Canadian Elections Around The Corner . . .


Same party? :? Let me guess - the yougurt knitting tofu munchers on the Left Coast have taken over the NDP in BC? :?
Montreal now is hipster vegan central. BiL just got back from a visit and was frankly underwhelmed
There is a Portuguese writer who once said something along the lines of "governments are like diapers, they need changing on a regular basis and for pretty much the same reason".

We have been fortunate in Canada to have always had at least two parties who could form a credible government. We can change our government without courting a catastrophe. One party or another may on occasion have an idiot as leader, but the cabinet system normally means that he's kept in check.

I was, I am not afraid to state, not a fan of Harper. He managed to concentrate nearly all power into his own hands instead of appointing good ministers and delegating authority to them. The result was government paralysis because Harper couldn't keep all the balls in the air at once and kept dropping them.

Scheer isn't a control freak like Harper though, at least not so far as I am aware. It's hard to say what he's really like though, as he was speaker instead of being in cabinet. He hasn't been really saying what he would do differently than Trudeau, but then as opposition leader he doesn't have to. He'll hold his platform back until the election starts.

I didn't think much of Trudeau before the last election, as he seemed like a political lightweight. I've been pleasantly surprised however, and he seems to have done "OK". That is mainly because he seems willing and able to delegate authority and letting his cabinet get on with running their portfolios.

I suspect that Scheer would do "OK" as well. It's about all we can realistically expect, or for that matter really need.

The way the political system works in Canada is that there just isn't a big ideological divide. There's no Marxists or Fascists in a position to take over. Nobody is going to pull out of NATO or go against free trade and free enterprise. At the last election the three main parties didn't differ with one another on key points with regards to defence or defence procurement except to say they would just manage things better.

The one man who today might prove an exception to that rule is Singh (NDP leader), but the degree to which his party is in free fall shows how well that goes over. He'll soon either make a sudden acquaintance with Canadian reality or else have a short career as leader.

Mark Twain was the author of that quote I believe.
Any Canadians out there who can comment on the accuracy of this article?

The article suffers because it fails to mention several things.
  • Issues are to a large extent regional, with things that matter in one part of the country not mattering in another. Party platforms will be tailored to match where parties think they have the best chance of winning or defending seats.
  • It gives a laundry list of "issues", but doesn't mention which ones are dead issues that nobody cares about (e.g. changes to the electoral system), versus which ones people do care about (which are mainly regional - see the above point).
  • It makes no mention of why Trudeau won the last election, which was because he wasn't Harper, not because of his own positive qualities. Harper is now gone and forgotten by nearly everyone, and Scheer wasn't in the Conservative cabinet at any time and so he isn't tainted by association with anything that may have happened then.
  • It makes no mention of the People's Party and their potential effect on the election even if they don't win any seats.
  • It doesn't talk about how Singh kept a very low public profile over the past couple of years and so is an unknown quantity to most Canadians. The Green Party doing well is down to the NDP doing poorly. The Greens have been playing rough, and have been working hard at screwing over the NDP as they see blood in the water there.
It's a normal election with normal issues. I'm not going to make any predictions about who is going to win, except to say that both of the largest parties (Liberals and Conservatives) have a serious chance at winning.

If you want to be seriously informed about Canadian politics you need to read Canadian news sources and keep up on them. Foreign sources such as the BBC will try to encapsulate a lot of information in one small article, and it is just not possible to do that without losing the critical context in which it exists.
Its pretty difficult to sell yourself as a"Man of the working class people" when you ponce about in $XXXXK suits and sport a range of Rolex watches like the average stiff would wear and came from a wealthy family----
I have to agree that Singh is going to struggle to relate to the traditional support base of the NDP when his image comes from doing interviews with Toronto Life in which he brags about how much "bling" he has. He not only comes across as over-privileged, but worse as making a big deal about it.

Paul Martin was one of the wealthiest people in Canada, but you wouldn't know it from the way he conducted himself in politics. I wasn't a fan of Martin, but he acted like an average person and didn't wave his wallet in front of your face.
Things I know about Canada:

- Drinking age is lower - I used to go across the bridge/ tunnel quite a lot during my college days trying to get drunk in bars
- It's metric
- Signs are in dual language
- CAD used to be cheaper vs USD
- Now you have a ton of shale sands - even though the stuff you export to the U.S. is cheaper at the pump in the U.S. because of your higher GST
- The Niagara falls look better from the Canadian side
- Most people live close to the lower side
- BC and Vancouver is beautiful
- I like your gun laws compared to ours
- You have the queen on your notes
- You use both American and British style spellings
-Maple syrup
-Timmy Hortons

There are a few more...but it's a bit late here to lay them all out.
Well you seem to know more than I do about Canada and I live here, as I wasn't aware that all signs were in both official languages (hint, they're not, it depends on a variety of factors), nor do I have any idea with a "shale sands" is (although I know what oil sands are).
However, it should be pointed out that moving OIl Sands product thro' an East Coast pipeline was suggested and Quebec who thrive on Alberta contributions to the public purse have come out against such a thing. meantime Tankers of crude from Venezuela and Saudi dock daily and pump off their loads to Quebec refineries. There would be no f7777way they would allow east coast refineries the same amount of work. That said, a pipeline already in ONtario would pump to the east end of the province at the St lawrence Seaway access and tanker the bloody stuff to Irving's \refinery on the E. Coast --- plan done -- now do it
There is already an oil pipeline bringing conventional oil from Alberta to eastern Canada.

