Canadian political thread

[TheGnome]

My riding is one in which the Greens have a decent chance, and we've successfully elected Greens here provincially (but never federally). So I'm hoping for a Green victory (which is admittedly a long shot), or failing that a Liberal status quo. But if the Conservatives win here because of vote splitting, I'm going to feel really stupid.

She Did It I have now voted for the first Green MLA to be elected in New Brunswick (David Coon) and the first Green MP to be elected in New Brunswick (Jenica Atwin) :bigdumbgrin:

I was worried for a while early in the evening, as results were coming in and the vote was a 3-way-split between the Liberal, the Conservative and the Green, with the Conservative ahead by a few hundred votes... exactly what I was afraid of, and what appears to have been the final case in a few ridings. But we wound up with a decisive victory for the Greens here in Fredericton.

I seriously considered voting Liberal, for fear of splitting the vote and letting the conservatives win; it would certainly have been ironic if I had. But my thinking was that the main reason I voted Liberal last election was because they promised electoral reform and an end to FPTP, and their failure to do this was the only reason I had to think about voting for them again. So I decided to vote my conscience and support the Greens... and it worked!

 

[TheGnome]

So even though Alberta's economy has been in decline in the last few years, they are still relatively strong, they are still classified as a 'have' province, and if they had tax rates in line with the rest of the country, they would still have budget surplus.

And if they hadn't elected Ralph Klein for decades, they'd still have a multibillion dollar Heritage Trust Fund. Or, they could have managed their oil revenues like Norway did (with less oil, over the same time period), and effectively made every citizen of Alberta a millionaire.

I believe in Equalization, but elections have consequences, and if a province consistently mismanages their economy, there should be some consequences.

 

[Beef Supreme]

You guys act like these jobs are going away in 5-10. They aren't. It is delusional to think they are.

The hysteria we're getting from Alberta makes it sound like they believe as though their jobs are going to disappear in a cloud of eco-friendly fairy dust tomorrow.

The reality is that even if Albertans suddenly became sensible and agreeable, we're still a generation or two away from complete non-reliance on the sands.

 

[arcite]

Alberta has always gone from feast to famine. Spend like drunken sailors when oil prices are high..... bust when oil prices crash. They desperately need to diversify their economy.

 

[Mad Doggie]

And if they hadn't elected Ralph Klein for decades, they'd still have a multibillion dollar Heritage Trust Fund.

To be fair, they still do - around $18.2b. It should have been much higher.

 

[TheGnome]

And if they hadn't elected Ralph Klein for decades, they'd still have a multibillion dollar Heritage Trust Fund.

To be fair, they still do - around $18.2b. It should have been much higher.

Huh... I haven't checked it in a while; I'll bet Notley's responsible for it's growth.

 

[arcite]

Fun fact; Pierre Trudeau won a minority gov on his second go. He then went on to win another majority. History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme!

 

[Mad Doggie]

Huh... I haven't checked it in a while; I'll bet Notley's responsible for it's growth.

My cursory reading suggests that no natural resource revenue has been contributed to the HSTF since 1987.

If that's true, there's a lot more blame to go around than your simple assumption would indicate.

 

[Megalodon]

Should we maybe throw some money out that way to the education systems in AB and SK, and offer some cross-training funding for fossil fuel workers to help them ease a transition to a more sustainable industry?

Based on all the rants I've seen online, money is not the thing they are lacking to make that transition or to fund their education systems. It's a choice they make. Over and over.

I agree; they want to keep getting $130k/yr working the rigs. I don't blame them, but that's the (little-c) conservative way. They don't feel that they should ever have to change.

It's even worse than that, people* with the inclination to change can see there's no long term prospects in Alberta so we leave, thus relieving the popular pressure to do something else. Other industries occasionally start getting a toehold in the province but cyclical oil booms wipe those out hence there's not much else to fall back on in the bad years. Of my group of friends from university 15 years ago half have gone to Ontario/Quebec, a quarter are in the US, with only about a quarter still left in Alberta. The electorate is a self-selecting sample of people disinclined to take the long view.

* me included

 

[wco81]

The newsfeed comment threads are a wasteland of wexit threats, anti-QC sentiments, and other typical trash from both sides. There's a lot of sour grapes on the right though, and no calls for unity. The wexit thing is just funny though. BC would never agree to separation even if the idea got that far down the pipeline (ha!), and they seem to think that joining the USA would be as easy as a kid going to go live with dad.

Should we maybe throw some money out that way to the education systems in AB and SK, and offer some cross-training funding for fossil fuel workers to help them ease a transition to a more sustainable industry?

