Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[troutman]

nm

[Fuzz]

If they need to recovery some money, maybe they can look to page 52 here. A lot of >million dollar a year compensations here, given their massive failure. I know, it's not the >billion, but come on. If there are lawsuits over it, why were they compensated so well? Every time you dig a hole in this province you find another geyser of embarrassment.


https://annualreports.aimco.ca/2021/...d-analysis.pdf

[Point Blank]

Got this invitation.

Dear teachers,
Over the past few months, we’ve heard from many of you about the growing challenges facing classrooms across Alberta—from increasing class sizes to rising complexity.
To hear directly from teachers, I am pleased to invite you to join a telephone town hall with Premier Danielle Smith and me on Monday, December 1, 2025, from 7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. MST.
During the town hall, we’ll be taking live questions and written questions from you on the topic of class size and complexity.
This is your opportunity to speak with us directly, ask questions, and share your experiences about class size and complexity. Your insights about your classrooms and students are valuable, and we’re committed to listening and working with you to help shape the path forward.

NOW they want to hear from teachers? Couldn’t have done this before they nuked our constitutional rights?

They want to talk after they’ve already set the terms and then tell us that our voices are valuable. This is how bullies negotiate.

Nicolaides has a hard time replying to my emails as is, I’m not wasting anymore time with this idiot.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Taking a break from rightful UCP bashing for a sec, here's piece of good news they appear poised to have pulled off. This will be very good for this province.

Ottawa, Alberta agree to broad outlines of energy deal, including support for pipeline

The pipeline’s subject to Eby and full FN approval (which makes no sense and isn’t how pipelines are supposed to be approved but I digress) so in short, it will never be built and this is one of those fake “see? We do things for you!” without-actually-doing-something-real-or-viable-Type political moves.

So the insanely super needed pipeline isn’t happening despite it being the country’s most important future investment. This is not a win until teeth are applied, which is possible, I guess, but I’m doubtful.

Recall that Eby, without even hearing about what possible terms or upside could even look like, was already saying no dice! We don’t want tankers!*

*Canadian tankers. American ones in the same waters are totally cool though.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Point Blank

Got this invitation.



NOW they want to hear from teachers? Couldn’t have done this before they nuked our constitutional rights?

They want to talk after they’ve already set the terms and then tell us that our voices are valuable. This is how bullies negotiate.

Nicolaides has a hard time replying to my emails as is, I’m not wasting anymore time with this idiot.

They don't actually want to hear from you. They will just use this to tick a box and say what a good job they are doing.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Point Blank

Got this invitation.



NOW they want to hear from teachers? Couldn’t have done this before they nuked our constitutional rights?

They want to talk after they’ve already set the terms and then tell us that our voices are valuable. This is how bullies negotiate.

Nicolaides has a hard time replying to my emails as is, I’m not wasting anymore time with this idiot.

“Premier Smith and Minister, the government ended our strike using the notwithstanding clause in a way that overrides all fundamental and legal rights, not just those related to labour action. Why was such an extremely broad override necessary, and will you commit to narrowing it so that teachers are not stripped of rights that have nothing to do with collective bargaining?”

“Premier Smith, many of us are concerned that instead of addressing class size and complexity, the government chose to use an extremely broad notwithstanding clause to end our strike. How does suspending a wide range of Charter rights help reduce class sizes or support students with increasing needs?”

Thanks ChatGPT. For reference I loaded up Mbates' post in the Canadian Politics thread, loaded up your invitation, then asked it for questions lol

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Suave

Alberta tables legislation aimed at blocking $1.3 billion claim against AIMCo

Bill 12 — the Financial Statutes Amendment Act — proposes a sweeping number of changes to existing pieces of legislation including the AIMCo Amendment Act, which would shield the government from a $1.3 billion claim filed against AIMCo by pension agencies after a 2020 trading strategy called VOLTS resulted in AIMCo incurring losses of about $2 billion.

