Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

"Kwebek" - oh right... it wouldn't be a complete post from you if you didn't drop your lil' gem! You've done this for years, and I'll keep calling you on it. Why do you use that spelling for the province of Quebec?

Phonetics. Wouldn't want anyone on the boards mispronouncing it (I'm helpful that way). This should help you:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/pronunciation/english/quebec

Unfortunately, my keyboard doesn't have a backwards "e".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phonetics. Wouldn't want anyone on the boards mispronouncing it (I'm helpful that way). This should help you:

although MLW doesn't supply an audio presentation of its text and you've never provided phonetic based attachment/description prior (as I'm aware), since you're clearly wanting to be helpful, let me allow you to be as helpful as you profess... I trust you will include this audio link going forward when you use your phonetic based helpful designation for the province of Quebec. Be as helpful as you can be - yes?

I must admit you've given me a new perspective, one I'll need to factor the next time I come across its use, it may not necessarily be intended to denigrate... it could just be helpful phonetic pronunciation being offered within, for example, a screed lambasting Quebec/Quebecers/Quebecois.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I trust you will include this audio link going forward when you use your phonetic based helpful designation for the province of Quebec.

Nope.

Back to the thread....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly, it is better to have resources than not to have resources. Clearly, it is better to use that resource revenue to help diversify the economy rather than give the resources away to multinational corporations in exchange for jobs that can be chopped on little notice when the commodity prices drop (as they inevitably do). Clearly, it would be better if there were some level of control over the rate of exploitation of said resources so that our currency wouldn't get dragged around when the commodity prices change. Clearly, none of this has been happening, thanks to happy-go-lucky politicians in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and an economic fundamentalist in Ottawa.

And clearly, you would prefer to debate some fictional point you wish I had made rather than the points I am actually making.

So you would also favour the government closure of factories in Central Canada, when the economy is more dependent on manufacturing? We would not want those people working to become overly dependent on a job after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect Albertan's will appreciate the action... and ya, based on natural resources and that article, one could easily infer the Fraser Institute sees no basis for so-called 'western alienation'.

.

Its OK, Trudeau was just in Alberta to assure the citizens that they would not get anything more than a few crumbs, most of which were announced when Harper was PM.

Nothing different then. He was careful to pretend not to hear Notleys plea for an endorsement of Energy East, despite him having been in vocal support of it not long ago. After his little chat with Denis Coderre, and digesting the instructions received there, Trudeau Jr is a little more careful what he says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its OK, Trudeau was just in Alberta to assure the citizens that they would not get anything more than a few crumbs, most of which were announced when Harper was PM.

Nothing different then. He was careful to pretend not to hear Notleys plea for an endorsement of Energy East, despite him having been in vocal support of it not long ago. After his little chat with Denis Coderre, and digesting the instructions received there, Trudeau Jr is a little more careful what he says.

if you consider $700 million 'a few crumbs'... just what would you like to see to help Alberta/Albertans in relative immediacy? Do you have a quote/cite for your described vocal support "not to long ago"... it would be interesting to recognize how it might be different for the qualified support being offered "of late" - yes? Reading that Harper period announcement you speak to would be informative too!

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have a quote/cite for your described vocal support "not to long ago"... it would be interesting to recognize how it might be different for the qualified support being offered "of late" - yes?

.

January 22nd, 2016 - seems pretty vocal, yes?:

“I am solidly in one camp on this one,” he said. “I am very much in the camp of both premiers, [Ontario’s Kathleen] Wynne and Notley, who demonstrated that Canada can and should work together on economic issues for all of us.”

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/montreal-area-mayors-energy-east-criticisms-short-sighted-notley-says/article28339330/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

January 22nd, 2016 - seems pretty vocal, yes?:

“I am solidly in one camp on this one,” he said. “I am very much in the camp of both premiers, [Ontario’s Kathleen] Wynne and Notley, who demonstrated that Canada can and should work together on economic issues for all of us.”

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/montreal-area-mayors-energy-east-criticisms-short-sighted-notley-says/article28339330/

you're late to the dance with that quote - it's been played previously in another thread as an indication of overt/outright support... "can and should work together on economic issues for all of us" - that's the outright, unqualified support you're clamoring for? I put forward an official Liberal party support statement and asked for... no challenged for... a quote from PM Trudeau that countered it, particularly in regards attached conditions. This statement:

Liberals believe that Canada needs new infrastructure, including pipelines, to move our energy resources to domestic and global markets. However these projects must earn the trust of local communities, respect Indigenous rights, and cannot put our lands and waters at risk.

The Energy East project is undergoing an environmental assessment, and it would be inappropriate to pre-judge the outcome of the review.

I await you providing such an actual quote.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

although MLW doesn't supply an audio presentation of its text and you've never provided phonetic based attachment/description prior (as I'm aware), since you're clearly wanting to be helpful, let me allow you to be as helpful as you profess... I trust you will include this audio link going forward when you use your phonetic based helpful designation for the province of Quebec. Be as helpful as you can be - yes?