I don't know how to deal with this kind of sentiment, but it seems to me it's one of the most important questions of our day. Some part of Trump's support and now the problem of Western alienation is caused by people feeling like their lifestyles are threatened, and the people in power are not helping, or in many cases actively working against them.

As with coal miners in the US, oil patch (and more immediately, oil sands) jobs are going to go away, and should be encouraged to go away as quickly as possible. While objectively speaking that's a good thing, how do you convince the people to accept that? Even if they're not great jobs (pretty horrible in the case of coal miners), people still don't want to give them up. The conversations with politicians who sincerely want to help goes something like:

Politician: These (coal/oil) jobs are going away and nobody can stop that. How else can we help you? Education? Relocation assistance?
Miner: I want my old job back.

Even if the industry is only a small part of a region's economy (oil is a big part of Alberta, but not as much in Saskatchewan, and coal mining already barely exists in the US), the entire region rallies around the issue and rejects any attempt at progress. And it's going to be really hard to get anything done (particularly on environmental issues) if 1/3 of the country is actively fighting against you.

So how do we address this?

For the coal miners, they made pretty good money with just a high school education. Unpleasant work but it was the easy option for people born in areas without other options.

The ambitious ones would go away to university elsewhere and the rest went for the highest-paying, low-skilled work.

THey've been offering retraining programs in West Virginia and other areas for years but the former miners simply don't want to learn to do anything else, because it would take studying and learning. The ones who were academically capable left the mining towns the first chance they got so the remaining ones only want to mine.

I think that's more about being lazy than being conservative.

I don't know if the same kind of thing is happening with oil workers in Canada but wouldn't be surprised if that's the case.


How much of the tar sands oil is used for domestic consumption vs. export?

What is the state of RE in Canada? Solar may not be a great option but what about wind?

What are the prospects for importing RE from the US?

 

[wco81]

Fun fact; Pierre Trudeau won a minority gov on his second go. He then went on to win another majority. History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme!

So what is the main reason the Liberals lost the majority? Because of the brown face scandal?

Or there is no one reason?

 

[Beef Supreme]

Fun fact; Pierre Trudeau won a minority gov on his second go. He then went on to win another majority. History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme!

So what is the main reason the Liberals lost the majority? Because of the brown face scandal?

Or there is no one reason?

A series of scandals and general embarrassments, really.
- A trip to India was a blunder since he was seen dressed up and dancing awkwardly.
- A vacation to Aga Khan's private island in the Bahamas.
- SNC-Lavalin ethics scandal and him booting two female MPs out over it, one of whom was elected as an independent last night.
- Brownface
- A couple specious #metoo accusations.
- Speaking somewhat warmly of Castro on his death.
- "the budget will balance itself"
- A handful of verbal blunders and stuttering
- A few more I am probably missing

There's the rubes who have spent too much time on 8chan and claim that he's Castro's son.

Despite all this, Scheer and his party snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[Ajar]

Québec also turned back toward the Bloc, as the Bloc aligned themselves with the nationalist provincial party and the provincial ban on religious clothing in public work.

This unsurprisingly resulted in a significant loss of support for the party whose leader has brown skin and wears a turban, but the federal Liberals also criticized the ban.

 

[Ben_H]

Should we maybe throw some money out that way to the education systems in AB and SK, and offer some cross-training funding for fossil fuel workers to help them ease a transition to a more sustainable industry?

Based on all the rants I've seen online, money is not the thing they are lacking to make that transition or to fund their education systems. It's a choice they make. Over and over.

I agree; they want to keep getting $130k/yr working the rigs. I don't blame them, but that's the (little-c) conservative way. They don't feel that they should ever have to change.

It's even worse than that, people* with the inclination to change can see there's no long term prospects in Alberta so we leave, thus relieving the popular pressure to do something else. Other industries occasionally start getting a toehold in the province but cyclical oil booms wipe those out hence there's not much else to fall back on in the bad years. Of my group of friends from university 15 years ago half have gone to Ontario/Quebec, a quarter are in the US, with only about a quarter still left in Alberta. The electorate is a self-selecting sample of people disinclined to take the long view.

* me included

It's pretty much the same in Saskatchewan. The government here is trying to incentivize people to stay with post-college tax credits, and investments in infrastructure to help out our tech scene (which, to be fair, is starting to grow), but many people, especially those with STEM backgrounds, are leaving within a year of graduating post-secondary. Whenever oil or potash prices are low, the government does a bit to try and diversify our economy, but the second oil and potash go up in price the government drops the ball and just goes all-in on resources again. Like Alberta, the Saskatchewan government continues to bungle managing our economy. We had something like 5-6 years straight of consecutive high oil and potash prices but the government either gave up tax revenue in hopes of attracting big companies (which initially worked, but the second prices went down they all cut and ran), or blew through what revenue they gained while not saving anything for a rainy day. Within months of the oil and potash prices dropping in 2014 and 2015 our government was already marching out austerity measures. They completely cut our transit system relied upon by many in small towns, and tried to heavily cut our library systems before having to walk it back after fierce backlash.

