Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

How so? Can you explain why you think it is biased and unreasonable?




It is the exact same language as the consumer product paragraph. Perhaps you can cite examples where that has gone wrong?

Couple quick areas, the nebulous reference to international reporting standards and now a private party can force this review where previously it was th competition bureau. If you don’t think the environmental NGO’s aren’t licking their chops at just endlessly tying up the resource company’s on this issue you are kidding yourself.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

C-59 is only going to result in less transparency regarding ESG. No company, O&G or otherwise, is going to say anything about ESG publicly.

Well then they are pathetic and cowardly. Or they have been spewing BS this whole time. Because there is no reason to believe that the Comp Bureau has magically become a Kangaroo Court because a couple paragraphs got added to a law.

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

Couple quick areas, the nebulous reference to international reporting standards and now a private party can force this review where previously it was th competition bureau. If you don’t think the environmental NGO’s aren’t licking their chops at just endlessly tying up the resource company’s on this issue you are kidding yourself.

Citation on the bolded? Has this not always been a complaints based process through the Competition Bureau? I couldn't find anything with respect to changing the process. What do you think the process is?


Interestingly, there have already been a few cases dealt with through the environmental lens (all comp bureau cases made public: https://competition-bureau.canada.ca...s-and-outcomes :

Keurig Canada Allegations of false or misleading environmental claims about the recyclability of single-use coffee pods The company agreed to pay a $3 million penalty, donate $800,000 to a Canadian charitable organisation and pay $500,000 for the costs of the Bureau’s investigation

Automobile (3.0 litre diesel engine) Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche Allegations of false or misleading environmental marketing claims The companies agreed to pay a penalty of $2.5 million.

Automobile (2.0 litre diesel engine) Volkswagen Canada and Audi Canada Allegations of false or misleading environmental claims The companies agreed to pay an administrative penalty of $15 million.

Now there is a fairly direct line from these false claims to consumer decisions. Which could also apply to retail gasoline, but there are probably a lot of less direct cases where a company might have been able to wriggle out of the Comp Bureau's purview before.


As for your concern about "internationally recognized methodology"...I don't know wtf you expect? Of course there is ambiguity for something this broad. I'm not sure how every other company in Canada has survived the unspecified definition of "adequate and proper test" in 74.01(b). Or perhaps I should say all but 3:

Spoiler!

Sport equipment True Sport Allegations of performance claims not based on adequate and proper tests The company agreed to cease all claims at issue and donate $100,000 in equipment to support youth sports.

Sport equipment Reebok-CCM Allegations that certain performance claims not based on adequate and proper tests The company agreed to remove or modify certain performance claim, donate $475,000 to a Canadian charity, and pay $30,000 toward the cost of the Bureau’s investigation.

Electronic muscle stimulation devices Thane Canada Inc. Allegations of performance claims not based on adequate and proper tests The company agreed to pay a penalty of $350,000 and not to market electronic muscle stimulation services for 10 years.

It's almost like there will be professionals adjudicating these cases who can apply critical judgment. If I had to hazard a wild guess, I'd venture that the int'l methodology thing was included to prevent companies from using shoddy #### from the Fraser Institute (or similar) to support their statements.

[GGG]

So should a plan for Carbon Sequestration be able to claim it would prevent CO2 being released in the atmosphere?

What recognized international test exists for carbon capture at scale that meets the standard of this law? Is several years of successful storage a sufficient test? I think companies are right to be concerned given the lack of legal standard around the test.

None of them want to be the test case for this law. Over time as case law is established it could end in a reasonable place.

[Ozy_Flame]

Don't want to let this one go under the radar. Smith gives cushy appointment to 2023 election loser, local hot air vent and conservative doormat Nicholas Milliken.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1803941078284013735

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GGG

So should a plan for Carbon Sequestration be able to claim it would prevent CO2 being released in the atmosphere?

What recognized international test exists for carbon capture at scale that meets the standard of this law? Is several years of successful storage a sufficient test? I think companies are right to be concerned given the lack of legal standard around the test.

None of them want to be the test case for this law. Over time as case law is established it could end in a reasonable place.

Maybe. Since everyone is so caught up on 'internationally recognized tests', let's review and make sure we are actually using the right language, because the two paragraphs are being conflated.

(b.#1) makes a representation to the public in the form of a statement, warranty or guarantee of a product’s benefits for protecting or restoring the environment or mitigating the environmental, social and ecological causes or effects of climate change that is not based on an adequate and proper test, the proof of which lies on the person making the representation;

(b.#2) makes a representation to the public with respect to the benefits of a business or business activity for protecting or restoring the environment or mitigating the environmental and ecological causes or effects of climate change that is not based on adequate and proper substantiation in accordance with internationally recognized methodology, the proof of which lies on the person making the representation; or

So b#2 applies much moreso than #1.

Is the science on this 'settled'? Probably not, as there are a lot of caveats with CCS. But if the company can produce sufficient evidence from reliable sources (most likely peer-reviewed publications held in high regard...aka internationally recognized methodology), then sure.

But more likely, as we see is so many other promotional statements, I would expect to see an * that qualifies any statement on a CCS proposal that specifies the scope and parameters.

And you know, we could also just trust that the Competition Bureau is competent, like we do* with most other law enforcement agencies (*for the most part...).

[GGG]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Maybe. Since everyone is so caught up on 'internationally recognized tests', let's review and make sure we are actually using the right language, because the two paragraphs are being conflated.



So b#2 applies much moreso than #1.

Is the science on this 'settled'? Probably not, as there are a lot of caveats with CCS. But if the company can produce sufficient evidence from reliable sources (most likely peer-reviewed publications held in high regard...aka internationally recognized methodology), then sure.

But more likely, as we see is so many other promotional statements, I would expect to see an * that qualifies any statement on a CCS proposal that specifies the scope and parameters.

And you know, we could also just trust that the Competition Bureau is competent, like we do* with most other law enforcement agencies (*for the most part...).

I wasn’t getting hung up internationally recognized. It’s more the level of certainty required to make that statement is unclear. It’s clearly had a chilling affect on speech in the short term and while the law is reviewed. When I read the pathways information I didn’t find anything objectionable about it. Yet it’s gone. Did you find anything specifically objectionable about the content there?

So while you say trust the courts to be reasonable, until there is clear understanding of what reasonable is this will have a chilling affect on speech regardless of if courts are reasonable.

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Maybe. Since everyone is so caught up on 'internationally recognized tests', let's review and make sure we are actually using the right language, because the two paragraphs are being conflated.



So b#2 applies much moreso than #1.

Is the science on this 'settled'? Probably not, as there are a lot of caveats with CCS. But if the company can produce sufficient evidence from reliable sources (most likely peer-reviewed publications held in high regard...aka internationally recognized methodology), then sure.

But more likely, as we see is so many other promotional statements, I would expect to see an * that qualifies any statement on a CCS proposal that specifies the scope and parameters.

And you know, we could also just trust that the Competition Bureau is competent, like we do* with most other law enforcement agencies (*for the most part...).

This is from a McMillan law article that you can search.


Expansion of Private Party Claims (effective on June 20, 2025)
Private parties are now able to apply for leave to challenge anti-competitive agreements pursuant to section 90.1 and to challenge deceptive marketing practices pursuant to section 74.1. Previously, private party challenges were not available for these two provisions. As noted above, private parties were given the right to challenge abuse of dominance in 2022; in 2023 the first such application was filed.[6]
Bill C-59 relaxes the leave test for private parties for most applications regarding reviewable practices. Private parties challenging refusal to deal, price maintenance, exclusive dealings, tied selling, market restriction, abuse of dominance and anti-competitive agreements will be able to obtain leave by showing either that (i) their business is directly or substantially affected in whole or in part; or (ii) the Tribunal is satisfied that it is in the public interest to grant leave. The Act currently requires private parties to demonstrate that their entire business is impacted, which has often proven challenging, and does not include a public interest benefit.
Private parties seeking leave from the Tribunal to bring a claim for deceptive marketing practices will be required to show that granting such leave is in the public interest.
As noted above, the Tribunal may also grant monetary awards to private parties – or others affected – in an amount not exceeding the value of the benefit derived from the conduct (i.e., disgorgement).

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GGG

I wasn’t getting hung up internationally recognized. It’s more the level of certainty required to make that statement is unclear. It’s clearly had a chilling affect on speech in the short term and while the law is reviewed. When I read the pathways information I didn’t find anything objectionable about it. Yet it’s gone. Did you find anything specifically objectionable about the content there?

So while you say trust the courts to be reasonable, until there is clear understanding of what reasonable is this will have a chilling affect on speech regardless of if courts are reasonable.

I think we are seeing several things here. I don't take at face value that Pathways and others are removing info primarily out of legitimate fear of this legislation...it is a prudent move to review and evaluate what they have published, but it also fits nicely into a persecution narrative often proclaimed by O&G (which isn't necessarily wrong, but IMO heavily overblown).

As far as the general downtown Calgarian goes, I suspect most have the impression (because they all repeat it to each other along with news articles without actually looking at the bill in context) that this is completely new legislation with a nefarious new enforcement body (if they even think that deeply into the process), and not a modest evolution to existing laws enforced by the Competition Bureau. I think a similar non-critical game of telephone may be driving some of the removals (rule #1 = CYA). Or it's strategic.


I certainly don't view this as a 'chill on speech'. Food companies have to think carefully about what they claim on a cereal box. Now energy companies have to do the same. Cheerios tells me that "oat fibre helps lower cholesterol*" inside a nice red heart graphic. Then they tell me with the * that 1 cup of cheerios is 35% of the daily fibres shown to help lower cholesterol. I'm sure a nutritionist could talk for several minutes about why those statements are true and probably not totally true at the same time. But it's true enough. "Eat Cheerios to lower your cholesterol!" might be a step too far. Or it might be fine. But this really isn't that hard.