I must admit you've given me a new perspective, one I'll need to factor the next time I come across its use, it may not necessarily be intended to denigrate... it could just be helpful phonetic pronunciation being offered within, for example, a screed lambasting Quebec/Quebecers/Quebecois.

.

The deliberate misspelling of the province's name is often associated with an attitude that, to put it mildly, is negative or even disdainful of that particular province and its inhabitants. Anti-French sentiments are quite deep in some parts of Canada.

But since the moderators seem to let it go, I think we just need to allow the MLW member from El Burda room for creative expression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I await you providing such an actual quote.

.

The quote was provided to you but you are too willfully blind to acknowledge it. This quote in Trudeau's own words - from January 22nd is clearly more supportive than your Liberal party position from the campaign:

This one is optimistic - indeed, Sunny Ways

“I am solidly in one camp on this one,” he said. “I am very much in the camp of both premiers, [Ontario’s Kathleen] Wynne and Notley, who demonstrated that Canada can and should work together on economic issues for all of us.”

This one from the campaign - we don't know - could happen but might not.....no Sunny Ways there....

The Energy East project is undergoing an environmental assessment, and it would be inappropriate to pre-judge the outcome of the review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you would also favour the government closure of factories in Central Canada, when the economy is more dependent on manufacturing? We would not want those people working to become overly dependent on a job after all.

Are you just trolling or do you really not see how specious and superficial that comparison is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you consider $700 million 'a few crumbs'... just what would you like to see to help Alberta/Albertans in relative immediacy? Do you have a quote/cite for your described vocal support "not to long ago"... it would be interesting to recognize how it might be different for the qualified support being offered "of late" - yes? Reading that Harper period announcement you speak to would be informative too!

.

Alberta is spending $35 billion of borrowed money in the next 5 years on infrastructure, which is about 50 times the crumbs tossed to the paasants by Trudeau.

Here is your link, Nov 2015 recent enough? He was ore direct int he past in support of tidewater pipleines, but not so much since he got slapped down by Coderre. Wasn't it you that keeps stressing that Coderre and Co represent 12% of Canadians, many of them Liberal voters? Thanks for making my point, again.

The money announced was also announced last week by Amarjeet Sohi, Trudeaus own Minister. The $250 million comes from an old prohgram, announced about 18 months ago. All in todays Postmedia, look it up if you like.

One of many: http://canadians.org/blog/trudeau-government-backs-energy-east-supports-tar-sands-expansion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

700M is money that Harper budgeted but didn't spend. Alberta will get far more from the Liberal government for infrastructure - probably a bit over $1B per year.

Edited by Smallc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is your link, Nov 2015 recent enough? He was ore direct int he past in support of tidewater pipleines, but not so much since he got slapped down by Coderre. Wasn't it you that keeps stressing that Coderre and Co represent 12% of Canadians, many of them Liberal voters? Thanks for making my point, again.

One of many: http://canadians.org/blog/trudeau-government-backs-energy-east-supports-tar-sands-expansion

no PM Trudeau quote there... all I read is the conditional support Foreign Minister Dion is quoted as saying. And this is overt/unconditional support from PM Trudeau? Oh my!

I will try not to take an easy shot at you in using a so-called anti-Big Oil source like the Council of Canadians... oh snap, what kind of try was that!

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The deliberate misspelling of the province's name is often associated with an attitude that, to put it mildly, is negative or even disdainful of that particular province and its inhabitants. Anti-French sentiments are quite deep in some parts of Canada.

But since the moderators seem to let it go, I think we just need to allow the MLW member from El Burda room for creative expression.

ya, I played along with the ludicrous 'phonetic spiel'... I can't think of any other member who has been so stridently against the province of Quebec, even to the point of brokering related desires toward western/Alberta separation.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quote was provided to you but you are too willfully blind to acknowledge it. This quote in Trudeau's own words - from January 22nd is clearly more supportive than your Liberal party position from the campaign:

no - again, the quote doesn't say what you want it say. "Being in a camp demonstrating working together on economic issues", is your go-to quote? From your same provided link:

Mr. Trudeau said his government is reviewing environmental assessment rules with the aim of boosting the credibility of pipeline reviews. But he sees no inherent conflict between the approval of new projects and environmental protection.

“Canadians believe that a strong economy goes hand in hand with a strong and protected environment, and that’s exactly what we’re committed to,” he said. “I’m feeling very good about our capacity to get our resources to market in a responsible and environmentally sustainable way.”

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ya, I played along with the ludicrous 'phonetic spiel'... I can't think of any other member who has been so stridently against the province of Quebec, even to the point of brokering related desires toward western/Alberta separation.

.

If the Province of El Burda has difficulties getting communities to accept it pumping toxic sludge over their water supplies, it seems a bit of a stretch to imagine the Free State of El Burda having a better time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh my! As if his (brokered Harper Conservative) "Ethical Oil" campaign wasn't enough... the Rebel Commander has spoken:

Cut Them Off - Hate oil and Gas? No transfer payments for you!

make sure to sign the petition and he'll git-er-done! And I'm shocked he's asking for money. :lol:

.

Ugh. What an embarrassment.

I wonder how much money we could raise if we offered to entice Levant to move south. I'm sure Fox News or the Trump campaign could make good use of this guy. :lol:

It worked with David Frum.

