Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

The Alberta NDP Thread

185K views 4K replies 27 participants last post by  FeXL 
#1 ·
Thought I'd put up a thread to keep track of the pinko commie bastards. ;) (For easy access & future referral...)

Oh, look who Rachel hired to be Chief of Staff for our Energy Minister!

Ezra Levant: Meet Alberta’s new colonial chiefs

A Toronto anti-oilsands activist – still registered as an anti-oil lobbyist – is now running Alberta’s energy department.
What could possibly go wrong?

Not only that, but:

There are twelve ministers in the Alberta cabinet, including Notley herself, each with a chief of staff. And ten of those chiefs are, like Mitchell, NDP activists from other provinces, many of whom will commute each week to Alberta from Vancouver, Toronto, or elsewhere.
M'bold.

Nice. First off, any guesses who foots the travel bill?

Second:

There is something weirdly colonial about non-residents being sent in to run a province to which they have few or no ties. It feels as if the NDP believes Alberta lacks people with talent and judgment to govern themselves. It feels nepotistic – highly paid consolation prizes for failed NDP activists from other campaigns.

Like Nathan Rotman. He worked on Olivia Chow’s unsuccessful campaign for Toronto mayor. Now he’s the chief of staff to Alberta’s Finance Minister.

Was there no-one in Alberta with any financial background? No socially conscious businessman, or even an NDP-friendly professor or think tank economist? Four million Albertans, but not one who understands Alberta’s fiscal situation better than an Olivia Chow door-knocker?
M'bold.

Yep...

Further:

Wildrose charges NDP energy minister's top staffer was anti-pipeline lobbyist

The Wildrose Party says it’s a troubling sign that the NDP energy minister’s top staffer was registered as a federal lobbyist for an organization opposed to pipeline projects proposed to ship Alberta oilsands crude.
 
See less See more
#613 ·
Here's one comment on the story that appears to be reasonable:

Annie says:
November 24, 2015 at 8:28 am

This bill was in progress before the NDP came into power.

Perhaps you could clarify some things.

The Edmonton Journal had an article on this.

“The new legislation will mean farmers and ranchers must provide safe work conditions and training to everyone doing any commercial work — not regular farm chores”
– how is this a bad thing?

“The proposed bill will require Alberta’s 43,000 farms and ranches to purchase mandatory insurance coverage to protect workers if they’re injured on the job, and protect the operation if the farmer is sued. Until now, farmers could opt out, leaving approximately 60,000 workers without pay or access to health or physiotherapy benefits to get them back on the job.”
– again, how is this a bad thing?

Why would you choose to not have pay, or benefits, for you or your employees? I am certain that most of us know someone who was injured on a farm. Most of us have that story about someone who was killed on a farm. Most of us know someone who was killed, and they didn’t have insurance, and their families either had to sell the farm, or really struggle.
– if this legislation can prevent some of that, how is that a bad thing?

“while farmers and ranchers need to follow occupational health and safety regulations starting Jan. 1, they will be given time to learn the rules, train their employees and come up to speed. ”
– that seems fair, doesn’t it?

“Under the proposed changes to various bodies of legislation, workers will have the right to refuse unsafe work without fear of being fired.”
– how is that not fair to the employer?

“Provincial investigators will be able to enter a farm site to do safety inspections and impose penalties.”
– realistically, do you think that the government has the time, the money, or the inclination to inspect every farm? They don’t inspect every workplace – ever. I strongly suspect that if there are chronic complaints, or numerous injuries, that is when inspections will take place, just like in any other workplace.

“Workers will be able to join unions and bargain for wages, and they will be paid minimum wage, overtime and vacation pay. Such labour rights and employment standards will be hashed out for spring 2016 with room for some finagling.”

Further comments in other articles state that, for example, calving season doesn’t recognise holidays – you can’t get your cows to not calve on a holiday, so they are working on concessions for that. That seems fair.

