2023 UCP Alberta election

[Kat Stevens]

If he could retain control of the Maritimes and Quebec, let's call it Truedopia, he'd be well pleased, fuck us troublesome peasants.

 

[CBH99]

With all the charm of ‘A HandMaiden’s Tale’

 

[QV]

Rex Murphy says Danielle Smith gets it wrong in a big way. And I have to say, I agree.

Rex Murphy: Alberta hasn't been 'ignored' Danielle Smith, quite the opposite

As I joyously recounted in my previous aria, Danielle Smith is on a wave. She is being severely disparaged and outright insulted by the highest foreheads, some of w…

nationalpost.com

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You know, FJ, I’m not sure his hubris lets him see things in any other way than how he wishes them to be.

Scheisse, how the hell did I miss that? Can't see the forest for the trees, I guess G2G.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Rex Murphy says Danielle Smith gets it wrong in a big way. And I have to say, I agree.

Rex Murphy: Alberta hasn't been 'ignored' Danielle Smith, quite the opposite

As I joyously recounted in my previous aria, Danielle Smith is on a wave. She is being severely disparaged and outright insulted by the highest foreheads, some of w…

nationalpost.com

I ask seriously how the people of Alberta have dealt with it all. Albertans have been prodded, protested and provoked from almost every direction, your projects cancelled or regulated out of existence, your efforts to build pipelines mocked, your thousands of oil workers threatened (the arrogance!) with transition, and the environmental fanatics have pictured Alberta to the world as the principal menace to the survival of the planet. Russia has had better press, far better, on this issue.

Thats a strong statement

 

[Lumber]

@Lumber I'm curious to hear your take on this issue, since you definitely have a far better understanding of the legal/constitutional aspects at play here

What are your thoughts on Sask implementing its own firearms legislation, or Alberta wanting to do something similar with its proposed legislation? What are your concerns?

Oh boi, I'm not sure I want to tackle this one for fear of being crucified...ah screw it!

So first, to help understand my perspective, you should know that I don't have a provincial identify, at all. If you were to ask me what I identify as first, I would 100% without hesitation say Canadian, which is probably why I joined the CAF. What would come second would likely be my hometown in Ontario, where I lived for a total of 22 years between by youth and a subsequent posting. Despite spending a total of 26 years of my life in Ontario and 8 years in Nova Scotia, I do not actually identify in any way as an "Ontarian" or "Nova Scotian"; those are just places you live. So, I don't understand the feverish desire for "more Albertan autonomy", or any other province. To me that'd be like my condo board demanding more autonomy from my municipality/province. It just doesn't make sense to me.

So, my perspective is that the powers that a province should have are those that facilitate your daily life; health care, law enforcement, licensing, health inspections, zoning, property management, etc, whereas the Feds should have powers that either a. do not have effects that are purely local (i.e. their laws/powers pertain to and affect either the whole country multiple provinces), or b. affect the overall values and direction of the country. What do I mean by that second part? I mean things like our social laws. We as an entire country need to be on the same page with respect to things like whether sex work should be legal, whether same-sex marriage should be legal, what the drinking age is and whether you can drink beer in the park, what the rules are on censorship, etc.

So, for the most part, I think the provinces and feds have a equitable distribution of powers, but if I were to lean one way or the other, I would probably say we could give more powers to the Feds. Really, nothing major; I just don't know why we have provincial doctor/nursing colleges, or different drinking ages between provinces. I'd also like to see Quebec abolish civil law and switch to common law (or vice versa, I just think we should all be on the same page).

However, one significant area that I think the feds should have more power over is local works and natural resources. Right now, the provinces and the feds have a bit of conflicting authority. The feds have always been able to assume power over local works under section 92(10)(c) if such works are "to be for the general Advantage of Canada", but the provinces have authority over natural resource development under section 92A. The reality is that the world is getting smaller, populations are increasing, and resources are becoming more scarce. What does Canada have a lot of? Natural resources. I would argue that in this day and age, the point at which a local work becomes a natural interest is closer than it was in the past. BC or Quebec don't want an oil pipeline built through their provinces to take Alberta oil to coastal refineries? Tough.

