The US doesn't take us seriously because we don't take ourselves seriously

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,111
2,820
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Like the recognition of Journeyman status province to province before Red Seal (?) or the pipeline access squabbling with BC & Quebec towards Saskatchewan & Alberta (?) or the retaliatory reaction towards BC by Alberta for BC wine (?) or the whole “West Coast pipeline bills that don’t apply to the East Coast or the St Lawrence” so it only punishes Saskatchewan & Alberta but not NewFoundLand or oil imports to Eastern Canada? That sort of thing? Like the Canadian Wheat Pool but not similar laws on predominantly Quebec or Ontario Agricultural produce?
Alberta’s top court says Ottawa’s environmental assessment law is unconstitutional, arguing it undermines Canada’s division of powers and could effectively place provinces in an “economic chokehold” by regulating their natural resources.

Four of five Alberta Court of Appeal judges declared the Impact Assessment Act, which Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has derided the “no more pipelines law,” unconstitutional. One judge concluded that the assessment regime is a valid exercise of federal authority.

The ruling, which is part of a constitutional reference case, is not binding and has no immediate effect on the law, but it could be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The law, formerly known as Bill C-69, is one of several federal policies that Mr. Kenney has criticized as an attack on his province and its oil sector, and he promised a legal challenge in in the 2019 election campaign. He also launched a similar constitutional reference case to challenge the federal carbon tax, along with similar cases in Saskatchewan and Ontario, but the Supreme Court of Canada ultimately ruled the carbon pricing system was valid.

The 200-page opinion comes nearly three years after the law received royal assent in June, 2019. It allows the federal government to consider the impacts of new resource projects on issues such as climate change, social impacts and gender parity. (?)

In its legal arguments, the Alberta government described the law as a “Trojan Horse”that attempts to override provincial powers through a back door, thus eroding control over oil and gas development. Ontario and Saskatchewan also joined the case in support of Alberta.

“The federal government’s invocation of concerns about the environment and climate change that all provincial governments and Canadians share is not a basis on which to tear apart the constitutional division of powers,” says the majority decision released on Tuesday.

“This legislative scheme allows the federal government to essentially render worthless the natural resources of individual provinces by stopping their development. If upheld, the (act) would permanently alter the division of powers and forever place provincial governments in an economic chokehold controlled by the federal government.”


Alberta Justice Sheila Greckol was the lone judge to side with the federal government on the Impact Assessment Act, saying it helps to regulate projects within federal jurisdiction caused by the physical activities or designated projects across the country.

“Now is not the time to abandon these tools or, worse yet, to give credence to the kind of ‘Trojan horse’ metaphor advanced by Alberta and Saskatchewan that, in likening Canada to a foreign invading army deceptively breaching out protective walls, only fuels suspicion and pits one level of government against another,” wrote Justice Greckol.

During the carbon tax cases, the Alberta Court of Appeal was the only one out of three provincial-level courts to rule the carbon pricing system unconstitutional. In a 6-3 ruling in March of last year, the Supreme Court of Canada determined Ottawa has the authority to impose a minimum price on greenhouse gas emissions across the country.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,111
2,820
113
Regina, Saskatchewan

Tuesday was a great day for Alberta. It also was a day that might save Canada.

In the strong, clear and visionary ruling, Alberta’s top court has declared the Trudeau government’s new process to approve industrial projects is unconstitutional.

More than that, the court undresses Trudeau’s scheme for what it is, a misguided and ugly power grab, stripping provinces of rights that are the glue binding Canada together.

Trudeau’s law — the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) which governs the approval of everything from new wind farms to new hydro-electric lines, from major oil pipelines to liquefied natural gas plants — essentially seeks to put everything under the sun and all human activity under the control of the Prime Minister and his cabinet.

Trudeau’s industrial assessment act reeks of the notion that Ottawa knows best.

But Ottawa often gets it wrong, doesn’t it? The most recent example of this is new Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault’s evident obsession with supporting unreliable solar and wind, coupled with his lifelong opposition to the one reliable, low emission energy system, nuclear power, that can drastically reduce emissions. Should we really trust him and his cabinet friends with veto power over all major industrial approvals?

The IAA seeks to override a number of provincial powers when it comes to managing public lands and resources, giving the federal cabinet what amounts to a veto. This, says Fraser, “constitutes a breathtaking pre-emption of provincial legislative authority. The economic life of this country lies largely in the provinces … If upheld, the IAA would permanently alter the division of powers and forever place provincial governments in an economic chokehold controlled by the federal government.”

The IAA allows Ottawa to pick winners and losers in the Canadian industrial sector, a right it does not have in the Constitution, Fraser said. “Through this legislative scheme, Parliament has taken a wrecking ball to the constitutional right of the citizens of Alberta and Saskatchewan and other provinces to have their natural resources developed for their benefit. And in doing so, it has also taken a wrecking ball to something else — and that is the likelihood of capital investment in projects vital to the economy of individual provinces.”

