Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Green Party - potential influence

  1. #1

    Default Green Party - potential influence

    So if the Green Party does well federally, how will it affect Alberta’s future?

  2. #2

    Default

    Not sure worth the energy (no pun intended) to discuss their plan. It is developed based on the assumptions they won’t get in the position of power.

    their plan for Alberta, implicitly based on their energy policy, is to close the province.


    https://www.greenparty.ca/en/platform/climate-emergency#green-climate-action-plan

  3. #3
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,727
    Animals are my passion.

  4. #4
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    11,545

    Default

    The Green Party seats might be needed for a coalition in the case of a minority government.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  5. #5

    Default

    Which won't help the Conservatives since the Greens have said they won't support pipelines and the NDP have rules out supporting a Tory minority altogether.

    Since a Conservative majority is pretty much impossible according to the latest polls, ironically, the best bet for Alberta is a Liberal majority.

  6. #6

    Default

    not really. If either Conservatives or Liberals form a minority, i can see the other leading stepping down. I am pretty sure Liberals and Conservatives would work together to get TMX going. Harper led two minority governments and was able to work with other parties.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trick91 View Post
    I am pretty sure Liberals and Conservatives would work together to get TMX going.
    I think you are correct.

    I think the seats the Liberals lose on the left will mostly be to the Green party, actually (I wouldn't be shocked to see them do better than NDP this election). The Liberals will also lose some seats to the Bloc in Quebec.

    Liberals will lose only a few seats to the Conservatives because Andrew Scheer just isn't able to inspire fence-sitters to vote for him.

  8. #8

    Default

    Scheer is basically a limpwristed harper clone that somehow is less likable and less personality than Harper, which Im surprised is even possible
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  9. #9

    Default

    He's like Charlie McCarthy sitting on Harper's knee, moving his mouth while Stevie Sweatervest is the one speaking.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  10. #10
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snail View Post
    Not sure worth the energy (no pun intended) to discuss their plan. It is developed based on the assumptions they won’t get in the position of power.

    their plan for Alberta, implicitly based on their energy policy, is to close the province.


    https://www.greenparty.ca/en/platform/climate-emergency#green-climate-action-plan
    Pretty much.

    From the Green platform:
    No new pipelines, or coal, oil or gas drilling or mining, including offshore wells, will be approved. Existing oil and gas operations will continue on a declining basis, with bitumen production phased out between 2030 and 2035. Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) operations will be banned outright due to impacts on groundwater quality, methane release and seismic activity.
    Apart from pipelines and other infrastructure that crosses provincial/international borders, somebody needs to tell May that the federal government has no role in the approvals process for all of the other oil and gas activities listed above. Thank goodness this is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

  11. #11
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,727

    Default

    I see Libbies dropped in the 905 area, because of the blackface? or because JT is a *****?

    It's a minority government, and I cant see JT working well with anyone that demands what he doesn't like, back to an election PDQ!
    Animals are my passion.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Snail View Post
    Not sure worth the energy (no pun intended) to discuss their plan. It is developed based on the assumptions they won’t get in the position of power.

    their plan for Alberta, implicitly based on their energy policy, is to close the province.


    https://www.greenparty.ca/en/platform/climate-emergency#green-climate-action-plan
    Pretty much.

    From the Green platform:
    No new pipelines, or coal, oil or gas drilling or mining, including offshore wells, will be approved. Existing oil and gas operations will continue on a declining basis, with bitumen production phased out between 2030 and 2035. Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) operations will be banned outright due to impacts on groundwater quality, methane release and seismic activity.
    Apart from pipelines and other infrastructure that crosses provincial/international borders, somebody needs to tell May that the federal government has no role in the approvals process for all of the other oil and gas activities listed above. Thank goodness this is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
    It's not as simple as that. While the constitution does grant provinces the right to create legislation regarding development of their natural resources, this does not remove the right of the federal government to enact their own legislation regarding the protection of areas of national interest. In addition, the federal government is responsible for waterways, fisheries, migratory birds, and other areas of the environment that natural resource extraction can impact. As such, prevention of pollution is explicitly (but not exclusively) a federal responsibility. Finally, natural resource extraction cannot violate the rights of first nations people to consultation and mitigation regarding use of their lands.

    TL; DR: Alberta does not have the right to burn up the rest of Canada.
    Last edited by OffWhyte; 27-09-2019 at 01:26 PM. Reason: Added "but not exclusively"

  13. #13
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,077

    Default

    I did not say provincial jurisdiction is unlimited when it intersects with the rights of other parties. But provincial jurisdiction is exclusive when it comes to natural resources development as per Section 92A of the 1982 Constitution Act:
    92A. (1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to

    (a) exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province;


    (b) development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom; and


    (c) development, conservation and management of sites and facilities in the province for the generation and production of electrical energy.
    https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/...ge-4.html#h-19

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    I did not say provincial jurisdiction is unlimited when it intersects with the rights of other parties. But provincial jurisdiction is exclusive when it comes to natural resources development as per Section 92A of the 1982 Constitution Act:
    92A. (1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to

    (a) exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province;


    (b) development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom; and


    (c) development, conservation and management of sites and facilities in the province for the generation and production of electrical energy.
    https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/...ge-4.html#h-19
    Again, it's not that simple: the so-called "watertight compartments approach" to the application of exclusivity in constitutional matters has for decades been rejected by the courts in favour of a more cooperative approach (source).

