Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Nancy]

Originally Posted by btimbit

We're definitely on the lower side. Some cities in BC have pretty low property taxes, Toronto is a bit lower too, everywhere else is much higher than Calgary

That’s only when looking at property tax rates which are distorted by the inflated values of real estate between different cities. I’d argue that is more meaningful to look at median and average tax bills in dollar terms, in which case none of the mentioned cities are low tax. You also need to factor in other sources of tax like commercial real estate property taxes and user fees. Really, look at spending per capita to determine the real fiscal situation.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Nancy

That’s only when looking at property tax rates which are distorted by the inflated values of real estate between different cities. I’d argue that is more meaningful to look at median and average tax bills in dollar terms, in which case none of the mentioned cities are low tax. You also need to factor in other sources of tax like commercial real estate property taxes and user fees. Really, look at spending per capita to determine the real fiscal situation.

Oh absolutely. I think what I said was self-explanatory, the only cities with less property taxes are well known to have an extremely high costs of living, so no matter which way you slice it, whoever said property tax is high in Calgary is wrong

[Fuzz]

An Alberta judge has ruled the February order lifting the requirement for schoolchildren to mask was "unreasonable" because it was ultimately made by cabinet and not the chief medical officer of health (CMOH), which is a breach of the Public Health Act.

The judge also found a statement by then-minister of health Adriana LaGrange did not prohibit school boards from imposing their own mask rules, which caused "widespread misunderstanding of the legal effect" of her words.

"While Minister LaGrange's statement on its face appears to prohibit school boards from imposing mask mandates, it does not do so, because the minister can only do that through a regulation, and the statement was not a regulation," wrote Dunlop in his 28-page decision issued Thursday.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...631695?cmp=rss

Basically tells us what we already knew, the government was ignoring the advice of health professionals and the CMOH to achieve a political solution to pander to idiots like Smith and her ilk. Didn't work out so well for Kenney, he was hung with his own rope. I'm sure there will be no consequences, other than Dr. Hinshaw getting fired by the Lawbreaker in Chief.

[GGG]

Is there a link to the ruling itself. I can’t find one in the article and my google is failing me.

The article seems to suggest that the CMOH abdicating decision making to cabinet was what was improper here not that they didn’t listen to health advice but maybe in the ruling it’s what you are describing.

[RedHot25]

There appears to be some snippets in this thread;

https://twitter.com/user/status/1585696940477808641

[Looch City]

That AB Judge was obviously a plant by the NDP.

Thanks again Notley.

[woob]

https://albertacourts.ca/docs/defaul...rsn=38b46182_5

https://albertacourts.ca/qb/resources/judgments

Googled Court of King's Bench rulings.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by woob

Googled Court of King's Bench rulings.

F--k, that's still so weird to say out loud, it doesn't even sound right to me.

[GGG]

Based on the extensive record, it is not possible for me to conclude that there was no reason to remove the mask mandate in February 2022, nor is it possible for me to conclude that the Order was made to address the protests and the blockade, and not for other reasons.

From the ruling, the specificity states that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that this decision was or was not political.

Both a reasonableness analysis as set out in Katz and Green and a sub-delegation analysis advanced by the Applicants turn on the interpretation of the governing statute, in this case the Public Health Act. Applying a broad and purposive interpretation to both the Public Health Act and the Order and starting with the presumption that the Order is valid, the Order was unreasonable because it was the implementation of PICC’s judgment and decision, and not that of the Chief Medical Officer of Health. The Order was unreasonable because it was based on an unreasonable interpretation of the Public Health Act as giving ultimate decision-making authority over public health orders during a public health emergency to elected officials, specifically PICC.

And concludes that the Health Order is unreasonable because Hinshaw couldn’t delegate her power to PICC.

This ruling seems to throw Hinshaw under the bus.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

From the ruling, the specificity states that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that this decision was or was not political.



And concludes that the Health Order is unreasonable because Hinshaw couldn’t delegate her power to PICC.

This ruling seems to throw Hinshaw under the bus.

As some of us discussed at the time, it sure seemed like she was given the choice of signing it, or getting canned and them putting someone in who would sign it. Without insight into the cabinet meetings(which I presume we will never hear) that's really the most logical explanation.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

As some of us discussed at the time, it sure seemed like she was given the choice of signing it, or getting canned and them putting someone in who would sign it. Without insight into the cabinet meetings(which I presume we will never hear) that's really the most logical explanation.

Yeah that’s the way it reads and in my opinion that’s the point where if you can’t back the decision you have an obligation to get fired. Instead she she tried to justify saying it wasn’t her decision to make.

