Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
So we are six months out from the election.
I was talking to one of my friends about it, and we think current polls aren't really accurate because they arent accounting at all for the youth vote, even though that seems to be Justin Trudeaus targeted audience. I saw him speak in September and would personally definitely prefer him to Harper, but still somewhat supportive of a coalition.
Take the poll /discuss anything relevant here.
msewardOh yeah. Harper also introduced two tier citizenship into law, which slid under the radar with c51 in the spotlight.Hooray for institutionalised discrimination!
I respect the right to political freedom, so don't take this the wrong way, but conservatives out there, what good do you possibly see harper doing in another term? Havent seen any conservative opinions in this thread yet and the poll is tied 3 ways.
man, the comments on that article are fucking retarded. I always knew CTV was more right wing, but didn't think they were that bad.
So the main theme being "good, if they did one of those 4 things we don't want them here anyways"
The 4 criteria for revoking citizenship being (so long as the person has or can get a second citizenship):
1- Obtained citizenship by false representation or fraud
2- Served as a member of an armed force or organized armed group engaged in an armed conflict with Canada
3- Was convicted of treason, high treason, spying offences and sentenced to imprisonment for life
4- The person was convicted of a terrorism offence or an equivalent foreign terrorism conviction and sentenced to five years of imprisonment or more
The first one actually is acceptable.
Number 2 seems fine, but then think of circumstances where a refugee or other migrant was forced into military service in a country at conflict (shots don't even need to be fired) with Canada. This could be incredibly common. A child soldier, a country with mandatory military service, etc. These people could then have citizenship revoked when they currently pose no threat and in the past were forced into conflict with Canada. This is a very serious problem, especially when a person could potentially be forced back to the country the left where they could easily be killed outright for treason. This is a real possibility.
Number 3 and 4 are now completely ridiculous now that C-51 has passed. Let's say you're a second generation Canadian born in Canada but hold a second passport. Now with what is considered a terrorist offence by C-51, you could be at a peaceful environmental rally, get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, have done nothing other than show up in support of the environment, get charged with ecoterrorism, and then get your citizenship revoked and be forced to leave the country you were born in for somewhere you may never have even visited. While this extreme isn't likely, the fact that it's possible is just so so so wrong.
Then this is nothing to say about the other country. If you have been convicted of terrorism in Canada and your citizenship is revoked, what if your other citizenship is the US or UK? You think they're going to just let Canada ship them over convicted criminals just cause we don't want them any more? Yea right. This can only cause endless problems.
Really really hope this law is revoked as soon as the government changes. Although there's a good chance the Supreme Court will shoot down parts of it as being unconstitutional, especially since it could easily lead to people becoming stateless.
Lé.SkiingNDP has my vote, and I know I'm probably going to get flack for this, but hear me out. The main reason I am Voting NDP is I am not a fan of Justin because of the Liberal Conservative silent partnership.Link: http://rabble.ca/columnists/2015/04/trudeau-says-yes-to-liberal-conservative-silent-partnership
Not going to lie I was thinking I might vote Liberal, but after reading more into the politics I feel like the NDP is the best party.
Tom Mulcair is planning on scrapping the Bill C-51, and not to mention Tom Mulcair also has a fairly good stance on Marijuana in my eyes(I know it's not really that important of an issue to most).
Link to Tom Mulcairs Marijuana stance: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/cma-opposes-smoking-pot-mulcair-calls-it-a-personal-choice-1.1967587
Maybe I'm wrong in thinking NDP will be the party our country needs. If you think I am wrong do explain I actually like hearing other peoples opinions on politics.
So here's my take on that, because honestly though I've been a life-long liberal, I have voted NDP in the past and I'm a fairly left-leaning center. However admittedly I'm a bit more socially left, slightly fiscally right - though really open to opinion.
C51 made me flip the table in rage. To be completely honest with you, I was donating to the liberal party and immediately stopped upon seeing that. I said screw it, I'm jumping on the orange wave again (voted for Jack Layton in Quebec because he better supported English - RIP) and laying down some fucking orange on my ballot.
However, the more I get active in politics the more I realize its about deal-making and getting some of what you want, vs. all of what you want. its important to realize that the systematic raping and destruction of Alberta for Oil makes a fuckload of people in this country a shit-ton of money... and human nature is't going to be able to break the hold that the riches of that have on people's desire to vote. its not right - but it is what it is. I have to accept that there is no way that I'm going to get everything I want - and in the end the best for everyone is a compromise. Its the Canadian way.
With this in mind, one day I came across a post on reddit with a letter sent from a local MP to a redditor who was complaining about the vote on C51. Whether or not it was bullshit, or a cop-out response - I kind of get the idea that they might have to side with the conservatives on a few issues to manage to gain the power position. Politics is a game.
There is a lot of dissention in otherwise Conservative leaning people. My theory is that a lot of them are dissatisfied overall with some of the issues like Marijuana, the fact that we're now actively at war and bombing people (likely kids included), as well as these attack ads are downright un-Canadian. Other social issues that are dumb, but getting someone like this who leans fiscally right - and is potentially rich as fuck with oil money - to vote NDP... just isn't going to happen.
So I am somewhat reluctantly returning to my Liberal position. Like many others, basically anything I can do to reduce the Conservatives power, blunt the impact on the environment of the Tar Sands and do our best to forward a few socially left leaning issues - the better.
Our government isn't as bad with a one-party-rules all as other political systems (yay parliament) so we just need to shift a couple of seats over to the left and we'll end up with a much nicer balance.
Its not the most dramatic political stance, but its strategic. The more in the middle we end up, the more we all get most of what we want and end up with a compromise that helps the country move forwards.
Like you I'm also very open to discussion and to the fact that my opinions might be wrong, so I encourage others to point out flaws in what I've said here.
Hell.... Maybe... Just maybe... We NSers could make just a little bit of difference in getting Canada back to being Canadian.
katie.Anybody know how voting works from out of province? I turned 18 just after the last election and have since moved to Quebec. "Permanent" residence on all of my official documents is in Ontario. Do I still vote to elect someone in my riding in Quebec?
the.hellion.If you bring a couple of pieces of photo id (drivers license, health card, passport) and a letter/lease that has your current (local) address on it, they should be able to register you on that voter roll on the spot. I think that someone can vouch for you as well. I'm going to get an advance ballot to as an out of country voter, I wonder if you can't do the same thing if you're out of province..
Nooooo!!! Be careful!!!
Katie - I got absolutely fucked on this a few years ago here in Quebec. I don't know if its different for federal (I was trying to vote in provincial when the PQ was rising) but if you aren't registered well in advance - especially if you're english from what I hear - they will absolutely reject you if you just show up with ID. I almost punched someone out on Election day trying to go vote when the PQ was basically trying to boot people like me out of Quebec.
There is a very real chance that you can only vote in the riding where your actual legal mailing address is - meaning where your drivers licence is technically registered. For a while after I moved here, this was still my parents house because I never managed to update it. Twice I got screwed out of voting - once because I didn't have a Quebec drivers licence and the second time when I had one (and had owned property here for 7 years) and had not pre-registered in my riding weeks in advance.
