Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Slava

Going against my better judgment here, but there is a troubling element about the government using the emergency measures to quell the protests. They could've tried other avenues, and sure didn't seem to. When you have had other protests (for example the rail blockades), the government negotiated and tried to resolve those matters. Why did they jump right to restricting peoples rights here?

For the record, I didn't love the truckers convoy, but I do have concerns about how this was handled. It's kind of a "I might disagree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it" scenario for me.

And as far as characterizing their protests as "illegal occupations", that is what civil disobedience is. It's non-violent protest. Again, their particular message here wasn't mine, but non-violent protest is a big deal. And to be clear, part of that civil disobedience is people getting arrested and detained for those actions. It's basically how things should be functioning in a democracy in my view, but the restriction of rights is something that has to be examined.

Wait, I'm super confused by that post. You acknowledge that part of civil disobedience is getting arrested for doing the illegal civil disobedience you're doing, but you're concerned about restricting peoples' rights? Putting someone in jail is pretty restrictive of their rights. So if it's not that, what then is the restriction of rights that you're concerned about, specifically?

For me, if you're deliberately trying to interfere with a major piece of infrastructure, whether it be a rail line or a border crossing, to make a political statement, you're going to get arrested and charged, and you should. What exactly are you suggesting is the correct course of action?

Originally Posted by Makarov

As I understand it, its just supposed to override the Constitution Act, 1982 or something.

OK, that's what it sounds like and that is of course crazy (even though I would actually support it if it were just a piece of satire aimed at the BC government for its own deliberate, consequence-free defiance of federal jurisdiction under the constitution). Although the article posted by GordonBlue seems to contradict what you're saying.

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

this link sums it up.

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/pol...overeignty-act

According to the overview, the act would affirm the authority of the legislature to refuse provincial enforcement of specific federal laws or policies “that violate the jurisdictional rights of Alberta” under the Constitution of Canada or Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is on its face less crazy, but serves no purpose. The law that permits the legislature to not enact federal laws or policies that violate the jurisdictional rights of Alberta under the constitution already exists: it's the constitution. There is no separate role for a piece of provincial legislation to play. That's why I was confused.

The UCP seems to have a knack for trying to implement purely cosmetic legislation as red meat for the base.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by gasman

Are there any mandates in Canada preventing "healthy" people from traveling to the USA. The only vaccination requirements I am aware of would be from American Authorities, as Canada has no requirements at this time.

as of October 1, 2022 travelers entering Canada:

Proof of COVID-19 vaccination is not required
COVID-19 pre-entry and arrival tests are not required
Quarantine after you enter Canada is not required
Using ArriveCAN is not required
If you’re flying into Toronto Pearson, Vancouver, or Montréal-Trudeau international airports, you can still use ArriveCAN to complete your Advance CBSA Declaration to save time upon arrival
Pre-boarding tests for cruise passengers are not required
As always, travel documents are required
Health checks to board planes and trains are not required
Wearing masks on planes and trains is not required

source https://travel.gc.ca/travel-covid

Roman, I see you thanked this post. Did you believe some of these restrictions were still in place?

Also, not sure how US policy is our issue.

And why the hesitation to say you are a Smith supporter? You say "deciding who you support", but in what I've seen so far, you support everything she has put forward. So I'm confused. What's holding you back? And if you are a supporter, just own it.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Roman, I see you thanked this post. Did you believe some of these restrictions were still in place?

Also, not sure how US policy is our issue.

And why the hesitation to say you are a Smith supporter? You say "deciding who you support", but in what I've seen so far, you support everything she has put forward. So I'm confused. What's holding you back? And if you are a supporter, just own it.

Maybe they are afraid we will stop respecting them.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Wait, I'm super confused by that post. You acknowledge that part of civil disobedience is getting arrested for doing the illegal civil disobedience you're doing, but you're concerned about restricting peoples' rights? Putting someone in jail is pretty restrictive of their rights. So if it's not that, what then is the restriction of rights that you're concerned about, specifically?

For me, if you're deliberately trying to interfere with a major piece of infrastructure, whether it be a rail line or a border crossing, to make a political statement, you're going to get arrested and charged, and you should. What exactly are you suggesting is the correct course of action?

OK, that's what it sounds like and that is of course crazy (even though I would actually support it if it were just a piece of satire aimed at the BC government for its own deliberate, consequence-free defiance of federal jurisdiction under the constitution). Although the article posted by GordonBlue seems to contradict what you're saying.

This is on its face less crazy, but serves no purpose. The law that permits the legislature to not enact federal laws or policies that violate the jurisdictional rights of Alberta under the constitution already exists: it's the constitution. There is no separate role for a piece of provincial legislation to play. That's why I was confused.

The UCP seems to have a knack for trying to implement purely cosmetic legislation as red meat for the base.

Well I agree with the arrest portion, and you're right that restricts peoples rights. I guess the part that makes me a little uncomfortable is the implementation of the emergency measures here because it's a broader stroke.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I guess I wasn't paying close enough attention to understand which measures were implemented that were "over the line", regardless of whether they were categorized as "emergency measures"... like, what specifically were they doing that was questionable.

