Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Yikes]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Calling it trumpism is giving trump too much credit

Hahaaa....touche'

[Fuzz]

It's not even Turmpism, she actually thinks this is a brilliant problem solving idea. It doesn't solve anything. This is full Libertarianism at play. But you can't mash social services into Libertarian ideals. They are incompatible. Yet here she is, pounding that square peg like so many dizzy eyed toddlers.

[Duruss]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's not even Turmpism, she actually thinks this is a brilliant problem solving idea. It doesn't solve anything. This is full Libertarianism at play. But you can't mash social services into Libertarian ideals. They are incompatible. Yet here she is, pounding that square peg like so many dizzy eyed toddlers.

The more I watch libertarian values the more I wonder how they are different than Victorian values?

[Yikes]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's not even Turmpism, she actually thinks this is a brilliant problem solving idea. It doesn't solve anything. This is full Libertarianism at play. But you can't mash social services into Libertarian ideals. They are incompatible. Yet here she is, pounding that square peg like so many dizzy eyed toddlers.

I think the dizzy eyed toddlers might be bankrolling her.

[Dion]

,,

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Dion

,,

I'm confused, are those your dizzy eyes?

[cSpooge]

Originally Posted by accord1999

For whatever reason, the CRA and many provinces recognize these alternative health services as "valid" and allow them to be claimed for the medical expense tax credit and health care spending accounts.

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-age...ax-credit.html

The CRA actually doesn't have a say in this. Each province decides themselves what is a qualified medical practitioner in their province.

[Knut]

The UCP recently changed the rules regarding Regulated health professions.

Change the Council voting structure to 50% Public Member and 50% Regulated Member. As we currently have 4 Public Members and 7 Regulated Members, this means that the Past-President and 2 Regulated Members will be non-voting members of Council.

And

Elimination of granting the President a second or casting vote.


This basically means government appointed members of health boards have just as much say as the health care members themselves.

It’s a sneaky way to influence regulated heath professions more. There are a few public benefits to this but it also increases government influence in the bylaws of health professions which could carry serious downside risk to patients.

[Fuzz]

Alberta defence lawyers will stage a 90-minute courthouse walkout in Edmonton and Calgary on Friday morning, to protest the lack of progress in their fight with the provincial government for increased legal aid funding...
..."The government's funding commitment arrears now sit at $80 million."...
..."With defence lawyers no longer willing to prop up a broken system, our courts will be swamped with more and more self-represented persons," states the joint news release from the four associations.



"Matters will take longer, backlogs will mount, access to justice will decline and overall system costs will increase."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...568870?cmp=rss

Gee, if only we had some money lying around so the government could, at minimum, pay the amount they committed to. And maybe a little more, to fix a broken justice system? Nah! Pay it all to the debt!

[Swift]

Can someone explain to me how an unelected person like Smith is allowed to become the premier? I get that the leader of the party with the most seats becomes premier, but how does it make sense that absolutely anyone can waltz in, get the votes to lead the party and then be in charge of the province? At least Jean and Toews and others have been voted in by the populace.

[calculoso]

Alberta Labour Relations Board says that refusing to work “voluntary” overtime is an illegal strike

https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7g7...-or-go-to-jail

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMN3sFddJ/

Last week, AlumaSafway, a Canadian scaffolding company, sent workers a memo demanding they accept "voluntary" overtime shifts or face termination, a hiring ban, legal action, and possible fines or jail time.

According to the Alberta Labour Relations Board (ALRB), on August 22 an anonymous letter was shared among scaffolders at a Suncor Inc. site in Alberta, Canada, that asked workers to "collectively refuse to work overtime shifts for the purpose of compelling incentives from the Employer, including improvements in compensation or working conditions.” Suncor is one of Canada's largest fossil fuel companies.

According to the board, this resulted in no workers taking on overtime shifts. Ultimately, it decided that the action was illegal under the province's labour laws, which rule out strikes that occur while a collective bargaining agreement is in force and before a vote has been taken.

"The Board finds the Employees' concerted refusal to accept overtime shifts for the purpose of compelling the Employer to agree to terms and conditions of employment, which constitutes a refusal to work, to be an illegal strike," it said in its decision. The board noted that it would file its decision with the Alberta courts, which would make it enforceable as a court order, and violating it would "result in civil or criminal penalties including contempt of court."

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Swift

Can someone explain to me how an unelected person like Smith is allowed to become the premier? I get that the leader of the party with the most seats becomes premier, but how does it make sense that absolutely anyone can waltz in, get the votes to lead the party and then be in charge of the province? At least Jean and Toews and others have been voted in by the populace.

I found this old article about Prentice in regards to this. Seems like yes they can be premier. They just can’t sit in the legislature.

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...ins-whats-next

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Alberta Labour Relations Board says that refusing to work “voluntary” overtime is an illegal strike

https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7g7...-or-go-to-jail

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMN3sFddJ/

Well no, they say circulating a letter to coordinate everyone to not work overtime so they can negotiate other items is an illegal strike.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Alberta Labour Relations Board says that refusing to work “voluntary” overtime is an illegal strike

https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7g7...-or-go-to-jail

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMN3sFddJ/

I'm 100% pro union, but I think the Labour Board is correct on this. By circulating a letter that not only called for an action, but specifically called for that action in order to compel the employer to agree to terms, they are acting in a "strike" fashion.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Well no, they say circulating a letter to coordinate everyone to not work overtime so they can negotiate other items is an illegal strike.

So still working 10-hr days but refusing overtime en masse is still a strike?

While I don’t usually side with unions in a lot of areas, having a company force “voluntary” overtime is one area where the company is way offside.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Yikes

I get that...here is the thing that bothers me. Most would agree that for a whole variety of reasons Smith as leader of the UCP would get creamed in the next tilt - BUT - someone is backing her with cash for whatever reason.


Almost like there is a plan?


Tin foil hat aside I'm not a guy that reads into stuff to much...seems odd to me that someone coming across as bat s**t crazy has significant monetary support from somewhere. Maybe it's the rural peeps that are funding her....dunno.

I dove into the cesspool that is the Western Standard’s comment section. All of the comments were 100% behind Smith except one who claimed she was an NDP plant. That’s the only way she could get that much funding!

While I appreciate someone speaking out against Smith, ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ doesn’t apply here….

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Such creative ways to use the money...wouldn't consider shoring up our healthcare system after the pandemic, eh? Nope, everything government could think of spending money on is taken care of, bank it!

Another piece from the Western Standard (yes I’ll shower now) claims that Kenney is deliberately trying to hamstring the next premier by using up all the surplus funds. One reader looked a bit farther ahead and figured he is trying to hamstring the inevitable NDP government.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Sure, except she also mused about using it to pay for doctor's visits(what about those chronically ill?), and send people to "alternative" medicine that will just burden the healthcare system more when woowoo and witch hazel don't work. I don't think tax dollars should be financially supporting dubious health businesses.

More than mused….she stated in a position paper that once people get used to paying for things they will make them pay for doctors visits. The spending account would help but $300 doesn’t go very far at all….how many appointments does a couple have during pregnancy for example?

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Swift

Can someone explain to me how an unelected person like Smith is allowed to become the premier? I get that the leader of the party with the most seats becomes premier, but how does it make sense that absolutely anyone can waltz in, get the votes to lead the party and then be in charge of the province? At least Jean and Toews and others have been voted in by the populace.

No, she will be required to win a byelection to become premier. But they will choose a rural riding with 0 chance of failure to sit her in.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Another piece from the Western Standard (yes I’ll shower now) claims that Kenney is deliberately trying to hamstring the next premier by using up all the surplus funds. One reader looked a bit farther ahead and figured he is trying to hamstring the inevitable NDP government.

Just a thought, and I don't claim to understand how this works, but it seems like poor financial policy. They would be presumably paying back low interest debt from the past few years, but if we do need to take on any new debt, it will be at higher interest rates. Is it me, or does that seem foolish? Even if we don't need more loans in the short term(which we shouldn't with high oil/gas prices) you are paying down pretty low interest debt. They should be using it to fix the infrastructure deficit now.