Alberta Politics Thread

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Business will contribute a lot, I suspect. So that throws your calculation off.

For gas, is 4000 litres fairly normal? My wife and I burn a total of maybe 1000 litres a year, though we don't drive to work.

I'm going off of the figures that were posted earlier by another member, sorry I can't remember who it was or I would give more credit that had the average for a family of 4 at about 4000 liters.

[CaptainCrunch]

I've compiled a pretty big list of questions about this bill that I'm sending to my MLA, it will be interesting to see if I actually get a response.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Business will contribute a lot, I suspect. So that throws your calculation off.

For gas, is 4000 litres fairly normal? My wife and I burn a total of maybe 1000 litres a year, though we don't drive to work.

Except that increases to business costs will inevitably be passed to the consumer or purchaser.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Weitz

My car average about 9.7L/100km and I drive probably 19,000 km a year (I don't drive to or from work). That works out to 1958 L of gas. From asking around my friends and family I am pretty average. Add in 2 cars for a family, commuting to work, driving kids, etc. Could add up.

Ok, thanks. Guess we are light drivers!

[Resolute 14]

In terms of Bill 20, Notley is claiming the warrantless powers this grants her government is actually common/the standard in most other jurisdictions. Makarov - can you speak to the accuracy of that statement?

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm just curious about this whole search and warrant section and if it really needs to be there.

Isn't the carbon tax billed at the producer level anyways and then passed down?

Is a business submitting carbon dollars, or are they just paying it as part of their utilities and electricity bill etc anyways. When they're buying gas for a company vehicle aren't they paying it as the pump?

So why is there warrants required for what looks like the end user, they should be paying these things as part of their invoice, and rebates should almost be automatic based around their tax returns?

And wouldn't this be controlled by a financial audit as part of the tax collection service that the government already has?

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

How is there not more of an outrage on this bill?

The NDP is blatantly abusing their power.

I don't know. I brought up the searches earlier in the thread and someone said I was just fear mongering.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

I don't know. I brought up the searches earlier in the thread and someone said I was just fear mongering.

That was me. I would want a better understanding of why that is there and whether this is SOP basically in this type of legislation.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by Slava

That was me. I would want a better understanding of why that is there and whether this is SOP basically in this type of legislation.

Yeah when I heard it I had the same reaction. It seemed so outlandish that I was really surprised to hear it. Shocking that the language is actually in the bill. I can see a big push back from Albertans during the bill process. Is this a back door so they come in under the guise of the climate change bill and look for other things and claim they just came across them during their search?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Yeah when I heard it I had the same reaction. It seemed so outlandish that I was really surprised to hear it. Shocking that the language is actually in the bill. I can see a big push back from Albertans during the bill process. Is this a back door so they come in under the guise of the climate change bill and look for other things and claim they just came across them during their search?

Like what? Honestly it seems so outlandish that they'd need this legislation to search for 'other things' under the preamble of enforcing a Carbon Tax?

We dont even have that kind of legislation embedded for enforcing actual taxes!

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

In terms of Bill 20, Notley is claiming the warrantless powers this grants her government is actually common/the standard in most other jurisdictions. Makarov - can you speak to the accuracy of that statement?

I haven't had an opportunity to review the proposed legislation at all, but I do uave sme experience with regulatory prosecutions, and none of the sections that have been posted here seem particularly surprising or unusual. As I said, warrantless search powers for the purposes of regulatory enforcement is well-established in post-Charter Canadian law (so long as those powers are reasonable). Generally speaking, Courts are more likely to tolerate warrantless searches of commercial or industrial property in highly regulated industriesas reasonable.

The warrantless search powers posted by Captain Crunch don't me as unusual. They appear to require both reasonable and probable grounds to believe that there is evidence of an offence (which would justify issuance of a warrant) as well as some exigent circumstance that makes obtaining a warrant impractical. That strikes me as consistent with the Charter jurisprudence on warrantless searches generally.

Anyway, I'm sure the legislation or searches conducted pursuant to it will be challenged soon enough and the courts will consider the reasonableness of the search powers etc. Who knows what the outcome will be. But there is nothing unusual or shocking about that either.

