Alberta Politics Thread

[Resolute 14]

Yeah, god forbid the government stand behind its constituents. That argument is also rather hypocritical, given Notley's been biased against the industry thus far. And dude, just say what you mean. Such a statement would damage her credibility. With the people propping her up and with her NDP bosses in Ottawa.

That said, it is nice to see McCuaig-Boyd's comments today. That is probably the first time this government has shown anything resembling a spine.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yeah, god forbid the government stand behind its constituents. That argument is also rather hypocritical, given Notley's been biased against the industry thus far. And dude, just say what you mean. Such a statement would damage her credibility. With the people propping her up and with her NDP bosses in Ottawa.

That said, it is nice to see McCuaig-Boyd's comments today. That is probably the first time this government has shown anything resembling a spine.

Stuff like this makes you sound more like a Sun commentator than an intelligent poster. (Which I know you are.)

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Stuff like this makes you sound more like a Sun commentator than an intelligent poster. (Which I know you are.)

Explain why she delayed the budget (which was a bad news budget) until after the federal election if it wasn't to help the federal party.

[chemgear]

http://business.financialpost.com/ne..._lsa=489e-1f6c

Clark has been peddling the idea for a while and repeated it at federal provincial meetings in Vancouver this week to craft a national plan to reduce greenhouse gases.

“Alberta has promised to get off coal, finally,” Clark said last month, referring to the climate change policy implemented by Rachel Notley’s NDP government that includes the early phase out of coal-fired electricity. “We can help them with energy so they can find a way to shut those coal plants.”

“For us it’s great,” Clark added. “That’s profit for BC Hydro, which means it’s good for ratepayers. It’s also great for Canada because it means we are supplying Alberta with our clean energy so they can get off their coal habit.”

Clark’s Liberal government has used every opportunity to poison the well, whether with Alberta’s former Tories or today’s NDP. It has opposed both Enbridge Inc.’s Northern Gateway pipeline and Kinder Morgan Inc.’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion projects, while starting the trend of laying out conditions to change its position, including getting its share of benefits.

Her government has mocked Alberta in the depth of the harshest oil price collapse in a generation, pointing out in its throne speech last month that “Alberta lost its focus … They expected their resource boom never to end, failed to diversify their economy and lost control of government spending.”

Clark’s government is even blaming Albertans for driving up home prices by moving to B.C., or worsening B.C.’s homeless population.

[CaptainCrunch]

Like I said good for Notley in terms of finally doing something smart that will be a basic slap in the face to BC and show that we can pull levers too. Now we need to find levers that effect Quebec.

I'm sure NL would love to see Quebec taking a beating after Quebec basically tried to stifle NL electricity business.

[rubecube]

I'm not a fan of Clark at all. The problem for Alberta is that the only viable alternative in BC are the NDP.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Stuff like this makes you sound more like a Sun commentator than an intelligent poster. (Which I know you are.)

Eh. The NDP needs Quebec on its side if it hopes to regain relevance federally, and the NDP is structured such that there are no separate provincial parties. They are all one organization. Given her activities thus far, it hardly stretches credulity to believe it possible that Notley is a good little NDP foot soldier first, and Premier of Alberta second.

[transplant99]

This gem from our esteemed finance minister yesterday....absolutely mind boggling that he believes this stuff.

Yeah I understand it's Rick Bell, but the statement is what it is.

“We are one of the most cost-effective public services in the entire country,” says Ceci.

“People don’t think we are but we are. I’ll continue to say it because it’s true.”

Alberta’s yearly program spending is about $2,000 a person higher then B.C.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/03/04...get-approaches

[CaptainCrunch]

The more important thing is the actual delivery of services, and I was looking at a survey of things like health care delivery and wait times for example and over all satisfaction of public services and Alberta was near the back of the pack.

So we're paying more and getting less.

To be honest, I really think that Ceci is incapable of the finance portfolio. He couldn't even admit what the deficit was going to be.

He needs to be bounced over to social services or waste disposal. He inspires no confidence whatsoever.

He's an enormous boob.

[BigNumbers]

Ugggh... I can't believe I'm going to say this; I agree with Ceci.

Yuck.

But if you look at our public services on a inflation adjusted, per capital adjusted basis, it's hard not to argue that we're not leading the pack in many relevant metrics... Once you normalize for the high cost of operating in our province, due to the economic climate we'd enjoyed for the past 20ish years.

Are we one of the highest cost provinces - sure. But if you normalize for us having to operate in one of the highest cost provinces, we look pretty good.

Still...Joe Cecci....

[Fuzz]

This keeps getting repeated, but is it true? Are we one of the highest cost places to live? We have lower income taxes than most provinces and no PST. Outside of maybe Calgary and Edmonton, are housing costs that high? Are we really more expensive than BC, or Ontario? What makes us more expensive? Is it just housing, or food, transport etc? Just wondering if there are facts for this.

[Bootsy]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

This keeps getting repeated, but is it true? Are we one of the highest cost places to live? We have lower income taxes than most provinces and no PST. Outside of maybe Calgary and Edmonton, are housing costs that high? Are we really more expensive than BC, or Ontario? What makes us more expensive? Is it just housing, or food, transport etc? Just wondering if there are facts for this.

As someone who grew up right beside the BC-Alberta border , it wasn't the Albertans going over to BC to shop for cheaper groceries, supplies, vehicles , fuel etc.
Also doing projects for work on both side of the border , I learnt the hard way to always budget a minimum of 15-20% more when doing the exact same type of work in BC. So when people say it's more expensive in Alberta to do business I call BS.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

This keeps getting repeated, but is it true? Are we one of the highest cost places to live? We have lower income taxes than most provinces and no PST. Outside of maybe Calgary and Edmonton, are housing costs that high? Are we really more expensive than BC, or Ontario? What makes us more expensive? Is it just housing, or food, transport etc? Just wondering if there are facts for this.

