues. Those who work hard and try to get ahead are typically rewarded, you want to reward everyone regardless of their effort.

You want to talk about luck and geography, why don't we expand that and give away some of our revenues to those who were unlucky and born in Africa and live in poverty. The only difference is geography and by your argument, Canada should be sharing with the rest of the world. I also don't think that all the people who are doing well in the O&G business and using their skilled trades or their post secondary education would attribute their success to luck.

There in lies the rub. The while philosophy of 'anyone can do it' is false. Because perhaps any ONE person can do it....the reality is not EVERY one can do it.

First...there are not enough jobs or resources for EVERY one to live some sort of extravagant life style. And the very act of becoming wealthy automatically makes life harder for those that are not wealthy. Now the lower class need to work harder just to stay in the same place.

We don't live in a world of infinite riches or resources. So though maybe any ONE can work hard and bee affluent. Not EVERY one can, and the deeper question is.... is it moral for a persons greed to negatively impact those happy to just make a living. Do we have the right to force the rat race on the not so greedy so that we can finance a third car or second home?

[FraserB]

Originally posted by LOLzilla


But the advertising on the media says its the Canadian Oil sands now? :rofl: And using your logic, the land that the pipeline needs to cross in BC and belongs to British Columbia. It will never happen.

Using my logic, any natural resources within the confines of Alberta are under Alberta jurisdiction. Oddly enough, the constitution says the same thing. As for interprovincial commerce (running a pipeline through BC), that's provincial as well, but the federal government has supremacy.

[KRyn]

Originally posted by LOLzilla


Norway.

The Norwegian government owns 80% of petroleum production, and retains roughly 85% of the net petroleum revenues mainly through a 78 percent company tax and through direct access mechanisms.

In Alberta and Canada, ownership and control have been controversial issues. At present, virtually the entire industry is owned by foreign and domestic private interests, which have taken the lion’s share of the petroleum wealth.

According to one estimate, the Alberta government has averaged just 9 percent of the economic rent from the oil sands over the last 15 years; and the federal government now takes (after tax breaks) a paltry 7 percent of oil company revenues through the general corporate income tax.

The Norwegian government has been very effective in distributing the benefits of oil wealth both regionally and throughout its population, thanks to a generous social welfare system, an equitable labour relations system and a progressive tax system. It has maintained one of the lowest levels of income inequality in the world.

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/commentary/canada-vs-norway-petro-path-not-taken

I don't believe that every country that has nationalized natural resources has benefited as a whole. Stating so is just ridiculous.

[Toma]

Originally posted by KRyn


I don't believe that every country that has nationalized natural resources has benefited as a whole. Stating so is just ridiculous.

Maybe maybe not. Got an example of which one didn't benefit, was not able to bounce the IMF etc?

You may be right, but everyone I have ever read about has benefited.

Yet, here we are, experts in economics, oil at $90 a barrel, and running a deficit.

Russia "opens up", and is slaughtered, tightens the reigns, and it a super power once again.

Venezuela, doing it the "Chicago school way" is decimated, starts to nationalize essential service and resources, and is able to give the IMF scumbags the boot, and loan interest free money to it's friends and neighbours so they can give the IMF the boot as well. Hell, they offered free Gas and aid to parts of the US hit by hurricanes, send doctors and aid all over the world in emergency's etc....

Now there were countries with despotic leaders who nationalized and kept the wealth for themselves instead of spreading it out to the people..... so yeah, you got me there lol. But in my mind true nationalization is spreading it around.

Iceland went backwards, and went from government bank to private central bank and was slaughtered.....

Privatization of essential service and limited resources in my mind is the root of all economic evil done upon the middle and lower classes.

[FraserB]

Except when they did the budget, they estimated oil at something silly like $110 a barrel and we have to sell at a discount to the US.

[Toma]

Originally posted by FraserB
Except when they did the budget, they estimated oil at something silly like $110 a barrel and we have to sell at a discount to the US.