But they get away with this shit because like 50-60% of people here don't pay any attention or think at all critically about what the government is doing, so when election time rolls around we just see the same old "NDP BAD SASK PARTY GOOD" garbage and they win another comfortable majority. It's been like this for over a decade now and shows no sign of stopping. They're still way ahead in the polls even after a high profile scandal, the previously mentioned cuts, and signs that our economy and housing market are becoming shaky.

I'm finishing off university right now and as a result I've been thinking very hard about what I want to do. Most people I know who already graduated have either moved east or to BC, and I'm becoming increasingly inclined to do the same despite previously wanting to stay.

 

[arcite]

Fun fact; Pierre Trudeau won a minority gov on his second go. He then went on to win another majority. History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme!

So what is the main reason the Liberals lost the majority? Because of the brown face scandal?

Or there is no one reason?

A series of scandals and general embarrassments, really.
- A trip to India was a blunder since he was seen dressed up and dancing awkwardly.
- A vacation to Aga Khan's private island in the Bahamas.
- SNC-Lavalin ethics scandal and him booting two female MPs out over it, one of whom was elected as an independent last night.
- Brownface
- A couple specious #metoo accusations.
- Speaking somewhat warmly of Castro on his death.
- "the budget will balance itself"
- A handful of verbal blunders and stuttering
- A few more I am probably missing

There's the rubes who have spent too much time on 8chan and claim that he's Castro's son.

Despite all this, Scheer and his party snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

I'd say the SNC-Lavalin scandal was the biggest earthquake.

The Liberals lucked out with strong showing in Ontario (Doug Ford Effect), pretty good economy, legal weed....and well....Trudeau is still likable.

 

[Arbelac]

Should we maybe throw some money out that way to the education systems in AB and SK, and offer some cross-training funding for fossil fuel workers to help them ease a transition to a more sustainable industry?

Based on all the rants I've seen online, money is not the thing they are lacking to make that transition or to fund their education systems. It's a choice they make. Over and over.

I agree; they want to keep getting $130k/yr working the rigs. I don't blame them, but that's the (little-c) conservative way. They don't feel that they should ever have to change.

It's even worse than that, people* with the inclination to change can see there's no long term prospects in Alberta so we leave, thus relieving the popular pressure to do something else. Other industries occasionally start getting a toehold in the province but cyclical oil booms wipe those out hence there's not much else to fall back on in the bad years. Of my group of friends from university 15 years ago half have gone to Ontario/Quebec, a quarter are in the US, with only about a quarter still left in Alberta. The electorate is a self-selecting sample of people disinclined to take the long view.

* me included

It's pretty much the same in Saskatchewan. The government here is trying to incentivize people to stay with post-college tax credits, and investments in infrastructure to help out our tech scene (which, to be fair, is starting to grow), but many people, especially those with STEM backgrounds, are leaving within a year of graduating post-secondary. Whenever oil or potash prices are low, the government does a bit to try and diversify our economy, but the second oil and potash go up in price the government drops the ball and just goes all-in on resources again. Like Alberta, the Saskatchewan government continues to bungle managing our economy. We had something like 5-6 years straight of consecutive high oil and potash prices but the government either gave up tax revenue in hopes of attracting big companies (which initially worked, but the second prices went down they all cut and ran), or blew through what revenue they gained while not saving anything for a rainy day. Within months of the oil and potash prices dropping in 2014 and 2015 our government was already marching out austerity measures. They completely cut our transit system relied upon by many in small towns, and tried to heavily cut our library systems before having to walk it back after fierce backlash.

But they get away with this shit because like 50-60% of people here don't pay any attention or think at all critically about what the government is doing, so when election time rolls around we just see the same old "NDP BAD SASK PARTY GOOD" garbage and they win another comfortable majority. It's been like this for over a decade now and shows no sign of stopping. They're still way ahead in the polls even after a high profile scandal, the previously mentioned cuts, and signs that our economy and housing market are becoming shaky.

I'm finishing off university right now and as a result I've been thinking very hard about what I want to do. Most people I know who already graduated have either moved east or to BC, and I'm becoming increasingly inclined to do the same despite previously wanting to stay.