A CBC news article states “Right now, less than five per cent of the province’s 40,000 farms and ranches carry the (insurance) coverage.
It goes on to state ” For full-time employee earning $50,000 a year, it can cost anywhere between $850 and $1,450.”
(link: Alberta farms subject to workplace safety rules under new bill - Edmonton - CBC News )

If we break that down, for each employee, at the highest rate of $1450, that works out to $27.88/week, or less than $4/day.
Is that really too much to pay, when you compare it to the cost of you, or one of your employees being injured and unable to work? The costs of healthcare, physiotherapy, perhaps needing prosthetics?

So, specifically, how is it really going to affect your operation?

From a day to day standpoint, how is it going to affect you? I suspect, for the majority of operators, it really won’t.

How is it really going to affect your cash flow? Is that $27.88/week/full time employee backbreaking?

I can see where yeah, it is just one more rule to follow – but that is one of the not-so-joys of business.

But for those who are against this legislation? Why? Specifically – cash flow? training? Or is it merely that you do not want another regulation to follow?
 
#630 ·
Reasonable? Prima facie, yes.

Uninformed? Completely.

Why? Read the responses to her comment.

Here's one comment on the story that appears to be reasonable:
 
#623 ·
The dire situation here in Alberta continues as my email below this morning will attest to, yet the Dippers remain willfully ignorant of the dire consequences they have foisted on the people of Alberta.

I supported this lottery as a heart attack victim by buying a $25 ticket each year for many years now. Suddenly last year instead of a year long profitable and successful calendar based daily draw, they opted to go the $100 ticket route and get all their funds in a single month, February of 2015. I wrote the group and warned them it was ruining a good thing with greed and was assured by them it would be a success, so I bought a ticket anyway. Apparently I was among the few who did and they lost their collective butts.

Things like this are screams of warning to the Notley Crew who plunder ahead with the destruction of our province.
 

Attachments

#626 ·
The dire situation here in Alberta continues as my email below this morning will attest to, yet the Dippers remain willfully ignorant of the dire consequences they have foisted on the people of Alberta.
"The challenging Alberta market includes a large number of charity lotteries, and regrettably we were unable to meet our revenue expectations for last year's charity lottery."​

Done, how does last year's economic underperformance (under a Conservative government) coupled with increased competition for donations from other charities (set up during a Conservative government one would assume to serve people suffering from Conservative policies) become the fault of Alberta's NDP?

Are NDP economic and social policies so dire in their critics eyes, so dastardly and powerful, that they can travel back through time and inflict untold damage to our ancestors? :yikes::eek:
 
#636 ·
It should be noted that the Utility supplies the gas or electricity and even reads the meter all covered in the cost per unit. Billing is done by a different company and probably costs them $2-3 per household. So my Gas bill adds $34/month on top of the unit fee and the electric bill adds about $70 on top of the unit fee. Those are what I call Privateer fees!

One recent fee add on is to cover construction of additional high tension lines to supply power to Montana and Idaho. Of course to do that there will need to be new generation facilities built. You can bet on another gouge fee for those. If Nutley goes ahead and closes down coal plants, then those new generation facilities will end up supplying Albertans. More facilities will then need to be built to supply the Montana market, which will result in yet another new fee.

Of course with interest rates hovering so close to zero, it would make much more sense to finance those lines via bonds, and bill the downstream customer a sufficient amount to pay the bond costs.
 
#642 ·
Fairview knows ****e.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#646 ·
That should be a comma instead of a period after the word "started."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#647 ·
Who needs safety on the farm anyway? You're not a real farm kid until you're missing a couple of digits. And remember what our great PC leader once said about BSE and the economy: "Any self respecting farmer would just shoot, shovel and shut up." Now THAT'S the Alberta way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#653 ·
In many respects I agree.

The implementation & operation of this will take time & money, many of whom do not have either or.

Sure, the bigger operations who have a half dozen or more employees can sluff the task off to some unsuspecting minion but the average mom & pop family farm may not have the time. They know full well the dangers involved & don't need legislation nor inspectors leaning over their shoulders reminding them.

I would also add that this is at least partly about control.
 
#658 ·
Well that seems pretty silly. Your people just finished LOSING an election a few months ago. Perhaps you don't understand how these things work.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
#663 ·
Simply put, most people in the NDP fold have aspirations that are indistinguishable from communists, dictators and other thugs. They will destroy freedoms, gobble up income, and ravage economies with their only goal to gain as much autocratic power as possible.
 