Well....that wasn't very conservative of them lol :poosie:

[KRyn]

Originally posted by Toma


Now there were countries with despotic leaders who nationalized and kept the wealth for themselves instead of spreading it out to the people..... so yeah, you got me there lol. But in my mind true nationalization is spreading it around.



This is exactly the point I was getting at.

Running a deficit or a surplus has little to do with how a country is controlling it's natural resources. Could Canada run a surplus this year if it wanted to with out nationalizing all of its natural resources, yes most certainly. Is it going to happen? Not a chance.

Hypothetical question... Assuming you enjoy a higher than average standard of living; would you reduce this standard of living and give up the majority of your income for the greater good and benefit of all Canadians?

[masoncgy]

Originally posted by Toma


Well....that wasn't very conservative of them lol :poosie:

The Alberta PC party is anything but conservative. I think that's been apparent for several years now.

[Toma]

Originally posted by KRyn


Hypothetical question... Assuming you enjoy a higher than average standard of living; would you reduce this standard of living and give up the majority of your income for the greater good and benefit of all Canadians?

Not on an individual level (ie, only me), but as national policy, sure. As Albertan's, our provincial income tax is too low. But then again, the bigger travesty are the absurdly low corporate taxes (oil related), and of course Royalties on the resources.

No reason that Canadian's as an average could not have an increased standard of living WHILE reducing their individual tax loads.

But for my age, my standard of living is not very high. So not much to give up lol. And who says you would have to "give up the majority" of your wage??? That's absurd.

We just need to take a better cut of what is ours. And not succumb to the pitfall of "it's good for the economy" when all it ends up meaning for the average person are longer work hours, a more hectic "rat race", and private corporations, and foreigners bleeding our resources and money.

[93VR6]

Originally posted by Toma


Not on an individual level (ie, only me), but as national policy, sure. As Albertan's, our provincial income tax is too low. But then again, the bigger travesty are the absurdly low corporate taxes (oil related), and of course Royalties on the resources.

No reason that Canadian's as an average could not have an increased standard of living WHILE reducing their individual tax loads.

But for my age, my standard of living is not very high. So not much to give up lol. And who says you would have to "give up the majority" of your wage??? That's absurd.

We just need to take a better cut of what is ours. And not succumb to the pitfall of "it's good for the economy" when all it ends up meaning for the average person are longer work hours, a more hectic "rat race", and private corporations, and foreigners bleeding our resources and money.

How exactly am I supposed to increase my standard of living while paying more in taxes? (I run a corporation with only one employee and I love the tax breaks the gov gives me, I can invest more in my business and grow it faster).

We take a pretty good cut of what is ours, the government doesn't just let any foreign take over happen, they let it happen because it is a necessary evil to keep businesses operating in Alberta, you make one wrong move (Nexen) and you can end up in a pile of trouble and debt. I think the average person is always given the choice of working longer hours or not. If I could I would work 300 days a year @ 12 hour/day shifts.

If it's so easy for foreigners to come over here and "take" away from our natural resources, why don't people from the east just move over here and do the work so we can keep all the money in Canada?

[m10-power]

Originally posted by 93VR6


How exactly am I supposed to increase my standard of living while paying more in taxes? (I run a corporation with only one employee and I love the tax breaks the gov gives me, I can invest more in my business and grow it faster).

We take a pretty good cut of what is ours, the government doesn't just let any foreign take over happen, they let it happen because it is a necessary evil to keep businesses operating in Alberta, you make one wrong move (Nexen) and you can end up in a pile of trouble and debt. I think the average person is always given the choice of working longer hours or not. If I could I would work 300 days a year @ 12 hour/day shifts.

If it's so easy for foreigners to come over here and "take" away from our natural resources, why don't people from the east just move over here and do the work so we can keep all the money in Canada?

Do yourself a favour and put him on your ignore list, I just wish beyond would block quoted comments as well...

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by m10-power


Do yourself a favour and put him on your ignore list, I just wish beyond would block quoted comments as well...

Toma has got to be the most ignored person on Beyond, I wonder if there is any way to check that statistic?