darwink
Senior Member
I don't think this is true. It wasn't true for Trudeau, and it certainly isn't true for Carney.
|
|
|
Alberta Provincial Politics
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
He has said he will not impose a project on a province that does not want it. Unless something changes with Eby I don't see the BC government coming on side.
trtcttc
Senior Member
There's daily shipments of Alaskan crude down the Pacific Coast with a minor exclusion zone. We load crude on the South side of the coast where there is significantly more people living there with no issue. The exclusion zone on the north side is nothing but politics. Alberta oil exports play a huge role in our current account balance. If our economy as a country is held captive by a few interest groups, and we are significantly less competitive than our neighbors, that is a serious failure of our confederation. Enbridge and TC are not building in the US because they love the US, it's because the policy environment is supportive while the one here is not.Interesting take...
Nelson: Alberta won't separate as Smith falls for Carney's promises
The momentum the recent federal election provided to Alberta separatism is gone while Danielle Smith will come to regret trusting the Grits.calgaryherald.com
While some think Danielle fuels the separatist flames with her comments on Canada not being a country if it can't build a pipeline, an ally of hers; Chris Nelson, says the opposite because she's giving Carney a chance.
As political plays go, this is good for Smith it forces Carney to pick a side, pipeline or no pipeline. As a practical play, it isn't a good one. If the goal was anything more than to own the libs you assemble this same team but wait until you have reassurances that it will get the green light and then you announce it.
Playing politics with pipelines will always lead to a loss, Carney has more to lose by siding with the pipeline than he does just letting Danielle's game playout. Afterall this is politics for him as well, he's leading a minority government. Carney will sit on the fence as long as he needs to, Danielle just bought him 6 more months at least as she studies this. The goal should be to actually build what will move the economic needle, instead, and again, a pipeline has been reduced to a political exercise not a practical exercise.
When do we go to the provincial polls again?
I don't actually think politics will be as big of a deal here. There's already a lot of discussions that the emissions cap is done, and I don't think Carney went into this job to get re-elected for a decade. It's not just Carney but business leaders in general have long been calling for making Canada more competitive as we've fallen well behind the US.
darwink
Senior Member
And so did Trudeau. And yet...
The full quote says more:
“We will not impose a project on a province. We need consensus behind these projects and we need the participation of Indigenous peoples. What’s encouraging from the First Ministers’ meeting in Saskatchewan is that many provinces came together in support of projects that would stretch across provincial boundaries.”
Concurrently from Eby:
"What I don't support is tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidy going to build this new pipeline "
and Smith:
"I would hope that what would happen is that we would identify whatever legitimate concerns that a province might have and then work through them"
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
I hope you're right and that there is a new Sheriff in town that is more motivated to do what needs to be done.
darwink
Senior Member
With what the USA is doing, it is pretty important to both keep the country together, and ensure we have the resources to stay independent.
Carney in his book wrote that Chretien had three goals, keep Quebec in, keep the Americans out, and never have domestic decisions dictated by the IMF and or World Bank.
Replace Quebec in specific with keeping the country together in general, and I think you have Carney's goals as we've seen so far.
BC has to reckon with that if they reject building the nation, the nation might not exist anymore. Same with Indigenous Nations--it comes down to some really nasty realpolitik. If your rights cause the nation state which defends those rights (imperfectly) to implode, and then those rights are at risk to non-existent in the not to distant future, is that better or worse for the Nation.
Roaring Flames
Senior Member
I don't think a new pipeline makes much money sense in the long run, but if it keeps Alberta around in Canada, then go for it.
darwink
Senior Member
If it ‘buys’ the pathways project to reduce ghgs and insurance against the USA deciding not to buy oil anymore it can make sense.
InfrastructureEnthusiast
Active Member
As critical as I've been of the feds (and certain provinces) Canada can be far better off working together than just about any other scenario.
Having a continent spanning country with access to two oceans is a staggeringly rare opportunity. There exactly two other countries in that club and it would be beyond foolish to give that up.
That said, keeping it together is not an easy task either. Canada faces a number of challenges that no other nation does, and circumstances are always changing.
I get a good chuckle every time I hear "unceded lands" mentioned. If there was ever a 'careful what you wish for' statement...
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Alberta Government using the notwithstanding clause to force teachers back to work. The provincial unions threatened a mass strike if this happened, this could get nasty!
We need to remove the notwithstanding clause, I feel it's being abused...
We need to remove the notwithstanding clause, I feel it's being abused...
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Understatement of the century. I think there is something happening federally about clarifying the notwithstanding clauses use.
I find it hard to gauge how much this has registered with Albertans. I think as long as the macro-Alberta economy is fine there is nothing that can be done. The average Albertan is pretty fat and happy with things so they're asleep to the issues. Honestly, I was unscathed until the teachers strike. Now, my house has gone a month without an income, we're fine because we saved but that savings is now going to bills.
Maybe others have more hope that people are more motivated for change in government than I do, I'd like to be convinced there is reason for hope I just don't think there is. Here's hoping that PC party comes to be. They were fat, happy but out of touch by the end, the real reason the NDP got into government, but our problems felt so small compared to now.
trtcttc
Senior Member
The basis of the notwithstanding clause was for the provinces to sign the charter, which does have some broad interpretations. But the AB government is using it override their own legislation. The Alberta Bill of Rights, drafted and passed by the Alberta Legislature. The notwithstanding clause should not be used to override your own provincial legislation.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
I think they used this to get the teachers back to work without having to negotiate with them further. They only care about the rights of their base, and that's basically for things like vaccinations. I really, really hate this government, but have little faith that Albertans will remove them because we are a "conservative" province. I kind of hope every public sector worker goes on strike, even though that will hurt the province as a whole.
trtcttc
Senior Member
Unfortunately it'll be tough for a general strike, especially when the teachers have agreed to go back. I understand it though, 3 weeks without a pay cheque is tough.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
You can't expect them to repeal the Alberta Bill of Rights. It was invoked to say that it doesn't apply here.
This isn't an awful deal but it doesn't move the needle at all, it is an endorsement of the status quo. If you don't know the details... I won't pretend that 12% is a great deal considering they have had multiple contracts with no raise. So 12% looks good on paper but reality for tenured teachers is that percentage is stretched over a longer term. The hiring of teachers is also something that looks good on paper but a teacher or so per school over four years, a teach/EA per student ratio should've been the measure. It wouldn't have meant waiting for school instruction it would've meant a commitment to more attention to each student. There's also the commitment to look at the complexity of classrooms, that's fine but nothing ever comes of these things. A big study was done in the early 2000s and it has collected dust on a shelf. The teachers I know will continue teaching multiple grade levels in one classroom because the students abilities vary so drastically.
Anyways... The issue is and should be how we got to a completed deal: Little, to no negotiation. A contract, twice rejected, was imposed.
I had a job where I tried to negotiate better pay and a better work/life balance, I was told it was the best they could do. I looked for new work and eventually, when I left for another job, they offered me what I asked for, it was too late. Teachers will leave or quit because of this contract; the pay and conditions are better in every other province. Student learning conditions will not improve under this contract, but who cares for most people school is childcare.