The AB/SK government does the same thing that most of the oil patch workers do: Get those high salaries and live it up, thinking it'll never end, and then boom :surprised pikachu:

I know a few smart folks who hit the oil field in the last boom; they went in specifically with a plan, socked away money, and then came back to BC (or other places) and bought a house outright. Those folks will tell you stories about most of the workers there, basically with nary a thought for the future, blowing money on big trucks, huge houses, and drugs.

The latter are the ones that are the CAN equivalent to the USA coal miners, with the same response to shifting training. The ones with even a glimpse of a plan for the future are already finding new work and taking those retraining opportunities.

 

[TheGnome]

So what is the main reason the Liberals lost the majority? Because of the brown face scandal?
Or there is no one reason?

A series of scandals and general embarrassments, really.
- A trip to India was a blunder since he was seen dressed up and dancing awkwardly.
- A vacation to Aga Khan's private island in the Bahamas.
- SNC-Lavalin ethics scandal and him booting two female MPs out over it, one of whom was elected as an independent last night.
- Brownface
- A couple specious #metoo accusations.
- Speaking somewhat warmly of Castro on his death.
- "the budget will balance itself"
- A handful of verbal blunders and stuttering
- A few more I am probably missing

There were certainly a few of us who supported the Liberals because they promised an end to FPTP in the last election; so their failure to implement some type of electoral reform, or even pay lip service to an effort to explore that possibility likely lost them a few votes (it certainly lost them mine). The legalization of marijuana hasn't been particularly divisive, but it hasn't yet started generating a lot of tax revenue and there are lots of people complaining about how it's been handled (although this is largely a provincial issue). But I suspect the single strongest hit Trudeau took in this campaign was the incessant bitching about "the carbon tax." But since the Conservative so completely failed to offer anything even resembling an alternative, I think they really undermined their attack on that front.

Despite all this, Scheer and his party snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Yep, and with the progressive vote being split four ways between the Liberals, the NDP, the Bloc, and the Greens. I can't imagine an electoral opportunity better for the Conservatives.

There was some discussion during the election coverage on CBC last night around why the Conservatives are unable to grow their base. No one wanted to say it outright, but the implication was that the Conservatives have cultivated the anti-intellectual vote and anything they did to try to attract the "smarty pants" voters outside of the prairies was going to erode their base, so they're in a catch-22. I'd like to believe this is true, and that by improving education and critical thinking among our citizens, we can inoculate them against regressive politics, but given phenomena like Jason Kenny and Doug Ford, I'm not so confident.

 

[Ben_H]

Should we maybe throw some money out that way to the education systems in AB and SK, and offer some cross-training funding for fossil fuel workers to help them ease a transition to a more sustainable industry?

Based on all the rants I've seen online, money is not the thing they are lacking to make that transition or to fund their education systems. It's a choice they make. Over and over.

I agree; they want to keep getting $130k/yr working the rigs. I don't blame them, but that's the (little-c) conservative way. They don't feel that they should ever have to change.

It's even worse than that, people* with the inclination to change can see there's no long term prospects in Alberta so we leave, thus relieving the popular pressure to do something else. Other industries occasionally start getting a toehold in the province but cyclical oil booms wipe those out hence there's not much else to fall back on in the bad years. Of my group of friends from university 15 years ago half have gone to Ontario/Quebec, a quarter are in the US, with only about a quarter still left in Alberta. The electorate is a self-selecting sample of people disinclined to take the long view.

* me included

It's pretty much the same in Saskatchewan. The government here is trying to incentivize people to stay with post-college tax credits, and investments in infrastructure to help out our tech scene (which, to be fair, is starting to grow), but many people, especially those with STEM backgrounds, are leaving within a year of graduating post-secondary. Whenever oil or potash prices are low, the government does a bit to try and diversify our economy, but the second oil and potash go up in price the government drops the ball and just goes all-in on resources again. Like Alberta, the Saskatchewan government continues to bungle managing our economy. We had something like 5-6 years straight of consecutive high oil and potash prices but the government either gave up tax revenue in hopes of attracting big companies (which initially worked, but the second prices went down they all cut and ran), or blew through what revenue they gained while not saving anything for a rainy day. Within months of the oil and potash prices dropping in 2014 and 2015 our government was already marching out austerity measures. They completely cut our transit system relied upon by many in small towns, and tried to heavily cut our library systems before having to walk it back after fierce backlash.

But they get away with this shit because like 50-60% of people here don't pay any attention or think at all critically about what the government is doing, so when election time rolls around we just see the same old "NDP BAD SASK PARTY GOOD" garbage and they win another comfortable majority. It's been like this for over a decade now and shows no sign of stopping. They're still way ahead in the polls even after a high profile scandal, the previously mentioned cuts, and signs that our economy and housing market are becoming shaky.