The rest at the above link.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,111
2,820
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
“This is not an academic matter for western Canada,” noted the judges. “To deprive Alberta and Saskatchewan, which together have the vast majority of oil and gas reserves in this country, of their constitutional right to exploit these natural resources — especially while the federal government continues to permit the import of hundreds of millions of barrels of oil into Canada from other countries — is to re-introduce the very discrimination both provinces understood had ended, if not in 1930, then certainly by 1982.”

The court recognized that there are legitimate “concerns about the environment and climate change,” even labelling global warming an “existential threat,” but said that this does “not justify overriding our existing form of federalism and the division of powers.”
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,111
2,820
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Is there a constitutional right to exploit natural resources?
The 1982 amendments to the Constitution Act, 1867 explicitly recognized provinces' and territories' constitutional rights to manage their own non-renewable natural resources, forestry resources, and electrical energy. This includes the power to levy mining taxes and royalties.

Former British Columbia premier Christy Clark says Canada’s natural gas industry is losing ground internationally because of government over-regulation, while Australia makes more gains in the Pacific market.

Speaking as part of a panel on North American energy security at the Canada Gas and LNG conference Thursday, Clark said regulation certainty and simplicity is needed with less overreach from the federal government.

Clark, who is now an adviser at the law firm Bennett Jones, said the United States has eclipsed the Canadian gas sector and it would like to make sure that it remains at a disadvantage.
1652621418909.jpeg
She said Canada can’t play a role in trading its natural resources when it doesn’t have pipelines to Southeast Asia.

Clark, as the B.C. Liberal leader, came from behind to win the 2013 provincial election with promises of a debt-free B.C., based on a liquefied natural gas windfall that could wipe out provincial debt and create thousands of jobs.

She told the group at the Vancouver Convention Centre that the world is going to need natural gas for the foreseeable future and Canada can fulfill that demand.

Canada also has a better relationship with Indigenous people compared with Australia, which gives this country a business advantage, Clark said.

“(The) Australian government is a lot less committed to reconciliation,” she said.
 

Serryah

Senate Member
Dec 3, 2008
5,989
955
113
New Brunswick
The 1982 amendments to the Constitution Act, 1867 explicitly recognized provinces' and territories' constitutional rights to manage their own non-renewable natural resources, forestry resources, and electrical energy. This includes the power to levy mining taxes and royalties.

As example, NB exploits it's natural/forestry resources horribly. Or rather, the province lets Irving do WTF ever it wants.

And loves to give them exceptions to things that should bring money to the province, and bail them out (owners are in the top ten of most wealthy in Canada) when their shit fails.

For all the "Good" Irving may do, they do worse on the back end and sadly the Province will fellate themselves to Irving because Irving is "the" company of the Province and they want to keep it that way.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,111
2,820
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Even out here we’re familiar with Irving & it’s tentacles, & it’s somehow preferential treatment federally as well as provincially.
They buy (or rent) all the right politicians.
Thankfully, Irving is a maritime issue & empire as opposed to a national one. Not minimizing it but just putting it in perspective with respect to all of the other provinces….
 

Serryah

Senate Member
Dec 3, 2008
5,989
955
113
New Brunswick
Even out here we’re familiar with Irving & it’s tentacles, & it’s somehow preferential treatment federally as well as provincially.
They buy (or rent) all the right politicians.
Thankfully, Irving is a maritime issue & empire as opposed to a national one. Not minimizing it but just putting it in perspective with respect to all of the other provinces….

Oh I absolutely agree it's our 'regional issue'.

Sadly right now our Premier is Ex Irving and so Irving is getting amazing treatment by NB right now.

The entire province has areas that are being forced - yes, forced - to amalgamate and we've been told borders were fixed for each new "Entity's".

But thankfully for Irving, that doesn't include them. They had property that would have been included into the borders of the one I live in, but they got "freed" from that.

Just one more thing that pisses NBers off about them.
 

Dixie Cup

House Member
Sep 16, 2006
4,189
2,145
113
Edmonton
As example, NB exploits it's natural/forestry resources horribly. Or rather, the province lets Irving do WTF ever it wants.

And loves to give them exceptions to things that should bring money to the province, and bail them out (owners are in the top ten of most wealthy in Canada) when their shit fails.

For all the "Good" Irving may do, they do worse on the back end and sadly the Province will fellate themselves to Irving because Irving is "the" company of the Province and they want to keep it that way.
Then that's the responsibility of the population to get rid of the politicians who are responsible for letting them get away with things. Voting has its consequences.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Serryah

Serryah

Senate Member
Dec 3, 2008
5,989
955
113
New Brunswick
Then that's the responsibility of the population to get rid of the politicians who are responsible for letting them get away with things. Voting has its consequences.

