The UCP Alberta Government - Threatens to Turn off Oil Taps

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

The constitutional and legal experts are waiting for Ontario.  Citing that the only way the Supreme Court will hear them is if there is unquestionable doubt as to the majority ruling.  Meaning if Alberta and Ontario both find against the carbon tax; that there is reasonable doubt.  But if one or both find it constitutional than there is no need or reason for it to go to the Supreme Court.

 

Will have to see what happens.  What it does mean is that Moe in Saskatchewan is going to watch billions leave his province every year for federal coffers.  Not sure how well that will sit with the people

I think there's little chance it gets through Ontario. Alberta is probably a different story. 

[Warhippy]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I think there's little chance it gets through Ontario. Alberta is probably a different story. 

At this point all the experts that already said it would be unlikely to be struck down as unconstitutional are being proven right.  While it was only a 3-2 ruling it still stands.  Manitoba has said they will challenge, Ontario is and well...Kenney will Kenney

 

Their biggest hope is Scheer will win the election outright and strike it down.  But; he won't strike it down.  Governments don't give away cash cows.  If they did smoking would have been outright outlawed years ago

[RUPERTKBD]

2 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Saskatchewan courts just ruled that the carbon tax IS in fact constitutional and within the realms of the federal government in the exact same way the GST was.  As it is in fact a national issue it is within the realms of the federal government and their constitutional jurisdiction to impose this tax.

 

Well.  Let's see what Ford and Kenney do now

Moe has said he'll appeal to the Supreme Court.....

 

...I imagine Larry and Curly will do likewise....

[JM_]

34 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

At this point all the experts that already said it would be unlikely to be struck down as unconstitutional are being proven right.  While it was only a 3-2 ruling it still stands.  Manitoba has said they will challenge, Ontario is and well...Kenney will Kenney

 

Their biggest hope is Scheer will win the election outright and strike it down.  But; he won't strike it down.  Governments don't give away cash cows.  If they did smoking would have been outright outlawed years ago

I haven't had a look at the actual ruling yet, I'd be curious to know the reasoning behind the dissent. 

 

Sounds like BC saved Trudeau's butt tho:

 

 

He's the bit where BC's AG saved the day. If BC hadn't intervened with the idea in para 139 I think the feds would have lost. I think Justin owes Horgan a coke. 

 

 

[10] Saskatchewan submits, by way of an alternative line of argument, that the Act is unconstitutional because it is concerned with property and civil rights and other matters of a purely local nature falling within exclusive provincial legislative authority. The Attorney General of Canada [Canada] responds by seeking to uphold the Act as a valid exercise of Parliament’s jurisdiction under the national concern branch of its “Peace, Order, and good Government” [POGG] power. The national concern branch of POGG applies to matters of national consequence that have a singleness, distinctiveness and indivisibility clearly distinguishing them from matters coming within provincial jurisdiction and, as well, a scale of impact on provincial jurisdiction that is compatible with the basic division of powers between Parliament and the legislatures under the Constitution. Canada contends it should be recognized, under the national concern branch, as having jurisdiction over “the cumulative dimensions of GHG emissions”. This approach must be rejected because it would allow Parliament to intrude so deeply into areas of provincial authority that the balance of federalism would be upset. Further, it would hamper and limit provincial efforts to deal with GHG emissions.

 

[11] However, Parliament does have authority over a narrower POGG subject matter – the establishment of minimum national standards of price stringency for GHG emissions. This jurisdiction has the singleness, distinctiveness and indivisibility required by the law. It also has a limited impact on the balance of federalism and leaves provinces broad scope to legislate in the GHG area. The Act is constitutionally valid because its essential character falls within the scope of this POGG authority.

 

[139] But, this does not end the inquiry. There is an alternative way to characterize the subject matter said to come under the national concern branch. As the Attorney General of British Columbia [British Columbia] suggests, it can also be seen as being in the nature of “the establishment of minimum national standards of price stringency for GHG emissions”. “Stringency” in this context must be taken to embrace not just the charge per unit of GHG emission but also the scope or breadth of application of the charge in the sense of the sorts of fuels, operations and activities to which the charge applies. It must also include the authority to put in place such regulatory regimes as are necessary to operationalize a minimum pricing program and to make those regimes workable and appropriate in the economic and business environments where they apply. On that understanding of things, there is a good deal to recommend this approach.

 

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by Jimmy McGill

[canuckistani]

29 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Does it though?  Ford is absolutely bleeding support in Ontario.  Quebec is loving True Dough.  Ontario, Quebec and BC and True Dough owns a slim majority.  Factor in the simple matter that Scheer is possibly less of a leader than even Singh and....

