Alberta Politics Thread v2

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

How? How would you do that while aligning with the federal requirements? At least until the Liberals are out. Can they change the carbon tax to more align with the federal one? Sure, and it would arguably be beneficial. But I'm not seeing actual suggestions by the UCP that make any sense.

If you think the UCP can stop the federal government from taxing the province, I got a bridge you'd love to buy.

The question posed to me was "what would make you consider voting NDP?" I gave an answer.

I didn't say if I thought the UCP or other provincial govts could stop the Feds as that matter is still before the courts.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Dion

The question posed to me was "what would make you consider voting NDP?" I gave an answer.

Yes, and I asked you how you think they would go about it. Or at least how the UCP would do it any differently.

Originally Posted by Dion

I didn't say if I thought the UCP or other provincial govts could stop the Feds as that matter is still before the courts.

Stop the feds? The argument will really come down to whether or not provinces can be taxed differently. If the challenge succeeds, - after spending an absurd amount of money ironically - all that really means is that the federal government will set the carbon tax and each province will be subject to that. That's not a win of any sorts. At least not while the Liberals are in power.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Yes, and I asked you how you think they would go about it. Or at least how the UCP would do it any differently.

Okay, fair enough. The below is a quote from Kenney on how Kenney would do it differently...


"One thing I've said is we would be comfortable, probably, going back to what we had as a levy — a tax — on major emitters, where the companies that produce the emissions actually paid into a research fund," Kenney said.

This type of regulatory system was introduced in Alberta in 2007 by the Progressive Conservative government of Ed Stelmach and modified in 2018 by the current NDP government.

The regulations only apply to large emitters and are separate from the broader-based carbon tax that the NDP introduced in 2017, which applies to the consumer-level sale of gasoline, diesel, propane and natural gas.

Both the old and the new regulations on industry involve having large emitters pay into a technology fund aimed at reducing the intensity of Alberta's greenhouse gas emissions.

A government agency doles out grants from the fund, on a project-by-project basis. Grant recipients have included municipalities, universities and major players in the oil and gas industry.

"That fund, paid for by major emitters, I think is a good way of doing it," Kenney said of his ideal climate-change policy for Alberta.

"I think the solution is through research and development, science and technology, that will find thousands of small innovations that reduce the carbon intensity of our economy."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ters-1.4652145

Stop the feds? The argument will really come down to whether or not provinces can be taxed differently. If the challenge succeeds, - after spending an absurd amount of money ironically - all that really means is that the federal government will set the carbon tax and each province will be subject to that. That's not a win of any sorts. At least not while the Liberals are in power.

My understanding is the provinces fighting the carbon tax have asked the court to rule on whether the federal government’s plan to impose a carbon tax on the province is constitutional.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Dion

Okay, fair enough. The below is a quote from Kenney on how Kenney would do it differently...

That doesn't address the federal requirements, so it's a moot point. Which I'm sure you realized when he said this:

He vowed that, if the UCP wins the 2019 provincial election, he would repeal the portion of Alberta's carbon tax that applies to consumers and launch a legal challenge over Ottawa's mandated minimum carbon prices.

"We will see the federal government in court," he said.

So my question, again, is how the UCP has argued to meet the federal requirements while getting rid of what you want them to get rid of.

Originally Posted by Dion

My understanding is the provinces fighting the carbon tax have asked the court to rule on whether the federal government’s plan to impose a carbon tax on the province is constitutional.

There's a lot of moving parts so I don't want to oversimplify it. The big one is whether the federal government, in essence, can force the provincial level to implement it's own tax system. Which is what occurred (either you come up with your own, or you follow us). There's a very good argument to be made there.

“It is our position that under the Canadian Constitution, provinces are sovereign in their assigned areas of jurisdiction. Therefore, the federal carbon tax is constitutionally illegitimate because it applies only in those provinces that have not exercised their own jurisdiction in a way that the federal government thinks they should,” Mr. Moe said in a statement.

However, even Saskatechewan has conceded in it's argument that if the federal government came up with a broad Canada-wide carbon tax, there's little room for recourse.

Section 91.3 gives parliament the ability to:

91.It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

...
3. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.
...

So as long as the Federal government can argue that (a Federal, Canada-Wide) Carbon Tax is for the purpose to raise money, well there's not much room.

So now, the challengers need to argue that the carbon tax isn't being used to fund money but implement environmental policy. One argument for that would be the rebates being given. And even then the Federal government would have opportunities to argue otherwise.

Congrats, the ultimate outcome (if they succeed) is a Carbon Tax implemented outside of Alberta's control, without rebates. As long as the Liberals are in power, the UCP arguing the Carbon Tax is really a red herring in my opinion, they might as well be yelling "lock her up!"