[CaptainCrunch]

I just can't understand what they need to search for, it sounds like a straight tax at the producer level unless they're also asking every person and manufacturer to actually go through and declare exactly how much carbon they burned or how much they paid in terms of climate taxes.

and if that's the case, it just seems like their search parameters are huge. They talk about having the right to access your computers for monitoring and climate related software, and searching containers and drawers.

"I knew it fellas, he's been storing co2 in these tupper ware containers . . . get him ma."

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Locke

Like what? Honestly it seems so outlandish that they'd need this legislation to search for 'other things' under the preamble of enforcing a Carbon Tax?

We dont even have that kind of legislation embedded for enforcing actual taxes!

You may want to read, for example, the federal Income Tax Act again. It grants the CRA tremendous audit, inspection and search powers.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I just can't understand what they need to search for, it sounds like a straight tax at the producer level unless they're also asking every person and manufacturer to actually go through and declare exactly how much carbon they burned or how much they paid in terms of climate taxes.

and if that's the case, it just seems like their search parameters are huge. They talk about having the right to access your computers for monitoring and climate related software, and searching containers and drawers.

"I knew it fellas, he's been storing co2 in these tupper ware containers . . . get him ma."

I umderstand your point but people are tremendously creative when it comes to breaking the law. Its very difficult to predict what type of evidence might be probative in a future prosecution or where that evidence might be found.

My 2 cents anyway.

[CaptainCrunch]

Oh don't get me wrong, Makarov, I completely respect your point, but the bottom line to me is that the whole warrant versus non warrant seems incredibly wide spread and general, and they're not explaining in the bill what they're even enforcing and looking for and it becomes really concerning when the word imprisonment shows up about 20 times in the document.

Its really concerning considering that this is a majority government that can ram this framework through and then addendum the ever loving piss out of it.

Suddenly they want to be able to use the warrantless provinsion to enforce that you can only use certain types of equipment, blammo, they can now search your house and fine you, what does it have to do with the regulation of a carbon tax nothing, but suddenly it becomes a heavy handed environmental bill.

[CaptainCrunch]

I absolutely wouldn't be surprised if we see the NDP drop to single digit popularity in this province as the math comes out on this bill and its picked apart by the opposition.

There's a real possibility that they've given too many gifts to the opposition party in a very short period of time, and we might see an even bigger day of rage in the next election then the last one.

It could be on the level of the Kim Campbell lead Conservatives being reduced to non party status in the election after BM left.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Yeah when I heard it I had the same reaction. It seemed so outlandish that I was really surprised to hear it. Shocking that the language is actually in the bill. I can see a big push back from Albertans during the bill process. Is this a back door so they come in under the guise of the climate change bill and look for other things and claim they just came across them during their search?

I'm no lawyer, constitutional or otherwise, but I suspect that any such effort would be slapped down by a court, hard.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

The NDP really, REALLY seems like they have zero interest in getting re-elected.

I don't live in AB anymore but most of my family does, so I'm hoping that the province isn't completely destroyed by this corrupt/incompetent party. Sad times. The province has gone through such a tough time and all its elected leaders want to do is throw gas on the fire.

[Resolute 14]

Wildrose finance critic Derek Fildebrant utterly takes down Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne as she sits in the leg. Aaaawkward.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...ture-1.3602941

Other Wildrose MLAs being quite a bit more concilatory, but it seems more like damage control than anything else. Even if Fildebrandt was not wrong at all in his comments. Merely his timing.

[CaptainCrunch]

I tend to hope that Notley isn't taking any advice from Wynne who will live with the legacy of being one of the most dishonest underhanded and incompetent politicians provincially that this province has ever had.

She has been a whirlpool of economic destruction like nobody beyond Greece has ever seen.

And the people of Ontario are reminded of it every time they open their utility bill or anyone that had a job in manufacturing is reminded of it whenever they look at the help wanted ads.

She's lied on about every file from Orange, to the success of her so called climate plan to the gasplant scandals and she used her union buddies as her negative attack bulldogs during the last election.

Its almost insulting that someone with her lack of character was invited here, add on to it that she's anti-pipeline and we're not going to change her mind on that so why have her here.

She's dirt and part of me is glad that Ontario has her as their leader.