Sure and they may not win anyways (i hope not at least). But the whole ' we are being screwed over by ottawa, so we need to get in ottawa to fix ottawa' is gonna strengthen their hand IMO. 

[Ryan Strome]

3 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Show me where I've praised him.

 

I'll wait while you find a way to never manage too

Lol almost daily you do.

3 hours ago, Warhippy said:

It takes 3 years of have not or nil status to recieve transfer payments.

 

If you put as much time in to researching this fact as you do making statements of idiocy you'd know that.

 

For someone so passionate about Alberta you're really lazy and Ill educated on defending it.

 

But then...when you want to emulate a leader like Kenney, intelligence, facts and effort aren't key components

This is hilarious. You know jack about Alberta, politics or economics. How many times have you been corrected in this thread alone? You were apologizing earlier because you were wrong even though you said you weren't. I will give you credit you admitted it this time, usually you disappear for a bit.

3 hours ago, canuckistani said:

strengthens their hand in the national elections IMO. 

Way to simplistic. Different provinces have different arguments. Btw taking away rights from provinces has never been popular in Canada. I know you would prefer power centralized to Ottawa but most Canadians don't support that. @Jimmy McGill did suggest to me maybe JT should run on battling the provinces I mean what does he have left? I agree with Jimmy the more I think about it. Latest polls had cpc at 40 and Liberals at 27. JT has a lower approval than Trump.

2 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Does it though?  Ford is absolutely bleeding support in Ontario.  Quebec is loving True Dough.  Ontario, Quebec and BC and True Dough owns a slim majority.  Factor in the simple matter that Scheer is possibly less of a leader than even Singh and....

Bleeding support? Isn't his approval rating above 50%?

Not sure what you mean by love? The exact opposite of Trudeau won a land slide provincially and Scheer and the cpc are leading in Ontario and leading in the vote rich 905.

 

The Maritimes have thrown out 2 liberal governments and BC will likely be a 3 way split.

 

If Cpc can make gains in Quebec and I think they will this has the chance of being really bad. The latest snc scandal will hurt Jt more. Whats more stranges is a 13 point lead according to latest polls and yet still a weak polling ndp do we see the Greens come close to official party status?

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said:

 

Way to simplistic. Different provinces have different arguments. Btw taking away rights from provinces has never been popular in Canada. I know you would prefer power centralized to Ottawa but most Canadians don't support that. @Jimmy McGill did suggest to me maybe JT should run on battling the provinces I mean what does he have left? I agree with Jimmy the more I think about it. Latest polls had cpc at 40 and Liberals at 27. JT has a lower approval than Trump.

its his only card left. I'm not Ford or Kenney (i.e., stand-in's for "Harper").

 

But tbh I've already come to terms with JT being a one and done, I really think thats inevitable now. I'd bet good $ that Scheer wins a minority. For me personally that will be better for my family's pocketbook but i do have real concerns that it will encourage more far-right antics and i worry for marginalized people. But it is what it is, those folks are probably turned off  Trudeau and will vote Green or NDP and split the left. 

 

My hope now is that the Lib's aren't completely decimated and a new leader like Freeland can take over quickly. 

Edited May 4, 2019 by Jimmy McGill

[kingofsurrey]

33 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

i

My hope now is that the Lib's aren't completely decimated and a new leader like Freeland can take over quickly. 

Never count out the Liberals.

 

Canada is not an intolerant country so the Liberals will always be the more often preferred federal party in Canada

 

Many Canadians whine about JT but will plug their nose and vote Liberal over fears of the damage Scheer could do to our wonderful country.

 

Edited May 4, 2019 by kingofsurrey

[JM_]

41 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Never count out the Liberals.

 

Canada is not an intolerant country so the Liberals will always be the more often preferred federal party in Canada

 

Many Canadians whine about JT but will plug their nose and vote Liberal over fears of the damage Scheer could do to our wonderful country.

 

it seems to me we live in a time where people like to be angry, and you rarely make a good decision when you're angry. But I hope you are correct. 

[kingofsurrey]

6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

it seems to me we live in a time where people like to be angry, and you rarely make a good decision when you're angry. But I hope you are correct. 

Of course a Scheer win might save me a few dollars in taxes.... but i consider myself fortunate to able to live such a great country.

 

I am more than willing to support fellow canadians that maybe have a bit less in life that what i have.....

[JM_]

12 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

Of course a Scheer win might save me a few dollars in taxes.... but i consider myself fortunate to able to live such a great country.

 

I am more than willing to support fellow canadians that maybe have a bit less in life that what i have.....