I don’t get this one:

Levy for data centres

The province is also looking to introduce a levy framework for data centres. It is seeking to introduce a levy of up to two per cent on computing equipment for large data centres with at least 75 megawatts of power capacity. Data centres that bring their own power generation would pay a lower rate.

Technology and Innovation Minister Nate Glubish said the province is anticipating hundreds of millions of dollars from the levy. He said right now the province is seeing tens of billions of dollars of investment into Alberta’s data centres.

“We are very bullish on data centres as a big opportunity for Alberta, but make no mistake, we’ll make sure that the projects that do proceed are in the public interest,” Glubish said.

The levy would be deductible from corporate income taxes paid in Alberta.

A levy on business that we want to attract, but also tax-deductible? Is it to encourage data centres to bring their own power?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Suave

Alberta tables legislation aimed at blocking $1.3 billion claim against AIMCo

Bill 12 — the Financial Statutes Amendment Act — proposes a sweeping number of changes to existing pieces of legislation including the AIMCo Amendment Act, which would shield the government from a $1.3 billion claim filed against AIMCo by pension agencies after a 2020 trading strategy called VOLTS resulted in AIMCo incurring losses of about $2 billion.

Overriding the legal process you say? Never.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Point Blank

Got this invitation.



NOW they want to hear from teachers? Couldn’t have done this before they nuked our constitutional rights?

They want to talk after they’ve already set the terms and then tell us that our voices are valuable. This is how bullies negotiate.

Nicolaides has a hard time replying to my emails as is, I’m not wasting anymore time with this idiot.

Go ask if you are legally allowed to to comment negatively on class size or complexity given the fines set out in the act and the removal of speech rights.

[Fuzz]

Probably not, but the government is busy working to protect the rights of corporations to say whatever they want about their green credentials. If you are wondering where their priorities lie. Which you shouldn't be wondering at this point.

Securities Amendment Act
The Securities Act establishes Alberta's securities laws and provides the
Alberta Securities Commission with its mandate, powers, and duties.
Proposed amendments would:
• Protect companies from unfair lawsuits when they make good-faith
climate-related financial disclosures.

https://www.alberta.ca/system/files/...fact-sheet.pdf


"unfair lawsuits". Maybe leave that to the courts to decide the "fairness"? Who's calling that shot? Who decides the financial disclosures are good faith? Can a minister shut down a lawsuit just because...?

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

The pipeline’s subject to Eby and full FN approval (which makes no sense and isn’t how pipelines are supposed to be approved but I digress) so in short, it will never be built and this is one of those fake “see? We do things for you!” without-actually-doing-something-real-or-viable-Type political moves.

So the insanely super needed pipeline isn’t happening despite it being the country’s most important future investment. This is not a win until teeth are applied, which is possible, I guess, but I’m doubtful.

Recall that Eby, without even hearing about what possible terms or upside could even look like, was already saying no dice! We don’t want tankers!*

*Canadian tankers. American ones in the same waters are totally cool though.

The optimist in me says a TMX expansion will become the agreed upon middle ground.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

The optimist in me says a TMX expansion will become the agreed upon middle ground.

An additional one? I'd be surprised if that ever went ahead unless they find another port, I don't think more oil tankers in the inlet is going to happen.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Probably not, but the government is busy working to protect the rights of corporations to say whatever they want about their green credentials. If you are wondering where their priorities lie. Which you shouldn't be wondering at this point.



https://www.alberta.ca/system/files/...fact-sheet.pdf


"unfair lawsuits". Maybe leave that to the courts to decide the "fairness"? Who's calling that shot? Who decides the financial disclosures are good faith? Can a minister shut down a lawsuit just because...?

Nah, this aint it. If you want corporate types to invest at all in greening industry, you have to let them brag about it. The current legislation is very punitive, it takes like 50% of the potential esoteric benefit of making the investment out of it, and assigns additional penalties to officers of companies making claims- all this does is actually unfairly balance the risk on to companies making investments in paradigm altering technology away from the companies not even bothering making those investments.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Ya man, dude is the s‎hit.

wooot! we can type #### instead of kyit now? lol ugh i guess not.

