Alberta Politics Thread

[Weitz]

Can you please start citing where you are reading this stuff Makarov?

You haven't mentioned a source yet in this thread.

[Makarov]

All coming from the province's Notice of Application (or pleadings). Sorry, should have made that more clear. I'll post the link later (on my phone at the moment).

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Fair points. But are you arguing that the Utilities Commission has so little independence that the Minister of government ought to be held responsible for every decision it makes? Or that the government should be precluded from challenging its jurisdiction by way of judicial review? Because that is what many posters in this thread seem to suggest.

Not going that far-- if they were going to challenge it, they had plenty of time 16 years ago. The issue to me is, at that time, they supported it. How can they change now? I also think the independence is not quite so pure as might be suggested, but also, that tends to support the NDP argument.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Makarov

All coming from the province's Notice of Application (or pleadings). Sorry, should have made that more clear. I'll post the link later (on my phone at the moment).

The NDP website also has it, as does the CBC. But so others can read this should they be inclined:

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...016-07-25.html

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I just can't believe that Notley is hanging Sarah Hoffman out to dry here. What a cowardly act by the supposed leader.

You shouldn't be surprised. Hoffman has been set up to be the Corporate Scapegoat. Notley also vanished when the Bill 6 debate went sideways and left Hoffman to eat the outrage on that one too.

Even as a serious anti-NDP partisan, I am still routinely surprised at how low Notley is capable of going.

[Kjesse]

Some of the words from the government's own application:


Para 3: "The PPAs govern the relationship between the Owner and the Buyer in a manner similar to a contract, although they purported to be statutory instruments made pursuant to legislation."

From there, consider prior posts about laches and promissory estoppel, and the Rule of Law.

[Makarov]

Another hurdle for the government (perhaps the first one that needs to be cleared) is that there seems to be at least a plausible argument that even the original language in the PPAs would have been triggered by the introduction of the carbon levy. If so, the application is presumably moot.

No idea how strong that argument is but, as I said, at least seems plausible.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Another hurdle for the government (perhaps the first one that needs to be cleared) is that there seems to be at least a plausible argument that even the original language in the PPAs would have been triggered by the introduction of the carbon levy. If so, the application is presumably moot.

No idea how strong that argument is but, as I said, at least seems plausible.

As well crafted as the application is, there are many arguments available to the respondents. I think the idea that the original language might have been triggered in any event, is one of them.

Frankly, I don't see the additional language as problematic as some. Yes, it changes the risk profile somewhat, but it would also avoid the problems of distinguishing if the companies were profitable and the change of law made them unprofitable, when there are a myriad of issues in play in determining profitability.

[Resolute 14]

The NDP's latest regressive tax came into effect: the $1.25/litre beer tax that will create jobs by killing competition, or something.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...erta-1.3708496

But don't worry! Notley is going to protect Alberta craft brewers with unconstitutional, protectionist policies!

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/07/29...constitutional

Lousy economic theory aside, the new policy was a shock to importers as it came without warning or, apparently, legal analysis.

Shortly after this announcement, the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) wrote to the Minister responsible to explain that the differential tax treatment of beer based on its province of origin was an unconstitutional tariff that violated section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

[CaptainCrunch]

Don't worry, the Carbon tax will even that out as goods being imported into the province are exempt from taxation.

So we'll make out of province beer more expensive to protect our beer market, then balance it out by not carbon taxing the out of province beer and taxing the crap out of the companies making beer in Alberta.

Its the perfect taxation solution.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

re: violating the Canadian Constitution

They can't actually be that incompetent at reading comprehension, can they?

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

They can't actually be that incompetent at reading comprehension, can they?

NDP Methodology

[Resolute 14]

Hopefully not, but reading comprehension is unnecessary if you don't bother reading in the first place.

[puckedoff]

Man beer is getting so expensive these days. Really need some black market / bootlegging to start up again.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The NDP's latest regressive tax came into effect: the $1.25/litre beer tax that will create jobs by killing competition, or something.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...erta-1.3708496

But don't worry! Notley is going to protect Alberta craft brewers with unconstitutional, protectionist policies!

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/07/29...constitutional

See, things like this are concerning.

The NDP can say whatever they want about their 'last second, illegitimate Enron Get-Out Clause' fiasco but this is no different.

They implemented policy and legislation without any regard, or even thought, of the consequences. And its not like someone instituted the Constitution last night or at the last second or anything, its been around for 150 years.

"Oh...who put that there? Its not our fault!!"

And it isnt like its some sort of obscure legislation that decades later people find out was contravened, these guys slapped them down pretty hard and rather immediately, so obviously someone knew the score.

This is like when the Oilers went and signed 'Vladdy Hockey' to an ELC and the league had to immediately step in and slap them because they didnt even pretend to do their homework. Is it just an Edmonton thing?

[Wiggum_PI]

Joe Ceci was ranting and raving about how "unfair" the flat income tax rate was for Albertans, and now the NDP go ahead and slap all the small breweries with a flat tax for every litre of beer they produce. I guess you can add hypocritical to the long list of defects this government has.

[CaptainCrunch]

That's it, get that really expensive BC lawyer on the line, we need to sue the Constitution over a clause that we didn't know about.

Sue Sue Sue Sue Sue

To the tune of

Dah Dah Dum Dah Daaaah Daaaaaaaaaaa

[IliketoPuck]

So they don't do their homework, and are informed that their new law violates the constitution. Should be the end of it right?

Nope. Back to the drawing board to create a shoddy back door way to accomplish the same end goal.

So now they just tax all beer equally, but provide a subsidy to Albertan breweries.

I'm with Locke on this one. If I don't keep laughing at the NDP, I will cry. Their incompetence is stunning.

[Resolute 14]

It's worse than you think, Locke. The Alberta Court of Queens Bench has already granted Steam Whistle a temporary injunction preventing the government from applying this tax to their products while their constitutional challenge moves through the courts.

Ceci and Notely are still moving full steam ahead despite the fact that a court has already agreed there is merit to the argument this tax scheme is unconstitutional. And the courts are going to see right through their modified "tax everyone but subsidize locals" scheme. The intent to do an end-run around the constitution is blatant and obvious.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It's worse than you think, Locke. The Alberta Court of Queens Bench has already granted Steam Whistle a temporary injunction preventing the government from applying this tax to their products while their constitutional challenge moves through the courts.

Ceci and Notely are still moving full steam ahead despite the fact that a court has already agreed there is merit to the argument this tax scheme is unconstitutional. And the courts are going to see right through their modified "tax everyone but subsidize locals" scheme. The intent to do an end-run around the constitution is blatant and obvious.

Great, looks like I'm buying Steam Whistle as an NDP protest. Good thing I like Steam Whistle because its delicious.

This is getting ridiculous. At some point we really need someone to step in and just tell Notley and her gang of incompetent miscreants that perhaps Governance isnt for them, they're bad at it and they should feel bad, now go back to the sandbox to play and let the grownups go to work. How did we elect the Edmonton Oilers of Governments? Is Kevin Lowe a Minister?

They spend more time trying to save face after making themselves look like idiots than actually doing their jobs.

Heres a quick tip: think things through before you do them. Ask experts for opinions and advice. If you do things properly the first time, or even sometimes dont do things at all because they're so stupid that they're borderline illegal, you'll spend less time and money trying not to look foolish.

And all of this for a new tax! How many does that make for them now? Putting tariffs on intra-provincially imported beer? What year is this?