I live within a few blocks of the safe injection site, and several of the new rapidly built social housing buildings, its made a huge difference in the S.E. False Creek area. That kind of thing would never, ever happen under a con gov't. Thats the kind of thing that they will actively try to block, and thats unacceptable to me. 

[Warhippy]

20 hours ago, canuckistani said:

Sure and they may not win anyways (i hope not at least). But the whole ' we are being screwed over by ottawa, so we need to get in ottawa to fix ottawa' is gonna strengthen their hand IMO. 

This is where I shake my head in wonder.

 

People do realize that much of what they're hating Trudeau the most on that is not carbon tax related is literally legislation that he simply did not reverse that was started by the former Harper government.  Or they don't.  Either way, the idiocy that is the electorate has a short short memory

18 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

1.  Lol almost daily you do.

 

2.  This is hilarious. You know jack about Alberta, politics or economics. How many times have you been corrected in this thread alone? You were apologizing earlier because you were wrong even though you said you weren't. I will give you credit you admitted it this time, usually you disappear for a bit.

 

3.  Way to simplistic. Different provinces have different arguments. Btw taking away rights from provinces has never been popular in Canada. I know you would prefer power centralized to Ottawa but most Canadians don't support that. @Jimmy McGill did suggest to me maybe JT should run on battling the provinces I mean what does he have left? I agree with Jimmy the more I think about it. Latest polls had cpc at 40 and Liberals at 27. JT has a lower approval than Trump.

 

4.  Bleeding support? Isn't his approval rating above 50%?

 

5.  Not sure what you mean by love? The exact opposite of Trudeau won a land slide provincially and Scheer and the cpc are leading in Ontario and leading in the vote rich 905.

 

6.  The Maritimes have thrown out 2 liberal governments and BC will likely be a 3 way split.

 

7. If Cpc can make gains in Quebec and I think they will this has the chance of being really bad. The latest snc scandal will hurt Jt more. Whats more stranges is a 13 point lead according to latest polls and yet still a weak polling ndp do we see the Greens come close to official party status?

1.  Should be really easy for you to find an example of me praising him then no?  Why haven't you?

 

2.  Is it hilarious?  They say small things amuse small minds so maybe you're right and to you it is funny.  But you claim I know nothing about Alberta but I keep educating you on things regarding Albertas political history, equalization payments, Albertas oil and power transfers plus former and current legislative practices that have caused the issues in Alberta as they are  and you keep ignoring them.  You then slink away like a coward and pop up making the exact same argument 2 days later.  At least the Oldness of the off topic section attempts to justify his stance with facts.  I also always own up to when I am wrong.  You sit and mumble crap like "enjoy supporting socialism" then flake

 

3.  You say I would prefer power centralized in Ottawa, I also dare you to find me ever saying that.  Because as I recall I've always been very vocal about ensuring provinces do what they can to keep money out of federal hands.  It's why I supported Alberta committing to their own carbon tax.  Pretty sure you'll find a dozen posts saying Alberta keeps the money to ensure True Dough doesn't get a dime before you find one of me supporting a power shift to Ottawa.  So again.  Prove it

 

4.  His support was much MUCH higher just a few months ago wasn't it?  Just over 64% in fact.  Now there are weekly protests and people are pissed.  Pretty fast turn around I'd say

 

5.  One thing your type somehow never considers is how Provincial parties are not federal parties.  Legault while governing to the right is far closer to Trudeau as a frenchman than he is to Ford or Kenney, as evidenced by his denying Kenney in his post electoral victory of any hope of a pipeline.  especially since Kenney has been threatening the equalization payments that keep Quebec going.  Wanna piss off a frenchman?  tell them what to do then threaten their money.  Kenney has done both and that will not sit well for Scheer at all as Scheer and Kenney are such good buds

 

6.  The maritimes have what?  5 seats?  7?  BC is being threatened by Kenney and thus by extension Scheer.  BCs power base is literally in Vancouver and the island.  Think that the conservatives will actually make grounds in places where PC leaders are threatening the population?  Really?  

 

7.  Again, you don't know much about Quebec if you're making those statements.  Scheer said we'd talk regarding immigration but when Legault asked him to accept Quebecs denying the pipeline he shut up fast.  That says a lot.  He opened his mouth about Quebecs double filing of taxes and his desire to shift it to Ottawa....again a non starter.  If you've ever lived in Quebec you know what that means.

 

So I'll wait for your proof.  I'll chuckle at your opinions and know that deep down, in the end you'll just repeat yourself and claim some sort of superiority while completely utterly refusing to even look in to ANY of the points I just brought up.  You do you son

[Ryan Strome]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

This is where I shake my head in wonder.

