Canadian Politics Today
Federal Politics => Canadian Politics => Topic started by: Queefer Sutherland on October 22, 2019, 03:45:42 pm
-
Your opinion of the 2019 election!
-
Your opinion of the 2019 election!
Sounds like you're still masturbating.
-
How about "The next one will be way better"
Peter McKay ? What has he been doing ? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_MacKay#Minister_of_Justice_and_Attorney_General)
Living in the BEACHES..... can you say Conservative majority ?
The guy who united the right...
-
So many choices. We only get one?
-
I knew my party wouldn't get in, but I voted for them anyways.
I think Alberta is f*cked.
-
I knew my party wouldn't get in, but I voted for them anyways.
I think Alberta is f*cked.
Depends how serious the Liberals are about completing the TM expansion. I can see the Conservatives supporting them on this.
-
Are you allowed to vote in your own poll?
-
Sounds like you're still masturbating.
It's cool as long as he's not masturbating in blackface.
-
I think Alberta is f*cked.
What the **** is wrong with them ? Why do they take it so personally when one national party loses over another ? Why do they blame the Liberal party when oil prices dive ? Why don't they see where things are going with oil & gas ?
Now they're talking separatism ? We blew $4.5B on a pipeline for some reason...
I'm going to start calling them the Quebec of the west...
-
It's cool as long as he's not masturbating in blackface.
As Charlie Rich once wrote, "no one knows what goes on behind closed doors" And I wish Poony would heed to that idea.
-
I think Alberta is f*cked.
How so?
-
Sounds like you're still masturbating.
Off and on.
-
Are you allowed to vote in your own poll?
Yeah
-
What the **** is wrong with them ? Why do they take it so personally when one national party loses over another ? Why do they blame the Liberal party when oil prices dive ? Why don't they see where things are going with oil & gas ?
Now they're talking separatism ? We blew $4.5B on a pipeline for some reason...
I'm going to start calling them the Quebec of the west...
If the federal government, as voted in by most people in most of the other provinces, actively works against their major economic interests while AB provides much of the gov tax revenue & equalization payments, why wouldn't they be very angry? Oil and gas is going nowhere anytime soon. But fact is the Liberals haven't been terrible to AB, they bought the pipeline to push it through but couldn't. They've done an ok job trying to balance AB and national economic interests with climate change efforts.
Personally i have no problem letting provinces decide their own destiny in most areas. More local control over our politics is much better than the central gov led by one party trying to ram things down people's throats while alienating different parts of the country.
IMO since AB didn't vote for the Liberals, the Liberals should stay out of AB's business if they know what's good for the country.
-
What the **** is wrong with them ? Why do they take it so personally when one national party loses over another ? Why do they blame the Liberal party when oil prices dive ? Why don't they see where things are going with oil & gas ?
Part of it is that if an industry is floundering, voters are angry and the government bears the brunt. Whether it's fishermen or auto manufacturers or the oil and gas workers, the government gets blamed, often unfairly.
Part of it is the history, the NEP, and Trudeau's father's association with that. Justin really never had a chance in Alberta.
Part of it is frustration over what seems like government inaction. People see the lengths that Trudeau and the PMO have gone to in trying to get SNC-Lavalin out of being prosecuted for buying drugs and hookers for Moammar Gadaffi's son, and wonder why they don't see the same level of effort when tens of thousands of jobs in the energy sector are being lost. People conclude it's because SNC-Lavalin is located in Papineau and the energy sector isn't. (do you think they're wrong?)
Part of it is anger over some of the rhetoric coming from other parts of the country. People hear John Horgan or Francois Legault talking about Alberta's "dirty energy" and it increases the feeling of being the black sheep of confederation. Hearing the Quebec premier say that sort of stuff as Quebec has received vast sums of transfer payments funded in large measure by that very same "dirty energy" infuriates people. When Trudeau comes to Alberta and says "we love you" and blah blah blah, then goes back to Quebec and talks about "standing up to big oil" and other rhetoric intended to appeal to Quebec progressives, it makes people skeptical of his sincerity.
"I've heard your frustration and I want to be there to support you" has to actually mean something, it can't just be words.
Now they're talking separatism ? We blew $4.5B on a pipeline for some reason...
Alberta didn't want the gov't to buy the pipeline, they wanted the pipeline to get built. And that still isn't happening, after a botched round of consultations and new court challenges claiming that the new redone consultations were also botched. The timeline keeps getting pushed back. And it's not just one pipeline, it's all of them... all of the planned or proposed pipeline projects are either stalled or cancelled for one reason or another. Keystone XL and the Enbridge Line 3 expansion are hung up too right now.
And there's Bill 69, the new environmental review process, which many people believe will make it impossible to get a new pipeline built.
If the latest court hurdles are cleared and shovels are in the ground sometime soon on the TMX project, things might calm down. On the other hand, if Trudeau and friends give up on TMX in exchange for support from the NDP or BQ to prop up their minority, the blowback will be furious.
-k
-
1. Alberta didn't want the gov't to buy the pipeline, they wanted the pipeline to get built.
2. And there's Bill 69, the new environmental review process, which many people believe will make it impossible to get a new pipeline built.
I like your post, but you are explaining irrationality, ie. saying what we kind of already know.
1. You need to buy the company before you can build it. If people are doing that, then
2. My understanding is that the previous process was not independent. The new process would be less politically biased but take environment into account.
-
**** Alberta and their pipeline.
-
What the **** is wrong with them ? Why do they take it so personally when one national party loses over another ? Why do they blame the Liberal party when oil prices dive ? Why don't they see where things are going with oil & gas ?
Now they're talking separatism ? We blew $4.5B on a pipeline for some reason...
I'm going to start calling them the Quebec of the west...
Alberta's going to go down fighting.
They've been trashing the rest of Canada for so long, nobody cares.
Yank all the subsidies out of fossil fuels and put them in renewables.
No bailouts.
**** Alberta.
There. Now I'm there ... behaving as badly as they do. Lol
I feel sorry for the oil workers, who dropped out of high school and into high paying jobs. The real world doesn't work that way. Now the industry is dying while the oil bosses and Alberta government keep lying, telling them it's Trudeau or the East that's to blame. But it's just Alberta and the oil companies that are to blame for failing to plan, failing to diversify, failing to care about their workers, filling their uneducated workers heads with devious propaganda and outright lies, sucking every last drop of labour out of them and then kicking them to the curb.
If I say "**** Alberta", I mean those devious leaders in the oil industry and government, not the workers.
Bail out the workers, but not the industry.
Educate, retrain, redeploy into renewables and energy retrofitting across the country.
Alberta employed a lot of Canadians, not just Albertans.
Give back, give Alberta workers some love, and some new jobs.
And maybe some travel experience to get to know Canada. : )
-
"I've heard your frustration and I want to be there to support you" has to actually mean something, it can't just be words.
yabut, surely you know that Alberta knowingly, willingly, and repeatedly takes known risks in funding public services with volatile resource revenues. Riddle me this member kimmy/Alberta: for all the year-upon-year multi-decadal blathering concerns acknowledging the need for Alberta to diversify its economy, how's that been working out, hey!
can ya help a bro understand just what is the so-called problem/and where it lies? I mean, c'mon... look at historical Alberta production numbers - and, by the by, as I read, the so-called glut has been/is being addressed. So, other than that price differential thingee, where's the beef exactly - particularly when rail-by-oil movement has been huuuge?
(https://i.imgur.com/HShGCJ9.png)
speaking of that rail-by-oil, even as a temporary "stop-gap" measure, how does Alberta's UCP Premier Kenney rationalize his promise to cancel the purchase/lease contracts for 4000+ rail cars... an action taken by the former Alberta NDP government? By the by, the waldo highlighted "bitcrude" transfer (https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/09/25/1920874/0/en/Melius-Energy-Ships-Bitumen-to-International-Markets-From-the-Port-of-Prince-Rupert.html#.XYvGWpP0L9s.twitter) previously in another thread - somehow, Alberta's Energy Minister seems to raise its profile but Alberta Premier Kenney won't mention anything about production numbers... or rail transfers - cause that just gets in the way of his SepartistTrolling agenda - yes?
(https://i.imgur.com/AaNq6jJ.png)
where's the beef member kimmy - why all the claimed job losses? By the by, is there another type of... glut... when over 300 companies are trying/wanting to produce oil in Alberta?
-
yabut, surely you know that Alberta knowingly, willingly, and repeatedly takes known risks in funding public services with volatile resource revenues. Riddle me this member kimmy/Alberta: for all the year-upon-year multi-decadal blathering concerns acknowledging the need for Alberta to diversify its economy, how's that been working out, hey!
can ya help a bro understand just what is the so-called problem/and where it lies? I mean, c'mon... look at historical Alberta production numbers - and, by the by, as I read, the so-called glut has been/is being addressed. So, other than that price differential thingee, where's the beef exactly - particularly when rail-by-oil movement has been huuuge?
(https://i.imgur.com/HShGCJ9.png)
speaking of that rail-by-oil, even as a temporary "stop-gap" measure, how does Alberta's UCP Premier Kenney rationalize his promise to cancel the purchase/lease contracts for 4000+ rail cars... an action taken by the former Alberta NDP government? By the by, the waldo highlighted "bitcrude" transfer (https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/09/25/1920874/0/en/Melius-Energy-Ships-Bitumen-to-International-Markets-From-the-Port-of-Prince-Rupert.html#.XYvGWpP0L9s.twitter) previously in another thread - somehow, Alberta's Energy Minister seems to raise its profile but Alberta Premier Kenney won't mention anything about production numbers... or rail transfers - cause that just gets in the way of his SepartistTrolling agenda - yes?