I strongly encourage you to contact your local electoral office or party representative (party is extremely helpful) and absolutely ensure you're registered to vote if you want to do so. Registration is super duper easy, like one phone call that takes 5 minutes - but I've gotten screwed twice here because of some fucked up way Quebec does things. Its not like the rest of Canada so beware of anything you thought was true and makes sense in other parts of the country. Quebec is great - but its great because it does things its own way and sometimes these things are totally not logical.
BTW - Fantastic balanced discussion going on politics here. Go Canada. :)
Lets all do a shot of maple syrup and congratulate ourselves on a very non-partisan, intelligent and helpful discussion.
Oh - also if anyone political wants an invite to http://www.brigade.com I've got about 6 left. Its pretty american so far, but a darn cool idea.
Mr.Bishopgetting someone like this who leans fiscally right - and is potentially rich as fuck with oil money - to vote NDP... just isn't going to happen.
I'd believe this before the last Alberta election.
At this point I am leaning NDP actually. But my riding has recently been a close Liberal-Conservative race with NDP a very distant 3rd so it wouldn't be great to vote NDP. Which is why we need electoral reform asap.
VinnieFI'd believe this before the last Alberta election.At this point I am leaning NDP actually. But my riding has recently been a close Liberal-Conservative race with NDP a very distant 3rd so it wouldn't be great to vote NDP. Which is why we need electoral reform asap.
That is actually an excellent point, which I probably should burn into my mind. Fucking Alberta already voted NDP.
Man, its just so hard for me to buy in on what they're all about. I'm left and all... but there's a point. Though shit, I've been fascinated with the idea of minimum income lately so who knows maybe I'm going full socialist. Of course I've also been in California a lot hanging out with Socially left fiscally WAY right highly intelligent people... which is a total mind-fuck.
Reading the local riding is a pretty good idea. I'm in Quebec so I really need to be careful about watching what is happening and not trying to fight it.
Agreed - electoral reform is critical.
the.hellion.And holy jeeze Ontario and specifically Toronto and the GTA need some transportation infrastructure help BAD.
This has to be a joke. Toronto's transit system is unbelievably efficient considering the sheer volume it sees on a daily basis. Nowhere else in Canada is there even close to that many people making use of public transit. Plans are in the works to expand, and have been for a long fucking time, but it's not something the federal government should subsidize...
People with this opinion are unreal, they just want unrealistic and ridiculous access to cheap and easy transit across Canada's largest city. They're also the ones who probably think the express train to Pearson should only cost $3.50
As for me, I'm voting Harper, and am pro-C51, do with that what you will.
plyswthsqrrlsAs for me, I'm voting Harper, and am pro-C51, do with that what you will.
Why do you think C-51 is a good thing? Do you not have concerns that laws written with purposefully ambiguous and vague wording will result in violations of human rights? Do you not think this sets a dangerous precedence for future bills to be tabled that might have the potential ability to further infringe on citizens' right? Are you not worried about the new powers of CSIS?
and do you actually feel safer now that the bill has passed?
VinnieFWhy do you think C-51 is a good thing? Do you not have concerns that laws written with purposefully ambiguous and vague wording will result in violations of human rights? Do you not think this sets a dangerous precedence for future bills to be tabled that might have the potential ability to further infringe on citizens' right? Are you not worried about the new powers of CSIS?and do you actually feel safer now that the bill has passed?
In all honesty, no, I do not have concerns with the way C-51 is worded or the new powers given to CSIS. Quite simply, the bill will have zero impact on my day to day life and its sole purpose is to aid CSIS in its intelligence gathering efforts pertaining to terrorist threats (it is an intelligence agency...) and to ultimately protect Canadians from domestic terrorism. I'm all for it.
I'm curious as to what people on NS are so opposed to in regards to this bill, how will it affect you personally? Will the RCMP come breaking down your door because of something you posted on NS and detain you for being a terrorist? That's pretty naive and self-important to be honest. People just seem to be making way more out of this than they should
plyswthsqrrlsQuite simply, the bill will have zero impact on my day to day life
I knew you were going to say this. This is said by every single person who's for it.
Why "well it will only stop terrorism and since I'm not a terrorist I have nothing to worry about" is a terrible reason (and frankly the only reason I see) to be for C-51?
Because the world doesn't revolve around you. Sure, your rights may never be violated because you don't go to protests and you don't wear a turban and speak Arabic so you may not care, but this bill may affect and unjustly infringe on the rights on many many people across the country.
And the dangerous part of it really is about the wording. What exactly is "terrorism"? This is what's important. A plot by jihadists to blow up the Peace Tower? Yes, terrorism. A plot by environmental group to peacefully block a road for an afternoon? According to the wording, yes that could also be terrorism.
So now get to what the bill is about:
- promoting terrorism can get you 5 years now. If I'm Miss Suzy doing my undergrad in environmental studies and I make a post on facebook saying "hey guys tomorrow afternoon some people are having a demonstration against XYZ pipeline construction and I think it's important to have our voices heard" am I now promoting terrorism? Am I now about to face the potential of 5 years in jail? According to C-51's wording I could very well be.
- terrorist propaganda. Again, what's a terrorist? Greenpeace, under this bill, can no doubt be classified as a terrorist organization. Sea Shepherds definitely can. Now what's propaganda as defined by this bill? Well it seems like any material that doesn't coincide with this governments ideologies can be construed as propaganda. I 'share' a post by Greenpeace on facebook, am I now distributing terrorist propaganda? am I also promoting terrorism? How many years can I get for this?
- Before this bill to arrest someone without warrant for terrorism it would have to be shown that that they will carry out a terrorist attack. Now it's changed so they only need to show that they may carry out a terrorist attack. How can you possibly prove that someone may do something? Hard enough to prove someone will do something, but may do something? "Mr Mohammed down the road is a Muslim and since terrorist attacks are more likely carried out by Muslims I fear he may do something so I'm going to arrest him without warrant"
It goes on. While my examples are obviously to one extreme, but the bill is vague enough that they actually are possibilities within its wording.
It is a scary piece of legislation, and to think "I don't care because it won't affect me" is quite ignorant of the real issues behind the bill and shows how out of touch with the world you are. Also shows a lack of compassion for fellow humans who may be tried unjustly in the future as a result.
VinnieFI knew you were going to say this. This is said by every single person who's for it.Why "well it will only stop terrorism and since I'm not a terrorist I have nothing to worry about" is a terrible reason (and frankly the only reason I see) to be for C-51?
Because the world doesn't revolve around you. Sure, your rights may never be violated because you don't go to protests and you don't wear a turban and speak Arabic so you may not care, but this bill may affect and unjustly infringe on the rights on many many people across the country.
And the dangerous part of it really is about the wording. What exactly is "terrorism"? This is what's important. A plot by jihadists to blow up the Peace Tower? Yes, terrorism. A plot by environmental group to peacefully block a road for an afternoon? According to the wording, yes that could also be terrorism.
Entire post is on point of Bill C-51.
Something else to think about and maybe I'm wrong on this, but I've seen a lot of this posted so I can't ignore it. Any way I have read that The liberals and Conservatives are in partnership with each other. Maybe that's a good thing and I'm failing to see the positive that can come of it, but I do not like what Harper is doing to my country and if The Liberals want to side with him to me that says they don't want my vote.
Link: http://rabble.ca/columnists/2015/04/trudeau-says-yes-to-liberal-conservative-silent-partnership
I realize that Trudeau speaking out about the partnership no longer means it's really a "silent" partnership, but it's definitely something to consider when voting. To me it looks like they are partners in crime dedicated to ruining my beloved Canada.
NDP seems like they have the most genuine concerns for all Canadians.
Another reason I dislike Liberals is that the Liberals are the same party as Christy Clark and I really hate that person. She has been caught on many occasions to be spending tax payers money frivolously. She has had many $2,000 dinners & lunches on the tax payers dime. Then has the nerve to say we don't have money for public schools. She is ruining our school systems in BC, and not to mention the other things that I really just don't want to get into right now. One thing I will mention though is the fact that she was planning on making an international Yoga day on the same day as the national Aboriginal day(look it up). She had plans to close a bridge taxpayers funded and use quite regularly to get to work just to have a place for people to do yoga. Thankfully the supporters of the event backed out and the plans collapsed.
Maybe I'm missing the good things because I just associate Liberals with Christy Clark, and Conservatives with all the BS Harper has pulled in the past.
One last little note I want to add is that back when Harper Formally apologized to the Aboriginal people for what happened in residential schools, he said(roughly) "what happened in the past isn't what matters, what matters now is how we deal with it moving forward". Recently When asked about the missing Aboriginal Women he said it wasn't even on their radar.
Sorry about the bit of a political rant. Maybe I am misunderstanding this all, but I feel it's fairly black and white(at least how I see it).
VinnieFI knew you were going to say this. This is said by every single person who's for it.Why "well it will only stop terrorism and since I'm not a terrorist I have nothing to worry about" is a terrible reason (and frankly the only reason I see) to be for C-51?
Because the world doesn't revolve around you. Sure, your rights may never be violated because you don't go to protests and you don't wear a turban and speak Arabic so you may not care, but this bill may affect and unjustly infringe on the rights on many many people across the country.
And the dangerous part of it really is about the wording. What exactly is "terrorism"? This is what's important. A plot by jihadists to blow up the Peace Tower? Yes, terrorism. A plot by environmental group to peacefully block a road for an afternoon? According to the wording, yes that could also be terrorism.
So now get to what the bill is about:
- promoting terrorism can get you 5 years now. If I'm Miss Suzy doing my undergrad in environmental studies and I make a post on facebook saying "hey guys tomorrow afternoon some people are having a demonstration against XYZ pipeline construction and I think it's important to have our voices heard" am I now promoting terrorism? Am I now about to face the potential of 5 years in jail? According to C-51's wording I could very well be.
- terrorist propaganda. Again, what's a terrorist? Greenpeace, under this bill, can no doubt be classified as a terrorist organization. Sea Shepherds definitely can. Now what's propaganda as defined by this bill? Well it seems like any material that doesn't coincide with this governments ideologies can be construed as propaganda. I 'share' a post by Greenpeace on facebook, am I now distributing terrorist propaganda? am I also promoting terrorism? How many years can I get for this?
- Before this bill to arrest someone without warrant for terrorism it would have to be shown that that they will carry out a terrorist attack. Now it's changed so they only need to show that they may carry out a terrorist attack. How can you possibly prove that someone may do something? Hard enough to prove someone will do something, but may do something? "Mr Mohammed down the road is a Muslim and since terrorist attacks are more likely carried out by Muslims I fear he may do something so I'm going to arrest him without warrant"
It goes on. While my examples are obviously to one extreme, but the bill is vague enough that they actually are possibilities within its wording.
It is a scary piece of legislation, and to think "I don't care because it won't affect me" is quite ignorant of the real issues behind the bill and shows how out of touch with the world you are. Also shows a lack of compassion for fellow humans who may be tried unjustly in the future as a result.
I'm not saying the world revolves around me, I'm actually saying the opposite. CSIS isn't going to give two fucks about someone sharing a Greenpeace post on Facebook because no one gives a single fuck about Facebook anyway. You're taking it entirely to an extreme that quite frankly doesn't make sense.
There is no such thing as "peacefully" blocking a road. That shit is ridiculous and absolutely illegal. If I'm on my way to work and I'm late because a bunch of fuckwits want to block off traffic in order to get me to care about their cause, then yeah I'm going to be fucking mad and I think they should be arrested. People who hold actual peaceful protests and rallies will not be affected, the police aren't going to come break up protests in the middle of your school's courtyard. If you obtain a permit from the city / government to hold a rally, you'll be fine. Quite simply, don't break the law, don't go to jail.
As far as arresting people who MAY commit acts of terror, lets be real. They aren't going to come arrest you for posting on Facebook being all like "SAVE THE WHALES" or "SAY NO TO THE PIPELINE", they're going to focus their attention on actual viable terrorist threats.
Your argument is one of semantics, you don't like the way something is worded. The underlying goal of the bill isn't one anybody should be opposing. If C51 helps prevent even ONE act of domestic terrorism I'll consider it a success.
You know what, I'll gladly eat my words if someone actually is arrested, tried, and convicted for promoting terrorism because they shared a Greenpeace post about saving baby seals or some shit. You and the rest of the Left are taking this entirely too far, very soon the media and the rest of the people who oppose this bill will simply forget it exists. The same is true for essentially every "controversial" bill which passes through parliament. Canada is not a police state, we aren't living under some dangerous dictator like so many other countries on the planet are, we still have our freedom. People just don't want to make any sacrifices for the good of the many and that, to me, is fucking depressing. If you really have shit you don't want the government reading because it could be construed as terrorist propaganda, then maybe you should reconsider what you post online?
plyswthsqrrlsI'm not saying the world revolves around me, I'm actually saying the opposite. CSIS isn't going to give two fucks about someone sharing a Greenpeace post on Facebook because no one gives a single fuck about Facebook anyway. You're taking it entirely to an extreme that quite frankly doesn't make sense.There is no such thing as "peacefully" blocking a road. That shit is ridiculous and absolutely illegal. If I'm on my way to work and I'm late because a bunch of fuckwits want to block off traffic in order to get me to care about their cause, then yeah I'm going to be fucking mad and I think they should be arrested. People who hold actual peaceful protests and rallies will not be affected, the police aren't going to come break up protests in the middle of your school's courtyard. If you obtain a permit from the city / government to hold a rally, you'll be fine. Quite simply, don't break the law, don't go to jail.
As far as arresting people who MAY commit acts of terror, lets be real. They aren't going to come arrest you for posting on Facebook being all like "SAVE THE WHALES" or "SAY NO TO THE PIPELINE", they're going to focus their attention on actual viable terrorist threats.
Your argument is one of semantics, you don't like the way something is worded. The underlying goal of the bill isn't one anybody should be opposing. If C51 helps prevent even ONE act of domestic terrorism I'll consider it a success.
You know what, I'll gladly eat my words if someone actually is arrested, tried, and convicted for promoting terrorism because they shared a Greenpeace post about saving baby seals or some shit. You and the rest of the Left are taking this entirely too far, very soon the media and the rest of the people who oppose this bill will simply forget it exists. The same is true for essentially every "controversial" bill which passes through parliament. Canada is not a police state, we aren't living under some dangerous dictator like so many other countries on the planet are, we still have our freedom. People just don't want to make any sacrifices for the good of the many and that, to me, is fucking depressing. If you really have shit you don't want the government reading because it could be construed as terrorist propaganda, then maybe you should reconsider what you post online?
The whole point is not that they will start arresting people for things similar to examples I gave, the point is that it is POSSIBLE and within the legal confines to do so now. Even if it never happens, ever, the fact that it CAN happen is what is so wrong with it.
No I don't at all worry about anything of the sort ever happening to me or anyone I know and I would be surprised if it did happen once in the next decade, but, I can't drive this home enough, the fact that by law it can happen is absolutely terrible.
If a law was passed saying "any written document that is deemed a threat to the government is illegal" and the definition of a 'threat' was vague enough and could be stretched to include saying "I don't like what the government is doing", would you not say that is an infringement on your freedom of speech regardless that the law never would be used for anything less than saying "I'm going to shoot up parliament"? The fact that it COULD be used for that makes it entirely wrong and bad.
It'll be interesting to see how things go between the NDP and Liberals. Mulclair is picking up steam so I'm not convinced the Liberals have things on lock as official opposition. It seems like he/the NDP are recognizing that they need to be pretty centered if they want to stand a chance and much of their platform reflects that.
Besides Bill C-51, Trudeau's stance on TFSAs seems really off to me. I don't see how letting people deposit $10,000 instead of $5,500 annually only favours the rich. Plenty of middle class people want to save money, especially baby boomers nearing the end of their earning years, and have more than $5k on hand to do so. And if low income people don't have the money to invest, I don't see how other people doing so hurts them.
VinnieFSo now get to what the bill is about:- promoting terrorism can get you 5 years now. If I'm Miss Suzy doing my undergrad in environmental studies and I make a post on facebook saying "hey guys tomorrow afternoon some people are having a demonstration against XYZ pipeline construction and I think it's important to have our voices heard" am I now promoting terrorism? Am I now about to face the potential of 5 years in jail? According to C-51's wording I could very well be.
- terrorist propaganda. Again, what's a terrorist? Greenpeace, under this bill, can no doubt be classified as a terrorist organization. Sea Shepherds definitely can. Now what's propaganda as defined by this bill? Well it seems like any material that doesn't coincide with this governments ideologies can be construed as propaganda. I 'share' a post by Greenpeace on facebook, am I now distributing terrorist propaganda? am I also promoting terrorism? How many years can I get for this?
- Before this bill to arrest someone without warrant for terrorism it would have to be shown that that they will carry out a terrorist attack. Now it's changed so they only need to show that they may carry out a terrorist attack. How can you possibly prove that someone may do something? Hard enough to prove someone will do something, but may do something? "Mr Mohammed down the road is a Muslim and since terrorist attacks are more likely carried out by Muslims I fear he may do something so I'm going to arrest him without warrant"
If you had any idea as to how s.2(b) of the constitution worked, you would not be worried about 1-2. Your example in #3 is ludicrous. I don't like this law very much, but the crazy doomsday scenarios are... um, crazy.
And it's not a terrible reason to say, "this one action which will not affect me is not motivating my voting decision." I think you should choose who to vote for by looking at the party's entire platform, figuring out what will have the greatest impact on:
1. Canada as a country (e.g., currency value, the economy, interest rates, whether we get involved in armed conflicts we shouldn't or ignore conflicts we should be helping with, environmental protection measures)
2. The greatest number of Canadians in their day to day lives (e.g., raising corporate taxes or doing other things that will affect jobs available, import / export rules that determine what products we get and what they cost, travel regulations, health care matters, education proposals including access to post-secondary, infrastructure including transit).
3. As a third matter, there are the legal system things, but that's more about for example whether first past the post should be replaced and with what, and how easy it is to get access to the Courts if something bad has happened to you and you're poor. But again, these are largely subsets of 1 and 2 and are generally less important than other issues in the sense that they affect fewer people to a lesser degree.
Basically, your vote should in my view involve a utilitarian analysis. Unfortunately, almost no one will educate themselves on the platforms and the broad range of issues involved to be able to make an informed decision on this basis.
paige.Besides Bill C-51, Trudeau's stance on TFSAs seems really off to me. I don't see how letting people deposit $10,000 instead of $5,500 annually only favours the rich. Plenty of middle class people want to save money, especially baby boomers nearing the end of their earning years, and have more than $5k on hand to do so. And if low income people don't have the money to invest, I don't see how other people doing so hurts them.
First, you're absolutely right about the $10k annual contribution limit being targeted at the middle class. The rich, frankly, do not need a TFSA. It's a drop in the bucket to someone making $2M per year. But it makes a BIG difference to the suburbs. Maybe this is how you pay for your kids' education.
However, there is a fair argument that if you can't take advantage of the policy, the policy hurts you, because it's a zero sum game. Canada needs revenue, it has to get it from somewhere. So we can up the annual limit to $10k, which doesn't help poor people, or we can, say, reduce the GST again, which does. It's way more complicated than that, but a tax code is flexible, there are lots of ways to skin the cat and still end up wit the Receiver General getting his pound of flesh.
J.D.If you had any idea as to how s.2(b) of the constitution worked, you would not be worried about 1-2. Your example in #3 is ludicrous. I don't like this law very much, but the crazy doomsday scenarios are... um, crazy.And it's not a terrible reason to say, "this one action which will not affect me is not motivating my voting decision." I think you should choose who to vote for by looking at the party's entire platform, figuring out what will have the greatest impact on:
1. Canada as a country (e.g., currency value, the economy, interest rates, whether we get involved in armed conflicts we shouldn't or ignore conflicts we should be helping with, environmental protection measures)
2. The greatest number of Canadians in their day to day lives (e.g., raising corporate taxes or doing other things that will affect jobs available, import / export rules that determine what products we get and what they cost, travel regulations, health care matters, education proposals including access to post-secondary, infrastructure including transit).
3. As a third matter, there are the legal system things, but that's more about for example whether first past the post should be replaced and with what, and how easy it is to get access to the Courts if something bad has happened to you and you're poor. But again, these are largely subsets of 1 and 2 and are generally less important than other issues in the sense that they affect fewer people to a lesser degree.
Basically, your vote should in my view involve a utilitarian analysis. Unfortunately, almost no one will educate themselves on the platforms and the broad range of issues involved to be able to make an informed decision on this basis.
But that's the point. They are crazy. They would never happen. But have you read the wording of C-51? I've read most of it and, although I'm no lawyer, the wording really is vague enough that those situations are entirely within the possibilities of this bill. And lawyers who have read it certainly voice this opinion too.
That's not saying that any charges like that would be shot down as unconstitutional right away.. But just taking C-51 on its own that's what you can get. Maybe I'm just way off on this, but then I guess so are thousands of other people who know a hell of a lot more about Canadian law than I do.
And I'm definitely not promoting single-issue voting. Single-issue voters actually annoy me a bit (for some reason those voting simply for their firearms), but if anyone needs 1 reason C-51 is almost as good as any.
Unfortunately the CPC have enough points against them that I just will never consider voting for them this election no matter how good their election platforms is. The main being everything they've ever done regarding scientific research in Canada (like ELA and records destruction), selling off Canadian assets (like the Wheat Board to the fucking Saudis of all people, or bitumen sands to the Chinese), their environmental policies (stuff like what they did for protected waterways in Canada), etc etc
Well I am a lawyer and I'm telling you that saying "this is a bad piece of legislation" is totally on point, but the way you're talking about it makes zero sense at all. It's just BS alarmism.