 

People do realize that much of what they're hating Trudeau the most on that is not carbon tax related is literally legislation that he simply did not reverse that was started by the former Harper government.  Or they don't.  Either way, the idiocy that is the electorate has a short short memory

1.  Should be really easy for you to find an example of me praising him then no?  Why haven't you?

 

2.  Is it hilarious?  They say small things amuse small minds so maybe you're right and to you it is funny.  But you claim I know nothing about Alberta but I keep educating you on things regarding Albertas political history, equalization payments, Albertas oil and power transfers plus former and current legislative practices that have caused the issues in Alberta as they are  and you keep ignoring them.  You then slink away like a coward and pop up making the exact same argument 2 days later.  At least the Oldness of the off topic section attempts to justify his stance with facts.  I also always own up to when I am wrong.  You sit and mumble crap like "enjoy supporting socialism" then flake

 

3.  You say I would prefer power centralized in Ottawa, I also dare you to find me ever saying that.  Because as I recall I've always been very vocal about ensuring provinces do what they can to keep money out of federal hands.  It's why I supported Alberta committing to their own carbon tax.  Pretty sure you'll find a dozen posts saying Alberta keeps the money to ensure True Dough doesn't get a dime before you find one of me supporting a power shift to Ottawa.  So again.  Prove it

 

4.  His support was much MUCH higher just a few months ago wasn't it?  Just over 64% in fact.  Now there are weekly protests and people are pissed.  Pretty fast turn around I'd say

 

5.  One thing your type somehow never considers is how Provincial parties are not federal parties.  Legault while governing to the right is far closer to Trudeau as a frenchman than he is to Ford or Kenney, as evidenced by his denying Kenney in his post electoral victory of any hope of a pipeline.  especially since Kenney has been threatening the equalization payments that keep Quebec going.  Wanna piss off a frenchman?  tell them what to do then threaten their money.  Kenney has done both and that will not sit well for Scheer at all as Scheer and Kenney are such good buds

 

6.  The maritimes have what?  5 seats?  7?  BC is being threatened by Kenney and thus by extension Scheer.  BCs power base is literally in Vancouver and the island.  Think that the conservatives will actually make grounds in places where PC leaders are threatening the population?  Really?  

 

7.  Again, you don't know much about Quebec if you're making those statements.  Scheer said we'd talk regarding immigration but when Legault asked him to accept Quebecs denying the pipeline he shut up fast.  That says a lot.  He opened his mouth about Quebecs double filing of taxes and his desire to shift it to Ottawa....again a non starter.  If you've ever lived in Quebec you know what that means.

 

So I'll wait for your proof.  I'll chuckle at your opinions and know that deep down, in the end you'll just repeat yourself and claim some sort of superiority while completely utterly refusing to even look in to ANY of the points I just brought up.  You do you son

Wow you fail on so many levels. You haven't educated me on anything Apberta, show me the proof little guy. I was talking to stini about a government centralized to Ottawa he has said over and over again he supports that. So 50% equals bad but 27 % for JT is good lmao

 

You haven't brought up a point, you in this thread has continuously showed how little you know son.

[Warhippy]

1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said:

Wow you fail on so many levels. You haven't educated me on anything Apberta, show me the proof little guy. I was talking to stini about a government centralized to Ottawa he has said over and over again he supports that. So 50% equals bad but 27 % for JT is good lmao

 

You haven't brought up a point, you in this thread has continuously showed how little you know son.

Still waiting for proof

[Ryan Strome]

10 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Still waiting for proof

Proof on how often you're wrong or proof on your love for Jt? Anyone that knows you on cdc know both are true.

[kingofsurrey]

8 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Proof on how often you're wrong or proof on your love for Jt? Anyone that knows you on cdc know both are true.

Too funny coming from the cdc resident climate change denier.  Nice ....

[Ryan Strome]

3 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Tick

Tock

 

Prove it.  You keep making these arsehole statements but don't have the brains or stones to prove it.

 

So.  Still waiting

You're a hypocritical fool. Show the proof where you educated me on Alberta or anything for that matter, little guy.

 

 

[Ryan Strome]

5 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Too funny coming from the cdc resident climate change denier.  Nice ....

Excuse me? Like hippy said, proof?

Newsflash to the twitter followers a pipeline is far better for the environment  than rail. 

[Warhippy]

2 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

You're a hypocritical fool. Show the proof where you educated me on Alberta or anything for that matter, little guy.

 

 

Tick

Tock

[kingofsurrey]

2 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

 

Newsflash to the twitter followers a pipeline is far better for the environment  than rail. 

Newflash to the twitter followers ( climate change deniers ) .... the bitumen is far better for the environment if it left in the earth where it belongs.......

Edited May 5, 2019 by kingofsurrey