(https://i.imgur.com/AaNq6jJ.png)
where's the beef member kimmy - why all the claimed job losses? By the by, is there another type of... glut... when over 300 companies are trying/wanting to produce oil in Alberta?
And we're subsidizing them to do so.
Otherwise, they wouldn't be profitable.
Alberta doesn't get to **** on the rest of Canada without getting some uncomfortable truths spoken back to them.
-
yabut, surely you know that Alberta knowingly, willingly, and repeatedly takes known risks in funding public services with volatile resource revenues. Riddle me this member kimmy/Alberta: for all the year-upon-year multi-decadal blathering concerns acknowledging the need for Alberta to diversify its economy, how's that been working out, hey!
Albertans can be a bit of a pain but you and Granny need to can the hypocrisy because every province does the same. What the hell do you think is done with the 20 billion Alberta sends to Ottawa every year that it doesn't get back? Yes Albertans can be a bit boorish at times but certainly no worse than the sanctimonious hypocrites who believe they would enjoy the same standard of living if that money never existed.
-
Energy provides 11% of Canada's GDP or over 180 billion, directly or indirectly employs over half a million, provides over 14 billion in direct revenues to governments and around 30 billion in fuel and carbon taxes. How about some real suggestions on how to fill that hole in the economy instead of just ranting about bad Albertans.
-
Energy provides 11% of Canada's GDP or over 180 billion, directly or indirectly employs over half a million, provides over 14 billion in direct revenues to governments and around 30 billion in fuel and carbon taxes. How about some real suggestions on how to fill that hole in the economy instead of just ranting about bad Albertans.
That's with a downturn in oil price. We are still digging more oil than ever. Unemployment in AB is 6.9%... in a downturn.
Instead of buying pipelines and selling more oil, we should have a real plan not to use so much. Ratchet it back, not up.
Also, if AB can get more for its oil, you do realize that means Canada will also be paying more for oil to use it domestically? We pay world prices for most commodities.
-
That's with a downturn in oil price. We are still digging more oil than ever. Unemployment in AB is 6.9%... in a downturn.
Instead of buying pipelines and selling more oil, we should have a real plan not to use so much. Ratchet it back, not up.
Also, if AB can get more for its oil, you do realize that means Canada will also be paying more for oil to use it domestically? We pay world prices for most commodities.
Alberta has to sell its oil at a $20 discount from wold price, largely because it can't access world markets. Would any other industry in the country stand for that?
Yes we pay world prices for most commodities but Alberta is supposed to sell its resources for less. This is entirely the mentality of the NEP back in the seventies. Deja vu all over again.
In addition to the numbers I already posted, energy represents 22% of the total value of our exports. That will have to be replaced to maintain our standards of living.
I still haven't heard any suggestions. These are real questions that will have to be answered if we are to abandon fossil fuels. I don't know the answers but I do know that throwing rocks at Albertans isn't going to get it done regardless of how good it might make people feel.
-
**** Alberta and their pipeline.
**** AB and their pipelines while you still fill your vehicle with gas, right? That's the kind of fantastic attitude that will make Alberta separate, and decimate our economy while the Saudis pump out more oil to make up for our "f**k pipelines" BS, the Saudi oil of course Canada already buys from and would need more from & needs to be shipped by oil-fueled GHG-emitting tankers across half the globe to fill our cars that 99.9% of the country still uses.
This is why Elizabeth May is complete and utter moron. If her party were elected, she would have destroyed Canada, AB would be gone in a heartbeat. She's a complete imbecile. Fortunately the vast majority of Canadians are well aware of this as per the election results.
-
Alberta's going to go down fighting.
They've been trashing the rest of Canada for so long, nobody cares.
Yank all the subsidies out of fossil fuels and put them in renewables.
No bailouts.
**** Alberta.
There. Now I'm there ... behaving as badly as they do. Lol
I feel sorry for the oil workers, who dropped out of high school and into high paying jobs. The real world doesn't work that way. Now the industry is dying while the oil bosses and Alberta government keep lying, telling them it's Trudeau or the East that's to blame. But it's just Alberta and the oil companies that are to blame for failing to plan, failing to diversify, failing to care about their workers, filling their uneducated workers heads with devious propaganda and outright lies, sucking every last drop of labour out of them and then kicking them to the curb.
Do you actually believe what you just wrote?
If the oil industry is dying, the oil sands would be out of business and there would be no demand for oil shipped by pipeline. Next time you go to hop on a plane to take a vacation, either stay home or thank Alberta.
You're trying to destroy this country and save the world at the same time. I guarantee your delusional thinking is only going to do the former. Shame on you!
-
Energy provides 11% of Canada's GDP or over 180 billion, directly or indirectly employs over half a million, provides over 14 billion in direct revenues to governments and around 30 billion in fuel and carbon taxes. How about some real suggestions on how to fill that hole in the economy instead of just ranting about bad Albertans.
These people ignore such realities, even Liz May does. They're out of their freaking minds.
-
Do you actually believe what you just wrote?
If the oil industry is dying, the oil sands would be out of business and there would be no demand for oil shipped by pipeline. Next time you go to hop on a plane to take a vacation, either stay home or thank Alberta.
You're trying to destroy this country and save the world at the same time. I guarantee your delusional thinking is only going to do the former. Shame on you!
Actually scientific evidence shows that stepping away from fossil fuels will help save this country and the world.
-
Actually scientific evidence shows that stepping away from fossil fuels will help save this country and the world.
Stepping away. Sounds so simple.
-
Stepping away. Sounds so simple.
Nobody said such a major change would be simple. Inevitable is the more appropriate descriptor.
-
Nobody said such a major change would be simple. Inevitable is the more appropriate descriptor.
Actually the kill fossil fuel evangelists don't think any farther than that.
-
Actually scientific evidence shows that stepping away from fossil fuels will help save this country and the world.
It will do nothing to reduce the global demand for oil. It ain't going to do jack all if the US keeps pumping out GHG. If the big emitters were cutting down drastically on GHG and we weren't and were lagging behind i'd totally agree with you. But as small actors we shouldn't be global leaders in this when big actors aren't following suit because being global leaders means crippling our economy for very little reduction in global GHG.
I want to stop climate change as much as the next person. But you can't cripple our major economic industry when the rest of the world keeps burning GHG. What's the point???
-
It will do nothing to reduce the global demand for oil. It ain't going to do jack all if the US keeps pumping out GHG. If the big emitters were cutting down drastically on GHG and we weren't and were lagging behind i'd totally agree with you. But as small actors we shouldn't be global leaders in this when big actors aren't following suit because being global leaders means crippling our economy for very little reduction in global GHG.
I want to stop climate change as much as the next person. But you can't cripple our major economic industry when the rest of the world keeps burning GHG. What's the point???
Sounds like the typical climate denier screed. You don't have to cripple the economy, you have to adjust it. And it's probably smart to think about doing so before we suck the last barrels out of the dirt while we're coughing up phlemb.
-
Nobody said such a major change would be simple. Inevitable is the more appropriate descriptor.
You guys want to kill pipelines, shut down oilsands etc. You guys want to put tons of people out of work in AB. Why don't you guys put your money where your mouth is, and instead of asking them to make all the sacrifice, why don't you guys go out and sell your internal combustion engine cars and buy an expensive Tesla and make the environment a better place? Why don't you stop hopping on carbon-spewing airplanes and taking vacations?
You don't because you guys are all talk, you're hypocrites, you want others to pay the price while you do next to nothing. Let the market do the talking and reduce the demand for oil yourself instead of government forcing the issue.
-
Sounds like the typical climate denier screed. You don't have to cripple the economy, you have to adjust it. And it's probably smart to think about doing so before we suck the last barrels out of the dirt while we're coughing up phlemb.
How the hell does government "adjust the economy"? You're talking about talking about blowing up one of the leading industries in Canada and magically creating a new leading industry in Canada? If Canada could just create huge industries in Canada out of thin air don't you think we'd be doing so all the time?
How to do you create massive market demand for clean energy when it's not there? By spending gazillions on clean tax breaks? Do you guys know how capitalism works? I'm all for getting rid of oil subsidies and whatnot, just level the playing field, even providing incentives for reducing GHG or buying electric cars etc. But that won't transform our economy. You're talking about centrally planning a major part of the economy, it's freaking communism.
-
How the hell does government "adjust the economy"? You're talking about talking about blowing up one of the leading industries in Canada and magically creating a new leading industry in Canada? If Canada could just create huge industries in Canada out of thin air don't you think we'd be doing so all the time?
How to do you create massive market demand for clean energy when it's not there? By spending gazillions on clean tax breaks? Do you guys know how capitalism works? I'm all for getting rid of oil subsidies and whatnot, just level the playing field, even providing incentives for reducing GHG or buying electric cars etc. But that won't transform our economy. You're talking about centrally planning a major part of the economy, it's freaking communism.
A little over 60% of Canada's electricity comes from renewables, and we sell about 10% to the US. Clean energy/clean profits. Get with it.
-
A little over 60% of Canada's electricity comes from renewables, and we sell about 10% to the US. Clean energy/clean profits. Get with it.
You still haven't answered the questions. Ragging on Alberta because it hasn't changed its ways while producing 21% of this country's GDP and over 25% of its exports and no concrete ideas how to replace, just get rid of it and think you can carry on your present lifestyle.
-
A little over 60% of Canada's electricity comes from renewables, and we sell about 10% to the US. Clean energy/clean profits. Get with it.
And Canada's electricity exports are how much of Canada's economy? How much do you pay for electricity in Ontario?
-
A little over 60% of Canada's electricity comes from renewables, and we sell about 10% to the US. Clean energy/clean profits. Get with it.
