Rachel Notley tours Canada to advocate for pipelines

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But evidently Norway didn't just nobly decide to share the wealth with every citizen, they also didn't indulge some of themselves in a game of "well, that's OUR stuff, and you others can't have any of OUR stuff".  But nobody talks about that.  When the Sovereign Wealth fund is mentioned, our lack of a similar Sovereign Wealth fund is described as a failure of our central government (of the day) to show courage, rather than as a failure of the regional governments of the day to put the pettiness aside and think of Canada as a whole.

Rather than a failure on the part of any particular actors, this would seem to me to be an inherent problem in a federation which assigns natural resource ownership to the provinces as opposed to a unitary government of the sort that Norway has. The die on this one was cast when the BNA Act of 1867 was passed.

And Michael, cross posted with you. I don't actually think it is a problem. I think it is a relection of a very diverse nation with distinct entities within it. And I think the problem was less 1867 than when Ottawa set one rule for central Canada, and another for what they considered their territories out west.

After all, we already have one equalization system, and if all these utilities and resource companies were federal they would most likely have been sold off by now, and we would not have out phone company here in SK. Provincial control in some things is a good balance, IMO.

Though if everything was federal I suppose it would settle the dispute about Churchill Falls, though not to everyone's satisfaction.

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But evidently Norway didn't just nobly decide to share the wealth with every citizen, they also didn't indulge some of themselves in a game of "well, that's OUR stuff, and you others can't have any of OUR stuff".  But nobody talks about that.  When the Sovereign Wealth fund is mentioned, our lack of a similar Sovereign Wealth fund is described as a failure of our central government (of the day) to show courage, rather than as a failure of the regional governments of the day to put the pettiness aside and think of Canada as a whole.

Rather than a failure on the part of any particular actors, this would seem to me to be an inherent problem in a federation which assigns natural resource ownership to the provinces as opposed to a unitary government of the sort that Norway has. The die on this one was cast when the BNA Act of 1867 was passed.

The Canadian constitution mitigates the inequality caused by non-renewable resource royalties being a provincial jurisdiction by creating a right to equalization that gives poorer provinces a right to financial equality with the richer provinces. Unfortunately the equalization formula currently favours non-renewable resource rich provinces like Alberta over most of the other provinces. Making the equalization formula fairer would help most Canadians but Alberta would be apoplectic. It could even lead to Alberta leaving Confederation although I think that might be a good thing for Canada if Alberta continues to refuse to support a fairer equalization system. Jason Kenney is even proposing to have a referendum in Alberta to get rid of provincial equalization!

Days before, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley had called on the federal government to step up its efforts to support the project. On Thursday, she said she was pleased the federal government is supporting the NEB process to resolve permit delays.

However, in response to questions from reporters on Thursday, she also offered no other actions or tools she would like to see the federal government use to ensure the project gets built in a timely manner.

“I hope (the federal government) will continue to embrace their role as a key player in promoting what is, in my view, a national project,” said Notley.

The Alberta premier made an impassioned case to the more than 300 business-friendly participants at the energy forum that the Trans Mountain expansion project is good for Canada’s prosperity and will create welcome jobs, including for British Columbia.

Notley, who received a standing ovation, noted that several years ago, 44,000 British Columbians earned $2 billion in income by working in Alberta.

She also argued the project will not increase oilsands emissions because Alberta has capped emissions and the province is taking a dramatic step of eliminating high-carbon-emission coal-energy plants by 2030.

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/live-alberta-premier-rachel-notl...

Its interesting that no one seems to consider that along with 44,000 BC ers  there are many tens of thousands of eastern Canadians also sending their pay home and paying taxes in their home province. 

This is a huge benefit to eastern Canada but is never acknowledged as such. BC needs to consider this largesse in its calculations of entitlements it is owed. 

Unionist wrote:

And political parties when in opposition (like the NDP) need to say: "Go ahead and sell off whatever you want (Potash Corp, MTS, Ontario Hydro, etc.) - but the minute we're back in power, it will be re-nationalized, at a fair price determined by the government." Then watch the rats scurry and decide not to buy. Sadlly, no party has ever made such a commitment to my knowledge.

Furthermore, said fair price should be declared in advance to be "zero". If you buy auctioned-off public property, you're making a bad investment. After a few renationalizations, governments will find the price they can get for selling the CBC less than appealing.

It's only a bad deal for the taxpayer because politicians always choose political expediency over long term value. Electing self-interested numpties who's attention span is no longer than the present term does nothing to create value. Putting national champions beyond reach of politicians and into the hands of professional managers is the only answer to value creation for the taxpayer.

