Accountability Now Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 So then shouldn't Canadians in different parts of Canada be able to decide the projects on their merits, and to reject them outright if they please? 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) 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 haven't heard such talk from Montreal, the object of hate from most on this issue. BC has asked that question, along with several other clearly laid out questions. I guess the question should be why do these Canadians benefit from oil if they don't want anything to do with it? Canadians are a varied group with varying opinions on oil and projects surrounding it. As a country is always made up of people with differing and conflicting opinions, and always has been, the question is nonsensical. Edited February 21, 2016 by Smallc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) So then shouldn't Canadians in different parts of Canada be able to decide the projects on their meritsExcept the ' deciding on the merits' are depends on terms of reference used to determine the merits. The opponents of pipelines insist on manipulating the terms of reference to only include direct local economic benefits while they insist including abstract notions like global warming as part of the harms. It is self serving and hypocritical stance. Edited February 21, 2016 by TimG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) I haven't heard such talk from Montreal, the object of hate from most on this issue. BC has asked that question, along with several other clearly laid out questions. 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'? Canadians are a varied group with varying opinions on oil and projects surrounding it. As a country is always made up of people with differing and conflicting opinions, and always has been, the question is nonsensical. I suppose that money is nonsensical too then. Edited February 21, 2016 by Accountability Now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 Seriously? Coderre's whole premise was that the risks outweighed the benefits....key word is benefits. and so in his estimation, I suppose that's reality. Christy Clark is the same. Don't you remember the squabble between Clark and Redford regarding BC getting their 'fair share'? Yes? I suppose that money is nonsensical too then. Money is never the prime consideration for all involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) Except the ' deciding on the merits' are depends on terms of reference used to determine the merits. The opponents of pipelines insist on manipulating the terms of reference to only include direct local economic benefits while they insist including abstract notions like global warming as part of the harms. It is self serving and hypocritical stance. Local politicians care little about the federal purse. They do care about local environmental consequences, which have generally been the primary concern for such people. Global Warming is no more abstract than theoretical economic benefit. I'm in favour of all but one of the pipelines, btw. Edited February 21, 2016 by Smallc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 Money is never the prime consideration for all involved. Yet...if the money is right, all other 'prime' issues magically go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 Yet...if the money is right, all other 'prime' issues magically go away. That is true of some people, and not true of others. I can understand you're confusion though if that's how you believe things actually are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 That is true of some people, and not true of others. I can understand you're confusion though if that's how you believe things actually are. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 Very few people raise and stick to issues regardless of money. I would say that when it comes to the environment and climate change, that is much less true than it was in the past. and 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. I'm sure neither of us has taken a poll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 I'm sure neither of us has taken a poll. No...but I have examples for two of the major projects we are talking about. Energy East Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre announced the city's official opposition to proposed Energy East pipeline project Thursday, saying the potential risks outweigh its possible economic benefits to communities including his. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-mayor-denis-coderre-energy-east-opposition-1.3413117 Northern Gateway B.C. Premier Christy Clark is again signalling that her government could make things difficult for the proposed Northern Gateway oilsands pipeline if its demands for a greater share of the project's economic benefits aren't met.http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/10/02/christy-clark-northern-gateway-pipeline-deal-maytag_n_1933150.html 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 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. Seems like you're not paying attention to the thread. The whining du jour is that federal money is being spent outside of Alberta. I'm pointing out that any money related to having the worlds longest coast line is, by definition, not being spent in Alberta and this will skew the numbers. 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? Again, the whining du jour is that federal money taxed from people in Alberta is being spent outside. I'm pointing out that Alberta is being subsidized. Pay attention. 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? It's neither a blessing nor a curse. It's a fact. I recently read a statistic that says that people requiring end of life care account for about of one third of the health care budget despite the fact that they represent only a tiny portion of the population. 