Only because parts of the country had large hydro electric potential but even that has its limits. How many more dams can Quebec and Labrador build? Site C wil be the last major project in BC unless the greenies are planning on putting dams on the country’s two major salmon producing rivers, and the environmentalists were opposed to Site C.
-
**** AB and their pipelines while you still fill your vehicle with gas, right? That's the kind of fantastic attitude that will make Alberta separate, and decimate our economy while the Saudis pump out more oil to make up for our "f**k pipelines" BS, the Saudi oil of course Canada already buys from and would need more from & needs to be shipped by oil-fueled GHG-emitting tankers across half the globe to fill our cars that 99.9% of the country still uses.
This is why Elizabeth May is complete and utter moron. If her party were elected, she would have destroyed Canada, AB would be gone in a heartbeat. She's a complete imbecile. Fortunately the vast majority of Canadians are well aware of this as per the election results.
Hyperbolic nonsense. Alberta will continue to make billions with current capacity. I was in favour of TMX - this election convinced me that Albertans are whiners. **** their pipeline....and don't let the door hit them on the way out.
-
I find the one dimensional thinking on this issue quite depressing.
Green house gases are causing climate change so we need to reduce emissions. Fair enough but it also presents a huge problem for the country's economy that the fossil fuel killers who are running around with their hair on fire won't touch with a barge pole. How do you develop and produce alternative energy sources when at the same time you are trying to kill the industry that provides over 10% of the country's GDP, over 20% of its exports and you are already running deficits? Where will the money come from to develop those technologies and keep them in Canada, rather than having our companies and universities just doing R&D for foreign corps and governments?
We can and will develop new technologies and we have some things in our favour, like stable government (with some cracks) and an educated population. So do other countries and many don't have the regulatory, constitutional and FN minefield companies have to negotiate to do business in Canada. To think we can just replace what energy contributes to this country with no problem is a stretch. I don't say it can't or won't happen but I'm not one of the Pollyanna's who think it will all magically work itself out, because I don't believe Canadians have some god given right to continue enjoying the same standard of living most of us now have.
-
The previous NDP government in Alberta had started initiatives to diversify the economy slowly and steadily. That plan was rejected by Albertans when they voted the Conservatives back in. It wasn't all Notley's fault - Trudeau played her like a fiddle and she fell for it. The whole country fell for it.
Let's say the climate change hair-on-fire enthusiasts get their way and the oilpatch is shut down tomorrow. No one wants to talk about how that would play out - not just for Alberta but for Canada. I dont' understand how the rest of Canada can reject Alberta's oil - while still insisting on their transfer payments and accepting Saudi and Venezuelan oil. It's the height of hypocrisy to me.
-
At least we had the good sense to elect a PM who has a concern and an understanding of the climate change issue rather than someone who would simply kowtow to the industry and put the issue on "ignore" mode.
-
At least we had the good sense to elect a PM who has a concern and an understanding of the climate change issue rather than someone who would simply kowtow to the industry and put the issue on "ignore" mode.
There's kowtowing and there's kowtowing. It's good that the feds are going to push through with TMX but it hasn't gone unnoticed that while JT is intent on pushing TMX through out west, he didn't push back at all when it came to Energy East and Quebec.
He is the PM though and I hope for the best. Get mad at Alberta but the Liberals didn't get one seat between Winnipeg and greater Vancouver. It isn't just Alberta.
-
There's kowtowing and there's kowtowing. It's good that the feds are going to push through with TMX but it hasn't gone unnoticed that while JT is intent on pushing TMX through out west, he didn't push back at all when it came to Energy East and Quebec.
He is the PM though and I hope for the best. Get mad at Alberta but the Liberals didn't get one seat between Winnipeg and greater Vancouver. It isn't just Alberta.
I prefer the somewhat more balanced approach such as knowing we can't turn off all the the taps tomorrow, but we need to look ahead to weening ourselves off air pollution methods of creating energy since there are clearly alternates available.
-
At least we had the good sense to elect a PM who has a concern and an understanding of the climate change issue rather than someone who would simply kowtow to the industry and put the issue on "ignore" mode.
He's the only party leader that sees climate change as a problem and is trying to address it while also understanding our economic dependence on AB oil and the political consequences in AB over it, and then at the same time trying his best to respect aboriginal sovereignty. He's stuck between a rock and a hard place. No matter what he does somebody will be PO'd.
-
He's the only party leader that sees climate change as a problem and is trying to address it while also understanding our economic dependence on AB oil and the political consequences in AB over it, and then at the same time trying his best to respect aboriginal sovereignty. He's stuck between a rock and a hard place. No matter what he does somebody will be PO'd.
I grew up back in Ontario until I finished high school in a house very near to a hydro dam. Besides clean power it also provided a good place to go fishing and a nice bay on the river upstream for swimming. Then I moved to Toronto, which at the time generated some of its power from coal. I got to suck some of that coal smoke up my nose at the first place I lived, and that convinced me which side of the energy source discussion I was/am on.
-
A little over 60% of Canada's electricity comes from renewables, and we sell about 10% to the US. Clean energy/clean profits. Get with it.
Nothing clean about flooding thousands of square miles of boreal forest.
-
Nothing clean about flooding thousands of square miles of boreal forest.
A hell of a lot cleaner than burning thousands of tons of coal.
-
I dont' understand how the rest of Canada can reject Alberta's oil - while still insisting on their transfer payments
Ontario is, and always has been, the major source of transfer payments - period. The fallacy that Alberta is the source does not magically come true by continually repeating the same lie.
-
Since equalization started Alberta has received 0.02% of total payments given out to provinces, 21% of corporate taxes come from Alberta with 11% of the population.
-
Since equalization started Alberta has received 0.02% of total payments given out to provinces, 21% of corporate taxes come from Alberta with 11% of the population.
Alberta is the richest jurisdiction in the Western Hemisphere. Why would you expect them to get equalization?
-
I mean, Albertans pay the same taxes as all of the rest of us and get the same federal services and transfers. The only difference is equalization.
-
Since equalization started Alberta has received 0.02% of total payments given out to provinces, 21% of corporate taxes come from Alberta with 11% of the population.
So a hefty bunch of dinosaurs happened to be grazing on what would become Alberta when a meteorite hit the earth and turned into fuel. Did Peter Lougheed plan that?
-
Since equalization started Alberta has received 0.02% of total payments given out to provinces, 21% of corporate taxes come from Alberta with 11% of the population.
In 2017, the latest year I can find complete relevant information from Statistics Canada (Table: 36-10-0450-01 (https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3610045001)), the number was actually 15.7%. Ontario was 42.6%.
Corporate taxes however are only a very thin slice of the federal government revenues, in the case of Alberta it works out to 2.5% of total federal revenue. If you want to look at overall contributions from Alberta (personal, corporate, etc.) then it works out to 16.4%, compared to 40.7% from Ontario.
b.t.w., Alberta was 12% (11.57% if you don't want to round to a whole number) in 2016. Ontario is 38.26%.
to complete the data, I got total federal government revenues at $313.6 billion in 2017 from the Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada (https://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2018/report-rapport-eng.asp).
-
So a hefty bunch of dinosaurs happened to be grazing on what would become Alberta when a meteorite hit the earth and turned into fuel. Did Peter Lougheed plan that?
I Peter Loughheed managed to escape the meteor blast...
In 2017, the latest year I can find complete relevant information from Statistics Canada (table Table: 36-10-0450-01), the number was actually 15.7%. Ontario was 42.6%.
Corporate taxes however are only a very thin slice of the federal government revenues, in the case of Alberta it works out to 2.5% of total federal revenue. If you want to look at overall contributions from Alberta (personal, corporate, etc.) then it works out to 16.4%, compared to 40.7% from Ontario.
Link?
-
In 2017, the latest year I can find complete relevant information from Statistics Canada (table Table: 36-10-0450-01), the number was actually 15.7%. Ontario was 42.6%.
Corporate taxes however are only a very thin slice of the federal government revenues, in the case of Alberta it works out to 2.5% of total federal revenue. If you want to look at overall contributions from Alberta (personal, corporate, etc.) then it works out to 16.4%, compared to 40.7% from Ontario.
b.t.w., Alberta was 12% (11.57% if you don't want to round to a whole number) in 2016. Ontario is 38.26%.
Ontario has 3.3 times the population.
-
Ontario has 3.3 times the population.
It's not based on population, but on revenues. Don't cry to me about being rich in dinosaur bones!! Wow.... your revenues are through the roof... how terrible...
-
Link?
I had put the table number above, and just added a direct link to it to make it quicker. In general, you can find Statistics Canada tables by going to their home page, click on access our data, and paste the table number into the search.
Note that you need to add/remove the following to get the breakdown required.
- select reference period of 2017 only (default was 5 years, and they have 10 years total data) to make it simpler
- under geography select the specific or all provinces, default was aggregated
- under levels of government, select federal general government only (default included provincial, aboriginal, and pension plans)
-
Ontario has 3.3 times the population.
Agreed, and contributes 2.7 times the corporate tax revenue as well which is the metric you were focused on. I have not found a break down of corporate tax revenue by industry and province, but I did see that the energy sector is 36.1% of Alberta's GDP. I also suspect that electricity takes a bite off of that. The net result is that corporate taxes from the oil sands contribute less than 1% of federal revenues. It is still very important, but lets get real when you want to claim that without the oil sands Canada would collapse.
-
It's not based on population, but on revenues. Don't cry to me about being rich in dinosaur bones!! Wow.... your revenues are through the roof... how terrible...
\
Nonsense, if Ontario had ten times the population you would still be making the same argument.
In 2018 Alberta's energy industry contributed 71.5 billion to Canada's GDP and 22% of its exports. When is that going to sink in?