    This cooperative approach is recognized because there are many matters that the Constitution assigns "exclusively" to the provinces but which in practical terms are interconnected with matters granted "exclusively" to the feds (and vice versa). This interconnectedness is particularly germane to natural resource extraction because Section 91 of the Constitution grants the federal government "exclusive" jurisdiction over waterways and fisheries that could be impacted. Moreover, the federal government has the jurisdiction to regulate the emission of toxic substances (source) which includes carbon dioxide (source).

    In broad terms, the environment has long been recognized as a matter that intersects many different areas of both federal and provincial responsibility. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1992 (source) and 1997 (source) and then reaffirmed as recently as this year when the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal deemed the federal carbon tax constitutional (source). It is clear then that regardless of the "exclusivity" granted to the provinces in Section 92 that the Federal Government can also enact laws that function concurrently and which affect natural resource extraction.

    So can the feds pass a law that says explicitly no new oil and gas development? Probably not without linking said development to other areas. However, if climate change were deemed a matter of national concern, then the federal government could enact legislation that would trigger a federal environmental assessment for future oil and gas projects inasmuch as the contribution of those projects to national greenhouse gas emissions.

  15. #15

    Default

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gre...form-1.5302236

    Very sorry to see the state of Green Party.

  16. #16
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,727

    Default

    A robot tax? WTH?
    Animals are my passion.

  17. #17

    Default

    It's not a new idea.

    https://qz.com/911968/bill-gates-the...uld-pay-taxes/

    But what does Bill Gates know about money & how to run a successful business?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    It's not a new idea.

    https://qz.com/911968/bill-gates-the...uld-pay-taxes/

    But what does Bill Gates know about money & how to run a successful business?
    No, it is not. But it is misguided.

    Let's not hide behind a big name, like Bill Gates, and really think through what this robot tax represents and how it can be implemented.

    First of all, read the Gates' interview. What he is saying is terrifying. He says because people are scared of losing their jobs, let's slow down the rate of innovation by taxing it. This will give people more time to get used to the new technology. However; if we have a problem it is in fact the opposite. The western economies, and Canada in particular, is facing an stagnant productivity growth. There has not been much innovation to speak of. This notion that robots are killing jobs have been repeatedly debunked. In the words of Peter Thiel, we were promised flying cars but got 140 characters instead. Just pick up a book or a futuristic movie from 60's and see their utopian/dystopian visions of the new millennia. "The American Challenge", a widely popular book published in 1967, first in France, and then translated widely, by Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber warned of an impending takeover of the Europe by the US due to the astounding rate of innovation growth. It didn't pan out like that, but fun to read it in hindsight:



    In 30 years America will be a post-industrial society with a per capita income of $7,500. There will be only four work days a week of seven hours per day. The year will be comprised of 39 work weeks and 13 weeks of vacation. With weekends and holidays this makes 147 work days a year and 218 free days. All this within a single generation
    Second, again look at Gates' idea. His solution is the robot tax is used to train people for elderly care and school teaching. Really? That's it? That's all the jobs left for humans to do? But how many of these nursing and teaching jobs we need and how many people in fact are interested in those jobs. This is a very pessimist view of future.

    Third, practically speaking this proposal is challenged from all fronts. What is a robot? Those sci-fi humanoids in our imagination don't exist. Is the Roomba vacuum in your house a robot? Did you pay a tax already (sales tax) to buy it, or should you be taxed for not instead hiring a maid? The coffee machine in your home? Is the self-check out at Wal-Mart a robot? Is the touch-screen from which you can now order your McDonald's in the store a robot? Is the app from which you order a takeout a robot? Is the excel spreadsheet or the calendar of you e-mail that allows you to book meetings robots? Where is the line?

    This is one rebuttal of the Gate's interview (also from 2017, like Gate's interview), but again, let's think things through ourselves. Of course, respecting the words of business leaders like Gates is part of the process. But le't not stop just there.

    https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...ake-it-pay-tax

  19. #19

    Default

    There will be only four work days a week of seven hours per day. The year will be comprised of 39 work weeks and 13 weeks of vacation. With weekends and holidays this makes 147 work days a year and 218 free days.
    That's literally my brother-in-law's work schedule in 2019, as an engineer in Sweden, except he works 8 hour days, 4 days a week.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •