Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Reaper

I'm still struggling with the fact that Alexa Jones is our Premier.

I thought it Marjorie Taylor Greene.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

This is so true.

Also, #### you.

#### me?

No. #### you

[kermitology]

Boy, that election thread was a doozy. There are two people in particular who have never shown up again in these threads since election day. Those supporting the nonsense of Vivian Krause and radio show Danielle Smith.

I even saw mention of the Alberta pension plan and provincial tax collection.

Plus all the handwringing about fiscal restraint, ability to budget, and wasting money: then the UCP go and throw billions away just like detractors said they would and that it was a waste of time, money, and effort.

Jesus..

[iggy_oi]

I miss crazy_eoj

[SebC]

Originally Posted by flames_fan_down_under

Even better...imagine if the devil himself Trudeau had tabled something like this.

Correct me if this is an unfair characterisation, but isn't the Sovereignty act basically the Emergency act on steroids?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Sr. Mints

I reached out to MLA (Klein) to express my disappointment with Bill 1, Smith, the UCP, and Jeremy Nixon himself. Nixon's response was predictably uninspired.

He says he voted yes to allow Smith to introduce Bill 1, but had not seen it until today. Okay then. No hint where he's going from here.

Yup, got the same response from him. He says "To clarify: I voted yes to allowing Premier Smith to introduce Bill 1. That means the Bill will now be up for debate in the Legislative Assembly. I had not yet seen the Bill yesterday. I have received it now and am reviewing it."

So my question is, is it typical to vote to allow for the introduction of a bill you haven't read? Being in cabinet, I would have thought they'd have it ahead of the vote. Is this typical(voting for something you haven't seen)?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

Correct me if this is an unfair characterisation, but isn't the Sovereignty act basically the Emergency act on steroids?

Sort of.

It appears to allow Cabinet the ability to modify legislation without the consent of the legislature around areas with the legislature has identified there could be potential problems.

It can’t suspend rights like the EA can

An extreme example would be if the legislature found the criminal code to be over reaching it could pass a resolution saying it was. This could be because they think the enforcement of federal drug laws is to harsh. This would give cabinet the power to direct municipal police forces to not enforce the criminal code. Then the Cabinet could order the municipal police forces not to investigate any crimes for one night only and the we have the purge.

Although the RCMP likely good investigate I’m the city at that point but I don’t know the extent of their jurisdiction

I realize this is an absurd application as you could do the same thing through the legislature but at least in that case the specific action would be debated. All of the things in this act could be passed as required through the legislature this just removes that requirement because ???

I realize the example is absurd but I think would be legal

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Yup, got the same response from him. He says "To clarify: I voted yes to allowing Premier Smith to introduce Bill 1. That means the Bill will now be up for debate in the Legislative Assembly. I had not yet seen the Bill yesterday. I have received it now and am reviewing it."

So my question is, is it typical to vote to allow for the introduction of a bill you haven't read? Being in cabinet, I would have thought they'd have it ahead of the vote. Is this typical(voting for something you haven't seen)?

I would think that it is reasonable to vote to allow debate on a bill that you haven’t read when your party is presenting it as part of its agenda. I’d suspect that those voting against allowing debate are in much the same situation as having only briefly read the bill or just the over view.

I wouldn’t get upset over this point. When all the sheep vote for it after reading it after campaigning against government overreach then it’s time to be angry at the hypocrisy

[Fuzz]

Ya, I can see that not being a big deal, I was more interested if this is a normal thing or not.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Yup, got the same response from him. He says "To clarify: I voted yes to allowing Premier Smith to introduce Bill 1. That means the Bill will now be up for debate in the Legislative Assembly. I had not yet seen the Bill yesterday. I have received it now and am reviewing it."

So my question is, is it typical to vote to allow for the introduction of a bill you haven't read? Being in cabinet, I would have thought they'd have it ahead of the vote. Is this typical(voting for something you haven't seen)?

They basically rubber stamp any bill so that it can be debated. From what I understand there are two ways to introduce a bill in Alberta. The first is submitting it in writing two days prior and it gets put on the agenda. In this manner obviously MLAs could see the bill beforehand. The second way is orally in which case there is no submission beforehand and it is reasonable to believe that MLAs may not have seen it unless it was circulated internally.

MLAs introduce Bills proposing new laws or amendments to existing laws. Bills customarily pass first reading and there is no debate at this stage of the legislative process.

https://www.assembly.ab.ca/learn/the...ative-assembly

This is from the Legislature guide about bills:

Passing a Bill in the Legislature
First Reading
The Bill may be introduced at least one full day after written notice is given and published in the Order Paper. For example, if written Notice is given on a Monday, the Bill can be introduced on the Wednesday. Notice can also be given orally in the Assembly the day before introduction. Bills do not have to be introduced according to their place on the Order Paper. The motion for leave to introduce a Bill is usually passed without debate. The sponsor is permitted to give a brief introductory remark on the intent of the Bill. Once leave is granted the Bill is deemed to have received First Reading.

