News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

It's all about equalization and pipelines. The first would be a slight benefit (so long as there isn't a mass exodus of business like Quebec had in the 70's), the second would actually be harder. I think it's mostly uninformed populism, but I'm not that into politics where I understand all the minutiae....
 
Albertans pay more federal tax because Albertans; incomes are higher than average Canadians. This won't change even if equalization is eliminated.

And the feds bought TMX, it is being finished. Approved Line 3, which finally cleared the bottlenecks and differential. Are defending Line 5 at each opportunity.

The populists don't like how Trudeau talks. I know it grates me! A Harper government that did the exact same things would be celebrated. They'd be gloating that Harper bought TMX to force it down those greeny BCers' throats, and that Harper is roughing up environmentalists for Coastal Gaslink. That Harper forced Biden to open Line 3, and is fighting democrats to keep line 5 open.

It isn't even populism, it is tribalism.
 
I'm a proud Canadian and I like being a part of Canada.

But casting aside emotion, there isn't a rational economic argument for Alberta being better off within Canada. Our situation is more like Catalonia than Quebec - an economic powerhouse vs. a basketcase (prior to the CAQ coming in).
darwink said:
Albertans pay more federal tax because Albertans; incomes are higher than average Canadians. This won't change even if equalization is eliminated.
Click to expand...
I support equalization in principle. Currently, equalization is designed like a bad welfare program, there is no incentive for provinces that receive equalization to adopt policies that favour economic development. There is something wrong with the formula if Alberta can go through a crushing downturn in 2015 (shedding 100,000 jobs) yet still be paying in more than receiving back.
darwink said:
And the feds bought TMX, it is being finished.
Click to expand...
Wow, yippee ki-yay! They bought a pipeline after creating an environment with so much regulatory risk that the private sector proponent was forced to abandon the project. I guess that's marginally better than letting the project die like the others. It's not a positive thing that we now need to spend public dollars to invest in a sector of the economy that was previously attractive to private capital.

Did you know that our Canadian based small and mid-cap cap producers currently trade with regulatory risk premiums similar to companies operating in third world countries? This is thanks to the uncertainty created by constant political dithering and the perception that our federal government is hostile to resource investment.

Objectively speaking, this government has been an atrocious economic steward but they've been saved by an unsustainable shift in economic activity towards real estate development. Capital investment in Canada has fallen off a cliff in Canada since 2015 and that's a major problem. It's really unfortunate because previous Liberal governments were excellent economic managers, but that acuity seems to have been replaced by shameless pandering to flavour-of-the-month causes. It's a sad situation.
 
artvandelay said:
There is something wrong with the formula if Alberta can go through a crushing downturn in 2015 (shedding 100,000 jobs) yet still be paying in more than receiving back.
Click to expand...
Albertans incomes were still the highest in Canada, even with the downturn. A Conservative government supported by a 100% of Alberta MPs capped the compensation for a huge drop in provincial revenue. A Conservative government supported by 100% of Alberta MPs kept the cap. A Liberal government got rid of it.
artvandelay said:
Objectively speaking, this government has been an atrocious economic steward
Click to expand...
Employment is at record highs, unemployment is at record lows, and GDP is at record highs. For Alberta itself, natural gas production is at the highest level since 2010, oil production is at its highest level ever, having grown 30% since the federal liberals were elected. Average weekly earnings in Alberta? Record levels. Retail sales in Alberta? Record levels. Merchandise exports? Record levels. Employment? Record levels. Farm cash receipts? Record levels. Manufacturing sales? Record levels. Wholesale trade? Record levels.

Like I get people are mad, but be mad about something real. Alberta lost 5 of the past 7 years because of low overall energy prices made worse by bad differentials. Just like all the upgraders cancelled in 2009-10, Alberta's economy suffered due to a world wide price collapse caused by over supply of our primary export which was caused by the emergence of new supplies enabled by new technology which led to a reallocation of transnational capital.

Is Alberta really going to separate to try to get another pipeline started WHICH WE DON'T NEED? Which will be harder to do not easier?

Or is Alberta going to separate because it doesn't always get its way (being able to sell an unlimited amount of oil and gas at a profitable price no matter the world price), in a country where it is only 12% of the population?

This is like the Confederate South believing they were going to win the civil war because cotton was king and they would bring the north to its knees, and bring Europe in on the war on their side. The Confederate South was wrong.
 
Federally, I've voted for all the major parties at one point or another (Green to Conservative) so I like to consider myself someone who isn't tied to a political banner.

Objectively, equalization will never really be altered because of one simple fact: You don't win federal elections in Alberta, they're won in the east.

So yes, equalization sucks for Alberta. Guess what? It's supposed to. Does that make you want to separate from Canada? I get that, but that's one part in a much larger picture (that includes a endless list of reasons, including the fact we're an exporting province with no access to tide water). A country's unity isn't based on everyone looking at things the same way and coming up with the same conclusions. Its everyone realizing what role they play and playing it. Sure you could say why would I accept such a bad role in equalization?

I live in Alberta because it costs less than BC and Ontario, I get paid more here for my job than almost any other jurisdiction in the country (I work in tech), its close to the people (family and friends) and things I like (Mountains and lakes). So some of my taxes go to those other places I choose not to live, I really just consider it a levy that would exist if we separated. And you know Alberta and its businesses wouldn't be getting any kind of deal on that levy if we separated.
 
Last edited:
Mountain Man said:
As an Albertan, I'm more than happy to pay a little more tax than I get back in services if it helps the rest of the country provide a similar level of services. Equalization is fine, we're the wealthiest, we can share.
Click to expand...
Add to that: you're not paying a little more tax. You're paying far less. We choose to tax ourselves at much lower rates than other provinces. If you're mad another province gets more services than we do (not really the case anymore now that we have government subsidized daycare), look at how much more taxes we would pay to raise comperable revenues as them.
1661967699921.png
 
Good point, the slight amount of federal tax revenue that isn't spent here is far offset by the lack of PST and the far smaller tax on things like fuel.
 
artvandelay said:
But casting aside emotion, there isn't a rational economic argument for Alberta being better off within Canada... Currently, equalization is designed like a bad welfare program, there is no incentive for provinces that receive equalization to adopt policies that favour economic development.
Click to expand...
This is the crux of it. Quebec separatism is tied to the fact that it was a separate French society that was conquered and subordinated by the British Empire. But Alberta separatism tends to boil down to an economic argument: we're the richest, so we're better off on our own. But, of course, that logic can be applied to literally anywhere. I mean, why should Elbow Park share residential tax dollars with Forest Lawn? It's just discouraging them from improving their lot in life. Hey! While we're redrawing national boundaries, why not expel Alberta's 10 poorest counties from the new republic? It just makes economic sense not to have the dead weight.
 
Last edited:
The Lieutenant Governor has now stated she won’t give assent to Smith’s law if it is unconstitutional.
 
O-tac said:
The Lieutenant Governor has now stated she won’t give assent to Smith’s law if it is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

As much as I think both Smith and her policy proposals are horrible, very poor move on the LG’s part in my opinion. LG should absolutely not be making speculative comments about policy proposals, especially not from candidates in the midst of an election campaign. Even commenting on tabled legislation that is still under debate strikes me as premature. It undermines the LG’s neutrality and constitutional legitimacy to be inserting herself into a leadership race.
 
If it is quite clear it is unconstitutional, it is the role to not sign it. Usually the government doesn’t attempt to pass something that was conceptualisés as unconstitutional from the beginning.

The neutrality is perceived-would you expect Queen Elizabeth to sign a law suspending parliament or elections permanently for example?
 
darwink said:
If it is quite clear it is unconstitutional, it is the role to not sign it. Usually the government doesn’t attempt to pass something that was conceptualisés as unconstitutional from the beginning.

The neutrality is perceived-would you expect Queen Elizabeth to sign a law suspending parliament or elections permanently for example?
Click to expand...

LG should not give assent to an blatantly unconstitutional law passed by the Legislature, 100%. This is not that.

A private citizen with no seat in the Legislature, who is a candidate for political office, has floated a policy proposal. LG should not be saying anything in this circumstance.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top