Alberta Politics & Government Thread 4.0

[Looch City]

That's all this is in the end though. Just one sentence:

The rich exploiting the idiot deplorables so they can get richer.

The grift must continue.

[getbak]

During the Brexit campaign, the Leave side had a big bus that touted how much money the UK would save by not needing to send it to the EU. Those promised savings could go to funding the National Health Service, they said.




Guess how that turned out? https://www.bmj.com/content/391/bmj.r2497

A new report from the UK and German central banks and leading universities in the UK and US analysed the economic impact of Brexit. Using multiple analyses, they compared the UK’s performance before and after Brexit with that of 33 other countries. Importantly, their methods isolated Brexit’s impact from other events, such as the covid-19 pandemic. The findings are stark: Brexit has had an even greater adverse effect than the most pessimistic forecasts.

[topfiverecords]

If there’s no federal income taxes in DerpBerta then there wouldn’t be any provincial income tax either since there’s no longer a province. So I guess they just automatically switch every public service to the financial method they’re most familiar with. Grifting.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

fat guts and extra long mullets?

Also sleeveless shirts and bandannas.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by DJones

Carney is unlikely to do it since its a needless fight but that's how the system is set up. My point is that they aren't required to even be involved in the system. Housing is a provincial jurisdiction that is somewhat given to municipalities. Honestly it should be mainly a municipal responsibility, we'd be better for it. Definitely don't want anything to do with feds jumping over the provinces and strong arm municipalites.

Municipal control over housing is what got us into the present mess in the first place. The feds and some provinces (e.g. BC) are stepping in precisely because local governments are incentivized to prioritize existing homeowners at the expense of everyone else.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by SebC

Municipal control over housing is what got us into the present mess in the first place. The feds and some provinces (e.g. BC) are stepping in precisely because local governments are incentivized to prioritize existing homeowners at the expense of everyone else.

And the big move was to spend on a 100 billion on nothing and for the city to immediately reverse things.

Thank god for them. I am quite content with the mayor deciding things and getting a bunch of money to do it.

Who ever would have thought that one solution for the 2nd biggest country on earth wouldn't work.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by DJones

And now they don't want it. That's their right to decide imo.

Nobody has ever said it isn't, Toronto or otherwise.

I'm guessing they'd still sign up for the money though

People like money for nothing. It's up to the city if they want to meet the terms. Toronto sacrificed some money under the accelerator program as well by exempting certain communities from zoning types, and they're the ones dolling the money out, apparently.

The scenario is more liked a forced maintenance program. For some reason you can't pick someone else, change terms, or do the work yourself.

You can change terms, but there are still conditions that need to be met.

There's a lot of leeway Calgary can have and still get money.

Who ever would have thought that one solution for the 2nd biggest country on earth wouldn't work.

It was never one solution. You keep pushing this lie, why? Why do you feel you need to lie about policies you disagree with? Or do you just not understand it?

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by DJones

And the big move was to spend on a 100 billion on nothing and for the city to immediately reverse things.

Thank god for them. I am quite content with the mayor deciding things and getting a bunch of money to do it.

Who ever would have thought that one solution for the 2nd biggest country on earth wouldn't work.

How is the mayor himself deciding things?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by SebC

Municipal control over housing is what got us into the present mess in the first place. The feds and some provinces (e.g. BC) are stepping in precisely because local governments are incentivized to prioritize existing homeowners at the expense of everyone else.

Yeah, given the political incentives I think we would probably have better outcomes in regards to housing policy if the municipality had less of a role. The present system gives to much influence to developers and NIMBY's.

[woob]

This NewBerta has a good ring to it. I think I'll email Weird Al and see if he'll do a parody of Alberta Bound and we can play it at all the sepratist rallies.

[RandyHolt]

I mean rich people might view this NewBerta as a good idea with lower taxes in the future.

But technically they'd be departing Canada, at which point you're taxed on everything you currently own (including private company shares) which would result in hundreds of thousands or millions in taxes for rich people to become part of this NewBerta.

I'm thinking they might just move to a different province and keep their money.

[Fuzz]

Edmonton could begin seeing surgical cancellations and other impacts to patient care in the next few weeks, a group of physicians warn in a letter to two of Alberta’s health ministers.

The letter warns that the doctors believe the end of the funding model currently in place for hospitalists will cause “immediate, unavoidable surgical cancellations” at hospitals in the Edmonton Zone. Those cancellations would need to begin in mid-March “for patient safety reasons,” the doctors write.
“Patient care would fragment into ad hoc, site-specific arrangements, increasing reliance on already overburdened ER, surgical teams, internal medicine, and ICU (intensive-care unit) services.”

“We are hearing from physicians who have received letters indicating that their stipend contracts will terminate by March 31, 2026,” AMA president Dr. Brian Wirzba wrote in a public letter to members in December.
“AMA legal counsel has previously confirmed that once such contracts end, physicians are not obligated to continue providing services that were previously compensated by stipends.”
The result may be a situation where most of the roughly 65 Edmonton Zone hospitalists — each of whom is often responsible for dozens of patients on a given shift — are no longer doing that work.
“Come April 1,” write the authors of the letter, “ in the absence of a contract or reasonable alternative, the majority of surgical hospitalists do not intend — and under the terms of their existing agreements are not permitted — to continue working.”

