Alberta Politics & Government Thread 4.0

[DJones]

Originally Posted by indes

How is your MP from Toronto? Or they just let Torontonians make decisions? Like an app, they all just get a notification "Vote now on issuing financial aid for DJones support cat"? I'm confused how you think you're not represented. Or how everyone is out to get you, and Alberta specifically.

Yes the GTA/horseshoe makes decisions. Thats where most people live. They vote for policies that help themselves as does everyone. How they want to spend tens of billions on their housing crisis is not how I would spend it. We live in a radically different scenario than them.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by DJones

Yes the GTA/horseshoe makes decisions. Thats where most people live. They vote for policies that help themselves as does everyone. How they want to spend tens of billions on their housing crisis is not how I would spend it. We live in a radically different scenario than them.

But like, what policies specifically?

[DJones]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

Can you please answer something for me, in regards to Alberta separating from Canada.

It seems a lot of people who support Alberta separating believe that their new Alberta would be the exact land area of the old Alberta.

Let's say it happens. In your opinion, what would happen with Canadian National Parks, and the land that belongs to the indigenous people.
What do you feel the borders of the new country of Alberta would be?

Who the hell knows. It would be a decade long negotiation with no clear finish line and no rules. All depends on how motivated both sides would be to just get it over with

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Knut

I have yet to hear a single valid reason for separation. One that makes sense financially for Alberta/the people.

Any Separatists in here want to give it a shot ?

I sitll think we should have a poll that asks who on our forum wants separation. Anonymous is fine.

They just long to be American citizens but don’t have the intelligence or skills or money to make it happen on their own.

[indes]

Originally Posted by DJones

Yes the GTA/horseshoe makes decisions. Thats where most people live. They vote for policies that help themselves as does everyone. How they want to spend tens of billions on their housing crisis is not how I would spend it. We live in a radically different scenario than them.

Lol well I guess we're done here. I tried but the very basic mechanics of modern society seem to be beyond you.

Just another Albertan whining about how unfair life is for them. Grab those bootstraps and stop crying about government money lol.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

But like, what policies specifically?

Rezoning, tax rebates and incentives, the new FSA, building codes, insurance. #### if the NDP got in they'd probably push for a national rent cap. Remember back when Kingston for like two years got more money than all of Alberta until we complained and the feds magically approved a bunch of projects here.

Calgary and Toronto have wildly different housing economics. They do not have the same solution. If Calgary doesn't want blanket rezoning the threat of withholding federal funds is outrageous.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by DJones

Calgary and Toronto have wildly different housing economics. They do not have the same solution. If Calgary doesn't want blanket rezoning the threat of withholding federal funds is outrageous.

Calgary voted on the blanket rezoning, the federal funds were given/promised based on what Calgary wanted.

The threat of them withholding it is based on the city threatening to not do what they said they were going to do (violate a contract).


Even then there's wiggle room on what the city can do, because the federal policy is relatively broad because they know places like Calgary and Toronto aren't the same.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by DJones

Yes, they would have to pay for their own military, start up their own CRA, ect.

I don't think that will be news to anyone.

I think these costs tend to get waved away by the separatists. Is our population going to support all of this stuff that would now come under the purview of a sovereign Alberta?

Border services along 4 sides, a new currency, new laws, new trade agreements, intelligence services.

Separation is only good for lawyers and bureaucrats.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by DJones

Then why do people get so worked up when someone suggests taking money from the feds and giving it to provinces/Municipalities.

Canada has always been a top down society that value legislative efficient governments rather compromise. Municipalities are beaten down step children in our system begging for scraps.

Municipalities exist at the behest of the province. The province can transfer powers and responsibilities, and remove them, from local governance. So really, you seem to have an issue with provincial governments not giving enough to municipalities. Feds have little to do with it. Why not advocate for change within Alberta for more local government powers then? Why seeprate as a province?


Also, individual building codes for municipalities is a silly silly idea. There is a case to be made that Canada-wide may not be the most efficient, and some local regions have unique needs(hail, floods, snow, etc) but having every town with their own standards would be a disaster.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by DJones

Rezoning, tax rebates and incentives, the new FSA, building codes, insurance. #### if the NDP got in they'd probably push for a national rent cap. Remember back when Kingston for like two years got more money than all of Alberta until we complained and the feds magically approved a bunch of projects here.

Calgary and Toronto have wildly different housing economics. They do not have the same solution. If Calgary doesn't want blanket rezoning the threat of withholding federal funds is outrageous.

Thanks for answering.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Calgary voted on the blanket rezoning, the federal funds were given/promised based on what Calgary wanted.

The threat of them withholding it is based on the city threatening to not do what they said they were going to do (violate a contract).


Even then there's wiggle room on what the city can do, because the federal policy is relatively broad because they know places like Calgary and Toronto aren't the same.

Didn't seem broad to me. There was full blown threats to pull funding. Luckily any funds pulled would effect Toronto as well so we're on their team in this scenario haha

Carney is unlikely to do it since its a needless fight but that's how the system is set up. My point is that they aren't required to even be involved in the system. Housing is a provincial jurisdiction that is somewhat given to municipalities. Honestly it should be mainly a municipal responsibility, we'd be better for it. Definitely don't want anything to do with feds jumping over the provinces and strong arm municipalites.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Municipalities exist at the behest of the province. The province can transfer powers and responsibilities, and remove them, from local governance. So really, you seem to have an issue with provincial governments not giving enough to municipalities. Feds have little to do with it. Why not advocate for change within Alberta for more local government powers then? Why seeprate as a province?


Also, individual building codes for municipalities is a silly silly idea. There is a case to be made that Canada-wide may not be the most efficient, and some local regions have unique needs(hail, floods, snow, etc) but having every town with their own standards would be a disaster.

I do want stronger municipalities. The fact they don't exist in the constitution is outrageous.

Once again, decision making AND tax revenue should follow broadly Municipal> Provincial > Federal guidelines. Different levels of governments with different jurisdcitions. With the idea that its starts local and expands outward. The basic idea of our system makes sense, its just the feds figured out they have all the money so they can do whatever they want. If Housing gets them elected, that's now theirs.

For building codes I would say regions should be able to opt out of things for sure. 90% of it is fine, its just a few edge cases that massively jack up costs. Section 9.36 and its future updates all but guarantee homes will continue to be more expensive to build. They're going to ban natural gas connections indirectly, just a matter of time. 2030 is my guess but I could see Carney scrapping it.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by DJones

Didn't seem broad to me. There was full blown threats to pull funding.

This "full blown threat"?

It comes as the city’s Infrastructure and Planning Committee meeting was presented a report Wednesday that said CMHC “may deem” the City of Calgary to be non-compliant with the Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF) Contribution Agreement if city council fully repeals citywide rezoning.

“In order to remain compliant with the agreement, any updated zoning must not reintroduce exclusionary (single family only) zoning, allow for at least four units on a lot across the city without additional approvals, and must not reintroduce approval processes or other barriers that slow down development,” CMHC said in its note to the city.

CMHC said it looks forward to working with Calgary on “options to achieve this” in the coming weeks.

https://globalnews.ca/news/11664100/...federal-funds/

So in other words, the city could cut its blanket zoning capacity in half and still be compliant, and even if it goes further there may be pathways to maintain funding and the agencies involved will work with the city.

Does 'Conditional funding may be withheld if the conditions aren't met' even meet the threshold of a 'threat'?

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

This "full blown threat"?



https://globalnews.ca/news/11664100/...federal-funds/

So in other words, the city could cut its blanket zoning capacity in half and still be compliant, and even if it goes further there may be pathways to maintain funding and the agencies involved will work with the city.

Does 'Conditional funding may be withheld if the conditions aren't met' even meet the threshold of a 'threat'?

Yes, do what we want or don't get money. That's the threat.