 

[Lumber]

Rex Murphy says Danielle Smith gets it wrong in a big way. And I have to say, I agree.

Rex Murphy: Alberta hasn't been 'ignored' Danielle Smith, quite the opposite

As I joyously recounted in my previous aria, Danielle Smith is on a wave. She is being severely disparaged and outright insulted by the highest foreheads, some of w…

nationalpost.com

I'd like to focus on these parts:

a functioning province that has done much for the whole country, which has bolstered the national economy during a downturn... a province which perhaps more than any other offered substantial relief to the whole country during distressing times

When measuring someone's contribution, should we be measuring their input, or their output?

A Nova Scotian fisherman has a hard life. He hast to get up stupid early in the morning, he has to work on a bobbing boat fighting sea sickness, he has to work in the rain and cold and heavy seas. In fact, some sources list fisheries as the deadliest occupation in Canada. In return for all that effort, he and his industry make very little money, and therefore they contribute very little to the national economy.

An Alberta oil sands worker also has a hard life. Working on a rig is or other major oil sands project is extremely physically demanding, involves long hours, and time away from family. But, in return for all that effort, he and his industry make a lot of money, and therefore they contribute a lot to the national economy.

So, both these workers are working just as hard (i.e. their input is the same), but because of the price of their product as set by the international market, one contributes more than the other to the economy (i.e. their outputs are different).

So, why does the author praise Alberta more when they put in just as much individual effort as anyone else in this country?

 

[CBH99]

I'd like to focus on these parts:



When measuring someone's contribution, should we be measuring their input, or their output?

A Nova Scotian fisherman has a hard life. He hast to get up stupid early in the morning, he has to work on a bobbing boat fighting sea sickness, he has to work in the rain and cold and heavy seas. In fact, some sources list fisheries as the deadliest occupation in Canada. In return for all that effort, he and his industry make very little money, and therefore they contribute very little to the national economy.

An Alberta oil sands worker also has a hard life. Working on a rig is or other major oil sands project is extremely physically demanding, involves long hours, and time away from family. But, in return for all that effort, he and his industry make a lot of money, and therefore they contribute a lot to the national economy.

So, both these workers are working just as hard (i.e. their input is the same), but because of the price of their product as set by the international market, one contributes more than the other to the economy (i.e. their outputs are different).

So, why does the author praise Alberta more when they put in just as much individual effort as anyone else in this country?

That’s an extremely good question, and a fresh/humbling perspective I hadn’t thought of before…

The prices set by the international market are factors outside of their individual control, yet one is rewarded significantly more than the other. One could say one industry is valued a lot more than the other (depending on where in the country one lives)


I would suspect that, and I hate to say this, that people’s output would be more valued, re what they contribute to the national economy.

Because when people need to draw on EI, or people start drawing CPP, etc - it’s the industry & individuals who are paying the most taxes & bolstering the nation’s finances with a more valued commodity that are making those payments possible.

The fisherman, while working hard & putting in long days, isn’t giving the nation the money it then uses to pay for a variety of things. Again, through no fault of his own.



(I could quit my job right now, and by Friday have a job driving a truck for an oil company that starts me between $30-$32/hr + bonuses & benefits. I doubt someone working in the fishing industry has that kind of luxury.)

(Yet if I lived in the Maritimes & didn’t have much exposure to the oil & gas industry, but relied on fishing for not only a job but also a source of food for my community & surrounding communities - I’d value fishing a lot more)

Perhaps your post was rhetorical, and just meant as food for thought. I’ll admit I’ll probably be pondering your post throughout the day, that was a fresh perspective I hadn’t thought of on a macro level before

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'd like to focus on these parts:



When measuring someone's contribution, should we be measuring their input, or their output?

A Nova Scotian fisherman has a hard life. He hast to get up stupid early in the morning, he has to work on a bobbing boat fighting sea sickness, he has to work in the rain and cold and heavy seas. In fact, some sources list fisheries as the deadliest occupation in Canada. In return for all that effort, he and his industry make very little money, and therefore they contribute very little to the national economy.