To bring oil sands bitumen to eastern Canada will require building enough capacity to make it financially worth while, which in turn means finding enough export markets as demand in eastern Canada couldn't absorb enough to justify a new pipeline on top of existing capacity.

Refineries have to be specially built to handle diluted bitumen, and most of the market for that is in the Gulf Coast of the US where they were built to handle Venezuelan crude (which is the closest equivalent to diluted bitumen).

So the oil companies have focused their efforts on supplying the US market, where the refineries are already set up to handle it, and they have been able to easily step in and gradually take market share away from Venezuela as that country's oil industry has gradually wound down due to internal politics. Also, Alberta is closer to the US Gulf Coast than it is to the Atlantic, and the geography of the US mid-west is pretty flat and much easier to build through than something as rugged as the Canadian Shield across northern Ontario (which is no picnic to build anything in).

So what the oil companies want is more pipeline capacity to their existing customers in the US. They could build one that is twice as long and costs twice as much to the Atlantic, and then load most of the oil into tankers and spend more money shipping it down to the US gulf coast, or they could simply build a shorter pipeline direct to the customers and ship oil for a fraction of the cost. It's not hard to see why they go for the latter.

The proposal for a new trans-Canada oil pipeline for diluted bitumen came about because Obama was blocking new oil pipelines in the US, so the oil companies needed a Plan 'B' alternative to Keystone XL. One of the first things that Trump did when he got into office was to approve Keystone XL, at which point the oil companies lost all interest in any Plan 'B'.

However, despite Trump's approval Keystone XL has been tied up in court cases in the US, which has left oil companies without the capacity which had been planned for, hence the current unhappiness in Alberta.

When all the oil pipelines currently approved and under construction are finished, there will be plenty of capacity until well into the 2030s. The pipeline companies aren't interested in building more long distance lines if they don't have enough customers lined up for them to fill them. A pipeline costs money whether there is oil flowing through it or not.

The Transmountain expansion will help with new markets in the far east, as the US market is becoming saturated. China, South Korea, and Japan are seen as the markets there. Europe on the other hand is not considered to be a promising market because EU regulations have been hostile to importing diluted bitumen. This again tends to work against any expansion of export capacity to the Atlantic.

I wouldn't be adverse to a new oil pipeline to eastern Canada, and I wouldn't object to paying a few more cents per litre on gasoline to pay for it either. However, it's not what the oil companies want.

Over the longer term, the oil companies are thinking about where their future lies, and no I'm not talking about wind turbines. I'm talking about fracking. If you are one of the people who think that fracking represents a revolution in the oil industry and ushers in a new age of abundant oil once it spreads beyond the US and Canada, then Alberta is pretty much f*cked as nobody is going to want buy their diluted bitumen at a price they can afford to sell it for. Shut the province down and watch as Albertans become the new Newfies looking for jobs across the country while being nostalgic about a home they may never return to.

If on the other hand you think that fracking for oil (as opposed to gas, which is a different story) has been over-hyped, then more pipelines beyond those planned will eventually be needed. For now though, oil companies are sitting on the fence as they wait to see how it pans out.
Well you seem to know more than I do about Canada and I live here, as I wasn't aware that all signs were in both official languages (hint, they're not, it depends on a variety of factors), nor do I have any idea with a "shale sands" is (although I know what oil sands are).
My bad. Got that wrong - mixed up with all the shale talk around. And with regards to signs, you're right as well, but I've generally seen a lot in both French and English.
Well you seem to know more than I do about Canada and I live here, as I wasn't aware that all signs were in both official languages (hint, they're not, it depends on a variety of factors), nor do I have any idea with a "shale sands" is (although I know what oil sands are).
Give the child a break, google has failed him once again. I personally found the lower side comment funny, it’s almost like he never spent anytime here......
Guess October is the auspicious month for lots of things...Canadian elections on 21st, Brexit (supposedly) happening on the 31st.
Also shows they can be bought and he's not above buying them.
Is the CBC gets over 1 billion dollars per year in subsidy just for one broadcaster, it's no wonder that actual newspapers are frothing at the gash about getting their subsidy too.


War Hero
The bloom is coming off of the provincial Tory rose in Alberta. There is just nobody worth voting for . Kenney is a turd and loathed by many who voted for him.

We are still waiting for him to reduce his paycheque by 10% per his campaign promises. Hasn't touched the MLA's salaries either.

Meanwhile he wants to cut provincial employees wages by 2% because he feels that nurses, teachers, sheriffs, you know, people who work for the province and keep it functioning are overpaid. He's got his boxers in a twist and wants to remove the word public from school boards.

This is a man who is owned by someone. He's never worked in a normal job. Lived in his Mum's basement (supposedly) to claim his housing allowance (Mama lives in a seniors housing complex with a no sublet policy). He dropped out of the Seminary, bangs on about family values but no sightings of a him and a female.

I think there may be a backlash against the Conservatives in some ridings because people just don't differentiate between the federal and provincial parties. There is just no one in my riding worth voting for. My youngest summed up Trudeau in the last election (he was finally old enough to vote), why would I vote for a rich guy who wants his Dad's job? He did have a point

New Posts

Latest Threads