Certainly a tough decision to make for Hinshaw.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

Yeah that’s the way it reads and in my opinion that’s the point where if you can’t back the decision you have an obligation to get fired. Instead she she tried to justify saying it wasn’t her decision to make.

Certainly a tough decision to make for Hinshaw.

I wouldn't want to suggest anything to impinge her character(and I'd probably have done the same) but it sure puts the ~$200k bonus in a new light. I suspect if she got canned that would off the table. A tell-all book from her would be a wild ride.

[Flames0910]

It's as many previously said -- the CMOH has the ultimate authority over health rulings during a public health emergency and is more than just an advisor to the political decision makers.

Hinshaw and the politicians liked to say the opposite during the "endemic" phase:

How many times did she and the politicians gaslight us on this one?
How many times did she stand at the lecturn abdicating responsibility saying "I'm just an advisor"?
How many times did Kenney remind us that decision making power rests solely with cabinet and elected officials?

This court ruling clearly states the opposite. In a public health emergency, the CMOH has ultimate authority over health rules, not politicians. Whether the Public Health Act was simply misinterpreted or manipulated for political purposes, this is a hugely important clarification for understanding what went wrong with covid management and is something all the provinces should be taking note of for next time.

[Geraldsh]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I wonder if that term dates us. My crew called them zoomers back in the day, too. Haven't heard it in a while, though.

I did not know Zoomer as a slang term when I posted, thought it referred to old people trying to be up to date.

The ANDP should lock in the “A” to hammer it home that they are not your federal type party.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Geraldsh

I did not know Zoomer as a slang term when I posted, thought it referred to old people trying to be up to date.

The ANDP should lock in the “A” to hammer it home that they are not your federal type party.

I think that might be a good choice. I really think the change to the logo to mix in the light blue sky was also a good choice to give the party some more inclusiveness and show they are more a centre party that embraces the "Progressive" conservative voter.

[Muta]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1586067130172473344

Danielle Smith is a quote machine.

[RedHot25]

This is just Don purely speculating, but nonetheless...

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...ocratic-powers

Smith, of course, has declared herself the UCP candidate in a Brooks-Medicine Hat byelection to be held Nov. 8. Elbow stays vacant, to be “covered” by adjacent UCP minister Tyler Shandro.

There won’t be an MLA of any party in Elbow until next May 29 — if Smith decides to hold the general election at all.

A startling thought? It sure is. But if Smith is so ready to made a riding wait, maybe she’ll make the whole province wait, too.

The Elections Act calls for a vote every four years on a specific date. But that is not binding. There’s no stricture against letting the government run to its full term of five years, the constitutional limit.

That could mean an election in May 2024, not 2023. Come spring, what happens if the polls are dreadful for the UCP, showing a clear NDP victory?

Smith adamantly insists that she will respect the symbolic law. She seems to mean it.

But precedents exist for long election delay by new premiers who win their party leadership.

[RedHot25]

Also, funny, Alberta politics is a blast, if you google her name one of the hits remains this: https://recalldanielle.ca/#

The petition is still active, haha. https://recalldanielle.ca/#petition

And looky who is in all the photos... https://www.flickr.com/photos/130368...7649992720275/

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Lower income tax.

AP didn't campaign on lower income tax. They've been silent on it. Have they committed to lower income tax anywhere?

The UCP actually raised everyone's income tax through bracket creep.

NDP added high income brackets in their term, but have been silent since.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Regorium

AP didn't campaign on lower income tax. They've been silent on it. Have they committed to lower income tax anywhere?

The UCP actually raised everyone's income tax through bracket creep.

NDP added high income brackets in their term, but have been silent since.

This is from the Alberta Party this year under the leadership of Barry:

The Alberta Party would also increase the income tax deduction limit for small businesses and maintain corporate tax levels where they currently stand. With revenue clearly remaining a problem for the government, the Alberta Party proposes a review of tax structures that includes decreasing personal income taxes and the introduction of a harmonized sales tax once the province has recovered from the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, a made-in-Alberta carbon tax would keep funds in the province instead of being sent to Ottawa, and revenues would be used on initiatives that reduce carbon emissions so that Alberta can remain a global energy leader.

“Alberta needs a serious review of how we treat taxation in order to get to a place of stability and fiscal discipline”, stated Mark Nikota, the Party’s Shadow Minister of Treasury Board and Finance. “This Shadow Budget reflects innovative conversations that are happening, and strong leadership is required to get the province on the right course.”