An Alberta oil sands worker also has a hard life. Working on a rig is or other major oil sands project is extremely physically demanding, involves long hours, and time away from family. But, in return for all that effort, he and his industry make a lot of money, and therefore they contribute a lot to the national economy.

So, both these workers are working just as hard (i.e. their input is the same), but because of the price of their product as set by the international market, one contributes more than the other to the economy (i.e. their outputs are different).

So, why does the author praise Alberta more when they put in just as much individual effort as anyone else in this country?

I think the issue is Alberta has seen a great volume of what they view as their treasure get taken and redistributed to prop up other regions. At the same time the other regions that are enjoying that treasure, by way of distributed funds and where pay cheques are spent, are seen to be scoffing at Alberta's ability to grow its output. Like Quebec closing the door on energy east, as an example.

As for your point about effort. We all like to think that effort should be rewarded. And it is, generally; but some effort is more rewarding than others. That's just a fact of life.

 

[Weinie]

I'd like to focus on these parts:



When measuring someone's contribution, should we be measuring their input, or their output?

A Nova Scotian fisherman has a hard life. He hast to get up stupid early in the morning, he has to work on a bobbing boat fighting sea sickness, he has to work in the rain and cold and heavy seas. In fact, some sources list fisheries as the deadliest occupation in Canada. In return for all that effort, he and his industry make very little money, and therefore they contribute very little to the national economy.

An Alberta oil sands worker also has a hard life. Working on a rig is or other major oil sands project is extremely physically demanding, involves long hours, and time away from family. But, in return for all that effort, he and his industry make a lot of money, and therefore they contribute a lot to the national economy.

So, both these workers are working just as hard (i.e. their input is the same), but because of the price of their product as set by the international market, one contributes more than the other to the economy (i.e. their outputs are different).

So, why does the author praise Alberta more when they put in just as much individual effort as anyone else in this country?

Because the Alberta oil sands worker works year round. The Nova Scotia fisherman works 3-6 weeks, then draws pokey for the rest of the year.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Because the Alberta oil sands worker works year round. The Nova Scotia fisherman works 3-6 weeks, then draws pokey for the rest of the year.

No such thing as a poor fisherman. They just have 2 different F350s. One for daily driving and one clapped out to drive to Service NS/Canada.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Regardless what kind of AB-benefiting subsidies and programs people might point to, those would be exceptions which highlight the general perception that AB is a province that is culturally much less attached to the federal teat than others.

 

[Spencer100]

Oh boi, I'm not sure I want to tackle this one for fear of being crucified...ah screw it!

So first, to help understand my perspective, you should know that I don't have a provincial identify, at all. If you were to ask me what I identify as first, I would 100% without hesitation say Canadian, which is probably why I joined the CAF. What would come second would likely be my hometown in Ontario, where I lived for a total of 22 years between by youth and a subsequent posting. Despite spending a total of 26 years of my life in Ontario and 8 years in Nova Scotia, I do not actually identify in any way as an "Ontarian" or "Nova Scotian"; those are just places you live. So, I don't understand the feverish desire for "more Albertan autonomy", or any other province. To me that'd be like my condo board demanding more autonomy from my municipality/province. It just doesn't make sense to me.

So, my perspective is that the powers that a province should have are those that facilitate your daily life; health care, law enforcement, licensing, health inspections, zoning, property management, etc, whereas the Feds should have powers that either a. do not have effects that are purely local (i.e. their laws/powers pertain to and affect either the whole country multiple provinces), or b. affect the overall values and direction of the country. What do I mean by that second part? I mean things like our social laws. We as an entire country need to be on the same page with respect to things like whether sex work should be legal, whether same-sex marriage should be legal, what the drinking age is and whether you can drink beer in the park, what the rules are on censorship, etc.

So, for the most part, I think the provinces and feds have a equitable distribution of powers, but if I were to lean one way or the other, I would probably say we could give more powers to the Feds. Really, nothing major; I just don't know why we have provincial doctor/nursing colleges, or different drinking ages between provinces. I'd also like to see Quebec abolish civil law and switch to common law (or vice versa, I just think we should all be on the same page).