The feds should never have had the money to begin with to withhold.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by troutman

The people in the Pass that are pro-separation all look like Bounty Hunters.

The only two people I've ever seen sign the petition downtown Calgary look like "financial bros" or at least former junior hockey players now working in high finance... I thought they would be better with their money... unless they are shorting Alberta.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Tiger

The only two people I've ever seen sign the petition downtown Calgary look like "financial bros" or at least former junior hockey players now working in high finance... I thought they would be better with their money... unless they are shorting Alberta.

I took my kid to the library on the Weekend she went off to color, play, and look at books and I sat by the window, the Yeehadi's had their table set-up across the road... in the ~75 minutes I was there I saw 0 people walk up to the table. Now granted I wasn't watching the whole time but never, in any glance, did they have a single person.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by DJones

Yes, do what we want or don't get money. That's the threat.

What the city decided is more than was asked, because that’s what the city wanted to do. Not the Feds and not Toronto.

When a contractor doesn’t do the job they agreed to do, do you think they should get paid, or would it be a “full blown threat” to suggest they might not get paid if they don’t deliver on the contract?

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

What the city decided is more than was asked, because that’s what the city wanted to do. Not the Feds and not Toronto.

When a contractor doesn’t do the job they agreed to do, do you think they should get paid, or would it be a “full blown threat” to suggest they might not get paid if they don’t deliver on the contract?

And now they don't want it. That's their right to decide imo. I'm guessing they'd still sign up for the money though

The scenario is more liked a forced maintenance program. For some reason you can't pick someone else, change terms, or do the work yourself.

And apparently the reason you can't do differently is because they are giving someone else a discount and need to make up for it somewhere

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I took my kid to the library on the Weekend she went off to color, play, and look at books and I sat by the window, the Yeehadi's had their table set-up across the road... in the ~75 minutes I was there I saw 0 people walk up to the table. Now granted I wasn't watching the whole time but never, in any glance, did they have a single person.

Saw a bunch set up on 33rd Ave SW by the gravel pile across from Richmond Green on the weekend.

Three consecutive cars honked and flipped them the finger as they drove past (the car in front of me , me, and the car behind me). LOL. Just enough time to roll down the window.

Later on, saw another moron flying six (three per side) provincial car flags on his vehicle.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by DJones

Money and decision making obviously. Keeping all tax revenues and making all decisions would be a monumental benefit to Alberta.

Would Canada ever allow it to happen? Of course not and there's a 1000 ways Canada could make the smaller, surrounded country feel pain. The whole idea is based around Canada making a fair deal which they would obviously have no incentive to do. America is the wild card but in that case Alberta's voice is diluted even more so what's the point in switching?

So Jeff Rath repeatedly tells everyone there will be no federal income tax anymore in his NewBerta...and you have noted above this idea that Alberta will get this benefit.

Similarly, the VALUE OF FREEDOM that the separatists rely on as their 'fully costed' financial plan (regardless of the billions of dollars it forgot to consider) talks about the net benefit to Alberta's revenues by not sending out so much in federal taxes and getting so little in return.

But here's the thing not enough people seem to take note of...

An end to Federal income taxes would leave the money in the accounts of those who sent the federal taxes to Ottawa. In other words, NewBerta would "keep" or "get back" $0.

Individual rich people, who pay large amounts of federal taxes would keep more riches, and NewBerta would have access to none of that money to pay for public services.

People who currently pay no federal taxes would keep the nothing they currently pay out, and would lose all federal benefits and program spending that helps them and live in a society that no longer taxes the rich people to pay for public services.

People who pay only small amounts of federal taxes would get to keep those small amounts but also lose their federal benefits and program spending and live in a society that no longer taxes the rich people to pay for public services.

So I can understand why a rich person would think this is a great idea...everyone else who supports separatism on the other hand seems to think the rich people would suddenly become communists and share their wealth equally with all fellow NewBertans? Am I missing something?