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. Ralph Klein? You mean the legendary Alberta premier who was so out of touch with living conditions in his province that when, in a drunken stupor, he berated and belittled homeless people, it never occurred to him that some of these guys might be working full time but still couldn't afford a place to live? That Ralph Klein? Did you vote for this fine, upstanding human being? Seems like it would be a badge of honor to be fired by him!! And I see you prefer to throw mud at Jim Roy rather than address his claims. I assume that's because you're unable to dispute his claims that Alberta collects a lower percentage of oil profits than almost anywhere else on the face of the earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 No...but I have examples for two of the major projects we are talking about. Energy East what the benefits are is not well defined. We don't know that he's asking for money. Northern Gateway As I've already acknowledged as much, I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Some people are convinced by money. Others, not so much. 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. They're right - they built the part that they needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 Seems like you're not paying attention to the thread. The whining du jour is that federal money is being spent outside of Alberta. I'm pointing out that any money related to having the worlds longest coast line is, by definition, not being spent in Alberta and this will skew the numbers. 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. I'm pointing out that Alberta is being subsidized. Pay attention. 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. It's neither a blessing nor a curse. It's a fact. I recently read a statistic that says that people requiring end of life care account for about of one third of the health care budget despite the fact that they represent only a tiny portion of the population. And where are your citations to prove your points. Most notably that Alberta sends all of its seniors to BC in particular. Ralph Klein? 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? And I see you prefer to throw mud at Jim Roy rather than address his claims. I assume that's because you're unable to dispute his claims that Alberta collects a lower percentage of oil profits than almost anywhere else on the face of the earth. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 what the benefits are is not well defined. We don't know that he's asking for money. Lol.... and what type of benefits do you think he wants? As I've already acknowledged as much, I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Some people are convinced by money. Others, not so much. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 Lol.... and what type of benefits do you think he wants? He didn't say that he could be convinced to change his mind, actually. He is also not representative of the opinions of all people. 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. I used the same example. You took two examples, one very inconclusive, and extrapolated that to everyone you disagree with. Not everything is about money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 Isn't this really about some kind of p!ssing match between Albertans who want the ROC to thank them for making all that money from high oil prices while the ROC is now going through the schadenfreude moment of low oil prices? Let's hope for a compromise: oil at $65 and a carbon tax of 15 cents. P!ss on both your houses.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 It's another example of the old adage, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 He didn't say that he could be convinced to change his mind, actually. He is also not representative of the opinions of all people. 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. I used the same example. You took two examples, one very inconclusive, and extrapolated that to everyone you disagree with. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 Isn't this really about some kind of p!ssing match between Albertans who want the ROC to thank them for making all that money from high oil prices while the ROC is now going through the schadenfreude moment of low oil prices? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 Awwww. Poor poor poor pipeline proponents! Not getting their way in a democratic system when more than money stakeholders need to be considered! I mean, how dare other people have opinions when they should just roll over because, CASH! It's this type of attitude that makes me want to go out and buy a Tesla. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 Awwww. Poor poor poor pipeline proponents! Not getting their way in a democratic system when more than money stakeholders need to be considered! I mean, how dare other people have opinions when they should just roll over because, CASH! It's this type of attitude that makes me want to go out and buy a Tesla. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 Coderre will either come around or will lose an election. Democracy! Energy East will happen because even guys like me who hate Northern Gateway think it makes sense. The thing is this: pipelines get built under Liberal governments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) 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'? You're missing the point. He's only considering direct benefits, as in jobs for Montreal area workers on the pipeline while ignoring the money they all receive in the form of federal payments and transfers resulting from oil production. He wants all that money coming in, naturally, but wants to hold his nose in the air and pretend that no aspect of oil production should endanger the cleanliness of his region (ignoring how filthy he's making the St. Lawrence, of course). It's similar to Quebec sternly rejecting fracking as bad for the environment, then eagerly holding out their hands for money which ultimately is produced by western fracking. Edited February 21, 2016 by Argus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 Money is never the prime consideration for all involved. No, votes are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts