2023 UCP Alberta election

[Lumber]

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

Thanks for the link! Here we go:

Fertilizer. So far, the feds haven't actually enacted any kind of law or used an OIC. They've simply assigned a "target" for fertilizer emissions reduction.

Firearms. This is clearly in the federal government jurisdiction, so I'm not sure what the argument is here.

Impact Assessment Act. This is actually an example of the system working the way it should. The feds hold the position that climate change is a real and acute existential threat that needs to be dealt with aggressively. As such, from their perspective, it gives them broad access to section 92(10)(c) of the constitution for anything that could have an impact on climate change, hence, the impact assessment act. In this case, I don't think the Feds were consciously overreaching; they were executing what they believed was their duties under the constitution. The Alberta Supreme court disagreed, but not even unanimously. In fact, if you read the dissenting opinions, it so well written and convincing that if you actually got a nay-sayer to read it and lied and said "this was the majority decision", they'd probably believe it and agree with the justice. Fortunately, that's not the case, and I'm glad to see this one get quashed (for now).

Carbon Pricing. Similar to above, if you accept the dire seriousness of climate change, then the feds not only can but should take action to help ensure a future for our children. Unlike the above, I think this one will eventually be upheld by the Supreme Court.

 

[Lumber]

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

What are you referring to? The existing Trans Mountain pipeleine that's been in continuous operation since 1953, or the twinning project for which construction continues?

 

[Kat Stevens]

What are you referring to? The existing Trans Mountain pipeleine that's been in continuous operation since 1953, or the twinning project for which construction continues?

The expansion. I doubt a drop of oil will ever flow through it.

 

[dimsum]

Chief Tony Alexis, of the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation northwest of Edmonton, said there has been no consultation or dialogue with First Nations around the Alberta bill.

Treaty Chiefs demand sovereignty bills be withdrawn by Alta., Sask. governments | Globalnews.ca

The Assembly of First Nations, Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations and the G4 in Treaty 7 Territory demand Bill 1 and Bill 88 be withdrawn by Alberta and Saskatchewan.

globalnews.ca

 

[Lumber]

The expansion. I doubt a drop of oil will ever flow through it.

So you agree, the feds never "shut it down". You just claim that despite it's expected completion date of Q4 2023, that they won't ever actually use the multi-billion dollar pipe, even with it sitting there ready to go. Am I following correctly?

 

[brihard]

Treaty Chiefs demand sovereignty bills be withdrawn by Alta., Sask. governments | Globalnews.ca

The Assembly of First Nations, Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations and the G4 in Treaty 7 Territory demand Bill 1 and Bill 88 be withdrawn by Alberta and Saskatchewan.

globalnews.ca

Shouldn’t be much of an issue in this case- the feds retain constitutional authority over indigenous affairs. If Alberta were hypothetically to try to secede some time in the future, that would be a different kettle of fish, and would probably hole Alberta separation below the waterline. The various indigenous nations have absolutely no reason to go along with any separation- a hypothetically sovereign Alberta would likely not honour treaties made with the crown, and FNs would see the hazard in that.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Perhaps someone from Alberta can fill me in.

Does Alberta have a rural/urban divide? A Calgary vs Edmonton divide? In Ontario there is definitely a rural/urban divide (and a GTA/Hamilton, Ottawa area vs rest of the province)

Definitely a large Rural/Urban divide in Alberta, just like there is in BC as well.

All the Alberta NDP support is in Calgary/Edmonton proper. The NDP in both BC and Alberta would be considered centrist parties elsewhere in the Country.

The BC Libs are considered Centre-Right and have no affiliation with the National LPC while the UCP in Alberta are obviously Right-Wing.

The Rural Areas of both Provinces have a lot of wealth though, owing to the money made from resource extraction.

 

[Kat Stevens]

So you agree, the feds never "shut it down". You just claim that despite it's expected completion date of Q4 2023, that they won't ever actually use the multi-billion dollar pipe, even with it sitting there ready to go. Am I following correctly?

Are you new to Canada? Dumping cash down a dark hole is what we do best. The feds will hear injunction and delay after injunction and delay until they drop it in the "interest of Canada". Too many burrowing elk and spotted crickets in the way.