But hey, let's just keep bad mouthing each other, it is so much easier and fun than dealing with real issues. Pretty soon we will be calling each other deplorables.
-
\
Nonsense, if Ontario had ten times the population you would still be making the same argument.
In 2018 Alberta's energy industry contributed 71.5 billion to Canada's GDP and 22% of its exports. When is that going to sink in?
But hey, let's just keep bad mouthing each other, it is so much easier and fun than dealing with real issues. Pretty soon we will be calling each other deplorables.
Yes, it's a large industry and a driver of the economy and of tax revenues paid on the money made are dispersed among Canadians. If those dinosaur bones were in Manitoba, it would be Manitoba paying more tax.
What's your point?
Because they're lucky enough to make huge sums of money from oil, they pay more taxes than other parts of the country.... duh. Seems kind of obvious.
-
What's the incentive for AB to stay a part of Canada when it pays out so much money to the feds while the RoC sh!ts on them and tries to stifle their oil economy while at the same time collecting free money from their oil economy? If AB were its own country everyone would live like kings. They have the lowest taxes in the country. As a country I assume theyd have among the highest standard of living in the world, one of the highest per-capita income in the world.
We suck wealth from them while giving them the middle finger. Why wouldn't they be mad?
-
As a country I assume theyd have among the highest standard of living in the world, one of the highest per-capita income in the world.
duhhhh... they already do?
Those oilsands are also in a place called Canada.
They can compensate Canada on their way out the door for our oil sands that we agreed to give them in 1930.
-
Yes, it's a large industry and a driver of the economy and of tax revenues paid on the money made are dispersed among Canadians. If those dinosaur bones were in Manitoba, it would be Manitoba paying more tax.
What's your point?
Because they're lucky enough to make huge sums of money from oil, they pay more taxes than other parts of the country.... duh. Seems kind of obvious.
It's not about paying more taxes, we all pay the same tax rates.
-
duhhhh... they already do?
Those oilsands are also in a place called Canada.
They can compensate Canada on their way out the door for our oil sands that we agreed to give them in 1930.
**** ya, I want a 30% discount on that car from Ontario because it is built in Canada. Other Canadians should get the same deal on that 2X4 from BC.
-
duhhhh... they already do?
Those oilsands are also in a place called Canada.
They can compensate Canada on their way out the door for our oil sands that we agreed to give them in 1930.
Squid, how well do you would fare in a BC that was cut off from the RoC by a foreign country?
-
It's not about paying more taxes, we all pay the same tax rates.
No, no... Alberta pays so much more!! And it goes to these have-not layabout-provinces who do nothing but spend Alberta's hard-earned money!! ::)
Alberta makes more... Alberta pays more... it's not a sinister plot. Alberta needs to stop whining ... they're not a victim.
While it would be comforting to believe that Alberta is the victim of a sinister Laurentian plot, the fact remains that the province is paying an unfair share of Canada’s tax primarily because it is incredibly rich and incredibly young.
In 2015, Alberta had Canada’s highest median income at $100,300, compared to $80,940 for Canada generally.
Even after the collapse in oil prices, Fort McMurray continues to have the highest individual median incomes in Canada at $76,004.
On the list of richest Canada cities per capita, meanwhile, Calgary and Edmonton occupy the number two and the number three spots (Ottawa is number one).
An Albertan flaunts his wealth. Colleen De Neve/Calgary Herald
All of this means that, like most rich people, Albertans have higher tax bills. It also means that they’re generally less dependent on federal government programs: Less social assistance and fewer GST credits, among others.
According to the Alberta government, only 55.7 per cent of its residents received income from government transfers, compared to 68.9 per cent everywhere else in Canada.
It also helps that Alberta has a long tradition of shipping its old people to Victoria, Kelowna or the Lower Mainland. When a retired Leduc oilman receives a pension cheque at his West Vancouver beach house, it’s registered as a federal transfer to B.C., rather than Alberta.
By last count, Alberta had a median age of 36, making it the youngest province in Canada. This not only means fewer pensions, but less need for healthcare spending.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/of-course-alberta-is-getting-fleeced-by-ottawa-just-not-in-the-way-you-think
-
If Alberta had taken half of what it sent to the RoC in transfers that it didn't get back over the last 30 years, put it in a Heritage Fund compounded at 5% annually, it would be worth over 700 billion today.
-
Squid, how well do you would fare in a BC that was cut off from the RoC by a foreign country?
What makes you think Alberta would keep its borders intact? Or, if Alberta wants containers going in and oil going out, BC will definitely have access across their shiny new country. BC will be just fine, thanks for worrying. ;D
-
No, no... Alberta pays so much more!! And it goes to these have-not layabout-provinces who do nothing but spend Alberta's hard-earned money!! ::)
Alberta makes more... Alberta pays more... it's not a sinister plot. Alberta needs to stop whining ... they're not a victim.
This country is ****, we sound just like those idiots down south.
I'm done.
-
If Alberta had taken half of what it sent to the RoC in transfers that it didn't get back over the last 30 years, put it in a Heritage Fund compounded at 5% annually, it would be worth over 700 billion today.
Did you not read the article? There are reasons that fed spending is lower there... there's no crazy conspiracy. ::)
The fact that Alberta minsmanages oil revenues isn't the fault of RoC.
-
No, seriously squid, I'm done with this bulllshit. National unity my ass, this country is screwed.
-
If Alberta had taken half of what it sent to the RoC in transfers that it didn't get back over the last 30 years, put it in a Heritage Fund compounded at 5% annually, it would be worth over 700 billion today.
Alberta doesn't send transfers - they simply pay federal taxes.
-
Alberta doesn't send transfers - they simply pay federal taxes.
That's true, it just gets much less of that tax money back compared to other provinces. It helps subsidize poorer provinces.
-
Did you not read the article? There are reasons that fed spending is lower there... there's no crazy conspiracy. ::)
The fact that Alberta minsmanages oil revenues isn't the fault of RoC.
why do you say it mismanages oil revenues? Because it's in deficit?
-
**** ya, I want a 30% discount on that car from Ontario because it is built in Canada. Other Canadians should get the same deal on that 2X4 from BC.
For years, Ontario paid a premium for Alberta oil. Ontario was also an investor in the early oil sands, and again in the 80's when they purchased a 25% stake in Suncor.
-
That's true, it just gets much less of that tax money back compared to other provinces. It helps subsidize poorer provinces.
There are some very logical reasons for that:
Albertans still have the highest average incomes in the country, so they pay more in federal income taxes.
They also spend more money than other Canadians (because they have more money) so they pay more in federal sales taxes. (Alberta has no provincial sales tax.)
The median age of Albertans is 36. (Canada 40, Nfld 46). There aren't as many seniors to receive federal CPP/OAS/GIS, so the federal transfers for that are less. Alberta draws many younger people there for the high paying jobs, they pay their federal income taxes there while working, but they may not stay there as seniors, so their federal benefits are then going to their home province. It's also suggested that many rich Albertans retire to the lower mainland of BC, so again, their federal transfers aren't going to Alberta.
That's a sample of what I learned in a quick google. Sometimes differences are just due to differences, not because of a lack of fairness.
-
There are some very logical reasons for that:
Albertans still have the highest average incomes in the country, so they pay more in federal income taxes.
They also spend more money than other Canadians (because they have more money) so they pay more in federal sales taxes. (Alberta has no provincial sales tax.)
The median age of Albertans is 36. (Canada 40, Nfld 46). There aren't as many seniors to receive federal CPP/OAS/GIS, so the federal transfers for that are less. Alberta draws many younger people there for the high paying jobs, they pay their federal income taxes there while working, but they may not stay there as seniors, so their federal benefits are then going to their home province. It's also suggested that many rich Albertans retire to the lower mainland of BC, so again, their federal transfers aren't going to Alberta.
CPP/OAS/GIS, as far as I'm aware, has nothing to do with equalization payments, those are federal programs paid out by the central gov, not the provinces. Equalization goes to the provinces to spend on whatever they want, like healthcare, education, social assistance, or buck-a-beer.
Equalization is where all the provinces give their share of taxes to the feds, and the feds give out tens of billions to provinces that can't raise their own provincial taxes while giving no money to provinces doing well economically. It's inter-provincial welfare. AB gains nothing from this other than giving many tens of billions of their tax money raised from the oil industry over several decades to help their fellow provinces, while other provinces **** on AB & the oil industry that feeds them. Don't bite the hand that feeds.
If you don't like oil and pipelines ok fine whatever, but then what right to do have to take free money raised from oil and pipelines? It's like biting mommies nipples and slapping her in the face while sucking on her teet.
-
I like your post, but you are explaining irrationality, ie. saying what we kind of already know.
Do people actually know? I'm skeptical. You asked:
What the **** is wrong with them ? Why do they take it so personally when one national party loses over another ?
Trudeau campaigned around Quebec and Toronto on "fighting Jason Kenney" and "standing up to big oil". That might be a vote-getter in Toronto and Quebec, reaching for those cheap easy lines to win votes comes with a cost. Trudeau isn't the first Liberal leader to do this, of course. Paul Martin talked a big game on mending fences with Alberta, but when the chips were down he was standing on stage applauding while Buzz Hargrove told a rally that Martin's opponents represented "Alberta values, not Canadian values". Jean Chretien made bickering with Alberta something of a personal brand. And "screw the west, we'll take the rest" was the slogan of the Liberals' war room under Pierre Trudeau. Scoring cheap political points by attacking some hated "other" is a long-standing political tactic, but it tends to not go over well with the people you've "othered".