Second Reading
At Second Reading, discussion of the principle of the Bill takes place. Before debate begins, the sponsor will give a "fairly comprehensive" statement about the Bill. The statement for Second Reading will generally outline why the Bill is needed, the objectives of the new policies and stakeholder consultation process. Committee of the Whole After Second Reading the Bill is referred to the Committee of the Whole, chaired by the Chair of the Committee (not the Speaker). At this stage a clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill occurs. Members may propose amendments to the Bill, if the amendments do not add any new principles or are not destructive of the principle of the Bill that was approved at Second Reading. The amendments are commonly called "House Amendments". The Legislative Counsel Office drafts House Amendments that are proposed by the Government, while the Parliamentary Counsel Office drafts House Amendments proposed by the Opposition. All Government amendments must be approved by Caucus and the Legislative Review Committee. In some cases it might require A&P and/or SPC approval. A Bill agreed to in Committee of the Whole must be reported to the Assembly, with or without amendments. Following that, the Bill proceeds to Third Reading.

Third Reading
The Bill is considered in its final form. The length of debate will depend on how controversial the Bill might have been.

Royal Assent
No Bill may become law without Royal Assent being given by the Lieutenant Governor. A Bill comes into force on Royal Assent if the Act doesn't provide otherwise. The Act could state that the Act or portions of it come into force on a specified date or on a date specified in a proclamation issued by the Lieutenant Governor (Order in Council required). In rare circumstances the Act can be made retroactive.

https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/523e...-july-2005.pdf

[D as in David]

This bill seems like something a fremen on the land would introduce if they were Premier of a province.

Oh wait...

[Yikes]

Originally Posted by Reaper

I'm still struggling with the fact that Alexa Jones is our Premier.

Classic

[Geraldsh]

Has there ever been a time when the LG has refused to give Royal Assent to a bill passed by the Legislature?

[Superflyer]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Boy, that election thread was a doozy. There are two people in particular who have never shown up again in these threads since election day. Those supporting the nonsense of Vivian Krause and radio show Danielle Smith.

I even saw mention of the Alberta pension plan and provincial tax collection.

Plus all the handwringing about fiscal restraint, ability to budget, and wasting money: then the UCP go and throw billions away just like detractors said they would and that it was a waste of time, money, and effort.

Jesus..

One of my favourites is right on the front page.



I'm sure all the people that thanked that post are not going to vote UCP for the next 20 years now.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Superflyer

One of my favourites is right on the front page.

He's not wrong though. The implementation of that program was so stupid, ridiculous and inefficient.

[blender]

Originally Posted by SebC

Correct me if this is an unfair characterisation, but isn't the Sovereignty act basically the Emergency act on steroids?

Apples and Oranges.
The EA has been law since 1988, and it replaced the War Measures Act which was on the books for ages prior.

The EA has a very high threshold for its use. It has only been used once (Freedom Convoy 2022), and though there was a some debate about the justification, the threshold for use is very high.

There is no threshold limiting use of Smith's proposed law beyond cabinet deciding to use it, and there appears to be no limits to the types of things it s intended to be used for.

Also, the EA is designed to temporarily shift power to the federal government; a function that is necessary to maintain a federation. If the government of Canada is unable to take charge of the country during an emergency, then what's the point of being a country? Conversely, the Alberta Sovereignty Act is designed to do the opposite, to effectively counteract the Federal governments ability to be the the federal government.

Not the same in principle or in effect.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Superflyer

I'm sure all the people that thanked that post are not going to vote UCP for the next 20 years now.

As is their right and I don't see any problem with that as it is how things work in this country.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Superflyer

One of my favourites is right on the front page.



I'm sure all the people that thanked that post are not going to vote UCP for the next 20 years now.

As a person who thanked that post (voted Alberta Party in that election) I stand by the stupidity of that program. It should be ridiculed. Is it as bad as some of the UCP boondoggles, no but it was a waste of money and a clear lack of judgement. I don’t get how you can defend it. Is it a 20 year disqualification? No, but as a reason to not vote NDP last time I certainly felt it reasonable and stand by it. I was hoping we would have had a viable third party coming out of the last election.

I do agree that the same people who thanked that post should be disqualifying this version of the UCP on similar grounds.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Geraldsh

Has there ever been a time when the LG has refused to give Royal Assent to a bill passed by the Legislature?

Yes, but the latest time was in the 60s. The mechanism for reservation of Royal Consent for a LG is the bill gets put before the Federal Cabinet, who can then give it assent. Thats what happened last time with Saskatchewan.

The last time it happened in Alberta the LG reserved assent pending the courts review the laws as he thought they were unconstitutional. The courts agreed and the bills were quashed as written.

So it has happened, there is precedent and a mechanism, but it hasn't been used in 60 years. If the LG tried to send this Act to the Federal Cabinet for review and they quashed it, I suspect the smoldering distrust of the Federal government would turn into wildfire - so I seriously doubt an LG would risk that.

[KTrain]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

Imagine the right wing freak out if the NDP had these Bill 1 powers.

UCP is going to get this bill passed and then come election time say "We can't let the NDP to have this power, vote for us.".