#671 ·
Klassen: Notley owes us the numbers for climate action



It’s hard not to be cynical about the climate change farce starting in Paris today. It’s even more difficult not to be enraged (sickened?) by the eco-illogical cheerleading of Premier Rachel Notley leading the pack. She couldn’t handicap Alberta’s energy-driven economy any faster if she were OPEC itself. That Notley should be so smugly proud of this fact is perhaps her own kick in the teeth to Albertans.

Toot toot! Tens of thousands of people making superficial proclamations from nearly 200 countries have been carbon-jetted, driven, boated to the City of Light. On the boondoggle are most of our premiers and territory leaders and/or their reps, along with our prime minister and federal environment minister (so they can add their extensive knowledge and five minutes of experience to the issue).

Scientists from any remotely related special interest group, most government funded, are there. Some Canadian medical students are there to make the case that global warming is unhealthy; that will stop the conference dead in its tracks.

One can only hope and pray that our entire economy isn’t handed over on a silver platter in some preening, “look at me, how good am I?” gesture. Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall is going in the hope of controlling efforts to “kneecap” that province’s economy. Godspeed, Premier Wall, Godspeed.

If there is any consolation to the pretence, and if letters to the editor are any indication, Albertans are having none of it.

Let’s start with the $3-billion-per-year carbon tax to be collected from Albertans at about $500 for an average household. The high cost will discourage energy waste, says Notley, and anyways, 60 per cent of people are going to get a rebate. First of all, this is a cost to the Alberta consumer that will have negligible impact on the world, or even Alberta’s environment, because this doesn’t stop consumption. We still have to heat and light our homes and put gas in the car.

The three major oilsands developers smiled at the podium with Notley because their emissions cap has actually been increased, and their development plans won’t be constrained until well after Notley’s long gone. But the biggest tell is the rebate: don’t all households need to be encouraged to reduce their consumption? Having the top 40 per cent of earners pay that bill for the other 60 per cent is simple wealth redistribution, tax revenue without calling it a sales tax (the bogeyman).

Presenting this as some environmental coup is ridiculous and insulting.

Having rushed to say we’re dumping all our coal-fired plants in very short order for what will result in not a burp of actual global environmental difference, Notley owes us the rest of it. How much are we, the taxpayer, going to pay to buy off these facilities, and then build new ones for whatever replaces that generation capacity? Having induced companies to invest in power generation in the only province in Canada where public utility infrastructure is built at the risk of private investors, you can’t now say, sorry, changed our minds. We’re not Venezuela after all, so it’s right these companies have to be compensated.

Current estimates are between $4 billion and $12 billion for early retirement of these coal plants alone. Then there’s the cost of replacing them with new hugely expensive plants for the unreliable renewables, their transmission lines, and backup systems that will have to be built — paid for by the taxpayer or the consumer; either way, that’s you and me. How many billions will that be?

In return, apparently Alberta will suddenly diversify into new renewable industries, solving a problem Europeans and Americans have been working on for decades with exponentially bigger budgets and expertise — and all with our $3 billion per year (minus bureaucracy collection costs). We’re good — but that good?

Notley owes us the numbers.
Klassen: Notley owes us the numbers for climate action | Calgary Herald
 
#678 ·
Those coal plants were acquired from the province at about 10% of their real value. Not at all sure, but suspect almost nothing has been spent on upgrades. Am very sure the companies have been taking depreciation on those plants to offset tax loads. Bottom line paying the companies the depreciated value should not bankrupt the province.

If rumours about the TPP are even 10% accurate, and the younger Trudeau indeed rushes headlong into signing it, then it will be almost impossible for Rachel to shutdown those plants. The one thing we know for sure is that the TPP puts corporate interests ahead of provinces and even nations.
 
#686 ·
Further on this Bill 6 Charlie Foxtrot.

Alberta to amend Bill 6 to clarify kids, neighbours can still help out on family farms

The legislation would extend workers’ compensation and workplace rules on hours, vacation pay and collective bargaining to 43,000 farms and ranches.
Of course it's all about safety. Lying bitch.