However, one significant area that I think the feds should have more power over is local works and natural resources. Right now, the provinces and the feds have a bit of conflicting authority. The feds have always been able to assume power over local works under section 92(10)(c) if such works are "to be for the general Advantage of Canada", but the provinces have authority over natural resource development under section 92A. The reality is that the world is getting smaller, populations are increasing, and resources are becoming more scarce. What does Canada have a lot of? Natural resources. I would argue that in this day and age, the point at which a local work becomes a natural interest is closer than it was in the past. BC or Quebec don't want an oil pipeline built through their provinces to take Alberta oil to coastal refineries? Tough.

Side note: The Ontario drinking age of 19 was put in when Ont had grade 13. It was an effort to keep booze out of the high schools. (I don't remember it working too well lol) Now no grade 13. The law was not changed back.

 

[Remius]

Side note: The Ontario drinking age of 19 was put in when Ont had grade 13. It was an effort to keep booze out of the high schools. (I don't remember it working too well lol) Now no grade 13. The law was not changed back.

That age was put in place when most provinces were lowering the age from 21. Grade 13 was in place in the 20s to the late 80s. The age to drink was lowered in the early 70s.

Unrelated to grade 13 and not unique to Ontario as far as matching drinking age to age of majority.

Édit: but you are correct as they raised it again from 18 to 19 to keep it out of HS. I stand corrected on that.

 

[Lumber]

I guess it's my turn to ask a question:

Alberta's Sov Act does not aim to change the division of powers. They've stated clearly that this is an attempt to more quickly halt federal government overreach, which must mean that there is significant amount of federal government overreach.

So my question is, what are the example of government overreach that the Sov Act is suppose to fix? What are the actual federals laws and policies that are against the constitution that angered the Alberta gov and forced them to take legal action against?

 

[QV]

I guess it's my turn to ask a question: Alberta's Sov Act does not aim to change the division of powers. They've stated clearly that this is an attempt to more quickly halt federal government overreach, which must mean that there is significant amount of federal government overreach. So my question is, what are the example of government overreach that the Sov Act is suppose to fix? What are the actual federals laws and policies that are against the constitution that angered the Alberta gov and forced them to take legal action against?

I posted an example on page 7.

 

[Blackadder1916]

I guess it's my turn to ask a question:

Alberta's Sov Act does not aim to change the division of powers. They've stated clearly that this is an attempt to more quickly halt federal government overreach, which must mean that there is significant amount of federal government overreach.

So my question is, what are the example of government overreach that the Sov Act is suppose to fix? What are the actual federals laws and policies that are against the constitution that angered the Alberta gov and forced them to take legal action against?

List of areas the Alberta government accuses Ottawa of overreaching

When the Alberta legislature resumed sitting Tuesday, the first bill introduced by the United Conservative Party government was one aimed at shielding the province from federal laws it deems harmful to its interests.

edmonton.ctvnews.ca

CARBON PRICING
IMPACT ASSESSMENT ACT
FIREARMS
FERTILIZER

 

[Halifax Tar]

I guess it's my turn to ask a question:

Alberta's Sov Act does not aim to change the division of powers. They've stated clearly that this is an attempt to more quickly halt federal government overreach, which must mean that there is significant amount of federal government overreach.

So my question is, what are the example of government overreach that the Sov Act is suppose to fix? What are the actual federals laws and policies that are against the constitution that angered the Alberta gov and forced them to take legal action against?

Someone from Alberta will have to answer more accurately, but I would surmise equalization payments and "inaction" on getting their natural resources to the international market would be the two main ones. Maybe the firearms policies of the LPC as well.

I think they have the feeling that we are happy to take their money but like to kick them at the same time every chance we get. Just read Rex Murphy's article posted above.

 

[Halifax Tar]

List of areas the Alberta government accuses Ottawa of overreaching

When the Alberta legislature resumed sitting Tuesday, the first bill introduced by the United Conservative Party government was one aimed at shielding the province from federal laws it deems harmful to its interests.

edmonton.ctvnews.ca

CARBON PRICING
IMPACT ASSESSMENT ACT
FIREARMS
FERTILIZER

Thank you, I should learn to use the goggley machine.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Buying the best way to get our oil to market and promptly shutting it down didn't help.