Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Opinion

NDP and Greens formed government in B.C. The Alberta Liberals and the Alberta Party will merge? For 2019 election all four parties should merge in Alberta.

Published

14 minute read

The 30th general election of Alberta, Canada, will elect members to the Legislative Assembly of Alberta. It will take place on or before May 31, 2019.
We currently have the Alberta New Democratic Party in government. They went from being an opposing party with the Liberals and the Wildrose parties against the ruling conservative dynasty to forming government in 2015. What do we know?

From wikipedia;
The Alberta New Democratic Party or Alberta NDP is a social-democratic political party in Alberta, Canada, which succeeded the Alberta section of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and the even earlier Alberta wing of the Canadian Labour Party and the United Farmers of Alberta. From the mid-1980s to 2004, the party abbreviated its name as the “New Democrats” (ND).
The party achieved Official Opposition status in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta from 1986 to 1993. It was swept out of the legislature in 1993 and spent the next two decades in the political wilderness. While it managed to get back into the legislature in 1997, it never won more than four seats. Its time on the fringe of Alberta politics ended in the 2015 provincial election, when it won 54 of the 87 seats in the legislature to form the government of Alberta for the first time. Until 2015, Alberta had been the only province in western Canada—the party’s birthplace—where the NDP had never governed at the provincial level.

Not a lot there, and little about mission and visions on their website. The election is in 19 months so we may learn more about their plans for the future. The Calgary Herald has a poll that shows that if the election was held today, the United Conservative Party would handily win.

How does a former fringe party which campaigns on the left and centre combat the right wing remnants of the former conservative dynasty? Here’s an idea, unite the left and centre parties.
In British Columbia the NDP and the Greens have a union in government. The Alberta Party and the Alberta Liberal Party are almost a union in almost every way except by formality. Why not merge?

Let us look at the Alberta Party, the Alberta Liberal Party and the Alberta Green Party, their missions and see if there is any common ground. I think there is but it is up to politicians to decide to work together or go their separate ways.

Starting with the Alberta Party;

From Wikipedia:

The Alberta Party, formally the Alberta Party Political Association, is a political party in the province of Alberta, Canada. The party describes itself as a centrist and pragmatic party that is not dogmatically ideological in its approach to politics.
For most of its history the Alberta Party was a right-wing organization, until the rise of the Wildrose Alliance as Alberta’s main conservative alternative to the governing Progressive Conservatives attracted away the Alberta Party’s more conservative members. This left a small rump of more left-wing members in control of the Alberta Party. In 2010 the Alberta Party board voted to merge with Renew Alberta, a progressive group that had been organizing to form a new political party in Alberta. The Alberta Party thus shed its conservative past for a more centrist political outlook. The party has been cited in The Globe and Mail and The Economist as part of the break in one-party politics in Alberta.

From The Alberta Party website;

Vision;
We will form a government committed to diversity, integrity, transparency and collaboration. As leaders of positive change, we value inclusiveness, ideas over ideologies, and champion economic, environmental and social responsibility.

Mission
We will:
Model responsible and ethical government.
Generate and implement practical, constructive solutions through listening, citizen engagement, evidence-based policy and building common ground.
Tackle tough issues facing Albertans by examining root causes and maintaining a long-term view of prosperity and sustainability.
Act as guardians of the public interest.
Conduct ourselves in an open, transparent and accountable manner.
Steadfastly refuse to engage in short-sighted, politically motivated, partisan politics.
Provide economic, environmental and social leadership in order to benefit Alberta, Canada and the world.

The Alberta Party is committed to building a policy framework that is based on the following six key values:

1) Prosperity
We believe that private enterprise and entrepreneurship are the keys to our economic success. The government should foster an environment which facilitates economic investment, reduces red tape and encourages creativity.

2) Fiscal Responsibility
We believe that government must use public dollars as effectively and efficiently as possible. The government should balance the books and set aside money for a rainy day. This is best accomplished through long-term planning, common sense and transparency.

3) Social Responsibility
We believe every Albertan deserves the opportunity to succeed. Our government should aspire to provide excellent and innovative public education, public health care, and infrastructure, as well as a compassionate helping hand in times of need. We believe this can be accomplished through responsible use of public funds.

4) Sustainability
We believe that sustainability must be a core value of government. Rethinking unsustainable practices, making strategic investments in research and technology, and implementing smart policy choices will protect and enhance our environment for future generations.

