May 2015 Provincial Election Thread v2

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by polak

I believe BC's carbon tax goes into tax reductions and Ontario's plan is to put it in a separate fund. I might be wrong though.

It was outlined in a Canadian Fuels Association presentation they had at our work but that was a few months ago.

Yup. BC's plan is Revenue Neutral and it is offset by lowered personal/business taxes. The NDP are calling this Revenue Neutral, because portions of the additional revenue will go back into paying of debt and other services. Even though it's McLean's this is a balanced review from Trevor Tombe.

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/econo...as-carbon-tax/

If by revenue-neutral she means they aren’t going to toss the carbon tax revenue into the ocean but are instead going to spend the money on stuff, then okay. But, the phrase “revenue neutral” rightly means total government revenue will be unchanged. (How could it mean otherwise?) That is, a carbon tax is revenue neutral if what’s levied by the government is fully offset by reductions in other taxes elsewhere. This is basically what B.C. did with their carbon tax. They report annually in their budget how much came in from the carbon tax and how much went out through lower taxes, so it’s all above-board

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Uh, the farming community had two years to address all of those concerns. If they didn't, that's kind of on them, not OHSA.

But hey if you're cool that taxpayers pay for injured employees rather than their employer, then more power to you. No oversight into a notoriously dangerous and lax industry? Whatever man! Safety is for squares.

Riiiiiiight.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

Riiiiiiight.

Well who do you think currently pays for injured farm hands when they cannot work due to no oversight related to safety on farms?

It sure as hell isn't their employer.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

Yup. BC's plan is Revenue Neutral and it is offset by lowered personal/business taxes. The NDP are calling this Revenue Neutral, because portions of the additional revenue will go back into paying of debt and other services. Even though it's McLean's this is a balanced review from Trevor Tombe.

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/econo...as-carbon-tax/

LOL, so it's basically revenue neutral only in that the NDP are going to spend it all. Sounds about right.

The Alberta carbon tax plan is not revenue neutral—not at all. Nothing in the report today suggests any existing tax will be lowered. Of course, that’s a valid position to take, but the government shouldn’t try to mislead people by misusing the phrase “revenue neutral”

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by chemgear

LOL, so it's basically revenue neutral only in that the NDP are going to spend it all. Sounds about right.

The Alberta carbon tax plan is not revenue neutral—not at all. Nothing in the report today suggests any existing tax will be lowered. Of course, that’s a valid position to take, but the government shouldn’t try to mislead people by misusing the phrase “revenue neutral”

And that in there is the issue with the carbon tax. We all knew something was coming of some sorts, but the misleading spin that it's revenue neutral, without it actually being revenue neutral is my biggest beef. At the end of the day it is another tax.

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Well who do you think currently pays for injured farm hands when they cannot work due to no oversight related to safety on farms?

It sure as hell isn't their employer.

Who is gonna pay for all the extra oversight, since in theory every acre of farm land must now be inspected for issues? Why should farms with insurance be legislated to get more insurance? Why are so many issues put under the umbrella of "to be figured out later"? How are farms without employees (i.e. family farms" affected?

I'm not against extra farm safety, but I can't seem to find good answers to these questions, and based on your response you don't have a clue either.

[2Stonedbirds]

Best thing would probably be to turn the farms over to a sovkhoz structure.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

Who is gonna pay for all the extra oversight, since in theory every acre of farm land must now be inspected for issues? Why should farms with insurance be legislated to get more insurance? Why are so many issues put under the umbrella of "to be figured out later"? How are farms without employees (i.e. family farms" affected?

I'm not against extra farm safety, but I can't seem to find good answers to these questions, and based on your response you don't have a clue either.

Actually I spent about an hour chatting with OHSA about this just this afternoon.

They expanded the town hall slate from 3 to 9 because of the irresponsible backlash associated with the issue, to help them figure those "out later" things, even though they've been canvassing for feedback since it was drafted in 2014.