Justin may not be a very smart man, but unless he's completely retarded he must know that when he says that kind of stuff in Quebec and Ontario, people hear it elsewhere. People in Alberta have radios and television and internet just like everybody else. Some of them even speak French. They know the stuff he says when he's talking in Ontario and Quebec isn't the same stuff he says when he puts on his Albertanface costume and comes to the Calgary Stampede each summer.
He can't genuinely be surprised at the regional divisiveness. Maybe instead of telling Quebecers he's going to keep on fighting Jason Kenney and Big Oil, he should tell them he's going to work with Jason Kenney to help all the people employed by Big Oil get back to work.
1. You need to buy the company before you can build it. If people are doing that, then
There was a private sector proponent who wanted to build the pipeline who spent a billion dollars doing consultation and negotiating deals to get the pipeline built. The government only had to buy it because the never-ending legal challenges and obstructionist legal action from BC created the appearance that it was never going to get built, and further spending on the project would be a waste of money.
The fiasco surrounding TMX scared investors to the degree that everybody understood that the process for approving projects in Canada had to be fixed. Which leads us to...
2. My understanding is that the previous process was not independent. The new process would be less politically biased but take environment into account.
In the form it was originally passed, Bill C-69 was completely ****, and the Trudeau government refused to listen to any criticisms until Rachel Notley threatened to pull Alberta out of the climate accord. Since then, the senate stepped up and proposed almost 200 amendments and almost 100 amendments passed, but people still think it has serious problems. It gives everybody and their dog and their spirit-animal standing to participate in consultation. It's still full of bizarre and vague requirements like a "gender impact analysis". One of the Liberals' star candidates in Quebec was boasting that Bill C-69 would ensure that TMX is the last pipeline that ever gets built in Canada.
-k
-
There's been lots of handwringing and speculation about how Trudeau will get an Alberta or Saskatchewan representative into his government. Bring Grant Mitchell or Paula Simmons into Cabinet from the Senate? Bring in Naheed Nenshi or Ralph Goodale as a Special Advisor?
In my opinion, it doesn't matter. Nobody gave a crap that Amarjeet Sohi or Kent Hehr were in Cabinet. Nobody slept easier at night knowing that Amarjeet Sohi and Kent Hehr were in Ottawa to stand up for Alberta. Probably nobody in Alberta would have recognized Sohi or Hehr if they bumped into them on the street, and probably nobody in the PMO knew who those guys were either. Nobody in Alberta gave a crap about the last Sohi in Cabinet, and nobody in Alberta will give a crap if they find a replacement Sohi either. Nobody really believed Sohi or Hehr were advocates for Alberta in Cabinet. People believe the opposite-- that they're just there to sell the government's position to their constituents.
I don't think the real decisions are made in Cabinet anyway. I think they're made in the PMO by the same group of insiders, and I don't think it matters if they find some token Albertan to put in the window-sill alongside all the rest of the optics considerations.
-k
-
Trudeau campaigned around Quebec and Toronto on "fighting Jason Kenney" and "standing up to big oil". That might be a vote-getter in Toronto and Quebec, reaching for those cheap easy lines to win votes comes with a cost. Trudeau isn't the first Liberal leader to do this, of course. Paul Martin talked a big game on mending fences with Alberta, but when the chips were down he was standing on stage applauding while Buzz Hargrove told a rally that Martin's opponents represented "Alberta values, not Canadian values". Jean Chretien made bickering with Alberta something of a personal brand. And "screw the west, we'll take the rest" was the slogan of the Liberals' war room under Pierre Trudeau. Scoring cheap political points by attacking some hated "other" is a long-standing political tactic, but it tends to not go over well with the people you've "othered".
Well, ok. Admittedly I didn't know most of this... or maybe any of it.
But we know Alberta wants to build the pipeline. To my mind, Trudeau also very much wants to build it. He bought a pipeline for $4.5 Billion.
He doesn't want Alberta to die off but apparently he doesn't mind pissing them off.
Justin may not be a very smart man, but unless he's completely retarded he must know that when he says that kind of stuff in Quebec and Ontario, people hear it elsewhere. People in Alberta have radios and television and internet just like everybody else. Some of them even speak French. They know the stuff he says when he's talking in Ontario and Quebec isn't the same stuff he says when he puts on his Albertanface costume and comes to the Calgary Stampede each summer.
I have to say despite what you quoted, people in Ontario don't hate the west. All that we heard here was his anti Doug Ford message. Kenney was mentioned because the conservatives trucked him out here for some reason.
-
Well, ok. Admittedly I didn't know most of this... or maybe any of it.
But we know Alberta wants to build the pipeline. To my mind, Trudeau also very much wants to build it. He bought a pipeline for $4.5 Billion.
He doesn't want Alberta to die off but apparently he doesn't mind pissing them off.
I have to say despite what you quoted, people in Ontario don't hate the west. All that we heard here was his anti Doug Ford message. Kenney was mentioned because the conservatives trucked him out here for some reason.
As you point out, Trudeau does want to build the pipeline and has stated so quite clearly. And he put our money where his mouth is on that issue. One thing that has delayed it is the improper environmental impact study that was previously done during the Harper era. We shall see how the relationship between JT and Kenney evolves. Obviously Kimmy has quite a right wing style hate on for JT and so the assumptions/presumptions flow unabated.
-
My understanding is that the previous review process wasn't independent. That's a problem and that was Harper's doing.
-
What the **** is wrong with them ? Why do they take it so personally when one national party loses over another ? Why do they blame the Liberal party when oil prices dive ? Why don't they see where things are going with oil & gas ?
Albertans are frustrated. You're right, it's not the feds fault gas prices took a dive. But AB economy still has taken a sh!tkicking the last several years, major job losses, highest unemployment rate in Canada, can't get pipelines built, the RoC thinks your economy is evil and wants to shut it down, much of BC hates you, QC gives you the finger.
Add that Trudeau's carbon tax, him saying a couple of years ago he wants to get Canada off fossil fuels, the new bill C-69, them providing equalization taxation to the RoC for half a century and never seeing any of it, and the fact that just ideologically Albertans are conservatives you dislike most of the things the Liberals and Trudeau stand for...AB votes CPC and now have no MP's in the governing party or any power in the HoC since JT will certainly team up with the other leftwing parties on votes.
How can you not see why they're frustrated? Show a little empathy, put yourself in their shoes. Imagine you were an unemployed oil worker for 2 seconds.
-
There's been lots of handwringing and speculation about how Trudeau will get an Alberta or Saskatchewan representative into his government. Bring Grant Mitchell or Paula Simmons into Cabinet from the Senate? Bring in Naheed Nenshi or Ralph Goodale as a Special Advisor?
In my opinion, it doesn't matter. Nobody gave a crap that Amarjeet Sohi or Kent Hehr were in Cabinet. Nobody slept easier at night knowing that Amarjeet Sohi and Kent Hehr were in Ottawa to stand up for Alberta. Probably nobody in Alberta would have recognized Sohi or Hehr if they bumped into them on the street, and probably nobody in the PMO knew who those guys were either. Nobody in Alberta gave a crap about the last Sohi in Cabinet, and nobody in Alberta will give a crap if they find a replacement Sohi either. Nobody really believed Sohi or Hehr were advocates for Alberta in Cabinet. People believe the opposite-- that they're just there to sell the government's position to their constituents.
I don't think the real decisions are made in Cabinet anyway. I think they're made in the PMO by the same group of insiders, and I don't think it matters if they find some token Albertan to put in the window-sill alongside all the rest of the optics considerations.
-k
This is a problem Trudeau has and it is a tough one. You hear comments like, wouldn't it be great if he made Goodale a Senator and put him in Cabinet to give Saskatchewan representation. Saskatchewan voters just bounced Goodale and Trudeau giving him a western senate position and putting him in Cabinet without Saskatchewan's approval, would rightly be seen as just another case of Easterners telling the Western bumpkins what is good for them. I truly hope he is smarter than that.
-
My understanding is that the previous review process wasn't independent. That's a problem and that was Harper's doing.
The major flaw the NEB made during the Harper era review was they failed to include the impact of increased tanker traffic.
-
Let me explain how serious our disunity is. When Abraham Lincoln was first elected, he did not receive a single vote from the southern states, who were rural and farmers, as opposed to the more industrial and urban north. The south was now politically alienated. Obviously, Lincoln wasn't a fan of slavery, which was a big part of the south's economy. The rest of the US hated their economy, hated slavery, and wanted it banished.
Upon Lincoln's election, the south quickly separated from the rest of the US as a result (triggering the civil war). Sound familiar? Just replace slavery with western oil.
-
Some can-con to soothe the ears. Amazing song too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPviM4g4XWQ
I'm a workin' man
But I ain't worked for a while
Like some old tin can
From the bottom of the pile
I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement
My words are like a rope
That's wrapped around my throat
Wash my mouth with soap
For words unfit to quote
I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement
And now I'm free to go
But time cannot remove
The only life I know
Now only time will prove
Yes only time will prove
If I have lost my way
'Cause I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement
-
Let me explain how serious our disunity is. When Abraham Lincoln was first elected, he did not receive a single vote from the southern states, who were rural and farmers, as opposed to the more industrial and urban north. The south was now politically alienated. Obviously, Lincoln wasn't a fan of slavery, which was a big part of the south's economy. The rest of the US hated their economy, hated slavery, and wanted it banished.
Upon Lincoln's election, the south quickly separated from the rest of the US as a result (triggering the civil war). Sound familiar? Just replace slavery with western oil.
You actually think we are going to start a war over a friggin' pipeline? What cartoons are you watching?
-
You actually think we are going to start a war over a friggin' pipeline? What cartoons are you watching?
No, because the north didn't let the south separate, so both fought a far over it. Canada would not fight a war over it, they'd let AB secede.
What i'm saying is that these kinds of tensions and political isolation may cause AB to separate. We need to take their threats seriously.