 

[daftandbarmy]

UCP in the limelight ...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1601371995492724736

 

[brihard]

UCP in the limelight ...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1601371995492724736

I’m curious if this was recorded or is otherwise verifiable? That’s pretty egregiously blatant racism for a member of the governance of a university.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Shouldn’t be much of an issue in this case- the feds retain constitutional authority over indigenous affairs. If Alberta were hypothetically to try to secede some time in the future, that would be a different kettle of fish, and would probably hole Alberta separation below the waterline. The various indigenous nations have absolutely no reason to go along with any separation- a hypothetically sovereign Alberta would likely not honour treaties made with the crown, and FNs would see the hazard in that.

That applies to any Province that wants to cede and the Quebecois know the FN's will say FU or it's going to cost you "THIS MUCH" with their arms widespread.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Are you new to Canada? Dumping cash down a dark hole is what we do best. The feds will hear injunction and delay after injunction and delay until they drop it in the "interest of Canada". Too many burrowing elk and spotted crickets in the way.

It will get built. The majority of it is just expanding an existing ROW and the existing line is 60 years old. It feeds not only the 1 major refinery in BC, but also the ones in Washington State with Feedstock. The new pipeline will be about 10 times safer than the old one with HDD crossings for major waterways as opposed to the shallower and risky dam and pump crossings. The people opposing it are idiots as they don't understand the long term benefits to the economy, industry and environment. What they should be demanding is that the existing pipeline be replaced in full, once the new one is operational.

 

[brihard]

That applies to any Province that wants to cede and the Quebecois know the FN's will say FU or it's going to cost you "THIS MUCH" with their arms widespread.

Yup

 

[QV]

That applies to any Province that wants to cede and the Quebecois know the FN's will say FU or it's going to cost you "THIS MUCH" with their arms widespread.

The problem is Alberta will be able to afford it.

 

[CBH99]

UCP in the limelight ...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1601371995492724736

Who you put on a board does matter, indeed.

Context of the conversation is important, but a member sitting on any board who’s meetings are open to the public should know a lot better. (And be a lot better)


I’m with @brihard, anything verifiable?

 

[Blackadder1916]

Who you put on a board does matter, indeed.

Context of the conversation is important, but a member sitting on any board who’s meetings are open to the public should know a lot better. (And be a lot better)


I’m with @brihard, anything verifiable?

Who you put on a board is important, but 'why' is the more important question.

Here's a couple of links to comment at the time that members of the university's board were fired and replaced (and increased in numbers) by individuals who would advance the government's (idiotic) agenda of moving 500 of the on-line university's staff to the town of Athabasca. The numbnut who allegedly couldn't understand the concept of time, place and audience was one of the 'locals'.

Athabasca University board of governors shakeup meant to move relocation plans forward: minister | Globalnews.ca

Wednesday afternoon, the Ministry of Advanced Education announced it had removed four public members from the board via an order in council.

globalnews.ca

. . . Wednesday afternoon, the Ministry of Advanced Education announced it had removed four public members from the board via an order in council.

Seven new public members were also added to the board, one of whom will succeed a sitting board member. . . .

“And so we are electing to place some more individuals on the board who have strong, really deep connections to the town and the region to be able to offer more insight to help the executive team deliver on the government’s directives.”

The Alberta government fires the ‘non-compliant’ members of Athabasca University’s Board | Tony Bates

www.tonybates.ca

Among the Board members fired are Sir John Daniel, previously Vice-Chancellor at the UK Open University, and former President of the Commonwealth of Learning, and Andrew Ko, Chief Executive Officer of Kovexa, an advisory organization focused on improving education through technology. They have been replaced by butchers, bakers and candlestick makers from the Town of Athabasca.

 

[CBH99]

Who you put on a board is important, but 'why' is the more important question.

I couldn’t agree more.

I’m always saying (like a broken record, I’m sure) to those around me that “Why?” is one of the most important questions one can ask, and also one of the questions people tend to ask the least.

The government idea of moving 500 online staff to Athabasca is beyond idiotic. Why?

- Nobody but the locals want to live there.

Camping,summer excursions, etc - sure. But who has ever said to themselves “I want to move to the thriving metropolis of Athabasca!”

- It’s an online university, which offers all kinds of courses at all kinds of levels, to people across the country. They also partner with local post secondary institutions to help keep their programs relevant & practical to people who live in those areas.

Moving the staff to Athabasca doesn’t accomplish a single thing that furthers the school’s goals. It does, however, hinder/limit the potential depth of experience the online staff could offer.


- Why?

If it’s for the Athabaska University can become a bigger institution at the local level, with more people attending their physical campus?

(If that’s the case, it’s all about money. It’s already the largest university in Canada, and gets plenty of government support as if it were an entirely physical campus, despite the fact that a vast majority of its students are online.)