They have made all OHSA inspectors officers since the bills passing in 2014, and have hired more officials to coordinate the farm enforcement effort.

The fraction of company scale (50+ employee) farms far outnumbers "family" farms in TYOOL 2015, despite what this weird Norman Rockwell-esque view of farming in rural Alberta is viewed as being.

A business should not be free from safety investigation just because of some bizarre entitlement system. The only time farm injuries ever merit investigation is if the RCMP believe malicious intent is involved, which as one would imagine, is quite rare, unlike literally every single other business operating in the province which falls under OHSA.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

NDP at it again...tryin' a change our way of life.

Thousands sign petition against Alberta NDP's farm safety bill




http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...fety-1.3338226

They fit the stereotype so perfectly, you'd think it's an Onion article haha.

I heard the interview with the person who started the petition on the radio this morning (you can listen to the whole thing on the link) and hoo-boy, there must have been a lot of cringing farmers out there thinking "how the hell is this person speaking for us?".

Her very first point was that having safety inspectors around could make farmers nervous, and that nervousness could lead to an accident when the inspectors are around. That was the best she had, and she lead with it.

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Actually I spent about an hour chatting with OHSA about this just this afternoon.

They expanded the town hall slate from 3 to 9 because of the irresponsible backlash associated with the issue, to help them figure those "out later" things, even though they've been canvassing for feedback since it was drafted in 2014.

They have made all OHSA inspectors officers since the bills passing in 2014, and have hired more officials to coordinate the farm enforcement effort.

The fraction of company scale (50+ employee) farms far outnumbers "family" farms in TYOOL 2015, despite what this weird Norman Rockwell-esque view of farming in rural Alberta is viewed as being.

A business should not be free from safety investigation just because of some bizarre entitlement system. The only time farm injuries ever merit investigation is if the RCMP believe malicious intent is involved, which as one would imagine, is quite rare, unlike literally every single other business operating in the province which falls under OHSA.

Any links to the data involved? A good chunk of my immediate family that are involved in farming are all family operations, so most of what I see is from that perspective.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

Any links to the data involved? A good chunk of my immediate family that are involved in farming are all family operations, so most of what I see is from that perspective.

I'll send an email to the speaker that presented to us today and ask, however a cursory Google does not seem to show this info anywhere.

As it stands, I think the lobby for corporate farms is standing behind this guise of small family farms to avoid paying vacation, WCB, and minimum wage. There is likely room for a Saskatchewan style exemption for farms employing only family, but very few meet the rules even there, as most have outside labour employed.

[blueski]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Great, with Bill 6, NDP gave up votes in rural Alberta. They only need to PO more Calgarians and our ordeal will be over in 3 and 1/2 years.

Someone needs to make an app for this. How many days under NDP rule are left.

[Puckbag]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I'll send an email to the speaker that presented to us today and ask, however a cursory Google does not seem to show this info anywhere.

As it stands, I think the lobby for corporate farms is standing behind this guise of small family farms to avoid paying vacation, WCB, and minimum wage. There is likely room for a Saskatchewan style exemption for farms employing only family, but very few meet the rules even there, as most have outside labour employed.

And what is the definition of a corporate farm versus family farm? Is it a farm operation with over 3, 10, or 25 employees? I run a farm, our farm business is incorporated, however it is just my dad, my wife and I who operate our farm with one part time employee. So am I one of these "corporate farms standing behind the guise of small family farms"? Or are we a family farm, as the bulk of the work is done by 3 family members?

98% of farms in Alberta are considered family farms, and yes a lot of them are incorporated. I'm sorry, but these giant "factory farms" are far and few between. I'm sure there must be numbers or stats that would confirm this.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Uh, the farming community had two years to address all of those concerns. If they didn't, that's kind of on them, not OHSA.