Edited by ReeferMadness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your narrative that Canada without resources would be better off is delusional. The strength of Canada comes from the two engine economy with resources on the peripheries and manufacturing in the center. When resources are hot it brings cash into the country and boosts employment during a period when all manufacturing was facing huge competitive threats from China and elsewhere.

...

The bottom line: resources are a key part of Canada's competitive advantage. It is simply ridiculous to say that should throw that advantage away.

I agree, I don't see how private companies not investing in the oil sands would make our economy better. The oil carried us through the recession better than most OECD countries. The several years before the recession our dollar wasn't doing that great either.

There's not much we can do about lost manufacturing. Trying to stop the progress of capitalism and cheaper goods by ie: subsidizing an industry is just going to cost us in the end and make us less competitive globally. Losing those jobs hurts in the short-term but people will find new jobs and hopefully learn new skills. We lost jobs in manufacturing but gained jobs in the energy sector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I came across this cartoon recently and I laughed out loud. It's perfect, not because of its intended message, but because it is the perfect caricature of western alienation.

Do you know why its perfect? Because it illustrates a teeter totter like image which is perfect for what equalization really is. For equalization to occur, there has to be some have provinces and some have nots. What happens if Alberta, Sask and possibly BC become have not provinces (ie if oil continues to suffer). Well then Ontario for sure will become a have and possibly Quebec. The teeter totter will shift and Quebec who is already a net recipient will no longer get any equalization. You can see the reality of the teeter totter in this article:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oil-price-plunge-could-cost-ontario-billions-in-equalization-1.3204437

Poor Alberta and Saskatchewan doing all the work that will benefit everyone but the freeloaders in Ontario and Quebec don't appreciate it. Meanwhile, 6 provinces and 3 territories don't even exist.

Yes...I agree with you. The amount of equalization that Alberta/Saskatchewan tax bases actually contribute to equalization is small. However, going back to the teeter totter example if these provinces shift to have nots then its inevitable that one or both of these provinces become haves, therefore losing out on billions in equalization payments. Not the end of the world for these provinces but still a pretty penny to have when budgeting.

In case anyone doesn't get it, this is the image they have when Alberta is selflessly trying to build a pipeline to pump their toxic sludge across Canada to save this great nation but the ungrateful NIMBY's in Ontario and Quebec are too stupid to get it.

Yes...the image should include Manitoba and New Brunswick who are also going to benefit from the pipeline. Add in Ontario with the equalization payment and that makes five of the 10 provinces. I would say that justifies a 'national' issue.

Alberta separatists and Quebec separatists are mirror images of each other. Both perceive their provinces as under-appreciated, misunderstood, treated badly and better off without the rest of the country. And they're all wrong - tragically so.

I would agree with your assessment on the characteristics of the separatists being the same, however I would certainly say the numbers and the severity of the the two are the same. People in Alberta joke around about the idea and then carry on with their lives never really intending it. The situation in Quebec is quite real and people who are separatists are taken very seriously. The few Alberta separatists has aren't taken serious at all. I guess that could change but even the current situation would require a huge issue to cause people here to take that seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trudeau should have shown some leadership and said we will do what it takes to get energy east going, instead it seems he does not want it. And this election promised to consult , is a game killer. Start building pipelines and ratify TPP. Consulting means we will let you have your say and we will do what we want or a just a excuse to get out of it. No leadership skills what so ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trudeau should have shown some leadership and said we will do what it takes to get energy east going, instead it seems he does not want it.

If he said that, it would suffer the same fate as Northern Gateway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trudeau should have shown some leadership and said we will do what it takes to get energy east going, instead it seems he does not want it. And this election promised to consult , is a game killer. Start building pipelines and ratify TPP. Consulting means we will let you have your say and we will do what we want or a just a excuse to get out of it. No leadership skills what so ever.

Rather than being PM for all of Canada, you would prefer that Trudeau just be PM for market fundamentalists who deny climate change and human contributions to it. Almost none of whom voted for him or ever would vote for him.

Did I get that right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trudeau should have shown some leadership and said we will do what it takes to get energy east going, instead it seems he does not want it. And this election promised to consult , is a game killer. Start building pipelines and ratify TPP. Consulting means we will let you have your say and we will do what we want or a just a excuse to get out of it. No leadership skills what so ever.

He has done two things already to delay and ultimately kill the pipleine, and of course the end game is to eliminate oil from the economy in the enar future. He'll stick with gas for a while because he has friends in BC to appease, although it appears Canada has now missed that opportunity to due to lack of political will/action.

The first was to sandbag the companies by introducing new and utterly vague requirements, which pushes back the decision deadline. The second was just done by his folks at the NEB, who told Trans Canada to effectively rewrite their proposal, a massive undertaking. This comes after they have had the document in hand for over a year already.

It is clear that Trudeau is taking the cowards way out, inflicting the death of a thousand small cuts instead of simply stating what is becoming obvious: no export pipelines. And without that capacity, the business is DOA. The repercussions will be felt far, far beyond a few unemployed people in AB and SK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...