I mean it's one thing for the Federal Government to be interceding in what are provincial or municipal affairs; I get that being a concern, but unless the AB government was actually taking over the administration of the border crossing itself, I don't have the same concern about arresting a bunch of truckers who are impeding access to that crossing on the Alberta side. That doesn't require stepping on any jurisdictional toes of consequence, it seems to me.

[timun]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

And why the hesitation to say you are a Smith supporter? You say "deciding who you support", but in what I've seen so far, you support everything she has put forward. So I'm confused. What's holding you back? And if you are a supporter, just own it.

They won't even cop to being unvaccinated, even though they have spent pages and pages debating it, probably because deep down even they know the reasons for doing so are absurd.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 14Roman14

If they are already planning on investing here with the carbon tax in place, why would it be different if it was in the challenge being in the courts. They either pay it as is, or pay it if the court case is lost or best case they don’t pay it at all if the court case is won.

As for the carbon tax it would allow us to challenge it on the process of our ability to use technology to recapture. We could use arguments that show how much of the new technology could lower the carbon footprint and allow other ways that Alberta is doing their part but challenge the carbon tax as it is hurting all Albertans.

Another major federal policy is the fertilizer ban on Canadian farmers. Trudeau is calling for major fertile reduction in the coming years. Canadian farmers already use very efficient strategies to minimize fertilizer use but yet use the right amount to achieve the highest possible yields. That policy would do nothing but cost Canadian farmers yields and profits. A profitable agriculture industry is one that helps all of Alberta. In a time where the world needs more food, it seems asinine that a government would enact policies that force farmers to produce less food and pay less income taxes.
The sovereignty act could protect Albertans in that situation.

It runs because of the uncertainty. A provincial government refusing to follow the rule of law has no precedent. You don’t know what the outcome will be so how do you plan. You agree that it won’t encourage investment as no benefit can ever be assumed from it so all you are left with is uncertainty.

Are you aware that the fertilizer “ban” does precisely what you say farmers are already doing. Requires farmers to meet best practices and guidelines and the practices and guidelines will be established with industry organizations.

How does the sovereignty act help assuming you are correct about this being significantly negative for farmers. It in theory prevents provincial enforcement of the laws but there is nothing stopping federal enforcement of federal laws. Fines could still be administered federally.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

OK, that's what it sounds like and that is of course crazy (even though I would actually support it if it were just a piece of satire aimed at the BC government for its own deliberate, consequence-free defiance of federal jurisdiction under the constitution). Although the article posted by GordonBlue seems to contradict what you're saying.

This is on its face less crazy, but serves no purpose. The law that permits the legislature to not enact federal laws or policies that violate the jurisdictional rights of Alberta under the constitution already exists: it's the constitution. There is no separate role for a piece of provincial legislation to play. That's why I was confused.

The UCP seems to have a knack for trying to implement purely cosmetic legislation as red meat for the base.

Sorry, I'm not in Alberta any more so haven't been following the Sovereignty Act silliness very closely. You should definitely prefer the summary in the Edmonton Journal article to my summary. As you note though, either way its just a dog-whistling waste of time and resources.

[Knut]

It is so interesting to me. THe vast majority in Alberta have moved past COVID and are just trying to return to normal. The only people posting about COVID are the Anti-vaxxers/Freedom convoy people. They have made it their entire identity at this time. Its time to move on. Smith brings it all back to the surface and hopefully that pisses people off.

I could see a bunch of UCP voters just stay home next election. IN my sphere people that would never in a million years vote anybody but UCP are talking about voting for Notley.

[14Roman14]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Roman, I see you thanked this post. Did you believe some of these restrictions were still in place?

Also, not sure how US policy is our issue.

And why the hesitation to say you are a Smith supporter? You say "deciding who you support", but in what I've seen so far, you support everything she has put forward. So I'm confused. What's holding you back? And if you are a supporter, just own it.

US policy is not our issue. Yes you are right. There is nothing we can do about their policy other than constructive conversations. I know many political faces in the states were advocating for Canada to drop their arrival mandates, and now there are Canadian ones saying we got ours lifted, now it’s your turn. I was fully aware when our Canadian government finally allowed all Canadians to fly again. I simply liked the post because I am very happy we are getting there and very much hope none of it returns….ever.

My hesitation with smith so far is based solely on the party. I don’t particularly care for my MLA. I do support her a lot more than any NDP candidate but I am watching her closely to see if some of her policies I support work and make a positive difference for Albertans. She is definitely going to get attacked from all angles but need to be honest and open and do what she says she will do. If she buckles or weakens on things for political reasons I will be disappointed.

[RedHot25]

I think we have to be careful with the Sovereignty Act, because its been really unclear throughout, and that's due to Smith herself...

First act:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1579145441530482688

Second act:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1578829849372012544

Third Act?:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1581835188317093888

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by 14Roman14

Another major federal policy is the fertilizer ban on Canadian farmers. Trudeau is calling for major fertile reduction in the coming years. Canadian farmers already use very efficient strategies to minimize fertilizer use but yet use the right amount to achieve the highest possible yields. That policy would do nothing but cost Canadian farmers yields and profits. A profitable agriculture industry is one that helps all of Alberta. In a time where the world needs more food, it seems asinine that a government would enact policies that force farmers to produce less food and pay less income taxes.
The sovereignty act could protect Albertans in that situation.