Unemployment in Alberta just went up...

“You may not know that I was a member of 4H..."
I'll bet. The Sissy Scissors 4H sewing club?
 
#688 ·
#687 ·
Heard an earful on this at the Barber Shop this AM.

Ironically it's great for the Hutterite colonies that are essentially large family owned farms. If you can consider 20+ households to be a family.

Not so great for the independent rancher I was talking to. Much of the year it's just he and his wife. Over the winter one of his sons drops by to help keep equipment in good working condition. But come haying, roundup, and sometimes calving he does hire a few extra hands on a temporary basis. So he seems to be considered big agri-business and gets all the extra gubmin shivs.

I've omitted his colorful opinions of Ms. Rachael.
 
#690 ·
#708 ·
Gotta luv them transparent governments...

Secret deal on Alberta’s oilsands emissions limits divides patch

A hard cap on oilsands emissions that became part of Alberta Premier Rachel Notley’s climate change plan was the product of secret negotiations between four top oilsands companies and four environmental organizations, the Financial Post has learned.
Alberta’s carbon tax plan ‘one more reason why the Western Canadian oilfield is going to slowly die’

The companies agreed to the cap in exchange for the environmental groups backing down on opposition to oil export pipelines, but the deal left other players on the sidelines, and that has created a deep division in Canada’s oil and gas sector.
And, before the screeching starts about how Rachel didn't know anything about this, she knew in enough time to incorporate it into her speech. She could have just as easily put her stamp of disapproval on it.

She didn't...
 
#710 ·
LOL! That's about like saying as soon as you're born, you begin dying, even if you live to 90.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#712 ·
Rachel Notley addresses the criticisms of the farm safety bill (excerpt):

This common sense framework will be the product of consultations that will occur before the regulations are developed and, then again, after they are drafted and before they are adopted. Family farmers, farmworkers, and other agricultural stakeholders will be invited to participate. Through this process, we will achieve the long overdue goal of protecting farmworkers while continuing the current goal of supporting our farmers.

I have been asked about what we are doing to address the legitimate concerns raised by farmers and ranchers. Let me be clear: Farming is not a just a business in Alberta, it is a way of life and, as I mentioned, over the past days we have heard from farmers and ranchers across this province. We are listening and we will continue to listen.
I also want to clarify what this legislation does not do. This legislation:

  • Does not interfere with families’ ability to teach their children about farming and pass on their way of life.
  • Will not prevent neighbours from volunteering to help each other out.
  • Will not regulate or interfere with children’s ability to participate in doing chores around the farm.
  • Will not interfere in any way with farm kids’ ability to learn about agriculture and grow within the 4-H system.
  • Will not require you to register your children with the WCB.
  • Will not regulate how you operate your household.
  • Will not interfere with recreational activities on the farm.
It was a mistake that our intentions and these limitations were not included in the text of the bill. They were always intended to be introduced in regulation. Between what was explicitly stated, and what was intended, fear and miscommunication has filled the gap.

I take responsibility for that.
 
#716 ·
Bull****. Bull****. And more Bull****...

If she were actually listening, she wouldn't even go down this road.

This common sense framework will be the product of consultations that will occur before the regulations are developed and, then again, after they are drafted and before they are adopted. Family farmers, farmworkers, and other agricultural stakeholders will be invited to participate. Through this process, we will achieve the long overdue goal of protecting farmworkers while continuing the current goal of supporting our farmers.

I have been asked about what we are doing to address the legitimate concerns raised by farmers and ranchers. Let me be clear: Farming is not a just a business in Alberta, it is a way of life and, as I mentioned, over the past days we have heard from farmers and ranchers across this province. We are listening and we will continue to listen.
I also want to clarify what this legislation does not do. This legislation:
M'bold.
 
#714 ·
#729 ·
Interesting that there are no right wing reactions to Brian Jean's words, one politician who is the closest to the action in Fort McMurray.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#715 ·
#718 ·
So Global combed the province, searching out that one injured farmer who'd support the meme.

What about the hundreds of thousands, some of which have been injured, too, who do not want the bill passed?

In other news, for those who just don't get it, an injured farm worker speaks out in favor of Bill 6.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top