I was reading up on him. He was a Liberal until his hate for abortion took over.

So eff him.

[Monahammer]

The northern route is the best route for Canada.

The indigenous community also isn't united about this. There are communities in Prince Rupert who want to benefit from a potential project like this and want to partner.

TMX Expansion is also possible and probably should be a yes, and rather than a substitution.

Canadian energy is better for the environment and for social rights globally than venezuelan, saudi, qatari, iranian, and all other sources. Better than most from the US.

We need to stop myopically focusing on our personal emissions when we can use our rigour and discipline to offset far more emissions globally. Not only can we benefit economically, but we can develop a far larger amount of global soft power to then later activate whatever social-good we want in the world.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

The northern route is the best route for Canada.

The indigenous community also isn't united about this. There are communities in Prince Rupert who want to benefit from a potential project like this and want to partner.

TMX Expansion is also possible and probably should be a yes, and rather than a substitution.

Canadian energy is better for the environment and for social rights globally than venezuelan, saudi, qatari, iranian, and all other sources. Better than most from the US.

We need to stop myopically focusing on our personal emissions when we can use our rigour and discipline to offset far more emissions globally. Not only can we benefit economically, but we can develop a far larger amount of global soft power to then later activate whatever social-good we want in the world.

While I agree that Canadian energy is better for the environment than many of the alternatives... I am not sure which markets we think we are going to reach with this new pipeline in the year 2036+?

Also, of those buying markets, which ones do we think will actually care about how "good" Canada oil is? Countries like India will only care about how "cheap" it is. Any country that is worried about environmental and social rights is likely on pace or ahead of Canada (and especially Alberta) in their energy transition and will not need to buy an increasing amount of oil in the late 2030s.

Some people are saying we would use this pipeline to increase oil sales to China... but China is talking about hitting peak oil demand in 2026-27. Some reports are suggesting that China may have actually peaked this year, which is crazy, but I wouldn't doubt their ability to pivot on that scale or their desire to keep that information hidden to mess with the rest of the world. Either way, if China does peak before a new pipeline is built then that would mean that not only would they not be interested in buying more oil from Canada... but the oil they have stopped buying would need to find a new customer. As the existing oil supply shifts to cover the shrinking demand, it gets harder and harder to see where our increased Alberta oil supply will land in a decade.

India represents 25% of the global increase in oil demand right now. If they get their energy transition to accelerate over the next decade then that is pretty much game over for the new pipeline before it is built.

Also, the speed in which alternative technology innovations are being discovered and then moving to mass production is staggering. Giving the alternative technologies a decade to discover, prove, and start mass production puts a huge amount of risk onto the new pipeline project.

I would move ahead with the TMX expansion ASAP and shift focus from a new pipeline to additional industry diversification in Alberta. Alberta should get in on the new sodium-ion battery innovation and build a mega-plant of energy storage as well as a factory for manufacturing of next-gen batteries for other North America jurisdictions (or any other bleeding edge technology that will be in high-demand throughout North America).

In short, Alberta is good at oil because Alberta is good at innovation. Instead of focusing on oil, we should be focusing on our ability to drive innovation and applying that spirit to industries with real growth opportunities for future generations.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Wolven

While I agree that Canadian energy is better for the environment than many of the alternatives... I am not sure which markets we think we are going to reach with this new pipeline in the year 2036+?

Also, of those buying markets, which ones do we think will actually care about how "good" Canada oil is? Countries like India will only care about how "cheap" it is. Any country that is worried about environmental and social rights is likely on pace or ahead of Canada (and especially Alberta) in their energy transition and will not need to buy an increasing amount of oil in the late 2030s.

Some people are saying we would use this pipeline to increase oil sales to China... but China is talking about hitting peak oil demand in 2026-27. Some reports are suggesting that China may have actually peaked this year, which is crazy, but I wouldn't doubt their ability to pivot on that scale or their desire to keep that information hidden to mess with the rest of the world. Either way, if China does peak before a new pipeline is built then that would mean that not only would they not be interested in buying more oil from Canada... but the oil they have stopped buying would need to find a new customer. As the existing oil supply shifts to cover the shrinking demand, it gets harder and harder to see where our increased Alberta oil supply will land in a decade.