So this sort of thing is why you come off as pretty uninformed, calling this a ban. The 4R fertilizer principle (which the government is recommending but is totally voluntary) is recognized even by fertilizer manufacturers as saving money, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing yields. The only point of disagreement is the amount of GHG emissions prevented, where the government projects 30% and the fertilizer industry predicts 14%. But every expert who has done research on the issue recognizes that it is good for both yields and the environment.

As someone who grew up on a farm, it's so frustrating to remember the stories of my grandfather (about as staunch a conservative as you could get), who lived through the depression. When government experts recommended planting shelter belts to reduce surface erosion, fallowing fields, rotating crops between different nutrient requirements, etc., he was all in on adopting those principles, as were most farmers at that time. And those changes saved our food supply. It seems like many of today's farmers would take the same expert advice and decry it as government meddling.

[Ozy_Flame]

"Third Act" = satire account.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The UCP seems to have a knack for trying to implement purely cosmetic legislation as red meat for the base.

Reminds of back in law school whenever I looked at the "Alberta Marriage Act" with its use of the notwithstanding clause for gay marriage. There's a history of useless grandstanding on legislation.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

I think we have to be careful with the Sovereignty Act, because its been really unclear throughout, and that's due to Smith herself...

Second act:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1578829849372012544

See, this is what I'm saying - there seem to be two options after "Sovereignty Act" is brought into force.

First, the feds implement some law or policy that the AB legislature doesn't like, and the AB legislature says, "that's unconstitutional, you're treading on our provincial jurisdiction". This then ends up in court, either because the AB legislature is defying the Federal statute or because the AB legislature starts a court action challenging the federal statute. This winds up before the SCC, likely, which issues its ruling either in favour of the AB Legislature's position, or in favour of the Federal Government's position.

At this point, if things didn't go their way, the AB Legislature can either try to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court - in which case they should be immediately sent to prison - or live with it and gripe about how they don't agree. The comments from Rob Anderson in the tweet above suggest that it's the latter one. But if that's right and it is the perfectly sane, non-go-to-prison option, that's just the status quo - that's exactly how things currently work. So there is no point to enacting this law.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

"Third Act" = satire account.

Well, yes, I thought that was pretty obvious....

[14Roman14]

Originally Posted by GGG

It runs because of the uncertainty. A provincial government refusing to follow the rule of law has no precedent. You don’t know what the outcome will be so how do you plan. You agree that it won’t encourage investment as no benefit can ever be assumed from it so all you are left with is uncertainty.

Are you aware that the fertilizer “ban” does precisely what you say farmers are already doing. Requires farmers to meet best practices and guidelines and the practices and guidelines will be established with industry organizations.

How does the sovereignty act help assuming you are correct about this being significantly negative for farmers. It in theory prevents provincial enforcement of the laws but there is nothing stopping federal enforcement of federal laws. Fines could still be administered federally.

If farmers are already doing it, which they are, then why does Trudeau need to stick his nose in it and meddle around slapping regulation here and regulation there. People who are already doing a good job do not need his expertise on the subject, when he is far from an expert on so many things.

Maybe his supporters expect him to give direction at every turn, but most in Alberta if doing a good job want to just be left alone by the federal government so they can continue to do a good job.

It causes problems when people from Ottawa who have no clue about our way of life come out with policies and regulations that end up hurting Alberta’s industry and prosperity. If the sovereignty act can help limit their power in any way it should definitely be explored in some situations.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

But if that's right and it is the perfectly sane, non-go-to-prison option, that's just the status quo - that's exactly how things currently work. So there is no point to enacting this law.

Except for people like Roman 14. I don't mean this in a mean way, to anyone, but in that case its a typical throw a bone to supporters.

One of the things that is worrisome, however, is that we truly don't know with Danielle Smith. She has been all over the map in talking about that Act, and can out very forceful about it for a long time at the start, and not on this point.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

I think we have to be careful with the Sovereignty Act, because its been really unclear throughout, and that's due to Smith herself...
-snip-

I'll give you the honest truth...it's becuase Smith isn't smart enough to know what she is doing, and her supporters aren't smart enough to realize it.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by 14Roman14

If farmers are already doing it, which they are, then why does Trudeau need to stick his nose in it and meddle around slapping regulation here and regulation there. People who are already doing a good job do not need his expertise on the subject, when he is far from an expert on so many things.

Maybe his supporters expect him to give direction at every turn, but most in Alberta if doing a good job want to just be left alone by the federal government so they can continue to do a good job.

It causes problems when people from Ottawa who have no clue about our way of life come out with policies and regulations that end up hurting Alberta’s industry and prosperity. If the sovereignty act can help limit their power in any way it should definitely be explored in some situations.

Maybe 90% are following best practices but 10% aren't and we want to bring the 10% up to the same standard. You know, the same way pretty much every other regulation works.