-
No, because the north didn't let the south separate, so both fought a far over it. Canada would not fight a war over it, they'd let AB secede.
What i'm saying is that these kinds of tensions and political isolation may cause AB to separate. We need to take their threats seriously.
Well then I wonder why they elected Jason Kenney, an avowed federalist, as their leader.
-
How can you not see why they're frustrated? Show a little empathy, put yourself in their shoes. Imagine you were an unemployed oil worker for 2 seconds.
I suppose but the piling on, on Trudeau is counter-productive. And their politicians stoke the disunity in the exact same way Quebec does.
I have been unemployed and my career (and line of work) appeared to be at risk of evaporating. I was depressed, angry etc. No politician cared about what was happening to my cohorts. I was miffed but also recognized that there were forces beyond our control at work.
-
Sound familiar? Just replace slavery with western oil.
To take the analogy further, what would the North have done ? Nothing different, really. And the rift remains to this day, in certain ways.
-
You actually think we are going to start a war over a friggin' pipeline? What cartoons are you watching?
Well someone made a comment about Alberta risking a civil war by separating and another comment was made about Alberta leaving confederation without the oil sands? This country seems well on its way to being fractured in the same way as our neighbours.
-
I suppose but the piling on, on Trudeau is counter-productive. And their politicians stoke the disunity in the exact same way Quebec does.
See my signature.
To take the analogy further, what would the North have done ? Nothing different, really. And the rift remains to this day, in certain ways.
Every single human being has a yearning to sing at the top of their lungs, it's our job to pass them the microphone.
Consider what happens if we don't because we don't like what they have to say. All political conflict stems from this. Sometimes 2 or more people/groups want to sing different things into the microphone at the same time, so they have to learn how to share. AB, QC, and the RoC need to learn how to share. The southern states would not pass African slaves the microphone, they could have employed them as free men to share the microphone, they did not until forced.
-
Well someone made a comment about Alberta risking a civil war by separating and another comment was made about Alberta leaving confederation without the oil sands? This country seems well on its way to being fractured in the same way as our neighbours.
If Alberta wants to avail themselves of the benefits of a pipeline then probably one of the stupidest things they could do would be to become a landlocked jurisdiction.
-
If Alberta wants to avail themselves of the benefits of a pipeline then probably one of the stupidest things they could do would be to become a landlocked jurisdiction.
If BC manages to obstruct the pipeline, what is the difference? BC would also be isolated from the RoC. An independent Alberta would indeed be able to "turn off the tap".
-
I say this from the bottom of my heart - a couple of you need to get a grip on reality.
Alberta has made their own bed and is the one creating their own boogeyman. Trudeau worked hard for them. They repaid him in kind. He should tell them to go **** themselves.
-
I say this from the bottom of my heart - a couple of you need to get a grip on reality.
Alberta has made their own bed and is the one creating their own boogeyman. Trudeau worked hard for them. They repaid him in kind. He should tell them to go **** themselves.
I think you and others are the ones who need a grip on reality and stop branding westerners who vote blue as some kind of religious nut cases. Most of the people who turned everything in BC east of Vancouver blue aren't particularly religious and don't like Donald Trump any more than the average Canadian. They are fiscal conservatives who are fairly liberal socially as long as programs aren't sustained by borrowed money. If you think you can win them over or bend them to your will by insulting them, you are mistaken.
-
If BC manages to obstruct the pipeline, what is the difference? BC would also be isolated from the RoC. An independent Alberta would indeed be able to "turn off the tap".
I haven't heard of any plans for BC to separate.
-
I haven't heard of any plans for BC to separate.
If Alberta separated, BC would be physically separated from the RoC. The SOC would have no authority over an independent Alberta which could turn off the tap.
-
I suppose but the piling on, on Trudeau is counter-productive.
I think having Trudeau talk about anything pertaining to Alberta is unproductive, at this point. Nobody likes him, nobody trusts him, and everybody knows he says one thing in Alberta and something else when he's campaigning in Montreal or Toronto or Vancouver.
One of the smarter moves the Liberals have made in the past couple of days is have Bill Morneau, not Justin Trudeau, be the guy that talks about TMX on news shows and interviews. That's a good call, and they should stick with it.
They've warned us that we're in for a Charm Offensive from Trudeau to help heal the rift. I think that's actually a terrible idea. The problem isn't that Alberta hasn't heard enough Trudeau, it's that they've heard too much Trudeau. This isn't a good idea. I sincerely mean that, it really is not going to win people over. It will inflame the situation.
And their politicians stoke the disunity in the exact same way Quebec does.
The Prime Minister is not a Premier. His role is not the same as that of Francois Legault and Jason Kenney.
I have been unemployed and my career (and line of work) appeared to be at risk of evaporating. I was depressed, angry etc. No politician cared about what was happening to my cohorts. I was miffed but also recognized that there were forces beyond our control at work.
People see the federal government handle financial trouble at Bombardier, or legal trouble at SNC-Lavalin, or layoffs at GM Oshawa, like they're national emergencies of the highest order, and they wonder "we're losing way more jobs out here, and those guys aren't doing anything!" People see the level of effort the government has put into comparatively minor issues in Ontario and Quebec, and wonder why we don't get the same level of effort.
-k
-
If Alberta separated, BC would be physically separated from the RoC. The SOC would have no authority over an independent Alberta which could turn off the tap.
Alberta or any other province can't just throw their hands in the air and separate. They must negotiate with the federal and provincial governments and the position of "the taps" would certainly be a part of such negotiations. Not to mention highways, airports, aboriginal rights, and the list goes on and on.
-
Alberta or any other province can't just throw their hands in the air and separate. They must negotiate with the federal and provincial governments and the position of "the taps" would certainly be a part of such negotiations. Not to mention highways, airports, aboriginal rights, and the list goes on and on.
Do they? Are you going to declare martial law, send in the military and risk a civil war to enforce that? My point is, the fact we are even debating this is insane.
-
Do they? Are you going to declare martial law, send in the military and risk a civil war to enforce that? My point is, the fact we are even debating this is insane.
Just pointing out what the law states and what the provinces have signed onto. And yes you are correct we are a long ways from civil war.
-
Well, ok. Admittedly I didn't know most of this... or maybe any of it.
But we know Alberta wants to build the pipeline. To my mind, Trudeau also very much wants to build it. He bought a pipeline for $4.5 Billion.
He doesn't want Alberta to die off but apparently he doesn't mind pissing them off.
Well, maybe he should stop doing that. It's bad for the country.
Trudeau-boosters would rationalize his statements by saying that when he talks about "fighting Jason Kenney and standing up to Big Oil" what he means is that he will not back down on a national carbon tax and other environmental measures.
But that just isn't as energizing a message, is it? "Give me a government full of Quebec MPs so that I can work with other provinces to put a national price on carbon" just doesn't inspire the same kind of excitement as "I need your help to fight the bad-guys!"
People can try and rationalize it all they want, but anybody with more than a few brain cells knows that if he'd been on a stage in Alberta instead of a stage in Quebec, he'd have phrased that message in a much, much different way. Justin, who is not a complete retard, is smart enough to understand that.
Perhaps at his next actors' workshop, instead of playing with the costumes he should do some exercises where he imagines that there are a bunch of out-of-work oil workers in the audience. Because each time he talks, there *are* a bunch of out-of-work oil workers in the audience, and he needs to remember that.
I have to say despite what you quoted, people in Ontario don't hate the west. All that we heard here was his anti Doug Ford message. Kenney was mentioned because the conservatives trucked him out here for some reason.
Hate is a strong word, but I feel that there are a lot of misconceptions and stereotypes.
-k
-
Trudeau campaigned around Quebec and Toronto on "fighting Jason Kenney" and "standing up to big oil".
Other than in a carbon tax context, I think this is complete nonsense. The Cons trotted Kenney out to Ontario and made this an "Alberta vs. Canada" campaign. Trudeau literally bought a pipeline to ensure the project wouldn't be abandoned. He could be laying pipe in Alberta himself and Albertans would still despise him.
Alberta is the author of its own alienation problems.
out-of-work oil workers
6.9% unemployment in a down-cycle isn't too bad. Oil is a boom and bust industry... we haven't even seen the bust yet! It's still booming! It's using less workers to dig out just as much oil as a few years ago. That's not due to Trudeau or the Libs, no matter how hard Albertans try to blame him.
-
Do they? Are you going to declare martial law, send in the military and risk a civil war to enforce that? My point is, the fact we are even debating this is insane.
You sure escalate these discussions quickly! Alberta will not leave intact... there are First Nations lands that will not likely be going with Alberta, plus Alberta will owe Canada its share of resources it leaves with.
-
You sure escalate these discussions quickly! Alberta will not leave intact... there are First Nations lands that will not likely be going with Alberta, plus Alberta will owe Canada its share of resources it leaves with.
Glad you are an expert, it makes me feel so much better. On the other hand, most wars start because one side thought the other would be a push over. If push comes to shove, Alberta will only owe what the RoC can take by force.
-
Glad you are an expert, it makes me feel so much better. On the other hand, most wars start because one side thought the other would be a push over. If push comes to shove, Alberta will only owe what the RoC can take by force.
Nonsense. Pure hyperbole. Alberta doesn't have an army... it doesn't have a cohesive population that all hates Canada... what it has is Canada's resources and First Nations' lands, which won't just be given away because some of the population of the province are throwing a tantrum.
-
Glad you are an expert, it makes me feel so much better. On the other hand, most wars start because one side thought the other would be a push over. If push comes to shove, Alberta will only owe what the RoC can take by force.