The reason it's more expensive to operate in Alberta can be almost entirely attributed to the cost of labour. Thanks largely to the (until recently) prosperous O&G sector paying very generous salaries and benefits -- which forces other sectors in the local market to offer competitive packages if they want to attract and retain talented employees -- labour is more expensive in Alberta than it is in other provinces. Per StatsCan, the median household income in Alberta ($97k) is 28% higher than the national average ($76k).

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...il108a-eng.htm

[Fuzz]

OK, but how does cost of labour affect the argument that teachers, nurses etc need to get paid more to live in Alberta? Do labour costs make things like groceries, driving etc more expensive? I can kind of understand the housing argument, but it's not like Toronto of Vancouver are cheaper. So what's the rub here?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

OK, but how does cost of labour affect the argument that teachers, nurses etc need to get paid more to live in Alberta? Do labour costs make things like groceries, driving etc more expensive? I can kind of understand the housing argument, but it's not like Toronto of Vancouver are cheaper. So what's the rub here?

It's not the cost of living in Alberta that drives up public sector wages compared to other provinces, it's competition for human resources with the private sector. If we want to attract intelligent, capable people to work in the public service, then the government has to offer a compensation package comparable to what an employee with similar education/experience working in the private sector would earn. If we were to pay government employees a pittance, then the only people who would choose to work in the public sector are those who are are incapable of finding work in the private sector due to lack of competence or intelligence.

[Azure]

Cost of living is higher in Alberta as well because of higher overall income levels.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

It's not the cost of living in Alberta that drives up public sector wages compared to other provinces, it's competition for human resources with the private sector. If we want to attract intelligent, capable people to work in the public service, then the government has to offer a compensation package comparable to what an employee with similar education/experience working in the private sector would earn. If we were to pay government employees a pittance, then the only people who would choose to work in the public sector are those who are are incapable of finding work in the private sector due to lack of competence or intelligence.

That presumes that employees can move easily between the public and private sectors, that their educations and work experience are transferable. Which is true of some public sector jobs, but not of many others.

Teaching is by far the best job available for those who studied humanities, social sciences, and fine arts in university. Even during the boom, people with sociology and English literature degrees were almost unemployable in the private sector. And if they did have jobs, they sure as heck weren't making $70k or $80k. The jokes about Starbucks being staffed by people who have a Masters in Anthropology is rooted in truths about the employability of graduates without technical skills.

To me, a far better way of assessing if you're paying enough is to look at how many qualified candidates are applying for entry-level positions. If there was an extreme shortage of teachers in Alberta in the last 10 years, if school boards were having difficulty filling entry-level positions as substitutes, then yes, salaries needed to go up. Same with nurses, police, firefighters, etc.

But regardless, if we want public sector salaries to be tied to the private sector job market in good times, then they should be tied to the job market in bad times too. In the private sector, employers are finding they can hire good people even if they pay 20 per cent less than they did two years ago. Shouldn't this be the same in the public sector? And if the one of the benefits of the public sector is to avoid the volatility of booms and busts, then we're back to the matter of why we pay a premium to teachers during a boom. Either public sector compensation follows the cycles of the private sector or it doesn't. Public sector employees can't expect to have their cake and eat it too.

[robaur]

If your idea of a solution is giving teachers, nurses etc a pay cut....you really couldn't be more off-base.

A teacher or nurse's demand does not change whether the economy is in a boom or in a bust. It's a steady career that pays quite a rather narrow range of salary over the span of a career. whats the max a teacher can make? Top out at $110K?

That's the reward you get for choosing that profession. your upside is limited but your floor salary is pretty good as well.

Whereas an O&G job might be making you $300K a year in the good times but you have the risk of being laid off when things go south.....

so please don't drag teachers and nurses into this and suggest that they need a pay cut. I have nothing but immense respect for both professions. They're both integral to our society and deserve every penny that they get.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by robaur

If your idea of a solution is giving teachers, nurses etc a pay cut....you really couldn't be more off-base.

A teacher or nurse's demand does not change whether the economy is in a boom or in a bust. It's a steady career that pays quite a rather narrow range of salary over the span of a career. whats the max a teacher can make? Top out at $110K?

That's the reward you get for choosing that profession. your upside is limited but your floor salary is pretty good as well.

Whereas an O&G job might be making you $300K a year in the good times but you have the risk of being laid off when things go south.....

so please don't drag teachers and nurses into this and suggest that they need a pay cut. I have nothing but immense respect for both professions. They're both integral to our society and deserve every penny that they get.

to me this illustrates a couple of the failings in our system. Firstly, why is it that when pay cuts or hiring freezes or heaven forbid layoffs are mentioned it goes right to the frontline worker? Surely there are other layers of the system in each case where money could be saved that doesn't involve cutting teaching positions or nurses?

Second, its sad that the conversation goes from money to immediately having respect for those positions. I don't think anyone disrespects those people or anything like that. Its got nothing to do with saying that nurses or teachers need a pay cut because we don't like them. Its a case of "we have this much money to spend" to deliver these services and how can that be accomplished?

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by robaur

Whereas an O&G job might be making you $300K a year in the good times but you have the risk of being laid off when things go south.....

I don't know anyone in the O&G industry who makes that kind of money outside of VPs and C-level individuals.

You can't have a one way street and claim that wages need to go up "to remain competitive in the labour market", and then refuse to adjust when that same labour market benchmark takes a dump. Perhaps instead of continuous wage increases they could have been paid an comparable base salary within their industry and be paid a yearly "market adjustment" bonus on top of that - that's how a lot of us get paid. I very much doubt the teacher's union would go for that though.