This graph from Tombe makes me realize the extent to which Provincial responsibility and spending is dominated by health, education, post-secondary, and child & social services...all things the UCP seems to have distain for. They basically hate all the portfolios and people they are responsible for.
Edit: put another way, there are only a couple of key ministries to focus on (health and education) and they've completely botched them both. Why can't we have a government that focuses on one area and works with all stakeholders on meaningful improvements?
Last edited by edslunch; 09-01-2022 at 05:00 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to edslunch For This Useful Post:
Do you mean to tell me that decisions like adding employment standards complaints to the already long list of things that the labour relations board has to deal with didn’t help ease up the backlog?
And of course resident hockey hero turned whackjob, Theo Fleury, is the first to comment on Smith's tweet. He's saying WEF people don't lose elections anymore.
If Kenney really wants to sabotage her, he should call an election for after the leadership contest. Let Albertans have their say if they want this unelected wingnut to have even 1 day of power.
I'm no fan of Danielle Smith, but the idea of having an unelected bureaucrat having any say whatsoever in how we are governed and what laws should or shouldn't be put into place is wholly undemocratic. It harkens back to colonial times when the British Empire didn't want the locals getting uppity. It should be the courts that strike down stupid stuff like this, not left to the whim of an appointed official.
I'm no fan of Danielle Smith, but the idea of having an unelected bureaucrat having any say whatsoever in how we are governed and what laws should or shouldn't be put into place is wholly undemocratic. It harkens back to colonial times when the British Empire didn't want the locals getting uppity. It should be the courts that strike down stupid stuff like this, not left to the whim of an appointed official.
What specifically are you referring to? I’m genuinely asking because I agree with what you are saying but have no idea what you are referencing.
I don’t know what MegaErtz is talking about, but Smith was mad that Kenney and the Lieutenant Governor commented on her completely moronic ramblings about the constitution.
I think people are allowed to comment. And I believe Kenney is an elected official.
For sure, people are allowed to comment and have their opinions. I'm personally of the belief that Danielle Smith would be a terrible person to have lead Alberta.
My concern is that Salma Lakhani has any influence whatsoever on deciding what gets to pass into law. She's never held any elected office, is not accountable to Alberta voters, and I doubt 99% of Albertans know who she is or what her role entails.
Canadians go on about democracy, but I don't think there's anything democratic about having the Queen's viceroy decide which pieces of legislation are good and which are bad. Of course she'll rule this out of order and most of us will applaud her decision. Danielle Smith is a dangerous nutjob who is going to drive investment out of the province like no Premier before her. Should this really be in the hands of an unelected bureaucrat though? What stops Danielle Smith from appointing Paul Hinman or some other right wing extremist as the Lieutenant Governor in three years? Shouldn't we have a say as voters on who gets to decide which laws should govern us?
I know how the appointment system works, but Danielle Smith would just refuse to recognize any Lt. Governor appointed by Mary Simon. I'm not a conservative in the least but surely Albertans have the right to self determination? That's kind of the point of her whole Alberta first argument.
I know how the appointment system works, but Danielle Smith would just refuse to recognize any Lt. Governor appointed by Mary Simon. I'm not a conservative in the least but surely Albertans have the right to self determination? That's kind of the point of her whole Alberta first argument.
What does being a conservative have to do with it? Conservatives have always been the biggest monarchy supporters in the realm.
Being a conservative has nothing to do with it, sorry. What I meant to get across was that I'm totally opposed to pretty much anything Danielle Smith stands for. With that said, I very much don't believe in any appointed bureaucrat having any more say than anyone else in determining the laws of the land.
A good argument could be made that Danielle Smith doesn't have any mandate to pass anything until her and her government (should she win the leadership race next month) have had to face the voters in an election. However, with that said, surely she would have the right to more of a say in how we live in Alberta than the Queen's viceroy?
Being a conservative has nothing to do with it, sorry. What I meant to get across was that I'm totally opposed to pretty much anything Danielle Smith stands for. With that said, I very much don't believe in any appointed bureaucrat having any more say than anyone else in determining the laws of the land.
A good argument could be made that Danielle Smith doesn't have any mandate to pass anything until her and her government (should she win the leadership race next month) have had to face the voters in an election. However, with that said, surely she would have the right to more of a say in how we live in Alberta than the Queen's viceroy?
There are flaws throughout our democratic conventions and processes (including leadership conventions churning out premiers). One of the biggest challenges is that it is nearly impossible to set up a system of checks and balances that is immune to abuse or improper influence.
Our society is governed by a mix of elected and unelected officials, with the unelected generally following the direction/guidance of the elected. We trust a lot of appointees to exercise their best judgment in very complex/critical matters...I can see how this could seem different than some random department, but I'm not sure it really is.
I'd also argue that IF an LG were to take such a drastic action, it would be more in service of democracy than against it, by steering things towards another election to achieve a clearer mandate. We accept that democracy/governance can be glacially slow (due in large part to many checks/balances in any given process)...I have no issue with an appointed official acting in good-faith to force a delay on a non-emergency issue if they can offer a reasonable justification to do so.
I don't know exactly how things would play out, but I'd imagine any dispute would find itself to a court of law sooner than later, at which point you could say that having multiple layers of judge(s) and an LG is as good of a system of checks/balances as you can reasonably hope for.