5) Democracy
We believe that public business should be conducted in public. Government should ensure that the legislative process is open, fair, transparent and inclusive of the people it governs. Our government should foster debate, actively engage citizens, and make itself accountable to the people it serves.

6) Quality of life
We believe that a great quality of life requires strong communities. Through support of recreation, sports, arts and culture, government can help to build strong and vibrant communities.

Let us look at the Alberta Liberal Party;

From Wikipedia;
The Alberta Liberal Party is a provincial political party in Alberta, Canada. Founded in 1905, it was the dominant political party until the 1921 election, with the first three provincial Premiers being Liberals. Since 1921, it has formed the official opposition in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta several times, most recently from 1993 until 2012.

From the Alberta Liberal Party website;

The Alberta Liberal Party has been working for Albertans since 1905 and we believe that we must champion our strong values in government. We are fiscally-prudent, a party that proudly supports socially progressive change, and that cares deeply about our stewardship of the environment. We believe that it is our duty to run effective and efficient governments, that respects the autonomy of the individual, and that safeguards the environment. This way we build both a strong society and a vibrant economy.

1) Equal Opportunity
Liberals oppose both privilege and prejudice. Everyone should have as equal as possible an opportunity to participate in society, enjoying equal rights and freedoms, and sharing responsibilities.

2) Free Enterprise
Alberta Liberals have faith in the free enterprise system. Through it, the widest number of opportunities are provided, the greatest number of needs are satisfied, and initiative is most rewarded. Nevertheless, the market system is not perfect. The government has a role to play in preventing exploitation, protecting consumers and preserving the environment. Government also has a role to play in facilitating economic development and competition, and serving public needs which the private sector cannot or will not meet.

3) Fiscal Responsibility
Alberta Liberals believe that government has an obligation to manage the affairs of the province in a prudent and responsible manner. Wasteful spending threatens essential government programs such as health care and education for today’s constituents, and fairness dictates that future generations not be burdened with our debts.

4) Environmental Responsibility
Alberta Liberals believe that the protection of the environment is essential to the longterm health of our planet and ourselves, and to our quality of life. Environmental policy must look beyond a traditional view of economics to reflect the cultural and spiritual importance of the environment in our lives. Responsible policy-makers must consider the environment a sacred trust.

5) Change
Liberals have always been reformers. We seek to improve the system as we search for ways of improving the human condition. We are not afraid to initiate change. Without compromising our principles, our search for solutions is driven not by rigid ideology but by the question, “What is best?”

Thirdly let us look at the Green Party of Canada;

From Wikipedia;
The Green Party of Alberta is a registered political party in Alberta, Canada, that is allied with the Green Party of Canada, and the other provincial Green parties. The party was registered by Elections Alberta on December 22, 2011, to replace the deregistered Alberta Greens, and ran its first candidates for office in the 2012 provincial election under the name Evergreen Party of Alberta. The party changed its name to “Green Party of Alberta” on November 1, 2012.

From Green Party of Alberta website;

Mission
To participate in Alberta electoral politics with the aim of having such a provincial government come to power;
To educate Albertans as to the need for a government committed to Green principles
The Green Party of Alberta is committed to the 6 principles of the world-wide Green Party movement:

1) Ecological wisdom
Human beings are part of the natural world and we respect the specific value of all forms of life.

2)Non-violence
We are committed to non-violence and cooperation between states, inside societies and between individuals

3) Participatory democracy
In a healthy democracy all citizens have the right to express their views and are able to directly participate in the environmental, economic, social and political decisions which affect their lives

4) Respect for diversity
We honour all forms of diversity – for example, racial, linguistic, ethnic, sexual, religious and spiritual – within the context of individual responsibility toward all beings.

5) Social justice
We honour all forms of diversity – for example, racial, linguistic, ethnic, sexual, religious and spiritual – within the context of individual responsibility toward all beings.

6) Sustainability
We recognize the limited scope for the material expansion of society within the biosphere and the need to maintain biodiversity through the sustainable use of renewable resources.

Each of the party has differences in goals and priorities but they have enough similarities. Is it enough to form a coalition or corroborative government? Can they step away from egos and work together to offer an option to the United Conservative Party? Will we be sliding into another 40 year conservative dynasty? We will find out in May 2019.

Censorship Industrial Complex

Scotland’s crazy anti-hate law may be sign of things to come here

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Brian Giesbrecht

Scotland had 8,000 complaints in the first week. Is it likely that a similar avalanche of claims will result in Canada if C-63 becomes law?

Actually, there will probably be a lot more here.

For one thing, our population is many times the size of Scotland’s.

Some argue that Scotland’s new hate speech law is more draconian than Canada’s yet-to-be-enacted equivalent, Bill C-63. Others say this is not so — that portions of ’63’ are even greater threats to free speech than Scotland’s extreme new law.

Regardless of who wins in this radical experiment in mass censorship, one thing we can predict with certainty: Both laws will be a goldmine for the legal profession and a nightmare for anyone who has ever dared to write, say or broadcast anything controversial.

How? Well, in the first week that Scotland’s new hate legislation has been in force there has been an avalanche of new claims launched — 8,000, and counting. Every one of those claims will have to be defended by a person who believed that they were exercising their right of free speech.

Now, 8,000 of those people will be caught up in expensive, time consuming, and emotionally draining litigation. Their cases will mostly be heard by officials and judges who were appointed specifically because they shared the same views as the government that appointed them — the same government that felt the need to prosecute these 8,000 people.

That 8,000 surpassed the total number of hate crime allegations in Scotland for all of 2023. A projection is that there will be an estimated 416,000 cases for 2024 if this rate keeps up. The complaints have completely overwhelmed Scotland’s police.

The Scottish Police Federation’s David Threadgold said this about how the new law was being used by angry citizens with an axe to grind: “…the law was being “weaponised” by the public in order to settle personal grudges against fellow citizens or to wage political feuds, while suggesting that the government encouraging the public to report instances of ‘hate’ has clearly blown up in their face.”

We have already seen this Scottish law in action when J.K. Rowling, who is famous not only for her wonderful Harry Potter books, but more recently for stating what we knew as fact for the first few hundred thousand years or so of human history — namely that men are men, and women are women — famously reposted that claim and dared the Scottish police to charge her.

The police announced that she wouldn’t be charged — at least that particular police officer wouldn’t charge her at this particular time.

The other person who has been the subject of many of those 8,000 complaints is First Minister Humza Yousaf — the very man responsible for this monstrosity of a law. Yousaf is himself quite famous for complaining that Scotland has too many white people. Who knew?

That odd observation resulted in a world famous spat with none other than Elon Musk. The online slugfest basically took the form of each man accusing the other of being a racist. At times it looked more like a schoolyard fight.

That a national leader seriously feels that the sledgehammer of the criminal law must be used to sort out such cat fights between citizens is rather alarming.

But, in this regard, Yousaf and Trudeau are birds of a feather. Both are convinced that only “acceptable views” — namely the views they agree with — will be allowed, while “unacceptable views,” namely, those they don’t like, must be disappeared by the machinery of the state.

It should be explained at this point that Scotland’s new law, unlike our C-63, requires police to determine whether or not the person under complaint has “stirred up hatred.”

Bill C-63 has those “hate” complaints heard by the Human Rights Tribunal.

In both cases however, one person’s opinion will judge another person’s opinion. However, one person will be paid to perform this function, while the other person might become a criminal if their opinion fails a completely subjective test.

Scotland had 8,000 complaints in the first week. Is it likely that a similar avalanche of claims will result in Canada if C-63 becomes law?

Actually, there will probably be a lot more here.

For one thing, our population is many times the size of Scotland’s.

For another, C-63 allows people to make complaints anonymously if the tribunal says so. It also promises up to $50,000 per complaint. That’s a powerful motivator. That $50,000 doesn’t come from some magic bank, by the way. If you are the person complained about, it comes from you. And you might be required to fork over an additional $20,000 to the tribunal for their troubles.

I’m not sure if they will expect a tip.. 

Much has been written about C-63. Many knowledgeable Canadians have discussed in detail the hundreds of objections they can see with this Bill. Senior Canadian voices, such former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, and world famous author Margaret Atwood, have warned Canadians about this seriously flawed legislation.

But what no one has done — except for Trudeau apparatchiks — is to give any good reasons why Canada needs this legislation.

If Scotland’s projected number of complaints for 2024 is 416,000 and they have a population of less than six million, the projection for Canada would be into the millions of complaints. Even setting aside the obvious impossibility of paying for thousands of new tribunal adjudicators, staff, and the thousands of new lawyers required to help the million-plus people who are thrust into this hate complaint boondoggle, why would any serious government even wish such a thing on their citizens?

Do we not have a rather large bag of serious problems we must contend with?

We have a generation of young people, for example, who might never in their lives be able to afford a home of their own. How do we expect these young people to raise a future generation of Canadians without a home in which to raise them? Isn’t that a bigger problem than someone’s hurt feelings?

Another example… Trudeau has just noticed that we don’t seem to have an army anymore. Isn’t that a bigger problem than whether or not someone feels that they have been misgendered, or called nasty names?

There is a list, as long as the longest arm, of very real problems that need urgent attention. Why are we wasting time and money on the brainchild (yes, I use that term loosely) of a desperate prime minister and his few remaining fellow ideologues?

This legislation is totally unnecessary, and an appallingly disrespectful way to treat Canadians. We already have hate laws. We already have laws to protect children. C-63 is as useless as the tired apparatchiks pushing it.

We should definitely pay attention to what is happening in Scotland. It will be our fate if this perfectly awful Bill C-63 is not defeated.

Brian Giesbrecht, retired judge, is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Continue Reading

Business

Higher Capital Gains Taxes cap off a loser federal budget

Published on

From Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

Even former Liberal Finance Minister Bill Morneau told the Financial Post the capital gains tax increase would be “very troubling for many investors.” He added, “I don’t think there was enough effort in this budget to reduce spending, to create that appropriate direction for the economy.”

New taxes on capital gains mean more capital pains for Canadians as they endure another tax-grabbing, heavy-spending federal deficit budget.

Going forward, the inclusion rate increases to 66 per cent, up from 50 per cent, on capital gains above $250,000 for people and on all capital gains for corporations and trusts. The change will affect 307,000 businesses and see Ottawa, according to probably optimistic projections, rake in an additional $19.4 billion over four years.

A wide chorus of voices have justifiably condemned this move. If an asset is sold for more than it was bought for, the government will claim two-thirds of the value because half is no longer enough.  It’s pure government greed.

If you were an investor or a young tech entrepreneur looking for somewhere to set up shop, would you choose Canada? And if you’re already that investor, how hard would you work to appreciate your assets when the government seizes much of the improvement?

Even before this budget, the OECD predicted Canada would have the lowest growth rates in per-person GDP up to 2060 of all its member countries.

In a speech in Halifax on March 26, Bank of Canada senior deputy governor Carolyn Rogers put the productivity problem this way: “You’ve seen those signs that say, ‘In emergency, break glass.’ Well, it’s time to break the glass.”

What can Canadians bash now? Their heads against a wall?

Even former Liberal Finance Minister Bill Morneau told the Financial Post the capital gains tax increase would be “very troubling for many investors.” He added, “I don’t think there was enough effort in this budget to reduce spending, to create that appropriate direction for the economy.”

No kidding. Not since the first Prime Minister Trudeau (Pierre) have Canadians been able to count so reliably on deficit spending, higher expenditures, and more taxes.

Long ago, it seems now, when Justin Trudeau was not yet prime minister, he campaigned on “a modest short-term deficit” of less than $10 billion for each of the first three years and a balanced budget by the 2019-2020 fiscal year.

His rationale was that low interest rates made it a rare opportunity to borrow and build infrastructure, all to encourage economic growth. Of course, the budget never balanced itself and Canada has lost $225 billion in foreign investment since 2016.

The deficits continue though the excuse of low interest rates is long gone. Despite higher carbon and capital gains taxes, this year’s deficit will match last year’s: $40 billion. Infrastructure seems less in view than an ever-expanding nanny state of taxpayer-funded dental care, child care, and pharmacare.

Of course, the Trudeau deficits were not as modest as advertised, and all-time federal debt has doubled to $1.2 trillion in less than a decade. Debt interest payments this coming fiscal year will be $54.1 billion, matching GST revenue and exceeding the $52 billion of transfers to the provinces for health care.

In 1970, columnist Lubor Zink quoted Pierre Trudeau as saying, “One has to be in the wheelhouse to see what shifts are taking place . . . The observer . . . on the deck . . . sees the horizon much in the same direction and doesn’t realize it but perhaps he will find himself disembarking at a different island than the one he thought he was sailing for.”

Like father, like son, Justin Trudeau has captained Canada to a deceptive and unwelcome destination. What started as Fantasy Island is becoming Davy Jones’ Locker.

Lee Harding is a Research Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Continue Reading

Trending

X