Alberta Politics Thread

[CaptainCrunch]

I know its the sun and Gunter, but he breaks down the problems with Bill 20, and he's right the whole searching and ability to search without warrants is in this thing.

This whole thing is going to be one enormous costly mess

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2016/05/2...e-than-thought

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I know its the son and Gunter, but he breaks down the problems with Bill 20, and he's right the whole searching and ability to search without warrants is in this thing.

This whole thing is going to be one enormous costly mess

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2016/05/2...e-than-thought

It is well-established that inspections/searches related to regulatory offences do not require a warrant (provided that the legislation expressly authorizes warrantless searches): Comité paritaire de l'industrie de la chemise v. Potash; Comité paritaire de l'industrie de la chemise v. Sélection Milton, [1994] 2 SCR 406, 1994 CanLII 92 (SCC).

This is not at all unusual.

[GGG]

Wouldn't it be very simple to just have the bill be the following.

If you burn a substance that emits CO2 you will pay the following rate
X per GJ gas
X per L gas
X per ton coal
X per ton wood

If you wish you can set up a continuous emissions monitoring system and pay X$ per ton of C02 based on actual emissions.

People who qualify for GST rebates will get rebates as per x scale.

[CaptainCrunch]

It looks like it does authorize searches without warrants for everything but your home, but businesses, sheds garages and businesses are all far game without warrants.

It doesn't look like it takes into account home businesses and attached garages.

And I can see them talking fines and imprisonment but nothing is defined around that.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

It looks like it does authorize searches without warrants for everything but your home, but businesses, sheds garages and businesses are all far game without warrants.

It doesn't look like it takes into account home businesses and attached garages.

And I can see them talking fines and imprisonment but nothing is defined around that.

How very Soviet of them. Big Brother (Sister?) needs unfettered access to your business and cant be bothered by minimal considerations like rights or due process or probable cause.

I cant wait for the NDP to bust into my office and regulate the use of my Air Conditioning or wait until winter to put a lock-box on my thermostat.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I know its the sun and Gunter, but he breaks down the problems with Bill 20, and he's right the whole searching and ability to search without warrants is in this thing.

This whole thing is going to be one enormous costly mess

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2016/05/2...e-than-thought

Under Bill 20, during these surprise inspections government agents would have the power to examine the fuel tank “of any motor vehicle,” the “hardware or software” of any computer and “any trunk, box, bag, parcel, closet, cupboard or other receptacle.”

What does that have to do with the Environment?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Makarov

It is well-established that inspections/searches related to regulatory offences do not require a warrant (provided that the legislation expressly authorizes warrantless searches): Comité paritaire de l'industrie de la chemise v. Potash; Comité paritaire de l'industrie de la chemise v. Sélection Milton, [1994] 2 SCR 406, 1994 CanLII 92 (SCC).

This is not at all unusual.

Under Bill 20, during these surprise inspections government agents would have the power to examine the fuel tank “of any motor vehicle,” the “hardware or software” of any computer and “any trunk, box, bag, parcel, closet, cupboard or other receptacle.”

That doesn't seem unusual to you???

[CaptainCrunch]

They are building a whole new department for this thing, Yet they aren't defining how much of a nip this is going to take out of the 3 billion that they're going to collect.

They are very vague in terms of enforcement and punishment, and while Notley complains about fear mongering in terms of searches, its so vaugue that Brian Jean actually comes across as right. How does this no warrant thing work if you're running a home office or home business, if your garage is attached to your house or part of your house they still don't require a warrant to go into your private property.

And there's no possible way that their math is right in terms of this rebate and who gets it.

BTW and this is awesome, its going to make Alberta food non competitive in its home market because Alberta producers are going to be managed by this bill and imported foods and especially meats are exempt from this.

so we're basically going to screw local manufacturers and producers over in their own market.

For those that want to read the bill, I've attached it below.

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/ISYS/LADDA...8_bill-020.pdf

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Just wait until the part where O&G companies are taxed on NG used at their facilities. That will be passed right on to the consumer.

What I'm really reading here is "Hey everyone, I have no idea how commodity markets work!"

Oil and gas producers can't pass anything on to consumers. That's not how that industry works at all.
Producers are paid whatever the market price is, and in this case it's a global or continental market.
A carbon tax in Alberta isn't going to immediately change the supply or demand, hence price, of oil & gas, so it'll be strictly an additional cost that producers will have to eat.