I'm finishing off university right now and as a result I've been thinking very hard about what I want to do. Most people I know who already graduated have either moved east or to BC, and I'm becoming increasingly inclined to do the same despite previously wanting to stay.

The AB/SK government does the same thing that most of the oil patch workers do: Get those high salaries and live it up, thinking it'll never end, and then boom :surprised pikachu:

I know a few smart folks who hit the oil field in the last boom; they went in specifically with a plan, socked away money, and then came back to BC (or other places) and bought a house outright. Those folks will tell you stories about most of the workers there, basically with nary a thought for the future, blowing money on big trucks, huge houses, and drugs.

The latter are the ones that are the CAN equivalent to the USA coal miners, with the same response to shifting training. The ones with even a glimpse of a plan for the future are already finding new work and taking those retraining opportunities.

Yes. My cousin, who is a ticketed welder, did the smart thing. He went to Fort Mac, worked there for a couple years and saved up a boatload of cash while staying as far away from the drugs as possible. He then moved home, bought a house outright with his girlfriend, worked a bit locally and then started a welding/mechanical repair business that's been sustainable. But for every person I knew who did what my cousin did, I knew 4-5 that just blew all their money as fast as they could earn it, and ended up in a bunch of debt when oil tanked in price and they lost work. They spent heavily beyond their means and took out massive loans, and now they are paying for their recklessness. Literally. I graduated high school just before the peak of the boom and a huge chunk of men from my class went to the oil patch directly with no plans past that. Those who stayed and went into post-secondary education (trades or university) now seem to be doing much better overall.

 

[Megalodon]

Yes. My cousin, who is a ticketed welder, did the smart thing. He went to Fort Mac, worked there for a couple years and saved up a boatload of cash while staying as far away from the drugs as possible. He then moved home, bought a house outright with his girlfriend, worked a bit locally and then started a welding/mechanical repair business that's been sustainable. But for every person I knew who did what my cousin did, I knew 4-5 that just blew all their money as fast as they could earn it, and ended up in a bunch of debt when oil tanked in price and they lost work. They spent heavily beyond their means and took out massive loans, and now they are paying for their recklessness. Literally. I graduated high school just before the peak of the boom and a huge chunk of men from my class went to the oil patch directly with no plans past that. Those who stayed and went into post-secondary education (trades or university) now seem to be doing much better overall.

My experience was that after I got out of university I bounced around between a few bottom feeding contracting companies but the reality is there's very little tech work in Calgary. There's a handful of smallish companies but if you get laid off your list of options is very, very short, and with oil being such a boom-bust industry the possibility of layoffs is a strong one on 5 year timescales.

Nenshi keeps making noises about attracting tech companies and I wish him the best but so far I haven't seen anything substantial.

Starting in Alberta with a tech background your prospects are better in all the compass directions other than north.

 

[Mhorydyn]

The AB/SK government does the same thing that most of the oil patch workers do: Get those high salaries and live it up, thinking it'll never end, and then boom :surprised pikachu:

I know a few smart folks who hit the oil field in the last boom; they went in specifically with a plan, socked away money, and then came back to BC (or other places) and bought a house outright. Those folks will tell you stories about most of the workers there, basically with nary a thought for the future, blowing money on big trucks, huge houses, and drugs.

Dang, you beat me to it. I’ve been meaning to comment on how much Alberta in general is similar to many rig workers. As you said, huge incomes and working like crazy, but most of it ends up blown on toys and up their nose. Then when oil naturally dips again for a bit they rage at anything and everything without taking on the slightest bit of responsibility for their situation.

 

[Arbelac]

The AB/SK government does the same thing that most of the oil patch workers do: Get those high salaries and live it up, thinking it'll never end, and then boom :surprised pikachu:

I know a few smart folks who hit the oil field in the last boom; they went in specifically with a plan, socked away money, and then came back to BC (or other places) and bought a house outright. Those folks will tell you stories about most of the workers there, basically with nary a thought for the future, blowing money on big trucks, huge houses, and drugs.

Dang, you beat me to it. I’ve been meaning to comment on how much Alberta in general is similar to many rig workers. As you said, huge incomes and working like crazy, but most of it ends up blown on toys and up their nose. Then when oil naturally dips again for a bit they rage at anything and everything without taking on the slightest bit of responsibility for their situation.

Yup. Husky just laid off ~500 folks and the alberta subreddit is full of people blaming the re-elected Liberals and Trudeau specifically for it. Anyone with an ounce of sense (and there are a couple in the Husky thread) saw it coming months ago.