Alberta would be a bit of a pushover. For starters I don't recall them having a whole lot of saltwater coastline so they would be dependent on foreign powers for imports/exports. I know of a couple of landlocked countries who have seceded from their coastal mother country. Kosovo and South Sudan. How are they doing?
-
If BC manages to obstruct the pipeline, what is the difference? BC would also be isolated from the RoC. An independent Alberta would indeed be able to "turn off the tap".
You haven't consulted a map.... BC is connected to RoC in other ways besides Alberta. Certainly an Alberta in the way might be an inconvenience, but there is a northern route around it. Canada would probably have to build a massive port further north, but that's not an outlandish idea. New railroads through YT and NT. Sounds like a great jobs program for BCers affected by the downturn in logging/mining up north.
-
You haven't consulted a map.... BC is connected to RoC in other ways besides Alberta. Certainly an Alberta in the way might be an inconvenience, but there is a northern route around it. Canada would probably have to build a massive port further north, but that's not an outlandish idea. New railroads through YT and NT. Sounds like a great jobs program for BCers affected by the downturn in logging/mining up north.
Maybe you should consult one yourself. Compared to Seattle, Toronto is over twice as far from Vancouver via the Yukon and NWT, over roads and rail that don't exist, vs the US which has some of the best road and rail connections on the continent in a winter climate that is far more forgiving than Canada's north. The Port of Vancouver would become redundant.
-
Maybe you should consult one yourself. Compared to Seattle, Toronto is over twice as far from Vancouver via the Yukon and NWT, over roads and rail that don't exist, vs the US which has some of the best road and rail connections on the continent in a winter climate that is far more forgiving than Canada's north. The Port of Vancouver would become redundant.
An independent Alberta wouldn't make that any different than now. ::)
So why is there still a port of Vancouver? And why would anyone think that Albertan goods could come from the USA without paying massive amounts of duties? Rednexit people are living in a bizarre fantasy-land where an independent Alberta magically flourishes and those commies in BC would suffer.
-
An independent Alberta wouldn't make that any different than now. ::)
So why is there still a port of Vancouver? And why would anyone think that Albertan goods could come from the USA without paying massive amounts of duties? Rednexit people are living in a bizarre fantasy-land where an independent Alberta magically flourishes and those commies in BC would suffer.
What are you talking about? A: You have obviously never heard of shipping stuff in bond. B. I have never maintained Alberta would flourish, it would be a disaster for everyone.
-
Maybe you should consult one yourself. Compared to Seattle, Toronto is over twice as far from Vancouver via the Yukon and NWT, over roads and rail that don't exist, vs the US which has some of the best road and rail connections on the continent in a winter climate that is far more forgiving than Canada's north. The Port of Vancouver would become redundant.
Not hard to get around Alberta from Vancouver, either fly over it or ship by rail just a little south of it.
-
Not hard to get around Alberta from Vancouver, either fly over it or ship by rail just a little south of it.
The port of Vancouver is going to fly everything or ship it through Washington? Why bother with Vancouver if you are shipping something, just do it out of Seattle or Portland. One less border to cross.
-
The port of Vancouver is going to fly everything or ship it through Washington? Why bother with Vancouver if you are shipping something, just do it out of Seattle or Portland. One less border to cross.
Point being that Alberta would have a lot more to lose than the rest of the country. I guess they could simply continue to give their oil away to the US. Forget fetching those Asian prices.
-
Point being that Alberta would have a lot more to lose than the rest of the country. I guess they could simply continue to give their oil away to the US. Forget fetching those Asian prices.
So I take it you are in favour of the TMX. Nice to know.
-
So I take it you are in favour of the TMX. Nice to know.
Doesn’t matter if Omni is.... Canada bought it! ::)
-
Doesn’t matter if Omni is.... Canada bought it! ::)
And yet BC is still doing everything it can to stop it.
-
I think you and others are the ones who need a grip on reality and stop branding westerners who vote blue as some kind of religious nut cases. Most of the people who turned everything in BC east of Vancouver blue aren't particularly religious and don't like Donald Trump any more than the average Canadian. They are fiscal conservatives who are fairly liberal socially as long as programs aren't sustained by borrowed money. If you think you can win them over or bend them to your will by insulting them, you are mistaken.
I don't know who you're responding to, but it sure as hell isn't me.
-
And yet BC is still doing everything it can to stop it.
Sure. I guess they think it’s in BC’s interests. The BC gov’t mandate isn’t to look out for Alberta’s interests, cuz they sure as hell don’t care about oil spills (for instance) on the BC coast.
-
If Alberta wants to avail themselves of the benefits of a pipeline then probably one of the stupidest things they could do would be to become a landlocked jurisdiction.
This is true, Unless they can't get any pipelines built anyways.
They'd have BC in a bind anyways, blocking them off from the rest of Canada. They'd probably reach a mutually beneficial deal for access.
-
6.9% unemployment in a down-cycle isn't too bad. Oil is a boom and bust industry... we haven't even seen the bust yet! It's still booming! It's using less workers to dig out just as much oil as a few years ago. That's not due to Trudeau or the Libs, no matter how hard Albertans try to blame him.
The oil industry is not booming. Slightly increasing the amount of oil being pumped doesn't matter much when the price of oil has dropped by 40% since 2014. Foreign investment has left Canada and the oil sands in droves because of it.
-
Not hard to get around Alberta from Vancouver, either fly over it or ship by rail just a little south of it.
Same with AB. They could make a deal with the US for coastal access, just like BC could make a deal.
-
1. The Prime Minister is not a Premier. His role is not the same as that of Francois Legault and Jason Kenney.
2. People see the federal government handle financial trouble at Bombardier, or legal trouble at SNC-Lavalin, or layoffs at GM Oshawa, like they're national emergencies of the highest order, and they wonder "we're losing way more jobs out here, and those guys aren't doing anything!" People see the level of effort the government has put into comparatively minor issues in Ontario and Quebec, and wonder why we don't get the same level of effort.
-k
1. I was talking about the Premiers. Quebec though has actually tried to separate. Kenney has to deal with the separatism he stoked.
2. Trudeau BOUGHT A PIPELINE
-
Same with AB. They could make a deal with the US for coastal access, just like BC could make a deal.
Of course. If BC wanted access to the RoC through Alberta, you know what the price would be. Parts of B.C. like the East Kootenays and Peace have more in common with Alberta than the rest of BC anyway so there is no guaranty BC would stay intact. And if Saskatchewan joined the party.
I don’t think western separation is going anywhere soon but at the rate this country is fracturing itself, one day it will. Countries that are separated geographically don’t have a great track record. Eventually they go their own way.
-
Same with AB. They could make a deal with the US for coastal access, just like BC could make a deal.
And part of the "deal" would very likely include the continuation of sales to the US at the current bargain basement prices.
-
And part of the "deal" would very likely include the continuation of sales to the US at the current bargain basement prices.
So within Canada or without, what is the difference except they no longer pay out 20 billion in equalization?
-
So within Canada or without, what is the difference except they no longer pay out 20 billion in equalization?
Well if they opt out they can use that 20 billion, and a lot more, for the infrastructure they will need to create.
And if Kenney is so worried about it why didn't he do something about back in '09 when he was a cabinet minister in the Harper govt. when the equalization process was last adjusted.
-
Well if they opt out they can use that 20 billion, and a lot more, for the infrastructure they will need to create.
And if Kenney is so worried about it why didn't he do something about back in '09 when he was a cabinet minister in the Harper govt. when the equalization process was last adjusted.
Because he was a cabinet minister in a national government, not a premier of a province.
-
Because he was a cabinet minister in a national government, not a premier of a province.
Which is exactly the point.
-
Which is exactly the point.
Sure it is, being a minister in a national government means catering to population centres to stay in power (see Quebec). Kenny doesn't answer to Quebec or Ontario anymore. If Quebec can maneuver itself into a more independent position in Confederation, why can't Alberta or any other province?
-
So within Canada or without, what is the difference except they no longer pay out 20 billion in equalization?
They can use that money for military... national parks (if they keep any parks)... First Nations’ programs (assuming we let them keep First Nations’ lands)... a postal system... foreign affairs... foreign aid (haha... as if they’ll contribute)...
Good luck Alberta... and nest wishes when the oil runs out... we might let you re-join as a have-not province.
-
1. I was talking about the Premiers. Quebec though has actually tried to separate. Kenney has to deal with the separatism he stoked.
Kenney didn't just conjure this sentiment out of thin air. That's a misconception. People elsewhere seem to think it's just something politicians can create. It isn't. It's a long-standing feeling that goes back much longer than Justin Trudeau, longer than Pierre Trudeau, even. Kenney may have capitalized on it, but he didn't create it.
And the stuff he's talking about right now-- public forums on confederation, a referendum on equalization, these are actually pretty benign ways of letting people blow off steam.
2. Trudeau BOUGHT A PIPELINE
It's not just the pipeline. Alberta's energy sector was hemorrhaging jobs long before the TMX approval got overturned, and it didn't even rate a shrug in Ottawa. 2500 jobs at the GM plant in Oshawa? An all hands on deck emergency for the federal government. 5000 energy jobs every month in Alberta? "We share your pain," and other smarmy platitudes.
Also, people keep talking about the purchase of the pipeline as if it was some grand gesture of magnanimity. The truth is, they had little choice. Imagine the alternative. Imagine they just let the project die as Kinder-Morgan walked away from it. How does that play out?
First, obviously the rage in Alberta would be beyond reckoning. The Liberals essentially closed off every other possibility for a pipeline and put all their eggs in the TMX basket. To see the Liberals shrug their shoulders as that too died from regulation would have been catastrophic from a unity standpoint. It would probably have been the point of no turning back as far as healing the rift between Alberta and Ottawa. People would be vandalizing government buildings and booing the national anthem at hockey games type angry.