Can't vote them out of they have a majority as of the last election and a new one isn't in the works for a while.

By then? Everything is done, the forced amalgamation is meant to be finished and new mayors/councils voted in this fall, IIRC, or early next year at the latest.

And the entire process has been BS from the start and not anything ANYONE wants.

But it doesn't matter, it's being forced anyway.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Dixie Cup

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,111
2,820
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Oh I absolutely agree it's our 'regional issue'.

Sadly right now our Premier is Ex Irving and so Irving is getting amazing treatment by NB right now….
But it creeps into being a national issue on a regular basis…. And I’m thinking specifically of PM Trudeau & The entire Admiral Mark Norman issue….so thank God men like Mark Norman had integrity & Canada’s best interests at heart ‘cuz Trudeau only had Irving’s interests in mind.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,111
2,820
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Federally they are heavily involved with the Liberal Party of Canada , I guess they own every party provincially .
To his credit this is from 2015 after Stephen Harper left politics Federally and entered the private sector I believe:

The Irving family typically does not PUBLICLY get involved in partisan politics, but with Harper endorsing the proposed Energy East pipeline that would bring western crude to the Saint John refinery, he was welcomed with open arms by Irving for a campaign stop. Maybe he wasn’t out of politics yet….

The last six years (since 2015) have become much more open and blatant with respect to Pardison politics and the Irving family though…
 

Serryah

Senate Member
Dec 3, 2008
5,989
955
113
New Brunswick
To his credit this is from 2015 after Stephen Harper left politics Federally and entered the private sector I believe:

The Irving family typically does not PUBLICLY get involved in partisan politics, but with Harper endorsing the proposed Energy East pipeline that would bring western crude to the Saint John refinery, he was welcomed with open arms by Irving for a campaign stop. Maybe he wasn’t out of politics yet….

The last six years (since 2015) have become much more open and blatant with respect to Pardison politics and the Irving family though…

Mentioning the Energy East pipeline, here's the problem with Irving.

They take in outside oil to refine in Saint John.

But as much as I'm not all for pipeline oil, I'd much prefer that, and would prefer it come to Irving (if it can't go anywhere else along the route to be refined) than see outside oil come here that we don't benefit from at all.

But I also can't help but think Irving would fuck up that too.

Like they did the shipyards, IMO.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,111
2,820
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Mentioning the Energy East pipeline, here's the problem with Irving.

They take in outside oil to refine in Saint John.

But as much as I'm not all for pipeline oil, I'd much prefer that, and would prefer it come to Irving (if it can't go anywhere else along the route to be refined) than see outside oil come here that we don't benefit from at all….
Not sure how this happened but…
Conservative leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre promises to ban all overseas oil imports within five years of being elected prime minister while also removing government red tape he says hampers the construction of a west-to-east pipeline.
“Buying overseas oil from polluting dictatorships is terrible for our environment. It exports our jobs, our money and our pollution to countries with poor ecological standards,” Poilievre said during a campaign tour in Saint John, N.B.

“Instead, let us bring home the jobs, money and business to the most environmentally responsible energy sector in the world here in Canada,” the Conservative MP added.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dixie Cup

Serryah

Senate Member
Dec 3, 2008
5,989
955
113
New Brunswick
Not sure how this happened but…

“Buying overseas oil from polluting dictatorships is terrible for our environment. It exports our jobs, our money and our pollution to countries with poor ecological standards,” Poilievre said during a campaign tour in Saint John, N.B.

“Instead, let us bring home the jobs, money and business to the most environmentally responsible energy sector in the world here in Canada,” the Conservative MP added.

Yeah, that won't happen or I'll believe if/when I see it.

Because there's too much money IN overseas oil vs. bringing in our own. Irving is too buddy-buddy with Saudi to give that contact up.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,111
2,820
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
I meant the Pierre news story coming across like you posted it, when I quoted it.

Canada as a nation can say no outside oil except….as other nations have done it. Cuba doesn’t import outside food (Alcohol yes but food no) or at least that’s the way it was about 10yrs back.

Canada can say, you’ve got 5yrs and that’s it Irving and after that (NAFTA) no outside oil except from USA or Mexico or Canada. Saudi Arabia isn’t part of NAFTA (sorry, USMCA) so they can peddle their wares elsewhere regardless of the buddy-buddy thing with Irving Oil.

Irving can focus its energy (pun intended) on convincing Quebec that Irving Oil getting Canadian Oil now that it’s mandated is now in the National Interest for the good of New Brunswick & Canada.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Serryah

Dixie Cup

House Member
Sep 16, 2006
4,189
2,145
113
Edmonton
With politics being the way they are (east vs west) Pierre will need a miracle to get an east/west pipeline unless he forces it through w/o provincial approval. That I doubt will happen. Hey, maybe he's really good at "negotiating"? Probably not....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina