CanucksCorner.com Forums

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 8:08 pm

Chef Boi RD wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 10:23 am Interesting article. Is Eby shitting this province up?

‘Thursday she tried to put the first helping of blame on “unjust and unpredictable trade policies,” originating from Donald Trump’s America.

But a comparison of this year’s books with the results from three years ago shows that the main perpetrator of B.C.’s fiscal fiasco is a fellow named David Eby.’

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/column ... vid-eby-is

Interesting, yes, but lacking detail. He compares the debt and deficit figures over the last three years, but says nothing about what it was all spent on (or what revenues decreased). He just blames Eby. Why not provide the detail and let the reader decide. It's an article for sheeple.

Yeah a bit vague but in the first six months of Horgan’s last year in office, showed he left behind a budget surplus of almost $6 billion. Eby’s latest update projects a deficit for the year of $11 billion. That’s a $17 billion drop in 3 years. Seems excessive but what do I know.

Tciso wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 6:46 pm Instead of insurance (high premiums, and the insurance company probably goes bankrupt if they have to pay), how about the government add an extra catastrophic accident tax to the whole process?

Insurance companies use reinsurance to spread out this type of risk to multiple entities so they don't go bankrupt.

Let's let real businesses decide the business case and ROI. No catastrophic accident tax, no pipeline subsidy. Government should step back.

Free markets and light regulation.

Chef Boi RD wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 8:27 pm Yeah a bit vague but in the first six months of Horgan’s last year in office, showed he left behind a budget surplus of almost $6 billion. Eby’s latest update projects a deficit for the year of $11 billion. That’s a $17 billion drop in 3 years. Seems excessive but what do I know.

Yes, excessive which is why it warrants a closer look, not a clickbait article. But people don't seem to care about the details nowadays so I guess Vaughn Palmer is just catering to the masses.

Tciso wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 6:46 pm Instead of insurance (high premiums, and the insurance company probably goes bankrupt if they have to pay), how about the government add an extra catastrophic accident tax to the whole process?

As I said, if the premiums are high, that implies that the risk is far higher than you state.

An extra tax? On whom? In what jurisdiction? This does not sound like the sort of thing Albertans readily embrace, and again, if Alberta is making the money, why should B.C. (or Ontario, or New Brunswick) pay more tax?

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 8:29 pm
Let's let real businesses decide the business case and ROI. No catastrophic accident tax, no pipeline subsidy. Government should step back.

Free markets and light regulation.

This sounds much more like the battle cry of Free Enterprise Alberta.

Yeah no, Alberta ain’t getting a free pass here to waltz through our province and be the sole beneficiary of the shit they’re pumping through our property to our coast lines and not be liable for any potential catastrophic event.

Chef Boi RD wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 9:04 am Yeah no, Alberta ain’t getting a free pass here to waltz through our province and be the sole beneficiary of the shit they’re pumping through our property to our coast lines and not be liable for any potential catastrophic event.

Geesh....

At least wait until a final deal is drafted and signed before going goofy....

There is a multitude of ways BC and First Nations can and will be compensated if the pipeline gets built....

Events like the Nathan E. Stewart spill off the coast of Bella Bella in the Seaforth Channel are why First Nations are so opposed to pipelines and they cause me concern as well but that crisis like most were small operators with next to no safety precautions and what SOP's they did have they weren't followed leading to the event...

Chef Boi RD wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 9:04 am Yeah no, Alberta ain’t getting a free pass here to waltz through our province and be the sole beneficiary of the shit they’re pumping through our property to our coast lines and not be liable for any potential catastrophic event.

You'll take the pipe and you'll learn to like it!

Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 12:21 pm You'll take the pipe and you'll learn to like it!

That does appear to be a fair characterization of Smith's attitude, at least.

rikster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 11:18 am
At least wait until a final deal is drafted and signed before going goofy....

The limitation of that approach is that in a political process like this one, once a final deal is ready, it has so much momentum that it is much harder to stop.

I think it is tactically more advantageous to get every possible objection into the public discourse as early as possible, and force the advocates of the project to address all of the potential liabilities.

rikster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 11:18 am and what SOP's they did have they weren't followed leading to the event...

Please see my note above on the extent to which we can rely on companies for follow safety procedures.

Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 12:32 pm

rikster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 11:18 am
At least wait until a final deal is drafted and signed before going goofy....

The limitation of that approach is that in a political process like this one, once a final deal is ready, it has so much momentum that it is much harder to stop.

I think it is tactically more advantageous to get every possible objection into the public discourse as early as possible, and force the advocates of the project to address all of the potential liabilities.

rikster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 11:18 am and what SOP's they did have they weren't followed leading to the event...

Please see my note above on the extent to which we can rely on companies for follow safety procedures.

KInda reminds me of a typical fan reaction to a trade...

Voice an opinion without knowing much about the players involved...

For me, I'm not going to pay much attention to the political outrage and debate, nor can I form an opinion until I see the outline of a deal assuming Alberta can find a private partner....

Does it involve revenue sharing or royalties or one time payments?...

Do they structure something like a highway or bridge toll?

Is there an ownership stake?

Employment guarantees?

Infrastructure or housing agreements?

Enviromental protection?

etc, etc....

https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/background ... erstanding

Too bad we wasted all those years that Trudeau was in power. We could have had this pipeline built by now.

rikster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 5:17 pm
KInda reminds me of a typical fan reaction to a trade...

Voice an opinion without knowing much about the players involved...

There are important differences.

1) the trade isn't made yet

2) we don't have to watch helplessly while the ownership/management group makes yet another boneheaded trade; the fans (citizens) get a voice.

3) extending your analogy, what we have here is Edmonton and the NHL agreeing in principle to trades involving Vancouver players, with Rutherford's involvement being limited to a phone call informing him of the outlines of the deal.

rikster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 5:17 pm
Does it ?...

From your link:

"Canada confirms that it will enable the export of bitumen from a strategic deep-water port to Asian markets, including if necessary through an appropriate adjustment to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act."

For me, this is a bigger red flag than Chytil's melon. The number of things they can do to make this acceptable to me is very limited, and to the coastal First Nations, maybe zero.

Meanwhile, for once Eby gets to be right about something. Opening up this possibility endangers social license (aboriginal consent) for a whole of lot of projects that are much closer to being realised, and will be of much greater benefit to B.C.

BCExpat wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 5:34 pm Too bad we wasted all those years that Trudeau was in power. We could have had this pipeline built by now.

Good thing we had 10 years to push this project further out into the future. This may have provided the opportunity to develop technology that would mitigate the risk.

https://www.miningandenergy.ca/read/can ... uted-by-cn

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 8:29 pm

Tciso wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 6:46 pm Instead of insurance (high premiums, and the insurance company probably goes bankrupt if they have to pay), how about the government add an extra catastrophic accident tax to the whole process?

Insurance companies use reinsurance to spread out this type of risk to multiple entities so they don't go bankrupt.

Let's let real businesses decide the business case and ROI. No catastrophic accident tax, no pipeline subsidy. Government should step back.

Free markets and light regulation.

I agree, except insurance only works on low probability, high impact events where we know the cost. With environmental shit, the cost is never known, and it grows every year due to changing regulations. This leads to the companies negotiating a maximum liability for any event with the regulators. And that leaves the residual risk with the taxpayer. So, add a nickel tax to each barrel and have the government funds available for the residual risk.

Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 12:12 am

Tciso wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 6:46 pm Instead of insurance (high premiums, and the insurance company probably goes bankrupt if they have to pay), how about the government add an extra catastrophic accident tax to the whole process?

As I said, if the premiums are high, that implies that the risk is far higher than you state.

An extra tax? On whom? In what jurisdiction? This does not sound like the sort of thing Albertans readily embrace, and again, if Alberta is making the money, why should B.C. (or Ontario, or New Brunswick) pay more tax?

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 8:29 pm
Let's let real businesses decide the business case and ROI. No catastrophic accident tax, no pipeline subsidy. Government should step back.

Free markets and light regulation.

This sounds much more like the battle cry of Free Enterprise Alberta.