There is no way for say CNRL to pass along this cost to the consumer as CNRL doesn't set the price, nor do they interact directly with the end users/consumers.

[Locke]

Forget home offices, I'm running a business at an office and the Government needs a warrant to seize and search my Computers or Files, but all of a sudden for the sake of enforcing a Carbon Tax the Provincial Government can come in and take whatever they want for whatever reason? Why?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Weitz

That doesn't seem unusual to you???

Right from the bill

Under the authority of a warrant issued pursuant to subsection

(1), the Minister or officer may do all or any of the following:

(a) at any time, enter and search any place or premises named

in the warrant;

(b) stop and search any motor vehicle described in the

warrant;

(c) open and examine any trunk, box, bag, parcel, closet,

cupboard or other receptacle that the Minister or officer

finds in the place, premises or motor vehicle;

(d) require the production of and examine any records or

property that the Minister or officer believes, on

reasonable grounds, may contain information related to an

offence against this Act or the regulations;

55

(e) remove, for the purpose of making copies in accordance

with section 59, any records examined pursuant to this

section;

(f) seize and remove from any place, premises or motor

vehicle searched anything that may be evidence of an

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Right from the bill

Under the authority of a warrant issued pursuant to subsection

(1), the Minister or officer may do all or any of the following:

(a) at any time, enter and search any place or premises named

in the warrant;

(b) stop and search any motor vehicle described in the

warrant;

(c) open and examine any trunk, box, bag, parcel, closet,

cupboard or other receptacle that the Minister or officer

finds in the place, premises or motor vehicle;

(d) require the production of and examine any records or

property that the Minister or officer believes, on

reasonable grounds, may contain information related to an

offence against this Act or the regulations;

55

(e) remove, for the purpose of making copies in accordance

with section 59, any records examined pursuant to this

section;

(f) seize and remove from any place, premises or motor

vehicle searched anything that may be evidence of an

What are you saying here? At the top of that it says "Under the authority of a warrant"

[CaptainCrunch]

(3)

Subject to subsection (4), the Minister or officer may exercise

all or any of the powers mentioned in subsection (2) without a

warrant if

(a) the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist, and

(b) the Minister or officer has reasonable grounds to believe

that the delay necessary to obtain a warrant would result

(i) in danger to human life or safety, or

(ii) in the loss, removal or destruction of evidence.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Weitz

What are you saying here? At the top of that it says "Under the authority of a warrant"

I just posted subsection 3 above which defines that they can do the same without a warrant

Be patient, cut and paste is hard.

[IliketoPuck]

How is there not more of an outrage on this bill?

The NDP is blatantly abusing their power.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I just posted subsection 3 above which defines that they can do the same without a warrant

Be patient, cut and paste is hard.

I see that now.

But with that language why would a Officer ever get a warrant? With that language it sounds like you could do anything if you felt reasonably justified.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I see that now.

But with that language why would a Officer ever get a warrant? With that language it sounds like you could do anything if you felt reasonably justified.

You'd later have to defend that justification. This is pretty much just the same exigent circumstances provisions that allow other warrentless searches.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So question?

It looks like the intention for the Carbon Tax is to raise 3 billion dollars and we have about 4 million people in this province, isn't that over $700 dollars a head, which means that a family of 4 would really be on the hook for about $2800.00?

Also based on the math by 2018 the gas tax will be about 7 cents a liter, so if we went with that 4000 liters of gas per year calculation for a family of 4, which I still have trouble with, that works out to nearly $290.00 per year just for gas and the rebate is $360.00 so somehow we're left with $70.00 worth of rebate for gas and utilities increases? Not including other incidental cost increases

Business will contribute a lot, I suspect. So that throws your calculation off.

For gas, is 4000 litres fairly normal? My wife and I burn a total of maybe 1000 litres a year, though we don't drive to work.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Business will contribute a lot, I suspect. So that throws your calculation off.

For gas, is 4000 litres fairly normal? My wife and I burn a total of maybe 1000 litres a year, though we don't drive to work.

My car average about 9.7L/100km and I drive probably 19,000 km a year (I don't drive to or from work). That works out to 1958 L of gas. From asking around my friends and family I am pretty average. Add in 2 cars for a family, commuting to work, driving kids, etc. Could add up.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Weitz

From asking around my friends and family I am pretty average.

No. Baby you're a firework.