Accountability Now

I guess you missed the article titled Denis Coderre Suggests He Could Change Mind On Energy East After Meeting With Trudeau You are correct. He is not representative of the opinions of all people. The Quebec City mayor came out in favour of the pipeline and more pointedly a recent survey in Montreal showed overwhelming support for this pipeline and for Alberta oil. Again....Coderre is grandstanding in order to gain whatever benefits he can. Its what politicians do but it does get a little cumbersome when one part of the country squawks all the time especially when they are a net recipient of federal funds. Where have you used the 'same' example to prove your point? That point being money is not the main factor in the end? I have provided two solid examples involving two major projects where our politicians have outright said there just isn't enough money involved to make it worthwhile. I have yet to see you provide an example of a politician turning down these projects solely on factors not related to money.

Lol.... and what type of benefits do you think he wants? I'm just proving my point. You said we don't know this because we don't have a poll, however I have examples of the prominent leaders saying as much. You only have your opinion.

No...as per usual, its you who doesn't have a clue about the conversation. The disparity in money spent provincially is through CHT, CST and Equalization. NONE of these expenditures include defence which is a FEDERAL concern. As such BC nor the Maritimes have these costs reflected in their provincial expenditures. There are no numbers skewed on this at all. You have yet to show one rational point as to how Alberta is subsidized. You have only contradicted yourself from previous threads showing that your thoughts are just the latest whining du jour. Me on the other hand, I have provided factual numbers from a paper outlining and showing that Alberta subsidizes Canada to same tune as Ontario and is per capita, the largest contributor to Confederation BY FAR. So either step up and show some facts or keep your unsubstantiated opinions to yourself. And where are your citations to prove your points. Most notably that Alberta sends all of its seniors to BC in particular. Yup....King Ralph. The guy was never rehired by Stelmach, Redford nor Prentice. Oh...and was he contacted by your gal Notley to do this recent royalty review? NOPE. He must really be an expert on royalties....hey? I don't need to....every other person that has done a royalty review has gone in the other direction of Roy including your NDP review.

No...but I have examples for two of the major projects we are talking about. Energy East Northern Gateway I could also talk about Keystone and the 'lack of benefits for the US but I figure we are talking about Canada so stick there.

Very few people raise and stick to issues regardless of money. Many of the issues I've seen involving oil especially in Canada with other provinces and First Nations all starts with the environment and end with money. If you think this isn't the way it is then I am certain you are the one who is confused.

Yet...if the money is right, all other 'prime' issues magically go away.

Seriously? Coderre's whole premise was that the risks outweighed the benefits....key word is benefits. Christy Clark is the same. Don't you remember the squabble between Clark and Redford regarding BC getting their 'fair share'? I suppose that money is nonsensical too then.

Sure...but then there should the talk surrounding most if not all of these projects is 'what's in it for me', the whole while ignoring the above added revenues that do help all of Canada. I guess the question should be why do these Canadians benefit from oil if they don't want anything to do with it?

What? Are you actually thinking of what you are asking or do you just feel the need to respond quickly? Again...the point is that Alberta contributes a large portion of money for ALL of Canada. Therefore pipelines and other oil ventures shouldn't be seen just as an ALBERTA project.

I'm not even talking about equalization. Alberta's contribution to equalization is actually minimal as every province contributes to it. Look at Figure 11 in the paper linked here: https://business.ualberta.ca/Centres/~/media/business/Centres/WCER/Documents/Publications/155ElectronicApril2final.pdf In total Alberta contributes about 15-20 billion in net revenue to the federal government AND equalization is about 15B in total these numbers are coincidental.

What's your point here? Costs for defence is a federal cost an not borne by those who actually border the water. In fact, the money spent on such navy bases helps bring in local revenue that otherwise wouldn't be there. How much is offset by the fact that that person is no longer competing for employment in Nova Scotia? Or the fact that the larger than average salaries these people make are usually sent back to Nova Scotia for family or retirement? WHAAAAAT? You literally JUST told me in the Western Alienation Thread that having retirees come to BC is importing money. Remember? So which is it? Are these retirees a blessing or a curse. Or its it whatever meme suits your bashing du jour? Nah....if you want some numbers to look at, I suggest you view the amount of federal revenue raised within Alberta compared to that spent in Alberta. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25504-energy-east-causing-uproar/page-15#entry1136860 Alberta contributes nearly as much on the NET level to federal money as Ontario does even though we are a third of the population. Is that because Albertans are something special and work three times harder.....NO. Its because a lot of money from oil is hitting the federal coffers...a lot of money that is used for all other provinces. Jim Roy was fired by the provincial government under Ralph Klein and has has a chip on his shoulder ever since. His name comes up every election as this so called expert even though he was fired. Forgive me if I don't take him seriously.