[Fuzz]

Spoiler!

Lots of diversity in this group, collective IQ of the room? Somewhere around 17.

When at least five United Conservative Party MLAs turned up for an “Injection of Truth” vaccine misinformation town hall last Monday sponsored by their party’s Calgary-Lougheed Constituency Association it sparked an immediate uproar on social media.

Seemingly the brain-child of Calgary-Lougheed MLA Eric Bouchard, the event at the Southside Victory Church was expected to be pretty bad. It turned out to be worse than anticipated.

but a bizarre statement by the keynote speaker, non-practising physician Viliam Makis, that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta ought to be renamed “the college of pedophiles and child sex abusers of Alberta.”

Before the event, Premier Danielle Smith, misrepresenting the panelists recruited to take part, told her weekend free radio show that she supported Mr. Bouchard’s effort. “Sometimes you need to hear the contrarian voices,” she chirped, claiming the MLA was merely “hosting a variety of doctors to give their perspective, so I’m quite happy to let him continue on with that.”

https://albertapolitics.ca/2024/06/a...-your-doctors/


Just a reminder the level of intelligence of those leading our province. ####ing embarrassing.

[powderjunkie]

but a bizarre statement by the keynote speaker, non-practising physician Viliam Makis, that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta ought to be renamed “the college of pedophiles and child sex abusers of Alberta.”

[Fuzz]

"Doctors of the world, would you please come work in Alberta so we can call you pedos?"


Endorsed by our premiere. Thanks, voters. Really nailed this one.

[Yamer]

These people really only have one play: everything I don't like is either communism or pedophilia.

I swear if you went up and shook one of them you would hear their head rattle.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by Yamer

These people really only have one play: everything I don't like is either communism or pedophilia.

I swear if you went up and shook one of them you would hear their head rattle.

Only heart attacks that happen now are due to the vax. No one had heart attacks previously.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I think we are seeing several things here. I don't take at face value that Pathways and others are removing info primarily out of legitimate fear of this legislation...it is a prudent move to review and evaluate what they have published, but it also fits nicely into a persecution narrative often proclaimed by O&G (which isn't necessarily wrong, but IMO heavily overblown).

As far as the general downtown Calgarian goes, I suspect most have the impression (because they all repeat it to each other along with news articles without actually looking at the bill in context) that this is completely new legislation with a nefarious new enforcement body (if they even think that deeply into the process), and not a modest evolution to existing laws enforced by the Competition Bureau. I think a similar non-critical game of telephone may be driving some of the removals (rule #1 = CYA). Or it's strategic.


I certainly don't view this as a 'chill on speech'. Food companies have to think carefully about what they claim on a cereal box. Now energy companies have to do the same. Cheerios tells me that "oat fibre helps lower cholesterol*" inside a nice red heart graphic. Then they tell me with the * that 1 cup of cheerios is 35% of the daily fibres shown to help lower cholesterol. I'm sure a nutritionist could talk for several minutes about why those statements are true and probably not totally true at the same time. But it's true enough. "Eat Cheerios to lower your cholesterol!" might be a step too far. Or it might be fine. But this really isn't that hard.

It really is that hard.

Do you count downstream emissions or not? Environmentalists argue that oil produced by O&G companies are intrinsically linked to the use of said oil. Oil companies believe that scope 1 and 2 emissions are the only ones that should count.

So, just starting from this, you cannot claim that CCS would do anything for scope 3 emissions but you can for scope 1 and 2. So both are true, and would require dragging this out in court, in headlines, basically all the media coverage that O&G companies don't want.

If you want scope 3 emissions to be included in the internationally recognized standard, then I would say O&G companies should basically give up and they don't even have to waste money on communication or advertising.

[getbak]

Alberta NDP leadership results: 72,930 total votes cast (85.6% of membership).

Your new NDP leader and Leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition of Alberta: Naheed Nenshi (62,746 votes - 86%)

[The Big Chill]

Nenshi wins in a landslide, as expected.

[PaperBagger'14]

Nenshi with 62000 out of 72000 votes, landslide

[btimbit]

No surprise there, but glad to see it anyway

[direwolf]

Excellent news! Man, it's nice to finally hear something positive from the Alberta politics thread for a change. Since the election of Smith, it's just been a constant avalanche of horrible crap and embarrassment.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by getbak

Alberta NDP leadership results: 72,930 total votes cast (85.6% of membership).

Your new NDP leader and Leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition of Alberta: Naheed Nenshi (62,746 votes - 86%)

With numbers like that it looks like he got a majority among pre-Nenshi NDP numbers in addition to signing up 50k people.