Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GGG

Upper Kananaskis lake is 140.3 km from downtown Calgary

But in the interests of clarity I will rephrase my position. Anyone who can afford to live within cycling distance of Kananaskis and can afford a bicycle has not had their park access restricted by a $90 per year fee.

And anyone with a 100km round trip at .25 cents /km did not find the park become unaffordable when the cost rose from $25 to $40.

Unless you have a friend from Venezuala who just happens to make your point for you that you recently talked to in a food court I don’t think the person you are talking about exists. And if such a person exists then the argument should be means tested passes to support this mythical person not scarp the fee program.

Access for low income is not the reason to be arguing against park fees.

Now perhaps you could argue that the fee discourages visitation because people don’t like to pay it and I would agree that is a likely true statement but suggesting poor people can no longer access parks because of the fee and doubling down when challenged is ridiculous.


Edit: I’m with powderjunkie of McLean Creek should have to pay to.

In all honesty, anyone who’s been in the park the last couple years knows that usage isn’t suffering. There’s an enormous amount of traffic and people.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

In reality you didn’t elect the leader of the party during the general election . You elected your ridings candidate

But the point stands that most people vote for the leader / party

I guess the answer is they did hold an election within the Conservative Party and she was elected

I know thats the general jist of the concept, but thats not really the reality of how the system works because at the end of the day when you shed the rhetoric these are elected officials with something to lose and a lot to gain by staying in power.

They're supposed to vote for their constituents but they generally hold a party line.

A party of Danielle Smith's beliefs is not the party that people elected.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

We really elect a party with a platform they want to implement. None of this trashy Libertarian bull#### was in the platform at the last election.

She can write a new platform of crazy, and put it to the electorate. Until that date, she should be in caretaker mode. Nobody has had a say on this.

Effectively, yes, I agree.

If she thinks there is a taste for her particular flavour of crazy BS then put it to a general vote.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I think the purpose of royalties is to make sure I, and all Albertans, receive a fair share of the profits from extracting our resources. Profits are net of costs, and reclamation is part of the lifecycle cost of extracting our resources. By accepting the royalties, and therefore the reclamation liabilities created by their extraction, I think its fair to say its partly my mess.

What do you think the purpose of collecting royalties is?


And me and all Albertans receiving record royalties.


Where's the logical fallacy?

Look, I get that its a bit controversial but it makes sense to me. I don't work for a company with orphan well liabilities, nor do I own shares in one. I just think its fair to own a share of the liabilities if I'm going to take a share of the profits.

See your problem from the outset is not understanding what a royalty is.

[Harry Lime]

I'm not sure if I went back far enough in reading this thread to see if it was initially mentioned that the UCP eliminated a tonne of funding (memory says around 7M) and fired a lot of the employees maintaining the park (or offered them the option to relocated to the far NW part of Alberta's left armpit, making leaving their choice).

They then brought in the fees to make up the shortfall, that they caused.

They then put the income from the fees into general revenue, and increased the bureaucracy around park maintenance. Can anyone verify if private companies were hired to do any previously public jobs in the park?

And the people living closer than Calgary to Kananaskis don't appreciate having to suddenly pay for what used to be the backyard, and the place looking run down because there are a fraction of the former employees looking after the place.

Defending the UCP on the topic of Kananaskis is a non-starter for me.

Should we talk about the provincial parks that they sold to private concern? Anyone remember that?

[RedHot25]

This fits the discussion quite well, ha...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1594883471025270786

[Harry Lime]

Once again, they create a problem, only to come up with a 'solution' within a year of calling an election. It's grifting.

Alberta government to remove cap on doctor daily visits

The United Conservative Party government introduced the cap, along with other changes unpopular with doctors, when they unilaterally terminated a master agreement with the Alberta Medical Association (AMA) in February 2020 and imposed a new contract.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...sits-1.6659693

[Fuzz]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1594724352528093184

Probably not urgent, she should drink some green tea.

[Superflyer]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://twitter.com/user/status/1594724352528093184

Probably not urgent, she should drink some green tea.

According to Smith, it is her own fault for getting cancer. She should have thought about that before she went out and got it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

I'm not sure if I went back far enough in reading this thread to see if it was initially mentioned that the UCP eliminated a tonne of funding (memory says around 7M) and fired a lot of the employees maintaining the park (or offered them the option to relocated to the far NW part of Alberta's left armpit, making leaving their choice).

They then brought in the fees to make up the shortfall, that they caused.

They then put the income from the fees into general revenue, and increased the bureaucracy around park maintenance. Can anyone verify if private companies were hired to do any previously public jobs in the park?

And the people living closer than Calgary to Kananaskis don't appreciate having to suddenly pay for what used to be the backyard, and the place looking run down because there are a fraction of the former employees looking after the place.

Defending the UCP on the topic of Kananaskis is a non-starter for me.

Should we talk about the provincial parks that they sold to private concern? Anyone remember that?

I don’t think anyone was defending the UCP here or the use of the money from the fee or the current parks budget.

I was defending the fee for use of provincial parks.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I think the purpose of royalties is to make sure I, and all Albertans, receive a fair share of the profits from extracting our resources. Profits are net of costs, and reclamation is part of the lifecycle cost of extracting our resources. By accepting the royalties, and therefore the reclamation liabilities created by their extraction, I think its fair to say its partly my mess.

What do you think the purpose of collecting royalties is?


And me and all Albertans receiving record royalties.


Where's the logical fallacy?

Look, I get that its a bit controversial but it makes sense to me. I don't work for a company with orphan well liabilities, nor do I own shares in one. I just think its fair to own a share of the liabilities if I'm going to take a share of the profits.

Of course you dont work for or own shares in a company with orphan wells. Those companies dont exist. It's like saying you are currently not a parent of an orphan or know any parents of orphan children.

Orphan wells are the responsibility of the OWA which is funded by industry and are a large liability to government coffers, but they aren't the only liability. Should we be on the hook for inactive wells, long term shut-in wells of terrible operating companies, D13 non-compliance wells, wells with SCVF and gas migration issues, companies that are ignoring surface abandonment and reclamation requirements? Might as well nationalize the industry. Operators own 100% of a well's liability from licensing to reclamation certificate authorization.

[RedHot25]

https://calgarysun.com/opinion/colum...expect-tuesday

The smart money says if you are a family with children under 18 years of age and your yearly household income is a little less than $200,000, you will get a total of several hundred dollars a child paid out over the course of six months.

The same payout will go to seniors, those with the same household income as families eligible for the dollars.

The severely handicapped on AISH and people with developmental disabilities on PDD and folks on Income Support will also receive the money.

Alberta benefits will go up with increases to the cost of living.

Smith and her government will nix the entire provincial fuel tax for at least the next half a year.

With a change to income tax, Albertans can expect getting back a few more dollars in the spring after filing taxes.

Article content
There will be an increased rebate on consumer electricity bills through the winter adding up to a couple of hundred dollars a household.

The Smith government is said to be working on doing something about spikes in winter electricity rates.

They will also put dough toward food banks and low-income transit passes.

More is thought to be coming down the road but it is not part of Smith’s time on the tube Tuesday night.

The price tag for the TV spot adds up to $2 billion-plus but there’s coin in the kitty, mucho dinero in the provincial treasury, the oil roller coaster closer to the top than the bottom.

She’ll mention her Sovereignty Act, where the Alberta government won’t enforce measures of the federal government when Ottawa is muscling in on the province’s rights.

It will now be known as the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act, just in case you think Smith is flirting with separatism.

It won’t end there but a reviewer never gives away the ending.

The Smith braintrust look at this TV spot and see an opportunity for the premier to show the voters she is not wacky or kooky or more than a little off-balance or channelling some unpopular and harebrained ideas.

Will she convince enough Albertans she is done with some of the spacewalks of her past, her adventures with dubious opinions, a path with defeat as its likely destination?

Will she be seen as having done a real pivot from the preoccupations of her leadership campaign and her talk show days?

[malcolmk14]

How does a tv spot cost $2 billion? Am I reading that right? Or is that the total cost of all the initiatives they're rolling out today?

[surferguy]

I think it’s the initiatives

[Ozy_Flame]

That very much looks like two things:

1. Trying to woo the moderates with money in the short-term.
2. Buying support for her nutty policies further down the line.

I don't really see these handouts as solutions, just band-aids for chronic and systemic problems (e.g. inflation, healthcare, social services, etc.) And I hope the press shells her with questions about her dubious long-term plans for each of those.

Can you imagine if Alberta didn't have a cash windfall? And how long is the government going to feed at that trough?

This is effectively buying more time for the Danielle show, IMO.

[Muta]

I'll take her money, but I'm still going to vote NDP and encourage everyone I know to do so as well.

[CactusJack]

Originally Posted by Muta

I'll take her money, but I'm still going to vote NDP and encourage everyone I know to do so as well.

…and donate it to the NDP.

[Fuzz]

I'd rather have a functioning healthcare system that can treat me if I get cancer than this BS vote buying. #### off, Danny!

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'd rather have a functioning healthcare system that can treat me if I get cancer

Danny would rather you feel shame for getting it, you should have done more to prevent it from happening in the first place. Shame on you if you get it, Fuzz.

[Harry Lime]

I'm not old enough and haven't any kids, so that announcement was Smith telling me to go #### myself. Why not just base everything on income and be done with it?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

Upper Kananaskis lake is 140.3 km from downtown Calgary

But in the interests of clarity I will rephrase my position. Anyone who can afford to live within cycling distance of Kananaskis and can afford a bicycle has not had their park access restricted by a $90 per year fee.

And anyone with a 100km round trip at .25 cents /km did not find the park become unaffordable when the cost rose from $25 to $40.

Unless you have a friend from Venezuala who just happens to make your point for you that you recently talked to in a food court I don’t think the person you are talking about exists. And if such a person exists then the argument should be means tested passes to support this mythical person not scarp the fee program.

Access for low income is not the reason to be arguing against park fees.

Absolutely it is. There are number of ways to increase funding that would not be directly detrimental to lower income Albertans.

Now perhaps you could argue that the fee discourages visitation because people don’t like to pay it and I would agree that is a likely true statement but suggesting poor people can no longer access parks because of the fee and doubling down when challenged is ridiculous.

Would you argue that it’s more likely the more affluent crowd that would be discouraged or the lower income crowd? Because that’s kinda the point here.

We all come from different places financially but I think your assessment that a fee being small won’t dissuade people is wishful thinking. Perhaps you’ve never been in a situation where you’ve had to pinch every penny(and that’s not meant as a slight, that’s the kind of position we want people to be in) but there are certainly people whose ability to enjoy the parks is affected by this fee being implemented. There’s no denying that.