Saying you'll never vote for a party no matter how good their platform is makes me wish you couldn't vote at all. If you can't objectively determine who would be the best option to lead the country then you're harming it by participating in the process. Now, saying, "All of these things the conservatives have done re: war on scientists and the senate scandal make me not want to vote for them, and I think the Liberal platform looks pretty solid and Trudeau would be a fine leader in my view" is a whole other thing, that's a reasonable conclusion I guess. But if you look at all the other parties' platforms with objectivity and rationality and conclude, "these sound like they'd be pretty bad for Canada" (which is clearly the case with respect to the NDP's platform and always has been; they're designed as an opposition party) then you shouldn't be trying to elect them into government.
PS - How does the government sell the oil sands to the Chinese? Various Chinese companies including CNOOC made bids for public company shares at a premium - in other words, ordinary people who owned shares decided, "They're offering more than the market thinks my stock is worth... that seems like a good deal. Sure, I'll sell my shares to them". All the Conservatives did was not actively BLOCK the deal, which would have been fairly xenophobic. Honestly, this whole "the Chinese are buying our oil companies" thing strikes me as somewhat racist, but I don't want to get into that drama.
J.D.Saying you'll never vote for a party no matter how good their platform is makes me wish you couldn't vote at all. If you can't objectively determine who would be the best option to lead the country then you're harming it by participating in the process.
well I completely disagree. They've done so much wrong over the past 9 years at this point it really doesn't matter what promises they make, if there are other viable options, which there are, I will not even consider them for my vote.
If someone goes to jail 12 times for theft, do I trust them running the cash register and assume that because they said this time they won't steal then I can trust them? No. There are other people for the job so I won't even consider him. I'll give him a different job.
And it's not racist to not want the Chinese to own parts of the oil sands. The main reason I think it's retarded that it's allowed to happen is then they just bring in their own workers and pay them half as much as what Canadians would be getting paid.
For a government that's all about doing the best thing for Canada's economy this is really dumb. The best thing would be to keep it Canadian owned with Canadian workers and build refineries in Canada using Canadian employees and then finally sell the refined product to the Chinese. This would be the best net gain for Canada, rather than one time sales to companies that bring in their own foreign employees then ship out raw oil back to China for refining. This is about the worst for Canada
VinnieFAnd it's not racist to not want the Chinese to own parts of the oil sands. The main reason I think it's retarded that it's allowed to happen is then they just bring in their own workers and pay them half as much as what Canadians would be getting paid.
Is that how that works though? Just because they might own portions of the land doesn't mean that it's now outside of Alberta's and Canada's borders, so I would think that local labour laws would still apply.
NinetyFourIs that how that works though? Just because they might own portions of the land doesn't mean that it's now outside of Alberta's and Canada's borders, so I would think that local labour laws would still apply.
I don't think there's any laws that say the Canadian workers need to be paid $40 an hour though. It's not like half of their pay its going to be under minimum wage
Literally everything in Vinnie's last post was wrong. He has absolutely no idea what he's talking about and doesn't appear to care to try to figure it out, and is instead just spouting BS. No, it is not a good idea to build refineries in Canada; this has been established many times. No, the Chinese are not bringing in Chinese workers to work on the oilsands; and this is precisely the racist "THEY TUK ERR JOBS" crap I was alluding to. His post is just opinionated nonsense from someone with no background in the industry.
Incidentally, you want to know what WOULD result in a bunch of temporary foreign workers coming into Alberta? The construction projects necessary to build a bunch of boondoggle refineries up north.
J.D.Literally everything in Vinnie's last post was wrong. He has absolutely no idea what he's talking about and doesn't appear to care to try to figure it out, and is instead just spouting BS. No, it is not a good idea to build refineries in Canada; this has been established many times. No, the Chinese are not bringing in Chinese workers to work on the oilsands; and this is precisely the racist "THEY TUK ERR JOBS" crap I was alluding to. His post is just opinionated nonsense from someone with no background in the industry.Incidentally, you want to know what WOULD result in a bunch of temporary foreign workers coming into Alberta? The construction projects necessary to build a bunch of boondoggle refineries up north.
Why is it a bad idea to build refineries in AB? Keeps the investment here. Now that the economy has cooled down there should be the manpower.
Foreign workers, maybe not all Chinese, are definitely working here in the oil sands. Maybe not to the extent that people believe it to be but it is definitely happening.
Personally feel the federal election might play out somewhat similar to the Alberta election with a strong NDP presence, I think Harper and the cons have dug their own graves, and I don't think the liberals are strong enough
J.D.Literally everything in Vinnie's last post was wrong. He has absolutely no idea what he's talking about and doesn't appear to care to try to figure it out, and is instead just spouting BS. No, it is not a good idea to build refineries in Canada; this has been established many times. No, the Chinese are not bringing in Chinese workers to work on the oilsands; and this is precisely the racist "THEY TUK ERR JOBS" crap I was alluding to. His post is just opinionated nonsense from someone with no background in the industry.Incidentally, you want to know what WOULD result in a bunch of temporary foreign workers coming into Alberta? The construction projects necessary to build a bunch of boondoggle refineries up north.
- why is it not a good idea to build refineries in Canada. It creates jobs for construction and creates jobs for refining and creates a value added product.
-yes, they do 100% bring in TFW's for the oil sands projects. This Chinese oil company got charged in deaths of Chinese TFW's they brought in. THere are plenty of cases of TWFs replacing Canadian workers and getting paid 1/2 the wages. The TFW program is a piece of crap and needs a total overhaul.
-no one said anything about refineries right in Alberta
and it's so easy to find tons of literature saying that refineries would be a good thing. like this
http://www.afl.org/oil_refining_in_canada_makes_sense
The negative seems to mostly be environmental. A 'not in my backyard' thing. Same reasoning that goes on when we still ship asbestos minerals to third world countries.
If I was in power I would probably partially wreck our economy. I certainly wouldn't allow any refineries to be built and keep things the status quo, but I also would stop any further developments in the oil sands until they can develop cleaner methods of extraction. I would also eliminate the TFW program. Maybe it's a good thing I'll never be in power.
VinnieFwell I completely disagree. They've done so much wrong over the past 9 years at this point it really doesn't matter what promises they make, if there are other viable options, which there are, I will not even consider them for my vote.If someone goes to jail 12 times for theft, do I trust them running the cash register and assume that because they said this time they won't steal then I can trust them? No. There are other people for the job so I won't even consider him. I'll give him a different job.
I dont agree with single issue voting. Or ignoring a parties platform generally, but I do agree with this. IMO anything harper promises is empty. Especially as a first nations person I am absolutely immune to anything that idiot says he is going to do. He could say he is going to completley repeal the indian act but i still wouldnt vote for him because i know its bullshit.
VinnieF- why is it not a good idea to build refineries in Canada. It creates jobs for construction and creates jobs for refining and creates a value added product.-yes, they do 100% bring in TFW's for the oil sands projects. This Chinese oil company got charged in deaths of Chinese TFW's they brought in. THere are plenty of cases of TWFs replacing Canadian workers and getting paid 1/2 the wages. The TFW program is a piece of crap and needs a total overhaul.