I agree. My main point is for the public to receive a fair share of public resources via a forward looking mechanism that adds value rather than mouldy old Marxist revanchism that does not. Every time I hear  the expropriation theories trotted out the image of poor old Dobbin heading to the glue factory springs to mind. Changing the elitists from private to public is mere rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Antediluvian.

Well I suppose we are a bit closer, which reminds me that for all the vitriol against Notley, there has been virtually no mention of our premier, who has been on his own pipeline tours, and has been far more vocal, calling the west's continued presence in a federal system "Stockholm Syndrome" .

His full statement is worth reading. He's the guy who made the comparison with Montreal sewage, mentioned upthread:

https://globalnews.ca/news/3787809/brad-wall-federal-government-justin-t...

For that matter, no condemnation of the Neanderthals in Manitoba, and Ontario, which have already built their sections, or New Brunswick, where it would terminate.

As for Kenney, you could google it. He's been threatening economic war with B.C. for the past month.  Besides, I question whether there is any real interest in what is going on out here.

Look on the bright side, maybe if she wins re-election she will herd us all into the northern boreal forests in a Pol Pot inspired effort to free us from our dependancy on the oil and gas industry.

This is completely cringeworthy on Notley's part. The thing that Albertans need to realize (and it seems as if more are starting to wake up to this reality) is that regardless of who the government is, nobody wants pipelines in their areas. So let's assume that getting the pipelines built is necessary for the NDP to be re-elected. Now suppose none get built under Notley's watch and the UCP gets in. What happens after the first UCP term when no pipelines have been built under their watch? And even if a pipeline does get built, the UCP can credibly make the case that the pipelines were built in spite of, and not because of the Notley government. She is also antagonizing people in other parts of Canada who would otherwise agree with her. Her constant berating of the federal party is really irritating, considering that during the federal leadership race, every one of the leadership candidates went out of their way to praise Notley's approach to green energy and economic diversification.

Meanwhile, without any new pipeline construction, Alberta's economy has apparently had a great year. A smarter approach would have been for Notley to jump in front of that and try and claim credit. She should also be talking about her government's investments in renewable technology and diversification, which are not only helping Alberta's economy but lessening the dependance on oil (and by extension, the need for pipelines) in the first place.

No, I do hope Notley gets re-elected in 2019. There is too much at stake in Alberta and nationally to risk Jason Kenney calling the shots. But if Notley does lose, it will be because she staked her political capital on something over which she has no control, and not because the rest of us decided not to sacrifice our environments for the good of a government in a far away province.

quizzical wrote:

i find the discontinuity of Quebec's philosophy of wanting to use saudi oil and keep tanker traffic rolling interesting.

The primary purpose of the pipeline is to ship bitumen to Europe thereby not only increasing tanker traffic but of a more dangerous substance. 

http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/irving-oils-preside...

But Whitcomb said his refinery would continue to purchase foreign oil even if Energy East goes ahead because it wants access to diverse suppliers.

Imports from Saudi Arabia, which started when the refinery opened in 1960, are compelling because of the low cost of transportation on large tankers, he said.

“We will add Western Canadian crude to our portfolio as the economics dictate, but probably not at the expense of our Saudi barrels,” he said.

The company has partnered with proponent TransCanada Corp. to build a marine terminal to enable exports of Canadian oil to foreign markets.

The claim that Energy East could in any way improve social justice or the environment is ridiculous. It is nothing more than propaganda and the industry knows it. It just blatant lying. (not by you quizzical, you're just falling for it.)

And of course we can always use the handful of examples where indigenous money has co-opted itself into the oil business, to further drive home the benefits of this icky sticky goo.

She is the interim leader, and we are in the middle of a campaign to elect a new leader. I have seen a few people asking how this decision was made, and why at this time, considering how divisive it is.

Good one.

wt

Quebec aims above all to replace petroleum with hydro energy. There are several charging stations in my neighbourhood now. Yes, it will take longer in more remote areas, but most petroleum pollution occurs in metropolitan areas.

Electric vehicles will eventually come down in price and have increased charging capacity, but the main thing to do there is expand public transport as well as carshare vehicles and reduce the number of individually-owned motor vehicles.

I feel I should drink some BC wine, but it is expensive here. BC wine is the wine most "local" for Albertans. Radio-Canada commenters joking about this as I write (they are well-known to like their wine and dining)...

If you haven't seen this, just read (actually, scroll through) it.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/kinder-morgan-tra...

Sure it's the corporate media, but even without getting into the problems inland, and the Fraser valley aquifers, this takes this debate from theory to logistical reality.