It's instant gratification and failure to plan for tomorrow, with a heaping dose of blame the other, all rolled up in one.

 

[Mad Doggie]

Then when oil naturally dips again for a bit they rage at anything and everything without taking on the slightest bit of responsibility for their situation.

That may be somewhat true for people directly in the industry, but the Tories swept almost all of the ridings, even those with little to no petroleum. The bigger issue I think the Liberals face is that it's not just oil workers, it's everyone who indirectly depends on them for revenue. My sister-in-law as well as my sister (and their families) live in Calgary and southern Alberta. None are in the petroleum industry but all are indirectly paid by it (my sister and bother-in-law are both physicians and professors of medicine in Calgary). If we're going to suggest that oil has natural blips (which it does) and one should just expect economic crisis every 20 years or so, what incentive is there for non-oil workers (you know, the folks Alberta needs to diversify their economy) to come there, or stay there?

A few years back the Tories (I believe Harper himself) were rightly roasted over the coals for talking about the culture of defeatism in the Maritimes. There was much outrage, but the reality is that most places east of Montreal (and certainly Quebec City) are economic basket cases that are aging quickly and the best and brightest GTFO. We don't want that for that part of the country, and we shouldn't want that for Alberta and Saskatchewan. Unfortunately, I don't think any party is talking about a meaningful plan to move Canada away from being modern day hewers of wood and drawers of water. Yes, there's tech in Vancouver and around Toronto but it's relatively limited (and the pay is abysmal).

So before we pile on Albertans of all political stripes as dumb Earth-killing rednecks I'd be curious about what is a reasonable plan towards a sustainable, successful economy for that part of the country when their natural resources are gone, that doesn't involve a mad dash somewhere else. Considering we've had a half century to do it for the Maritimes with nothing in sight, I'm not optimistic.

 

[SLee]

How much of the tar sands oil is used for domestic consumption vs. export?

Alberta oil production is about twice total Canadian demand. The lack of pipelines to potential markets outside of the US makes it unable to make as much as money as it could.

What is the state of RE in Canada? Solar may not be a great option but what about wind?

Alberta is supposedly the windiest Province in Canada but it also tends to die when demand is highest, cold winter snaps. Ontario's earlier push into solar and wind, resulting in increased costs for electricity was responsible in part for the annihilation of the Ontario Liberal Party in the 2018 election. Much of the supposed homegrown industry has also disappeared, with two wind factories shutdown in 2017 and 2019.

What are the prospects for importing RE from the US?

Canada is in the business of exporting energy to the US (oil and NG from the West, electricity from the East).

 

[RisingTide]

Huh... I haven't checked it in a while; I'll bet Notley's responsible for it's growth.

My cursory reading suggests that no natural resource revenue has been contributed to the HSTF since 1987.

If that's true, there's a lot more blame to go around than your simple assumption would indicate.

Your cursory reading is essentially correct. From 1983-1987 the contribution rate was essentially halved, and since 1987, successive provincial governments have essentially been using resource royalties to fund general expenditures and avoid raising taxes instead of contributing to the fund. In hindsight, it's a colossal fuckup.

 

[SLee]

I'm not incredibly well versed on the equalization payment issues other than they haven't received one since the 60's, even despite their recession in the last few years. Is that because even when they're in recession, the economy is so strong that they're a "have" province"? I know it's so typically "liberal" to suggest, but is this something that we can just throw money at to make the problem go away? Yeah, they'll bitch and moan about their favour being bought, but they'll take it without a second thought.

$10B/year should be enough, to cover the current Government of Alberta deficit as well as investments and spending into priorities. And even with that, Albertans would still only get about 78c back from the Feds for each dollar collected, still less than the next richest provinces of Ontario/BC (at about 85c).

 

[SLee]

So even though Alberta's economy has been in decline in the last few years, they are still relatively strong, they are still classified as a 'have' province, and if they had tax rates in line with the rest of the country, they would still have budget surplus.

And if they hadn't elected Ralph Klein for decades, they'd still have a multibillion dollar Heritage Trust Fund. Or, they could have managed their oil revenues like Norway did (with less oil, over the same time period), and effectively made every citizen of Alberta a millionaire.

When Klein retired, his string of budget surpluses had led to net financial assets of more than $30B for the Province. And the spin-off of Alberta oil and gas generated huge surpluses for the Federal Government (from large household income taxes), they could have saved it over the last several decades to have sovereign wealth fund to rival Norway.

I believe in Equalization, but elections have consequences, and if a province consistently mismanages their economy, there should be some consequences.

Are you talking about Quebec, the Maritime Provinces and Manitoba? Perennial losers who've come to depend on Equalization to prop up their provincial budgets?

 

[Ben_H]

what incentive is there for non-oil workers (you know, the folks Alberta needs to diversify their economy) to come there, or stay there?

It's a catch-22 situation of sorts in that in order to stabilize the economy of the province instead of it being boom-bust, they need these non-oil folks to come and help diversify the economy, but many of these people won't do so until the economy of Alberta is more stable.

The issue with this entire thing as I see it is that there are a lot of people in the prairies that recognize what is broken in our provinces, but they continually get drowned out by people yelling about their resource jobs and grifty politicians like Jason Kenney that pander to these people. It was clear in 2015 in Alberta when Notley's NDP won, it seemed like people had finally started to see the problem with Alberta's heavy reliance on oil, and it seemed for brief while like Alberta might have actually started to diversify their economy and move away from being purely focused on oil. Unfortunately, with the rise of the UCP and Jason Kenney, things deteriorated quickly. From the outside looking in, it was quite clear that Kenney had no actual plan on how to fix Alberta's economy. He had no actual plan on how to bring back oil either (he gave the companies a multi-billion dollar tax cut and it's so far netted job losses, with the latest being Husky cutting hundreds today). Instead he pinned all of the blame of the failings of Prentice's PCs on Notley's NDP and exploited the frustration of a bunch of people down on their luck to win office by being incredibly divisive.

That divisiveness has spread to Saskatchewan and was clearly present in both provinces during this election. Now that the cat's out of the bag, I'm not sure how or if it will ever go back in. Politics here is absolutely toxic in a way it wasn't even 4 years ago. Our premier in Saskatchewan, Scott Moe, put out a response to Trudeau's re-election and it genuinely concerned me. The Sask Party was always an old-style conservative party, and his messaging was not how it usually is. His statement was divisive and much more along the lines of something from the UCP.

And yes, you are correct. It's not fair to paint all prairie folks as backwoods rednecks that don't care about climate change. Prior to this election, only about half of Saskatchewan voters voted for the Conservatives, and that number was boosted by rural voters. The rest did not. The cities tend to have a progressive side, the Conservatives previously only got about 30-40% of the city vote, and the cities often elected NDP or Liberal candidates (see Ralph Goodale, etc.). Unfortunately, the toxic rhetoric is starting to get into the cities too, and people are falling for it since it's easier to believe than something that requires more critical thinking.

 

[Dave_K]

Some interesting numbers:

• There are 65 federal ridings in Canada with at least 2,500 people per square kilometre. The Conservative Party didn't win a single one.
• There are 123 ridings in this country with between 150 and 2,500 people per square kilometre, from Etobicoke North to Durham. The Liberals won 64 of them, the Conservatives 41.
• And there are 150 ridings in this country with fewer than 150 people per square kilometre (symmetry!). The Conservatives won 82 seats, the Liberals 40.

There's a fair argument to be made that there's more of a rural/urban divide than an East/West one. Functionally, we have a split between people who live in or adjacent to large urban centres that long since stopped being heavily reliant on resource industries and those who live in areas that are entirely resource dependent - whether that be oil, livestock, or other resources. It keeps getting clearer and clearer that each side expects - and arguably needs - different things and government needs to adapt to that.

Also, politicians need to stop screaming about the CHMC Mortgage Stress test. Keeping people from putting money they don't have into a home they don't need and can't pay for when interest rates move in the slightest is not a negative to anyone but Real Estate agents whining about not being able to grab their cut of the money and run before everything explodes.

 

[goates]

Even if the industry is only a small part of a region's economy (oil is a big part of Alberta, but not as much in Saskatchewan, and coal mining already barely exists in the US), the entire region rallies around the issue and rejects any attempt at progress. And it's going to be really hard to get anything done (particularly on environmental issues) if 1/3 of the country is actively fighting against you.

So how do we address this?

Find a way to very directly and obviously bring jobs to the province and undercut Kenney and supporters. It would would probably take a lot of money and, yes, many will resist at first. But if someone can actually put people to work and not just talk about corporate tax cuts and trickle down economics or nebulous green jobs, they might just start to break the cycle. One issue I don't think many people outside Alberta entirely get is how labour intensive oil and gas has been, both in the field and in Calgary. Hearing people say we can simply put them all to work building windmills doesn't really help. Yes, there are wind farms here, but you don't need that many people to build them, and even fewer to operate. It will take at least a few different alternatives to provide enough jobs, and I haven't really heard of any good plans to get there.

Probably not realistic, or cheap, but if we want to help hit our climate goals and cut emissions, why not fund a few nuclear reactors to completely replace the coal and natural gas power plants? Could also help with the oil sands, especially the SAGD side, grow the petrochemical industry, and keep the coal miners facing the loss of their jobs working. Pie in the sky, but it will probably take something drastic like this to make a real difference.