-no one said anything about refineries right in Alberta
You didn't argue that there ARE TFWs in the oilsands workforce, you argued that Chinese companies buying Canadian oil companies leads to Chinese companies shipping Chinese workers in and taking jobs from Canadians. As if those transactions were a catalyst. Which is ludicrous, for the most part, the CEO was the only guy who got turfed for someone from across the pacific. Whether the company is Canadian-owned or foreign-owned, there will be TFW's because there just isn't enough labour to satisfy demand.
As for refineries, first, have you ever heard of the North West Upgrader? I am not going to get into a detailed debate about the O&G industry with someone who has no experience or understanding of that industry, but at a really basic level, understand that you are asking the federal government to get into the oil refining business. Why on Earth does that seem like a good idea to you? Jobs? The value add to the economy from a refining job is less than HALF what it is for an extraction job. Not to mention when you appear to be creating refining jobs you're likely shifting them from other sectors. Creating jobs for the sake of it never goes well.
Just... why would we want to pay for this with our tax dollars? Surely you can think of a dozen better ways to spend this money.
Lé.SkiingNDP has my vote, and I know I'm probably going to get flack for this, but hear me out. The main reason I am Voting NDP is I am not a fan of Justin because of the Liberal Conservative silent partnership.Link: http://rabble.ca/columnists/2015/04/trudeau-says-yes-to-liberal-conservative-silent-partnership
Not going to lie I was thinking I might vote Liberal, but after reading more into the politics I feel like the NDP is the best party.
Tom Mulcair is planning on scrapping the Bill C-51, and not to mention Tom Mulcair also has a fairly good stance on Marijuana in my eyes(I know it's not really that important of an issue to most).
Link to Tom Mulcairs Marijuana stance: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/cma-opposes-smoking-pot-mulcair-calls-it-a-personal-choice-1.1967587
Maybe I'm wrong in thinking NDP will be the party our country needs. If you think I am wrong do explain I actually like hearing other peoples opinions on politics.
Well said, I voted NDP in Alberta's last election, however I'm still a bit wary of how the NDP is going to deal with the economic slowdown within Alberta. Just as Alberta was in need for change from the Conservatives, I think Canada needs a change in government, I'm torn between liberal and NDP for this one as well
J.D.You didn't argue that there ARE TFWs in the oilsands workforce, you argued that Chinese companies buying Canadian oil companies leads to Chinese companies shipping Chinese workers in and taking jobs from Canadians. As if those transactions were a catalyst. Which is ludicrous, for the most part, the CEO was the only guy who got turfed for someone from across the pacific. Whether the company is Canadian-owned or foreign-owned, there will be TFW's because there just isn't enough labour to satisfy demand.As for refineries, first, have you ever heard of the North West Upgrader? I am not going to get into a detailed debate about the O&G industry with someone who has no experience or understanding of that industry, but at a really basic level, understand that you are asking the federal government to get into the oil refining business. Why on Earth does that seem like a good idea to you? Jobs? The value add to the economy from a refining job is less than HALF what it is for an extraction job. Not to mention when you appear to be creating refining jobs you're likely shifting them from other sectors. Creating jobs for the sake of it never goes well.
Just... why would we want to pay for this with our tax dollars? Surely you can think of a dozen better ways to spend this money.
Maybe refineries aren't the answer, although there are many economists who will agree they are. I just think Canadians should be getting a far larger share for our resources than the 25% or whatever it is in royalties right now. It seems so wrong having the dirtiest oil on Earth extracted by foreign owned companies who don't give a shit about the impacts leaving us with the massive environmental train wreck only to have it shipped pretty much directly overseas and leaving us with the royalties, the work to build the pipelines, and some of the extraction work.
Maybe the answer is massive environmental fees, where the cleaner the extraction the cheaper it is. At least that way there would be both incentive to develop new extraction techniques and Canada would be getting more royalties. So long as the fees are kept low enough so it's still profitable.
Although personally I think the environment is more important than the bottom line and would straight up stop any further developments in the oil sands until they can at least make extraction comparable environmentally to other sources of oil.
not that Canadian companies give 2 fucks about what they do to the environment either. The only reason they do care is for PR reasons and to try and do the least possible to not get sued and fined. Actually mining companies headquartered in Canada are known around the world as some of the least environmentally friendly companies on Earth and are based in Canada due to lax regulations. Something like 3/4 of mining companies are based in Canada because of lack of regulations.
VinnieFMaybe refineries aren't the answer, although there are many economists who will agree they are. I just think Canadians should be getting a far larger share for our resources than the 25% or whatever it is in royalties right now.Maybe the answer is massive environmental fees, where the cleaner the extraction the cheaper it is. At least that way there would be both incentive to develop new extraction techniques and Canada would be getting more royalties. So long as the fees are kept low enough so it's still profitable.
You're completely out of your element. It's barely profitable NOW. Extraction here is more expensive than anywhere else in the world, and these proposals essentially make it MORE expensive. In other words, you're talking about making it cost about $80+ to extract a barrel of oil from the ground, which is only worth $60 at present. When it dropped to its lowest point this year, projects left right and center were being mothballed. Now factor in the tens of millions of dollars in front end capital costs it takes to get the extraction operation up and running, and the years that takes to complete construction, with no guarantees as to what the royalty system will look like when you're actually producing or what the commodity price is. Who's dumb enough to put money on that kind of an uncertain bet? Nobody.
I mean you've already admitted that it's a good thing you'd never be in politics because you'd actively ruin the economy, so sure, this does seem like a pretty good way to go about doing that. I'm not sure WHY your political views appear to boil down to "I think it would be fantastic if we could all live in a third-world version of Canada", but here we are.
VinnieFnot that Canadian companies give 2 fucks about what they do to the environment either. The only reason they do care is for PR reasons and to try and do the least possible to not get sued and fined. Actually mining companies headquartered in Canada are known around the world as some of the least environmentally friendly companies on Earth and are based in Canada due to lax regulations. Something like 3/4 of mining companies are based in Canada because of lack of regulations.
Alright now that you're talking about something I have much more knowledge and experience in than the oil industry I can see how ridiculous the stuff you're saying is. Where are you getting these numbers from? It can take years for a junior mining company to get the necessary environmental licenses in place needed to bring a property into production. For a company that gets all its funding from the public buying shares the long process of getting permits in place can kill the project. Even getting permits to do exploration and staking is much more difficult in Canada than other countries. I work for an airborne geophysics company and most of our work comes from Canadian mining companies based in Vancouver that have properties located outside of Canada because the regulations here are just getting ridiculous. The Yukon has practically nothing going on there anymore because the regulations have gotten so tight. When I was born and lived there Whitehorse was expanding at a crazy rate, the only people moving there now are government employees from Ottawa.
I literally want to work in environmental sustainability after I'm done my geophysics bachelors and hopefully an engineering masters but I think you're pretty wrong about Canadian mining companies. Politicians in Ottawa like making ridiculous new laws because they have nothing better to do, but the regulations are already pretty damn strict here.
J.D.You're completely out of your element. It's barely profitable NOW. Extraction here is more expensive than anywhere else in the world, and these proposals essentially make it MORE expensive. In other words, you're talking about making it cost about $80+ to extract a barrel of oil from the ground, which is only worth $60 at present. When it dropped to its lowest point this year, projects left right and center were being mothballed. Now factor in the tens of millions of dollars in front end capital costs it takes to get the extraction operation up and running, and the years that takes to complete construction, with no guarantees as to what the royalty system will look like when you're actually producing or what the commodity price is. Who's dumb enough to put money on that kind of an uncertain bet? Nobody.I mean you've already admitted that it's a good thing you'd never be in politics because you'd actively ruin the economy, so sure, this does seem like a pretty good way to go about doing that. I'm not sure WHY your political views appear to boil down to "I think it would be fantastic if we could all live in a third-world version of Canada", but here we are.
What this really comes down to is this:
I actually care about the Earth beyond my life.
I don't blame myself for not being able to come up with a feasible solution that properly balances environmental conservation and good economics. It's a nearly impossible task.
You don't have any good answers for this either all the while bashing my ideas to hell. I challenge you to come up with a good longterm plan for the oil sands. If you come up with one that would actually be good environmentally and fiscally your name will be written in history books.
At least I recognize the importance of the oil sands to the economy and wouldn't want to shut it down outright.
erikKAlright now that you're talking about something I have much more knowledge and experience in than the oil industry I can see how ridiculous the stuff you're saying is. Where are you getting these numbers from? It can take years for a junior mining company to get the necessary environmental licenses in place needed to bring a property into production. For a company that gets all its funding from the public buying shares the long process of getting permits in place can kill the project. Even getting permits to do exploration and staking is much more difficult in Canada than other countries. I work for an airborne geophysics company and most of our work comes from Canadian mining companies based in Vancouver that have properties located outside of Canada because the regulations here are just getting ridiculous. The Yukon has practically nothing going on there anymore because the regulations have gotten so tight. When I was born and lived there Whitehorse was expanding at a crazy rate, the only people moving there now are government employees from Ottawa.I literally want to work in environmental sustainability after I'm done my geophysics bachelors and hopefully an engineering masters but I think you're pretty wrong about Canadian mining companies. Politicians in Ottawa like making ridiculous new laws because they have nothing better to do, but the regulations are already pretty damn strict here.
Well I have only given 2 numbers.
- I don't actually know how many fucks they give. I made that one up.
- 75% of mining companies ARE based in Canada because of lax regulations. I dunno how reputable Vice is, but it was on the first page when I just did a quick Google search. I was also taught this in geology class at university.
Sooo... how is what I'm saying ridiculous?
erikKAlright now that you're talking about something I have much more knowledge and experience in than the oil industry I can see how ridiculous the stuff you're saying is. Where are you getting these numbers from? It can take years for a junior mining company to get the necessary environmental licenses in place needed to bring a property into production. For a company that gets all its funding from the public buying shares the long process of getting permits in place can kill the project. Even getting permits to do exploration and staking is much more difficult in Canada than other countries. I work for an airborne geophysics company and most of our work comes from Canadian mining companies based in Vancouver that have properties located outside of Canada because the regulations here are just getting ridiculous. The Yukon has practically nothing going on there anymore because the regulations have gotten so tight. When I was born and lived there Whitehorse was expanding at a crazy rate, the only people moving there now are government employees from Ottawa.I literally want to work in environmental sustainability after I'm done my geophysics bachelors and hopefully an engineering masters but I think you're pretty wrong about Canadian mining companies. Politicians in Ottawa like making ridiculous new laws because they have nothing better to do, but the regulations are already pretty damn strict here.
actually here. Since I know you won't look it up. It says it in here. Over 75% of worlds mining companies are headquartered in Canada. Obviously it doesn't say all the reasons since this is a government document though.
VinnieFWell I have only given 2 numbers.- I don't actually know how many fucks they give. I made that one up.
- 75% of mining companies ARE based in Canada because of lax regulations. I dunno how reputable Vice is, but it was on the first page when I just did a quick Google search. I was also taught this in geology class at university.
Sooo... how is what I'm saying ridiculous?
Okay maybe I shouldn't have included a sentence about the numbers you made up, obviously my post wasn't about that.
"I asked Jamie Kneen, research coordinator with Ottawa based MiningWatch Canada, a non-profit organization that describes itself as “a direct response to industry and government failures to protect the public and the environment from destructive mining practices and to deliver on their sustainability rhetoric.”
Of course it's someone from Ottawa who probably spends more time driving to protests in their fuel burning car and posting about it on their mineral filled smartphone than studying environmental geology.
That article seems to only talk about lax regulations on paying taxes and stuff, I didn't see any mention about actual environmental regulations for mining exploration or mining in Canada on my quick skim through it. Notice how all their examples are of companies with properties outside of Canada?
So you basically posted an article confirming my point, that Canadian mining companies are forced to explore and mine in other countries with slack regulations because it is too difficult here.
I hate talking about the Alberta oil fields because it's such a hot topic for people, and because I drive a car that runs on Gas I'm just as guilty as the next person. What I would like to see people do is come up with a way where they don't have to mine these oils from under the ground anymore. Maybe I'm wanting the impossible, but I think our country deserves more renewable resources and a more sustainable way of having power. This is probably so far out to lunch as an idea I don't think it will really make any one happy, but I would like for our country to get something set in place for producing bio-diesel or other things similar to that. Popular science back in the day said that over a decade ago had the idea that Bio-diesel from Hemp was going to be the future. Here we are still poisoning our own water to get oil from the ground. There is a place in Victoria here where at Camosun college someone just donated a machine that can turn grass into fuel. We need more stuff like that. This is the direction I would like to see our country take. I know this isn't exactly related to the Canadian election. But it relates to the talk about the Canadian oil fields.
There are a few things I would like to see change in Canada over the next 10 years and one of them is our dependence on oil and oil byproducts. Things I would like to see replace the oil infrastructure is better battery technology, and other renewable resources getting some solid ground work all done. In Hawaii they are planning on moving to a more self sustaining power like wind and solar. I know there are a lot of things that have yet to be done, but the more people that want to see it the more likely we would be able to change Canada for the better. As much as some people might not agree with me, I feel like nuclear power is a better way to produce power than using oil or coal. I know Canada has a lot of Hydro power, but I would like to see more stuff like that being put into place. There are several ways to generate power, and we should be using them to our advantage.
Sorry for my ramblings but, I just get so mad at the thought that we are still poisoning our own water supply just to get oil which as I understand it cost's more to get out of the ground than it's worth it to refine and sell. Maybe I care too much,or maybe I don't care enough either way I feel like it's time for change and what we are doing right now isn't right for a better future.
The only way I know I can help is by trying to make the market in need by buying stuff that I know is going to be the future. Which is why within the next few years I am hoping to be buying a new car and I plan on it being a Tesla. If not at the very least something that doesn't run on Gasoline. Maybe I should also do more research into how to turn my car into something that can run on an alternative fuel. Maybe there is a way we can make it more financially feasible for someone to convert their existing cars into something that burns a cheaper alternative fuel that can be made widely available.
Sorry again for rambling on.
The last thing I want to say is that I want schooling in Canada to be more affordable. Knowledge is power and we should be giving the power back to the people at affordable rates.
I know I don't have all the answers, but I can think of a few answers to a few problems and if we all do our part we can make something work that's in the best interests of everyone.
Maybe I'm wrong.