India represents 25% of the global increase in oil demand right now. If they get their energy transition to accelerate over the next decade then that is pretty much game over for the new pipeline before it is built.

Also, the speed in which alternative technology innovations are being discovered and then moving to mass production is staggering. Giving the alternative technologies a decade to discover, prove, and start mass production puts a huge amount of risk onto the new pipeline project.

I would move ahead with the TMX expansion ASAP and shift focus from a new pipeline to additional industry diversification in Alberta. Alberta should get in on the new sodium-ion battery innovation and build a mega-plant of energy storage as well as a factory for manufacturing of next-gen batteries for other North America jurisdictions (or any other bleeding edge technology that will be in high-demand throughout North America).

In short, Alberta is good at oil because Alberta is good at innovation. Instead of focusing on oil, we should be focusing on our ability to drive innovation and applying that spirit to industries with real growth opportunities for future generations.

Get it to tide water and it really doesn't matter. Markets will use it.

As for China reaching peak demand in 2026/2027 - that is laughable. Look at the IEA's new current policy scenario and OPEC's outlook. Neither have China even close to peak oil in the first part of this century.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Wolven

While I agree that Canadian energy is better for the environment than many of the alternatives... I am not sure which markets we think we are going to reach with this new pipeline in the year 2036+?

Also, of those buying markets, which ones do we think will actually care about how "good" Canada oil is? Countries like India will only care about how "cheap" it is. Any country that is worried about environmental and social rights is likely on pace or ahead of Canada (and especially Alberta) in their energy transition and will not need to buy an increasing amount of oil in the late 2030s.

Some people are saying we would use this pipeline to increase oil sales to China... but China is talking about hitting peak oil demand in 2026-27. Some reports are suggesting that China may have actually peaked this year, which is crazy, but I wouldn't doubt their ability to pivot on that scale or their desire to keep that information hidden to mess with the rest of the world. Either way, if China does peak before a new pipeline is built then that would mean that not only would they not be interested in buying more oil from Canada... but the oil they have stopped buying would need to find a new customer. As the existing oil supply shifts to cover the shrinking demand, it gets harder and harder to see where our increased Alberta oil supply will land in a decade.

India represents 25% of the global increase in oil demand right now. If they get their energy transition to accelerate over the next decade then that is pretty much game over for the new pipeline before it is built.

Also, the speed in which alternative technology innovations are being discovered and then moving to mass production is staggering. Giving the alternative technologies a decade to discover, prove, and start mass production puts a huge amount of risk onto the new pipeline project.

I would move ahead with the TMX expansion ASAP and shift focus from a new pipeline to additional industry diversification in Alberta. Alberta should get in on the new sodium-ion battery innovation and build a mega-plant of energy storage as well as a factory for manufacturing of next-gen batteries for other North America jurisdictions (or any other bleeding edge technology that will be in high-demand throughout North America).

In short, Alberta is good at oil because Alberta is good at innovation. Instead of focusing on oil, we should be focusing on our ability to drive innovation and applying that spirit to industries with real growth opportunities for future generations.

Do you think demand for oil is going away in 10 years?

Because, wow.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Leondros

Get it to tide water and it really doesn't matter. Markets will use it.

As for China reaching peak demand in 2026/2027 - that is laughable. Look at the IEA's new current policy scenario and OPEC's outlook. Neither have China even close to peak oil in the first part of this century.

I'm not sure where you are seeing that, the IEA has China in the CPS scenario decreasing demand in the 2025-2035 window:

Page 154


https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/as...utlook2025.pdf


Now, the easy argument here is China dropping doesn't matter due to demand from other regions increasing. But Wolven isn't wrong about the China claim. In the stated policy scenario it's even lower:


"As a result, oil demand in China peaks in the STEPS before 2030 and falls to around 15 mb/d by 2035."

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Wolven

[literally everything]

Chill, Avi.