But hey if you're cool that taxpayers pay for injured employees rather than their employer, then more power to you. No oversight into a notoriously dangerous and lax industry? Whatever man! Safety is for squares.

I thought the Government was supposed to take care of everyone? Why should people be required to take care of themselves?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Puckbag

And what is the definition of a corporate farm versus family farm? Is it a farm operation with over 3, 10, or 25 employees? I run a farm, our farm business is incorporated, however it is just my dad, my wife and I who operate our farm with one part time employee. So am I one of these "corporate farms standing behind the guise of small family farms"? Or are we a family farm, as the bulk of the work is done by 3 family members?

98% of farms in Alberta are considered family farms, and yes a lot of them are incorporated. I'm sorry, but these giant "factory farms" are far and few between. I'm sure there must be numbers or stats that would confirm this.

Firstly, let me say that I think all farms should be under OHSA. If a guy running a hardware store who only has his wife and son working there does, why shouldn't a farmer? They do it throughout Canada, with Alberta (as seems to be the case a lot these days) as the only holdouts.

Secondly, lets take a look at the Ontario OHSA legislation, which Alberta is intending to model itself after:

http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/...ohsa/index.php

A farm owner/operator hires one person to help out at peak times, usually once or twice a year, for a few weeks at a time. Does the Act apply?

The Act will apply whenever there is a paid worker on the farming operation, even if it is only for a short period of time. During these times, the owner/operator will have all the applicable responsibilities under the Act.

The Act will not apply at those times of the year when there are no paid workers on the farming operation.

A farmer doesn't have any employees, but the farmer's children work on the farming operation during their summer holidays. They are not paid a salary, but the farmer purchased a car for one and paid the other's university tuition. Does the Act apply?

No. If the farmer's children are not paid a salary or wages for their work, the Ministry of Labour would not consider them to be "workers" for the purposes of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

A husband and wife are self-employed farmers with no paid workers. They have incorporated their business for tax purposes. They each draw salaries from their company and receive T4 slips. Are they workers of the company for the purposes of the Occupational Health and Safety Act? Is such an operation covered by the Act?

The Ministry of Labour would consider the husband and wife to be self employed and the Occupational Health and Safety Act would not apply to this farming operation solely because it is incorporated and the owners collect a salary.

Hope that clears it up.

[Slava]

With regard to the carbon tax, has there been any announcement or information made available for the income cut-off for rebates, or how this will be structured? Like at what income level do they begin "rebates"?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Slava

With regard to the carbon tax, has there been any announcement or information made available for the income cut-off for rebates, or how this will be structured? Like at what income level do they begin "rebates"?

I've only read that the bottom 60% of income earners will get the rebate. Like 2/3 of albertans will get a rebate. I assume it will be scaled based on your income. But no one really knows other than thee bottom 2/3, 60%, everyone but the highest earners, that sort of thing. The bigger question might be, how do cities fit in here? Calgary runs dozens of large buildings, thousands of cars, hundreds of plane trips a year. If municipalities don't get some money, property taxes will be a problem.

[flamefan74]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

The fraction of company scale (50+ employee) farms far outnumbers "family" farms in TYOOL 2015, despite what this weird Norman Rockwell-esque view of farming in rural Alberta is viewed as being.

Just wondering where you get this info from? Because it is just flat out wrong. Most farms are actually fewer than 5 employees, and only a small handful would be 50+. And that would even be adding colonies.

[Shazam]

PsYcNeT is 100% correct about the farm legislation. There's never been a real reason for them to have those crazy exceptions. The fact that work inspectors have never been able to investigation farm incidents is borderline criminal.

In regards to the carbon tax, the industry loves it because exports aren't taxed. Yippee.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by flamefan74

Just wondering where you get this info from? Because it is just flat out wrong. Most farms are actually fewer than 5 employees, and only a small handful would be 50+. And that would even be adding colonies.

What does that matter anyhow? My company is eight employees - should I be exempt from stuff too? I wish.