Accountability Now

Nope...that same rate is applied however in general the wages, salaries and overall profits from corporations are much larger therefore the money sent through taxation is higher per capita than any other province. Again, there are two parts to this equation: the money sent from Alberta and the money received by Alberta which results in the net. Alberta, Ontario and BC are the only provinces that are net contributors. If you would like I can show you the graphs.

And why does she choose to directly elaborate on the market impact right after asking the question about refineries?

Tell you what, read the next few lines after that quote and tell me what you think of her desire to build new refineries.

And do you think she is advocating for more?

Last time I checked, Alberta gives $15-20 billion more than it receives to the federal coffers per year all due to oil. I think all Canadians have benefited from it.

You are either delusional or simply trolling for the purpose of being inflammatory. I went to great lengths to show you that other facilities are being used and are required to handle this flow. Your outright deflection of that thread was noted and continues to be noted as you realize that you staking your glorious leader's claim about there being no current refineries was shown to be utterly false. I only used the Alberta examples to add to the examples in Sarnia (Ontario) and St. Johns (NB) showing that there are some locations in place....contrary to what she said. I also added the fact that other refineries are preparing themselves to upgrade their plants OR build new ones to accommodate this flow. I guess that was just too many 'facts' for you?

No....clearly you missed the point too. These upgraders in Alberta are only taking part of the flow. The rest of the flow is to be handled by existing refineries across the country. Sarnia, Montreal and St Johns. Additionally, refining the product is only part of the equation with the other part being able to export the crude which needs to happen at tidewater. Get it now?

I guess you missed the other parts showing that other parts of the country are already upgrading it plan on upgrading it once it goes through. But then again...you miss a lot when it comes to these sort of things. I do like how you deflect from what your hero actually said to this recent post. Perhaps you should change the thread title to Elizabeth May Misunderstands Pipeline Arguments. That would be more appropriate. LMFAO!!! No....no...it's not. Not even close! Overthere and myself have both proven that her comment about no refining capacity in Canada is simply not true. So either she was ignorant to the fact that various facilities are currently doing this OR she flat out lied about it. Is that seriously that hard for you to understand?

It doesn't need to process all of Energy East's capacity, it only needs to process a good portion. The rest can be exported. Its a win win. I do agree with some of what you are saying however Elizabeth May doesn't say it the way you did. She said it this way: I like how she worded this.....'refinery'. She purposely leaves out the various upgraders that do exist which or the NorthWest Upgrader refinery currently being built. She also misses out on the fact that the Imperial refinery in Sarnia actually can process raw bitumen: And of course....if you build it they will come: The key thing that I find misleading about her question/claim is that Energy East is that it not just carrying bitumen but a variety of crude types that will be accessible to other refineries. The other part that May leaves out is the two refinery projects that were tabled in BC if the Northern Gateway or something similar were built to feed the refinery. Of course, last but not least....her line that no refineries in Canada process bitumen is again proven untrue as the Irving refinery can process bitumen in small amounts. But the key is that all they need to fully process is a coker. Sure...its a $2B investment however not bad since they would be saving $1.2B per year with this: Speaking of cokers, Suncor in Montreal is 'actively' seeking to upgrade their facility with a coker: All said....I don't think Elizabeth May is all up to date on what the oil industry is doing and instead is pushing an anti-oil meme that is often seen similar in your posts.

The only fear I have at this point is what changes he will make to NAFTA if any. My company does a fair amount of business in the US and any changes to NAFTA may have a significant impact on our business.

Did they? They just elected another guy who isn't going to touch the GST and in essence has the same 'vision' when it comes to GST. I agree. Unfortunately I find the partisanship of politics is becoming so intense now that people aren't able to see what is actually good or bad, they just view it as Harper or Trudeau.

Yet you keep blaming Harper for cutting the GST and the electorate voted him back into power in two different elections after the GST cuts. You also deflect from the fact that JT (the proclaimed chosen one) did not campaign on increasing it.

Whose fault was it when Cretien got elected on a promise to get rid of GST all together? Whose fault was it when neither Trudeau nor Mulclair promised to raise it if they got elected?

I thought this line was interesting as most people in business do the same. They project achievable numbers so that they can either meet or beat those numbers. It got me thinking....why don't we look at Harper's past record on this very matter (i.e. What he said we would do verses what actually happened). Looking through past annual financial statements, I was able to find these results: You will note that in no year did Harper's estimated surplus/deficit have a difference to the downside more than 1.9B. He did however have many years where the deficits were less or the surplus was more than expected giving a positive upside. Trudeau on the other hand predicted a much better scenario and is way off on his prediction...to the downside. You can blame the economy for that but the reality is Harper was never off that much during the Financial Crisis. As of December 2015, the Government still had a surplus (3.2B) going forward for 2015-2016. Its seems clear that he was on track to balance this year's budget or be close anyway. Again...his target put forth in the budget was 1.4B surplus. To be very clear... I don't blame Trudeau for deficits or for the global economy. The economy of a country is like a boat floating in the ocean. I don't blame the captain when we hit a few waves or we take on water especially when that captain warms you about it from the start. I do blame the captain if they say it will be smooth sailing and then out of the blue a wave smashes you out of no where. This is the ONLY issue I have with Trudeau's changed outlook. Even during the Global Financial Crisis, Harper was still able to make solid predictions of where we would be and when he was off...it was to the upside.