You're missing the point: Certainly Alberta benefits from this oil but so does the ROC. However most don't acknowledge this fact.

Ya...try and spew some of that same anti-government hatred over there like you do here and see where you get.

You want a different rag? Go live in China, Syria or Nigeria. Perhaps then you wouldn't be so ungrateful for the fact you're even allowed to say the asinine things you are saying in this country

Don't forget about Trudeau's famous interview where he states all the good leaders come from Quebec and how Canada belongs to Quebec. This is why I never understood why there was so much emphasis on him being a 'Western' leader. With roots like that he clearly had an east-west thing going.

Please show me how many fish were killed on a similar pipeline in BC. If by fanatic you mean normal...then yes. I think its fairly clear that your conspiracy theory, anti-government approach is unique and quite frankly a little over dramatic. You keep talking about crapping or getting off the pot....how about you take your own advice? I never said it should be changed at all. I said you can't just go and change one part. Perhaps you don't comprehend the all or none argument? In regards to your saying, I would gladly stay on the pot...the pot is just fine the way it is and doesn't need to be changed which is why Trudeau Sr sticking his nose in our pot was a piss off to Albertans. I pointed out your misguided and insincere approach as a reminder of who was in fact being dis-ingenuous. C'mon...throw in Toronto, Washington, Russia and Australia too....every other government while you're at it...because they are all on some sort of 'constitutional rag'. LOL We have lots of oil here, so not worried about freezing here but thanks for your kind words. Well...crap or get off the pot and get your separation going. Having said that, I trust once you do separate you will complain about your new government. Victims always do.

I agree. We are a minimal contributor and should have minimal influence.

I think it's important to stay involved but not to fantasize or obsess about our level of involvement and how that reflects on us. The reality is we've been a non-permanent seat holder 12 of 70 years. In that time our 'influence' is one of 10 other non-permanent seat holders and 5 permanents. Our interest should be minimal at best.

Some recent news on the Energy East topic, in particular to Quebec itself, is a recent poll that came from Montreal: http://www.torontosun.com/2016/02/15/montreal-prefers-pipelines-and-western-oil-poll-shows The poll is only 1,000 people so I'm not sure that qualifies as resounding support but if the numbers are true then 59% would be a no brainer on this project. Apparently this poll also suggests what many have already noted, that pipelines are the safest way to transport oil:

And a few from BC too.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia

How much influence do you think Canada has or should have. We have been at the table for 12 of the 70 years this has been running and in those 12 years we are one of 10 other non-permanent countries sharing the scraps of what the five permanent votes let us have. I don't have a problem with contributing to the UN or even making a bid but don't over-glorify the situation.

True...but again the discussion is about influence withing the UN. Not that it really matters either way.

I'd love to see your numbers that show this as so far I have shown you what the percentages in relation to GDP that suggest otherwise. Again, each country is suppose to do its share and Canada like other smaller countries has a smaller share and therefore should have smaller influence. Nato and the Iraq war are not the UN which is where you expressed your 'influence' argument. In fact Iraq was anti-UN which really must have sucked since the US spends so much money on the UN and then to not have their backing. Again, you can argue about total influence which is different that influence within the UN and at this point any major decision can be overruled by veto. According to the following website, vetoed motions have occurred 236 times in the history of the UN. Of those times Russia/USSR was 103 (44%) where as the US has done it 79 times (33%)....yet Russia pays way less. http://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick

Not when you take the GDP into consideration, which the UN certainly does. Of course, you seem to be shying away from the simple fact that all permanent members have a VETO even though Russia only contributes marginally more than Canada. What happened to your 'money' equals 'influence' mantra? So for all those dollars that the US pours in, it just takes one VETO from Russia....then what?

That is certainly a feel good answer and one that I would agree with, however the OP stated that there were sides. Eyeball has recently agreed with the OP so I wanted to see which side he thinks OP is on. Again...for the record....I agree with your answer.