My dad worked for Athabaska University for almost a decade before recently retiring, specifically on the finance side, as well as program development. He thinks the whole idea is idiotic

 

[Blackadder1916]

I couldn’t agree more.

I’m always saying (like a broken record, I’m sure) to those around me that “Why?” is one of the most important questions one can ask, and also one of the questions people tend to ask the least.

The government idea of moving 500 online staff to Athabasca is beyond idiotic. Why?

- Nobody but the locals want to live there.

Camping,summer excursions, etc - sure. But who has ever said to themselves “I want to move to the thriving metropolis of Athabasca!”

- It’s an online university, which offers all kinds of courses at all kinds of levels, to people across the country. They also partner with local post secondary institutions to help keep their programs relevant & practical to people who live in those areas.

Moving the staff to Athabasca doesn’t accomplish a single thing that furthers the school’s goals. It does, however, hinder/limit the potential depth of experience the online staff could offer.


- Why?

If it’s for the Athabaska University can become a bigger institution at the local level, with more people attending their physical campus?

(If that’s the case, it’s all about money. It’s already the largest university in Canada, and gets plenty of government support as if it were an entirely physical campus, despite the fact that a vast majority of its students are online.)



My dad worked for Athabaska University for almost a decade before recently retiring, specifically on the finance side, as well as program development. He thinks the whole idea is idiotic

I should have done just a couple more minutes of research before posting my previous. Obviously, I've ignored some of the lessons learned from staff courses and the Athabasca AGDM/MBA program (yes, I was an Athabasca student over a quarter century ago). If I had taken that extra step and closed the circle I could have included the latest development in the story which was reached at the beginning of the month.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/athabasca-university-reaches-funding-agreement-with-alberta-government-1.6670330

Athabasca University reaches funding agreement with Alberta government

25 more staff required to reside in Athabasca​

​The Alberta government and Athabasca University have unanimously approved a funding agreement following months of negotiations over the province's local employment requirements for the school.

The investment management agreement sets local employment level targets for the school's administrative and executive staff.

The agreement states the school needs to increase the number of local employees by 25 — from 252 to 277 — and have half of the university's executives live and work full-time in Athabasca within three years.

Advanced Education Minister Demetrios Nicolaides said that it's up to the university to decide how to meet the targets, which the government suggested in a revised agreement sent to the board earlier this month.

. . .

Twenty-five staff, mainly administrative, is a big step down from five hundred. However, if one were to read the Alberta Government press release they would be left with the impression that the Minister of Advanced Education prevailed in advancing his position. However, I did enjoy this piece that opines a different outcome.

Who Won the Battle of Athabasca U? Not Alberta’s Government | The Tyee

UPC Minister Nicolaides failed to force mass relocation of staff or reverse the school’s virtual approach.

thetyee.ca

 

[CBH99]

I should have done just a couple more minutes of research before posting my previous. Obviously, I've ignored some of the lessons learned from staff courses and the Athabasca AGDM/MBA program (yes, I was an Athabasca student over a quarter century ago). If I had taken that extra step and closed the circle I could have included the latest development in the story which was reached at the beginning of the month.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/athabasca-university-reaches-funding-agreement-with-alberta-government-1.6670330

Twenty-five staff, mainly administrative, is a big step down from five hundred. However, if one were to read the Alberta Government press release they would be left with the impression that the Minister of Advanced Education prevailed in advancing his position. However, I did enjoy this piece that opines a different outcome.

Who Won the Battle of Athabasca U? Not Alberta’s Government | The Tyee

UPC Minister Nicolaides failed to force mass relocation of staff or reverse the school’s virtual approach.

thetyee.ca

$3.4M operating grant... per month

For a school where a vast majority of its students do online courses, and who's instructors mostly work from home also. (This was the case long before the pandemic...)

So 43,000 online students - which will fluctuate up & down throughout the year - but in average about 43,000. All paying tuition, course fee's, admin fee's, textbook/materials that must be purchased from the university, etc

Where does all the money go?

Surely the course tuition paid by students pays a majority of staff costs. All the other admin fees I'm sure could cover most other things...

But $3.4M a month in provincial government money? Holy hell!


(I'll post on this again later today. Going to call my old man & try to get some better insight into how this all works)

 

[dapaterson]

Havn't had a time to review, but their audited financial statements as of 31 March 2022 are at:

https://www.athabascau.ca/finance/_documents/audited-financial-statements/2022-audited-financial-statements.pdf