(Again oversimplification, lots of moving parts, but with the Liberals in power, it's an uphill near pointless battle to fight a Carbon tax).

[Makarov]

Nm

[Dion]

Jason Kenney is a hypocrite. His former Federal PC party which he was a member of did the exact thing he is accusing the NDP of doing. In fact Klein, Prentice and other PC leaders did the same thing.

UCP Leader Jason Kenney slammed the NDP Friday for running what he described as a pre-election campaign funded by taxpayers and repeated calls for the election to be called as soon as possible.

“We’re putting them on notice,” he told reporters in Calgary.

“All we’re saying is, ‘Premier, bring it on,’” he said. “Let the voters decide at the earliest opportunity, that would be March 1.”

https://calgarysun.com/news/politics...2-893fa3c9a583

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Dion

Jason Kenney is a hypocrite. His former Federal PC party which he was a member of did the exact thing he is accusing the NDP of doing. In fact Klein, Prentice and other PC leaders did the same thing.



https://calgarysun.com/news/politics...2-893fa3c9a583

Yeah they all do it. Notley was mad that the PCs were doing it as well and now she’s doing it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Dion

An end to the carbon tax on household heating and gasoline useage.

A freeze or cut back on govt spending. We're on the road to a 100 billion dollar debt and the associated interest payments. We can't continue on this path where an ever increasing amount of our tax dollars are going towards paying down the debt. We need to bring that under control as opposed to kicking the can down the road for the next govt to deal with.

That’s for answering it. I think as an important part of political discourse it’s important to ask what would make me change my opinion on an issue ornparty. If you can’t think of any reason you likely are tunneling

[GGG]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Do you forget that the NDP started out with a royalty review? After one was JUST done not too long ago? And the impact that had on investments in this province pretty much immediately after the NDP took office?


Sure, they've done a 180 since then, but they started out hammering the Oil and Gas sector and it took the loss of 10s of thousands of jobs to change their mind about how 'right' they were for our economy.


People have such short memories.

Are you referring to the royalty review where they had non partisan experts come and review the royalty structure and follow their advice making significant improvements on the conventional and gas side in how royalties are paid while making no changes on the heavy oil side?

That royalty review is a perfect snap shot of good governance.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by GGG

Are you referring to the royalty review where they had non partisan experts come and review the royalty structure and follow their advice making significant improvements on the conventional and gas side in how royalties are paid while making no changes on the heavy oil side?

That royalty review is a perfect snap shot of good governance.

“Significant improvements”

I’ll need some citiations for that.

It was generally accepted the review did more damage than any “improvement” that may have come out of it, by hurting investor confidence.

Also good governance by waiting till actually seeing everything then listening to what everyone was saying? Ok I guess...

[White Out 403]

Kenney on video mocked my friend Steve Durrell for being "19". Durrell is 29, married, has 3 kids and a steady union job and a mortgage.

Kenney may have forgotten he first entered politics at 19. What an #######.

[White Out 403]

https://globalnews.ca/news/4917414/n...shot-at-my-age

Neat. It's a thing.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Weitz

“Significant improvements”

I’ll need some citiations for that.

It was generally accepted the review did more damage than any “improvement” that may have come out of it, by hurting investor confidence.

Also good governance by waiting till actually seeing everything then listening to what everyone was saying? Ok I guess...

Depends how you measure significant

- The 5% royalty cap until capital was paid off on new conventional wells based on industry average rather than actual capital costs was a significant improvement to the previous regime. Long term the change here will improve investment. Tertzakian, who was on the committee, was quite passionate about these changes.

Who “generally accepted” this? I know the Wildrose was spinning that naritive. If you want to see a generally accepted bad royalty disaster go back and review the Stelmech one. (I’m not trying to be partisan here but just to compare what bad looks like). I think the statement that the royalty review had little affect in the macro economic climate of Alberta that year would be reasonable but overal in my opinion it improved the structure for the long term.

[killer_carlson]

The last thing the NDP should want is for Bob Rae to have any comments or have a profile in this election.

The UCP should encourage Rae to keep throwing his 2 cents in.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

The last thing the NDP should want is for Bob Rae to have any comments or have a profile in this election.

The UCP should encourage Rae to keep throwing his 2 cents in.

Rae is a private citizen who can speak if he wants, has nothing to do with the NDP.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Slava

Yeah they all do it. Notley was mad that the PCs were doing it as well and now she’s doing it.

It's my belief that Notley is doing this to try and get Kenney to release some of his platform before the election.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Rae is a private citizen who can speak if he wants, has nothing to do with the NDP.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

god. o ya, got me with that snappy emoji retort. real good.

[killer_carlson]

Nm

[White Out 403]

Do you think anyone will attribute anything Preston Manning would say to the UCP? No. Why would they. Rae is a retired politician who was once a Liberal and NDP member. Who cares.