Edit: And to pay for the above idea maybe a deal could be cut with Quebec, and/or others, whereby Alberta stops pushing for an oil pipeline across their province in exchange for them giving up a portion of their equalization payments. Those funds could then be put into kick-starting something new in Alberta and Saskatchewan while drastically cutting down CO2 emissions.

 

[arcite]

I feel this argument is very similar to the DEM/GOP (or MAGA party) divide in the US....best not complicate it too much, Liberals and Dems lose when voter turnout is depressed...and the voter turnout in Canada was most certainly depressed....and add in the resurgent Bloc, a third party that exists for no other reason than as a political middle finger, you get liberal minority....but frankly, we’re luckily we didn’t end up with a conservative minority instead.


Since Canada is so hopelessly influenced by the US, I’m sure the US election in 2020 will have a huge impact. If there is a progressive wave and a DEM takes power there, those good vibes will trickle up to Canada, it’s inevitable.

Add up LIBERAL/NDP/Greens and you get well over 50% of canadian voters who voted progressive. If the Liberals can play ball with the NDP we should be ok, for a few years.

 

[Megalodon]

And yes, you are correct. It's not fair to paint all prairie folks as backwoods rednecks that don't care about climate change.

It's not entirely true but it's a fair approximation. I've been very disappointed to see how many of my friends back in Alberta have been sucked into the oil propaganda. This is amplified by people capable of longer term thinking leaving.

 

[Dave_K]

Liberals and Dems lose when voter turnout is depressed...and the voter turnout in Canada was most certainly depressed...

Not really. Between last election - the highest turnout election in roughly 2 decades at 68.5% - and this one we gained ~1.5M registered voters and only lost 2% on turnout (~66%). We were around 60% or lower for most of the oughts. You'd have to go back to the 80's to get significantly above where we're at now.

 

[Megalodon]

Galaxy brain take from Alberta facebook, the election results are colonialism.

 

[arcite]

Galaxy brain take from Alberta facebook, the election results are colonialism.

I learned a new word, wexit. I guess this is what we'll hear for the next few years.

 

[wco81]

Was listening to a podcast by an American trying to make sense of the elections.

He noted that while Trudeau was giving his speech once it was determined he would remain PM, Scheer was also speaking, which may have been a breech of etiquette by one of them.

Scheer was talking triumphantly about how Canadians selected them as the govt. in waiting or something like that.

Is that how it works, the showing in this election means they will automatically win in the next one?

 

[Dave_K]

Is that how it works, the showing in this election means they will automatically win in the next one?

Nope.

 

[arcite]

Is that how it works, the showing in this election means they will automatically win in the next one?

The short answer, its complicated. No one wants another election any time soon, even the previous Conservative PM had a minority government, and it lasted beyond 2 years.

 

[DuRaNdAl^]

Right now, I think only the Conservatives would want to go back into an election soon.

The Liberals probably would prefer not to go back, but could probably afford it. If they would win, however, is another story.

The NDP and Greens probably don't have the money to get back into it right now. The NDP would probably lose support if they force another election.

The Bloc only campaigns in Québec, so they are probably ok for now. They probably don't want to go in another election soon, because they finally have a bunch of seats and they don't want to take the chance to lose any of them.

Also, I don't know the pulse of the entire country, but I wouldn't be surprised that the population itself doesn't want another election anytime soon.

But then again, the population's will count for how much in all of this?

 

[TheGnome]

As much as minority governments are typically fragile and short-lived, I think the Liberals can manage this fairly well if they don't make major mistakes. The Bloc, the NDP and the Greens are all more progressive than the Liberals, so the Liberals should be able to get support for any of their more progressive bills from these parties, and to hell with what the Conservatives think; for progressive issues, the Liberals can govern like they have a majority. As for issues like pipelines, the Liberals can look for support from the Conservatives - I can't imagine the Conservatives voting against the pipelines they want so desperately - and to hell with what the Greens, the NDP and the Bloc think. So again, the Liberals can govern like they have a majority on issues where they can get support from the Conservatives. The only constraint for the Liberals will be surrounding issues where they don't overlap significantly with the progressive parties or the Conservatives, and I can't even think of one of these issues right now. But they probably exist, and the Liberals will have to just leave those on the back burner until they can regain a majority.

This could actually be a very effective government.

So the big question is wether Justin can keep out of trouble; no more stupid costumes, interfering with investigations, being creepy with young women, etc.

 

[arcite]

Trudeau needs to go scandal-free for at least six months. :high: :facepalm: