Is Mark Carney sliding towards Fascism?

[donlever]

That's kind of cool...

Sell it!!

Big bucks.

You'll have the biggest mansion in town....

...and a top of the line sauna.

[JelloPuddingPop]

LOL - I didn't take it Donny, I'm not that kind of reprobate.

[Per]

That's kind of cool...

Sell it!!

Big bucks.

You'll have the biggest mansion in town....

...and a top of the line sauna.

I miss my sauna.

[Tciso]

So you concede the number is reduced, you just don't think it's reduced enough? If you slam a valve shut too fast, you get water hammering.

Yes, the number is being reduced, but no where near fast enough. The immigration rate using Carney's numbers is still to fast for us to catch up with. It's like paying a few bucks on your credit card each month, but not even covering the monthly interest. The problem continues to grow .

The military spending is definitely needed, but instead of streamlining procurement, he builds another layer of bureaucracy.

I think measures to source military equipment domestically, or from reliable allies, are prudent

Are you implying that the previous system was not prudent? Because if it wasn't, why are those same 'non-prudent' people still in their jobs?

why is Freeland still an MP?

Because the voters in her riding elected her.

She is now also the special envoy to Ukraine. Which job is she not doing but still getting paid for?

You mean like a cabinet minister?

Yes, I see we have 2 special envoys. Both appear to have been given the roles to allow an extra $100k/year to help keep them quiet. Freeland shit herself last fall over a $40b deficit, but still managed to wipe up in time to vote for an $80b deficit. The extra $100k had no influence, right?

Which Liberals had time to invest before the public was informed? We still don't know what all companies are involved.

So you're upset about the possibility of corruption for which you have, as yet, no specific evidence?

Correct. I am totally inferring corruption based on the continuation of past practices, and the almost total lack of transparency. I am shocked that you seem so nonchalant about the possibility of corruption.

BTW, if he was really interested in being a strong NATO ally, he would fast track all pipelines, mining and manufacturing projects to supply Europe.

This is the line that actually moved me to reply.

In the first place, if you look at the fast-tracked projects, some of them are specifically directed towards developing strategic mineral resources.

Again. Our government is either too incompetent to get the rest of the projects through approvals, or, they are still deciding who gets to play, and who doesn't for political reasons. Or both. Carney throws crumbs, and some people are happy.

And in the second place, the pipeline for which that Smith has such a hard-on would be to supply China. If Alberta wants to supply Europe, or even Eastern Canada, the pipeline has to head east, to Churchill or Sault St. Marie. If she'd grow the brains to even raise the possibility, Albertans could note how much lower the political opposition (and construction costs) would be.

Oil is a world-wide commodity. Supplying China (and the rest of south-Asia too) frees up oil from elsewhere for Europe. It also aids in undercutting suppliers like Iran and Russia. It also single-handedly provides enough extra revenue to cover our military budget increases, which is more than the other proposals combined do financially.

The pipeline route to BC has already been defined. It needs some work, but it is basically ready to go. Churchill? There has been no studies done for such a route, which would likely add an extra decade to such a pipeline, if it is even feasible due to the swampy terrain, and lack of infrastructure. And, if the same pseudo environmental concerns are raised, there is zero chance we will have oi tankers going through the arctic, where we have no infrastructure in place to either help a ship in distress, or deal with an oil spill or iceberg collision.

The Sault? The maximum ship draft allowed through the St. Lawrence Seaway lock system is 8.08 to 8.09 meters (26 feet, 6 inches). That fits a 7,000ton tanker (50,000 barrels). Kitimat can support the 80,000 to 300,000 ton tankers. The Sault will never be viable due to the small size of tankers that can get there. A pipeline to the East would have to go passed the locks to allow access to commercially viable oil tankers. But, there is the Quebec issue that Carney seems loath to address.

[Cornuck]

That's what I like about this place - "Come here for the hockey talk, stay for the non-hockey discussions".

[Meds]

That's what I like about this place - "Come here for the hockey talk, stay for the non-hockey discussions".

Well yeah. I mean, it’s getting depressing talking about the state of the team.

[Carl Yagro]

At least you have access to Mëds for your depression...

[Ronning's Ghost]

Are you implying that the previous system was not prudent? Because if it wasn't, why are those same 'non-prudent' people still in their jobs?

Yes, the previous system was imprudent. The same people are on the job because the problem is not that they did a bad job before, it's that the assumptions under which they were operating have been proven to be false. Specifically, the United States is not, in fact, a reliable ally.

So you're upset about the possibility of corruption for which you have, as yet, no specific evidence?

Correct. I am totally inferring corruption based on the continuation of past practices, and the almost total lack of transparency. I am shocked that you seem so nonchalant about the possibility of corruption.

1. Yeah, I am pretty nonchalant about theoretical possibilities for which we have no evidence.
2. Government corruption is a bit like internal mechanical friction: it makes sense to take steps to minimize it, but you have to design with the understanding that it's going to be impossible to eliminate. Relative to other countries -- even relative to other advanced democracies -- Canada has relatively little trouble with corruption. So I think it makes more sense to pay more attention to the problems that we do have.

BTW, if he was really interested in being a strong NATO ally, he would fast track all pipelines, mining and manufacturing projects to supply Europe.

This is the line that actually moved me to reply.

In the first place, if you look at the fast-tracked projects, some of them are specifically directed towards developing strategic mineral resources.

Again. Our government is either too incompetent to get the rest of the projects through approvals, or, they are still deciding who gets to play, and who doesn't for political reasons. Or both. Carney throws crumbs, and some people are happy.

The "political" reasons are whether or not the projects are actually in the public interest, which profitability alone doesn't guarantee.

Another sub-theme of this thread is Canadian values. If profitability is the only value you respect, there are other jurisdictions in which you might be happier with the direction of your government.

And in the second place, the pipeline for which that Smith has such a hard-on would be to supply China. If Alberta wants to supply Europe, or even Eastern Canada, the pipeline has to head east, to Churchill or Sault St. Marie. If she'd grow the brains to even raise the possibility, Albertans could note how much lower the political opposition (and construction costs) would be.

Oil is a world-wide commodity. Supplying China (and the rest of south-Asia too) frees up oil from elsewhere for Europe.

That affects price, not availability, which is the military strategic consideration.

It also aids in undercutting suppliers like Iran and Russia. It also single-handedly provides enough extra revenue to cover our military budget increases, which is more than the other proposals combined do financially.

1. Check the commodity prices
https://economicdashboard.alberta.ca/da ... oil-price/

2. Note that the government-funded TMX expansion is still not at capacity

3. Note that there is technology to further expand that capacity without an additional pipeline
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ ... -1.7624323

The pipeline route to BC has already been defined. It needs some work, but it is basically ready to go. Churchill? There has been no studies done for such a route, which would likely add an extra decade to such a pipeline, if it is even feasible due to the swampy terrain, and lack of infrastructure.

I had a friend (now deceased) who was a pipeline engineer. He told me that it was by no means certain that the proposed route was technologically possible. On the other hand, pipelines have been built across swampy terrain before, and it is much easier (and cheaper in both construction and pumping costs) than crossing vast mountain ranges.

lack of infrastructure... where we have no infrastructure in place...

Infrastructure development is a nation-building project.

the same pseudo environmental concerns are raised

There are no "pseudo" environmental concerns associated with putting oil on oil tankers. Those risks have been empirically verified. Insurance companies even believe they have quantified them. You will note, though, that there are no insurance policies carried, because the cost of a clean-up has not been quantified, because it is not technologically certain that it is possible.

Kitimat can support the 80,000 to 300,000 ton tankers.

Kitimat can support zero tankers. The straits are too narrow, and the waters too rough.

Eby and don't agree about much, but we agree on this much: right now Northern Gateway is less than vapour-ware. If it should emerge that there is a private company that wants to build it, and they have a route in mind, we can look at their proposal. (There is, for example, a technology out of the University of Calgary the renders bitumen recoverable from sea water. I have not heard of any oil company actually planning to implement it.)

Meanwhile, per my other remarks above, we can focus our energy on problems and opportunities actually in front of us.

[Ronning's Ghost]

Yes, the number is being reduced... But, there is the Quebec issue that Carney seems loath to address.

One more thing: even if all of your complaints were fully justified (and I clearly I do not agree that they are), returning to the theme of the topic you created, none of them, not one, is evidence of sliding towards fascism.

[Tciso]

Agree to disagree, but i do appreciate the discussion.

[rikster]

Tciso wrote;

I know i have a strong person bias against individuals with weak moral character and poor ethics, but Carney had done nothing to change my perceptions about the Liberals.

My suggestion would be to focus on the Party you support and demand a more competent leader and one who has the moral character and ethics that you say are important to you...

I have a hard time grasping that the likes of Poilievre Federally and Rustad Provincially are the best the Conservatives can do...

And not sure anyone would want to try to argue that they have a high moral character and good ethics...

[Meds]

Tciso wrote;

I know i have a strong person bias against individuals with weak moral character and poor ethics, but Carney had done nothing to change my perceptions about the Liberals.

My suggestion would be to focus on the Party you support and demand a more competent leader and one who has the moral character and ethics that you say are important to you...

I have a hard time grasping that the likes of Poilievre Federally and Rustad Provincially are the best the Conservatives can do...

And not sure anyone would want to try to argue that they have a high moral character and good ethics...

I don’t know much about Rustad. Provincial politics have largely lost me as BC has voted in corruption time and again going back to Campbell (I was too young to recall the Vanderzam era).

As for Pollievre…..if you are going to suggest that his character is lacking in good morals and ethics, please provide evidence to support your side of the argument.

[Meds]

Kitimat can support zero tankers. The straits are too narrow, and the waters too rough.

Interestingly the LNG Canada facility in Kitimat, the first such facility of potentially a few, is exporting with tankers usually carrying 175,000 cubic meters of capacity. When you convert that to DWT it is 75,000 metric tonnes.

[donlever]

Vander Zalm.

[Ronning's Ghost]

Kitimat can support zero tankers. The straits are too narrow, and the waters too rough.

Interestingly the LNG Canada facility in Kitimat, the first such facility of potentially a few, is exporting with tankers usually carrying 175,000 cubic meters of capacity. When you convert that to DWT it is 75,000 metric tonnes.

LNG spills clean themselves up.