#bill 20

As municipalities around Alberta prepare for local elections this fall, some cities are projecting higher costs and longer wait times in light of new rules set out by the province last year. When the Alberta government passed Bill 20, it banned the use of electronic vote tabulators, a method some cities have used to count ballots in every municipal election for decades. The vote counting machines speed up the process, allowing municipalities to save money and offer results to the public more quickly, compared to counting votes manually. But counting votes by hand is what every municipality will need to do this fall, and some cities are looking at costs double or triple what they spent in the 2021 municipal elections. The rise is partly due to increased staffing municipalities will need to count ballots in a process that could last much longer than the public is used to waiting to hear results.

Continue reading

Proposed voter ID restrictions will not only stop many Albertans from participating in local elections, but taken in the context of other "democratically questionable moves in Bill 20 and Bill 18" it is a sign of growing threats to "core democratic values" in the province, says University of Alberta political scientist Jared Wesley.

Alberta's election guidelines allow voters who don't have identification to be vouched for by someone in the same voting area who has approved ID and signs a declaration stating they personally know the other voter and can verify their eligibility and address.

Changes to the Local Authorities Election Act (LAEA) introduced in Bill 20 would prohibit the use of vouching in municipal elections except to verify an address, such as cases where a driver's license lists a post office box instead of a home address.

Wesley said the move is concerning from a democratic inclusiveness standpoint, because the people who don't have voter ID are usually the most marginalized in our community. [...]

Continue Reading.

By Patrick Lagacé Originally published on March 26, 2015 See original French text here: http://www.lapresse.ca/debats/chroniques/patrick-lagace/201503/23/01-4854766-scier-la-branche-sur-laquelle-on-est-assis.php

Friday morning, at the Reproductive Centre of the McGill University Health Centre. Each chair is occupied by a woman who wants to become pregnant with the help of science. Élodie Mantha,…

By Amélie Daoust-Boisvert Originally published on January 15, 2015 See original French text here: http://www.ledevoir.com/societe/sante/429001/travail-des-medecins-barrette-accuse-de-manipuler-les-chiffres

Photo: Michaël Monnier Le Devoir

Québec deliberately omitted to take into account work days that they considered as too short to arrive at the conclusion that family doctors do not work enough.…

Senator Dennis Rodriguez Jr. introduced for lt. gov.Chicken  Little Cousin Eddie Calvo, Bill 20 - a trojan horse measure designed to set GMH up for privatiztion and control by the Calvos long after voters have tossed Calvo/Tenorio out of office in 2014.

By buying the 2nd term senator with a tax giveaway worth millions to Rodriguez's father and mother, and stringing him up like an overstuffed puppet, Calvo has a Democrat that can be made to do his bidding for him in the legislature.

Under heavy scrutiny, Bill 20 which is too sophisticated to have come from Rodriguez's office in the first place, has undergone some changes that have removed the privatization language, but nonetheless seeks to generate revenue by imposing a 4% "fee" on insurers that we all know will be painfully passed directly on to health insurance consumers.

In his Marianas Variety column today, Senator ben pangelinan AGAIN points out the obvious to anyone who cares to pay attention to the tricks emanating like a black halo around the issue of healthcare insurance on Guam.

US Supreme Court precedent already establishes that any bill/law with the primary intent to generate revenue is considered a tax.

Bill 20 cannot tax insurers who enjoy a contractual agreement with the government of Guam that allows them to avoid paying taxes - regardless how senator Dennis the Menace would try to spin it! It ain't happening; and when the people behind the original measure wrote it, they knew that.

Who's smarter? Sen ben or the puppet? My money is on ben - and if he says Bill 20 is a premium on premiums, you can believe it is!

On Tuesday evening, over a hun­dred people packed into the Ponderosa Building to fight for their often conflicting visions of UBC’s future.

The hearing, which was man­dated by the provincial gov­ernment, focused on proposed changes to the Land Use Plan.

This was the final opportu­nity for the public to have a say about the amendments.

Although some speakers were fully in favour of the proposed changes, the vast majority had grievances regarding a number of issues—although these criti­cisms were often at odds with one another.

Speaking on behalf of the AMS, VP Academic and University Af­fairs Ben Cappellacci endorsed the overall vision presented by the amendments, though he reaf­firmed the AMS’s commitment to zoning Gage South, an area that includes the bus loop and MacInnes field, as “academic.”

This was echoed by every single student that went up to speak.

The amendments call for Gage South to be designated as an “area under review,” meaning that no changes can be made to it until another public hear­ing is held. It is currently zoned for family housing.

However, the amendments also stipulate that if Gage South is not used for family housing, space must be found for it else­where on campus.

This “density transfer” was also criticized by students.

“We don’t understand why Cam­pus and Community Planning (CCP) keeps saying that we need to transfer [the density] out,” said Katherine Tyson, who chairs the AMS’s University and External Relations Committee (UERC). She said that CCP was speaking of these density transfers as if they were absolutely necessary, as op­posed to a choice the university was making.

Jeremy McElroy, AMS VP Exter­nal, said that the university needs to consider if the money the uni­versity would receive from the 414 people originally slated for the Gage South neighbourhood was a worthwhile investment.

“[That’s] $20 million to for­feit the student heart of cam­pus,” he said.

Many speakers also expressed dismay over how the consulta­tions were undertaken, as well as the lack of external oversight in the process.

Cappellacci said that “there are concerns about an appar­ent circular feedback loop between Campus and Communi­ty Planning and the Board of Governors which has the potential to limit direct public in­put to the decision-making body which has limited democratic accountability.”

“I didn’t hand in my response form because it frankly seemed like a waste of time,” said Susan Chapman, the President of the Dunbar Residents’ Association (DRA).

Chapman, along with other members of the DRA and the West Point Grey Community Li­aison Group, were concerned that an increased population at UBC would create more traffic running through their neigh­bourhoods and also strain local facilities such as schools.

Mike Feeley, the former chair of the University Neighbour­hoods Association, argued that although UBC should consid­er the opinions of outsiders, it should ultimately do what is best for the people who live on campus.

“Please resist the call to amend the Land Use Plan for people who don’t live in this community to have an undue say,” he told the committee.

Some faculty members also wanted UBC to have fewer peo­ple than the amendments called for.

The amendments increase the projected population for 2020 from 18,000 to 22,500, of which 10,000 are students. By 2040, the university aims to have 16,000 students and 22,000 residents.

“Campus is already pretty crowded,” said Barbara Dancygi­er, a professor in the department of English.

Most students, however, in­cluding Tyson and McElroy, spoke strongly for increased density on campus, specifical­ly for student housing.

A variety of other concerns were raised, including a lack of green space on campus, views of buildings from Wreck Beach that would spoil the natural scenery, insufficient space for new athlet­ic facilities and the need for bet­ter consultation with residents about construction projects.

Neal Yonson, editor of the blog UBC Insiders, said that the amount of criticism of the amendments shows that change is necessary.

“It seems as though many peo­ple from many different groups on campus and the city have a number of very legitimate con­cerns about the amendments,” he said.

“After this display tonight, if there are not changes to the amendments, I will be absolutely appalled.”