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...ries-9.7123380


This sounds well thought out. We'll tell our workforce we won't pay them in the old system, and have not told them the new system. If there is one.

[Geraldsh]

Originally Posted by RandyHolt

I mean rich people might view this NewBerta as a good idea with lower taxes in the future.

But technically they'd be departing Canada, at which point you're taxed on everything you currently own (including private company shares) which would result in hundreds of thousands or millions in taxes for rich people to become part of this NewBerta.

I'm thinking they might just move to a different province and keep their money.

When NewBerta is the governing party the initials will be NBP which is close enough to make their heads explode.

[MBates]

Calgary courts reporter Kevin Martin has done an opinion column denouncing the Edmonton Police Service conduct trying to improperly get their way in the highly publicized manslaughter case from last fall:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/martin-edm...110022546.html

But the story should be getting far more attention given the judge's assessment that the EPS and their counsel may have committed criminal obstruction of justice...particularly when we are reminded that Premier Smith publicly endorsed the EPS conduct and was described in media stories as being glad that they intervened in the case.

I think it is worth as many people as possible reading the full part of the decision where the trial judge addresses these issues in order to appreciate how seriously at risk the rule of law already is in this province [my emphasis added]:

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/do...26abkb150.html

[15] Mr. LaValley also raised as a collateral consequence the public notoriety of this case. Although there is always a greater public interest in cases involving the death of a child, interest in this case was greatly increased due to the actions of the Edmonton Police Service.

[16] Through its counsel, Megan Hankewiich, the Edmonton Police Service objected to the Crown’s exercise of its discretion to resolve this matter through a guilty plea to manslaughter. Edmonton Police Service has said that it is waiting to hear my decision on sentence before deciding whether or not to release “significant information” regarding this matter.

[17] I accepted Ms. Rattlesnake’s guilty plea to the charge of manslaughter. The Agreed Statement of Facts states that the blunt force head injury Nina suffered was the tipping point that led to her death. At the time she was suffering from multiple injuries as well as sepsis. All of this combined left Nina too weak to survive. The Agreed Statement of Facts does not indicate how the head injury was caused. It does not indicate who caused what injuries. On these facts, a plea to manslaughter was completely appropriate.

[18] I find the actions of the Edmonton Police Service to be reprehensible. The veiled threat that they may release more information about this matter if they are not happy about the sentence I impose comes dangerously close, and may actually cross the line, into an attempt to wilfully obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding. I see little difference between the actions of Ms. Hankewich and those of former Alberta Justice Minister Kaycee Madu.

[19] I am at a loss as to how this action conforms with the motto that every uniformed officer wears on his or her shoulder, “Integrity, Courage, Community”. This action shows no integrity.

[20] In Canada, it has long been recognized that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are separate entities. When that separation is not present, miscarriages of justice can happen.

[21] Although it is not usually my practice when giving a decision from the Bench, I am going to read a lengthy quote from R v Regan, 2002 SCC 12, starting at para 66 that explains the importance of the separation:

The need for a separation between police and Crown functions has been reiterated in reports inquiring into miscarriages of justice which have sent innocent men to jail in Canada. The Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Prosecution, vol. 1, Findings and Recommendations (1989) (“Marshall Report”) speaks of the Crown’s duty this way: “In addition to being accountable to the Attorney General for the performance of their duties, Crown prosecutors are accountable to the courts and the public. In that sense, the Crown prosecutor occupies what has sometimes been characterized as a quasi-judicial office, a unique position in our Anglo-Canadian legal tradition” (pp. 227-28). The Marshall Report emphasizes that this role must remain distinct from (while still cooperative with) that of the police (at p. 232):

We recognize that cooperative and effective consultation between the police and the Crown is also essential to the proper administration of justice. But under our system, the policing function -- that of investigation and law enforcement – is distinct from the prosecuting function. We believe the maintenance of a distinct line between these two functions is essential to the proper administration of justice.

[22] Continuing in Regan, Justice Lebel goes on to state at paragraph 87 that:

...The expectation is that both the police and the Crown will act according to their distinct roles in the process, investigating allegations of criminal behaviour, and assessing the public interest in prosecuting, respectively....

[23] I urge the senior members of the Edmonton Police Service to read Regan, and the Marshall report. Hopefully it will remind them of the role they play in the justice system and the reason a separation between the police and prosecution is required.

[24] I can assure everyone present today, and everyone involved in this case, and everyone who has an interest in this case, that I make my sentencing decision without any fear of the Edmonton Police Service’s possible actions. However, I do find that their actions go so far beyond what is acceptable conduct by the police service that it should be considered at least a somewhat mitigating factor on sentence.

We have reached a stage where a judge is having to assure the public that he did not allow himself to be intimidated by the threatened actions of the police (publicly supported by the Premier) when he made his decision.

It is not theoretical that we are on the verge of losing the independence of our judicial system - including both the ability of prosecutors to make decisions free from brazen political interference and the ability of judges to rely on the constitutional guarantees of their independence. People who understand what this means are absolutely getting more serious about looking for somewhere else to live. All Albertans should care far more about this than appears to be the case.