Whaaaaat? I thought oil was Alberta's problem???

Except in this case it is about money

Prove it. This isn't about buying politicians. Its about politicians that have to make all encompassing decisions. Like I said, its easy for Elizabeth May to chirp from the cheap seat because she doesn't have to make such decisions. Mulcair certainly showed his flip flop when such decisions were presented to him. In the end its not all about money but money is almost always involved in the equation.

Keystone, Alberta Clipper, Kinder Morgan Anchor Loop and Line 9 reversal. Energy East was officially applied in October 2014 giving less than a year to actually do anything. TransMountain was filed at the end of 2013...also giving little time. Northern Gateway was approved during Harpers time...and we know who squashed that. Sorry...I disregard any argument that's solely based on predictions especially when said predictions have zero basis Sure...go for it. It won't stop the need for oil. Why is that you scream from the hilltops about democracy and about peoples ability to speak their minds yet you jump all over me for doing just that. I have never said that people, whether it Coderre or any other anti-pipeline person, not be able to say their peace. I have however stated that these same people need to be cognizant of all the factors involved and should realize consequences for the choices they make. I also want to know why you feel an argument should be one sided? Why am I not allowed to criticize what anti-pipeline people would say? Is that not my right? Or is it a matter of convenient rights for you? You mean the 99% that goes to the US? Is that a problem for you that we export to them? Do you want to know where BC has its exports going to?

Your point was that he wouldn't change his mind. Obviously one meeting with Trudeau was enough to do that. If he has no power then why the press? Why the attention? Why a meeting with our Prime Minster on this very topic? Really? Does Montreal not reside in Quebec. You don't think that provincial health care, child care, roads or any other jurisdiction within Quebec would end up in Quebec's largest city. I can tell you're stretching the argument now. Lol. The stretching continues. Easy for Elizabeth May to oppose it from the cheap seats. Her 1 seat in the House will never allow her to make tough decisions that involve economy, jobs, or other important topics that encompass Mayors, Premiers, or PMs. She gets to rock the boat from the peanut gallery with zero ramifications. Hardly what I call taking a stand.

That would depend on which biased poll you are looking at: The election was and always is determined once the vote is done in Ontario. So vote whomever you wish....it doesn't matter! LMAO!!! You seriously want to go back to the 50s, 60s, and 70s to compare? That is hilarious. I was sincerely hoping you would show me something from Cretien/Martin days but no...you go to the 50s? So the Liberals of the past are the same as today then...that is your thought? Then I guess we should prepare ourselves for the massive debts of Trudeau Sr. or the sponsorship scandals of Cretien. Since they are all the same...right? It was my understanding that Trudeau Jr was 'different'. Has it also ever occurred to you that the political climate or environmental laws in the 50s, 60s and 70s just may have been the tiniest bit different then they were today. Global warming in the 70s was actually Global cooling. Wow...this 'proof' that you provided is probably one of the worst arguments I have ever seen on this forum. But hey...keep trying. So far, two major pipelines under Trudeau's short time have gone to the wayside. The first was Keystone XL which largely had to do with Obama but at the same time, Trudeau just grinned and accepted it. The other was Northern Gateway which was single handedly squashed by him. Even if Energy East goes through, it will only be due to the pushing of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick governments with the help of Quebec City. Trudeau is on the sidelines waiting for everyone to tell him what to do. He will not nor should not be credited as championing this pipeline when he has done nothing but cheerlead from the sidelines.

There were a number of polls floating around that had support for Northern Gateway at 50% with support increasing if conditions were met. I did see one showing large opposition from Dogwood which had obvious bias. Having said this, would you still be ok with democracy if 51% of BC supported the line and it went through? As for your Liberals build pipeline claim....citation request.

Argus...that is the very point I have made numerous times in this thread alone.

I could go on to continue to talk about oil and oil related money that this country continues to benefit from. I could also make the point that anyone not wanting oil could also step aside when that oil money is disperse. However, that point is now belaboured. However I would like to expand on the notion that you brought up....'democratic system'. Energy East certainly has democratic support. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec City, the residents of Montreal. So by democratic ways, shouldn't Coderre express his opinion and accept the democratic process?

I would call it an educational awakening. There are a lot of people in the real world (and on this forum) that feel they are holier than thou because they aren't in Alberta mining that 'toxic sludge' yet the very benefits they receive in federal funding have a huge oil stamp all over them. This is about hypocrisy. The fact that the conversation is being brought up while oil is low is because emotions are high due to the low oil prices AND because the timing of the recent events involving pipelines. Trudeau steps into office and basically squashes Northern Gateway with one push of the button. Then the only other pipeline option is put over the coals by Coderre. I trust these would have raised similar concerns if oil was high but I certainly think the timing of low oil has added flames to the fire.