While it is more expensive to extract oil here I don't think it's $80 or even $60 a barrel to mine and upgrade, I believe it's closer to $30-$40 and cheaper for SAGD. If it was that expensive oil companies would have never invested 5-10 $billion dollars each in huge mines and upgraders. remember these things were designed and built to turn good profit when oil was $75 a barrel, and the oilsands oil doesn't even sell at that price it's actually lower. The recent price dip has only tied up capital projects money, in other words they're not investing more money until they know Alberta's political landscape and the extent of the price drop.
If they were losing money producing oil they would be shutting down plants or idling, All the plants are running, they're just not expanding
erikKOkay maybe I shouldn't have included a sentence about the numbers you made up, obviously my post wasn't about that."I asked Jamie Kneen, research coordinator with Ottawa based MiningWatch Canada, a non-profit organization that describes itself as “a direct response to industry and government failures to protect the public and the environment from destructive mining practices and to deliver on their sustainability rhetoric.”
Of course it's someone from Ottawa who probably spends more time driving to protests in their fuel burning car and posting about it on their mineral filled smartphone than studying environmental geology.
That article seems to only talk about lax regulations on paying taxes and stuff, I didn't see any mention about actual environmental regulations for mining exploration or mining in Canada on my quick skim through it. Notice how all their examples are of companies with properties outside of Canada?
So you basically posted an article confirming my point, that Canadian mining companies are forced to explore and mine in other countries with slack regulations because it is too difficult here.
No, it's not that Canadian companies are forced to mine in other countries. It's that companies that are already mining in other countries choose to place their headquarters in Canada because of the reduced regulations on them that come with it. It also helps that Canada's corporate tax rate is lower than that of the States.
VinnieFNo, it's not that Canadian companies are forced to mine in other countries. It's that companies that are already mining in other countries choose to place their headquarters in Canada because of the reduced regulations on them that come with it. It also helps that Canada's corporate tax rate is lower than that of the States.
Might be talking out of my ass but..... Would it not make sense to headquarter where you originally planned on extracting your resources? And where your skilled personnel are from?
RusticlesMight be talking out of my ass but..... Would it not make sense to headquarter where you originally planned on extracting your resources? And where your skilled personnel are from?
read this.
http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/75-of-the-worlds-mining-companies-are-based-in-canada
Some people who make a living off resource extraction I'm sure will argue till they're blue in the face that this isn't the case, but it absolutely is.
VinnieFread this.http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/75-of-the-worlds-mining-companies-are-based-in-canada
Some people who make a living off resource extraction I'm sure will argue till they're blue in the face that this isn't the case, but it absolutely is.
Interesting, it is vice, but that kind of makes sense, plus if its a Canadian corporation abroad it's probably more likely to fly under the radar compared to an American company. Thinking about it, my father actually worked most of his life in Sudan and Siberia
VinnieFNo, it's not that Canadian companies are forced to mine in other countries. It's that companies that are already mining in other countries choose to place their headquarters in Canada because of the reduced regulations on them that come with it. It also helps that Canada's corporate tax rate is lower than that of the States.
Alright since you're such an expert on Vancouver mining companies from your home in Ottawa just like every other overpaid lazy politician there, I'll believe you instead of the companies I work for. Sounds logical. I've been working for small to medium sized Canadian mining companies owned by Canadian shareholders, managed by Canadian geologists, geophysicists, and engineers who have most of their assets in other countries for years. The people didn't come here from a different country, the companies didn't start in a different country. I meet them myself most of the time and I can tell you that they are Canadian and started their companies in Canada. There's a huge industry outside of the big companies you here about on the news.
Our company has never done surveys for any huge Canadian mining companies so I can't speak about them as much, but here are some links to some of the biggest...
Barrick Gold: http://www.barrick.com/company/default.aspx founded by Peter Munk, Toronto native, UofT
Goldcorp: http://www.goldcorp.com/English/Home/default.aspx founded by Rob McEwan, York
Teck Resources: https://www.teck.com/ founded in Canada in like 1900
Potash Corp: http://www.potashcorp.com/about/history/ apparently originally owned by the government of Sk.
So I'm not sure which companies you are referring to that relocated to Canada, I'm sure there are some, but I haven't found any, and never worked for one.
At any rate there's people much more clueless and ignorant about the industry than you so I don't feel like spending much more time debating with you about it
Lé.SkiingI hate talking about the Alberta oil fields because it's such a hot topic for people, and because I drive a car that runs on Gas I'm just as guilty as the next person. What I would like to see people do is come up with a way where they don't have to mine these oils from under the ground anymore. Maybe I'm wanting the impossible, but I think our country deserves more renewable resources and a more sustainable way of having power. This is probably so far out to lunch as an idea I don't think it will really make any one happy, but I would like for our country to get something set in place for producing bio-diesel or other things similar to that. Popular science back in the day said that over a decade ago had the idea that Bio-diesel from Hemp was going to be the future. Here we are still poisoning our own water to get oil from the ground. There is a place in Victoria here where at Camosun college someone just donated a machine that can turn grass into fuel. We need more stuff like that. This is the direction I would like to see our country take. I know this isn't exactly related to the Canadian election. But it relates to the talk about the Canadian oil fields.Maybe I'm wrong.
Such a Hot Topic, This is how I feel about it. The unfortunate truth is that oil is here until we have viable alternatives to put in the gas tank. Tesla is a great start, but there is so much more to being oil independent than an electric car, we'll need electric boats, tractors, airplanes, trains (electric drive but they still use diesel powered generators), machinery etc. etc. Oil to be refined in vehicles is only part of global warming though.
The Oilsands are slightly more "carbon intensive", roughly 17% I believe, than most oilfields, there are even a number of oilfields (california) that are worse than the oilsands. Alberta I believe produces about 2% of the worlds oil demand, so even considering just the oil portion of global warming it's not that much worse. China along with a few other country's are commissioning new coal power plants at an alarming rate, something like one a week. Hell even coal in Alberta contriubutes just as much GHG as the oilsands. Coal fired powerplants around the world dwarf the slightly more intensive oilsands. Thing about coal, unlike oil, is it is no longer necessary, so many solutions that have been proven already are available, solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal. It kind of astounds me that I hear all this oilsands bashing when Coal so much worse, and we export shitloads of the stuff, but you rarely hear anything about it.
The last bit about the Oilsands is that being in Canada and with all this environment propaganda is that they are trying to be as clean as possible, there are companies that are very close to developing processes to clean and eliminate tailings ponds, Ive heard that Imperial oil is close to developing a SAGD process that does not require steam. I doubt a lot of the other countries that oil is produced in give any kind of fucks about the environment and as long as oil continues to be used it will continue to be produced, it just depends where.
Anyways, thats enough for now, gotta get back to work
J.D.Harper can't "make things illegal". Do you understand how a parliamentary democracy works?
yeah i totally meant that he literally just decided to make it illegal and it happened. Obviously not but i bet he wishes he could
i obviously fucking know how parliament works. just a simplified statement. let me correct for you
The conservative majority got a bill through the house restricting elections Canada from advertising voter registration.
Also way to avoid the actual point of my statement. My point is that in any democracy we should be encouraging every single person who can vote , to vote. Not dissuading them so steve can jerk off to alberta in ottawa for one more term.