But from a more tangible perspective than anger and hurt feelings, consider the message sent to investors: basically "you can't get anything built in Canada." If activists can just keep filing lawsuits and challenges and appeals to keep your project perpetually stalled, why would you bother? Investors have already been chilled by the approval process, and Bill C-69 doesn't do anything to reassure them (the opposite, in fact). Somebody (probably Morneau) must have explained to Trudeau that letting TMX just die from 1000 legal papercuts would have had bad consequences for investment in projects all across Canada.
Kinder-Morgan spent somewhere in the range of a billion dollars on getting TMX built before the construction even started. Who would invest a billion dollars in a Canadian project after seeing the legal shenanigans they had to go through? Presumably if they'd been forced to walk away, they could have recovered some of their money in a settlement with the current BC government for breaking the agreement that the previous BC government had made. But even so, tying up a billion dollars in a project that might never see the light of day would be a dumb investment and provided a terrible example for any other company considering doing anything in Canada.
So I really don't accept "we bought the damned pipeline!" as evidence of the Liberals being sensitive to Alberta's issues. First off, it came late in the game and they didn't do much before then. Second, they only did it when they were presented with an alternative that would have been disastrous. Let's not give them too much credit for buying the pipeline.
-k
-
They can use that money for military... national parks (if they keep any parks)... First Nations’ programs (assuming we let them keep First Nations’ lands)... a postal system... foreign affairs... foreign aid (haha... as if they’ll contribute)...
Good luck Alberta... and nest wishes when the oil runs out... we might let you re-join as a have-not province.
\
They could do what they want with it. Why would they need a military? They might do a better job of dealing with FN. Why do you think it will be "we" who dictates what happens with FN? You make a lot of assumptions.
-
Let's not forget Alberta's share of the national debt they owe the RoC.
-
And the stuff he's talking about right now-- public forums on confederation, a referendum on equalization, these are actually pretty benign ways of letting people blow off steam.
A smart move as well, he is putting it at arms length while he can concentrate on doing real business.
-
2500 jobs at the GM plant in Oshawa? An all hands on deck emergency for the federal government. 5000 energy jobs every month in Alberta? "We share your pain," and other smarmy platitudes.
Those 2500 jobs are at a single plant, there are many times more that downstream. You are not making an apples to apples comparison, not by a country mile.
-
Let's not forget Alberta's share of the national debt they owe the RoC.
What share, they have been paying the equivalent of 2/3 of the interest on the debt for the last 30 years.
-
Those 2500 jobs are at a single plant, there are many times more that downstream. You are not making an apples to apples comparison, not by a country mile.
Actually she is, you don't think there are any downstream jobs in the energy industry?
-
They can use that money for military... national parks (if they keep any parks)... First Nations’ programs (assuming we let them keep First Nations’ lands)... a postal system... foreign affairs... foreign aid (haha... as if they’ll contribute)...
Good luck Alberta... and nest wishes when the oil runs out... we might let you re-join as a have-not province.
I can easily see First Nations saying "up yours, we're staying in Canada". And we're keeping the oil that's on our land under IOGC.
-
Those 2500 jobs are at a single plant, there are many times more that downstream. You are not making an apples to apples comparison, not by a country mile.
I don't propose that the jobs in Oshawa aren't a big deal, I point out that we never saw comparable concern to the huge numbers of jobs being lost in Alberta.
-k
-
1. Kenney didn't just conjure this sentiment out of thin air. That's a misconception. People elsewhere seem to think it's just something politicians can create. It isn't. It's a long-standing feeling that goes back much longer than Justin Trudeau, longer than Pierre Trudeau, even. Kenney may have capitalized on it, but he didn't create it.
2. Also, people keep talking about the purchase of the pipeline as if it was some grand gesture of magnanimity. The truth is, they had little choice.
3. So I really don't accept "we bought the damned pipeline!" as evidence of the Liberals being sensitive to Alberta's issues.
1. Go back to my metaphor "stoke". You stoke glowing embers into a small fire...
2. No - I bring it up only when people post that Trudeau doesn't care, Trudeau wants to shut the pipeline down, etc.
3. Yet you made the case that they had to do it so some degress of sensitivity is there. They're certainly not oblivious or they would have accepted all the ramifications you imagined.
-
I can easily see First Nations saying "up yours, we're staying in Canada". And we're keeping the oil that's on our land under IOGC.
Depends on what Alberta has to offer.
-
1. Go back to my metaphor "stoke". You stoke glowing embers into a small fire...
2. No - I bring it up only when people post that Trudeau doesn't care, Trudeau wants to shut the pipeline down, etc.
3. Yet you made the case that they had to do it so some degress of sensitivity is there. They're certainly not oblivious or they would have accepted all the ramifications you imagined.
Trudeau has already been complicit in making sure two other lines can't happen, Energy East and the north coast tanker ban. You can't blame them for being suspicious. I think he is serious about TMX but he has to prove it by completing it.
-
Depends on what Alberta has to offer.
I can't see how remaining part of an isolated, landlocked community would be much of an offer.
-
I can't see how remaining part of an isolated, landlocked community would be much of an offer.
Who knows what would happen, we have never been there before. These things rarely turn out the way you thought they would.
-
Who knows what would happen, we have never been there before. These things rarely turn out the way you thought they would.
And I don't think we are going to be dumb enough to go there anytime soon. Even Jason says so.
-
And I don't think we are going to be dumb enough to go there anytime soon. Even Jason says so.
Jason isn't saying we are but make no mistake, this is real.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/a-deep-deep-hurt-business-leaders-weigh-in-on-western-alienation-1.1337066
-
It's not just the pipeline. Alberta's energy sector was hemorrhaging jobs long before the TMX approval got overturned, and it didn't even rate a shrug in Ottawa. 2500 jobs at the GM plant in Oshawa? An all hands on deck emergency for the federal government. 5000 energy jobs every month in Alberta? "We share your pain," and other smarmy platitudes.
Of course we actually know that Trudeau extended EI benefits more than once at a price of over $1.3B and also had a rescue package for the Alberta oil and gas industry costing in the range of $1.6B - but keep spreading misinformation.
Edit - there are also yearly subsidies in the range of $3.3B to fossil fuel industries and the maximum payout from the fiscal stabilization fund that was $250M.
-
Jason isn't saying we are but make no mistake, this is real.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/a-deep-deep-hurt-business-leaders-weigh-in-on-western-alienation-1.1337066
No, it's not real. It's a bunch of whiny babies that don't know why they're mad.
-
Here's the thing though - climate change is real. Alberta has to deal with that reality. In a decade, their oil will get them next to nowhere.
-
I don't propose that the jobs in Oshawa aren't a big deal, I point out that we never saw comparable concern to the huge numbers of jobs being lost in Alberta.
-k
Bull. They bought a pipeline to save Alberta jobs. We hear about it all the time. You have a severely distorted view of the issue. You seem to have bought in to the propaganda.
-
No, it's not real. It's a bunch of whiny babies that don't know why they're mad.
Ya, that attitude will convince them they are wrong. Count on it.
-
Ya, that attitude will convince them they are wrong. Count on it.
Who cares... don’t kowtow to a bunch of BS lies.
-
Who cares... don’t kowtow to a bunch of BS lies.
Ya, insulting people is always effective. Only if you want the same in kind.
-
One thing I am sure of, if this keeps up the state of confederation will change, I just don't know how. Ever province entered confederation voluntarily, they are no one's colony.
-
One thing I am sure of, if this keeps up the state of confederation will change, I just don't know how. Ever province entered confederation voluntarily, they are no one's colony.
In fact that's not true - Alberta and Saskatchewan were created by acts of parliament. They didn't exist separately from Canada.
-
In fact that's not true - Alberta and Saskatchewan were created by acts of parliament. They didn't exist separately from Canada.
So you are saying is there are first and second class provinces.
-
No, it's not real. It's a bunch of whiny babies that don't know why they're mad.
I mean i think you're right in that they don't know why they're mad, they're just really frustrated. They don't like Trudeau for ideological reasons but he isn't their enemy. He isn't always on their side but he's made an effort.
-
So you are saying is there are first and second class provinces.
I'm saying that what you said was factually incorrect.
-
I'm saying that what you said was factually incorrect.
So what?
-
I mean i think you're right in that they don't know why they're mad, they're just really frustrated. They don't like Trudeau for ideological reasons but he isn't their enemy. He isn't always on their side but he's made an effort.
Don’t kid yourself, they know why.
-
So what?
So then the point you were trying to make is moot...
-
So then the point you were trying to make is moot...
What, that every province is equal? That point?
-
What, that every province is equal? That point?
You said that every province joined confederation of their own free will - that's simply not true.
-
You said that every province joined confederation of their own free will - that's simply not true.
Well if Alberta and Saskatchewan aren't there of their own free will, they should be free to leave.
-
Well if Alberta and Saskatchewan aren't there of their own free will, they should be free to leave.
Like I said - they can go. It'll definitely cut down on the whining withing confederation. Poor me, I have too much money - wah.
-
Like I said - they can go. It'll definitely cut down on the whining withing confederation. Poor me, I have too much money - wah.
Question for you. How do you react when you have a concern or grievance and you are ignored and called a whiner? I mean, the suicide rate in Alberta is only up 30%. The wimps.
-
Don’t kid yourself, they know why.
I think there's a lot of reasons. I also think there's a lot of reasons they don't like Trudeau, some having nothing to do with pipelines.
-
I think there's a lot of reasons. I also think there's a lot of reasons they don't like Trudeau, some having nothing to do with pipelines.
There are and Trudeau doesn't have his name going for him out west.
I think he is trying but he hasn't been above playing off one part of the country against another.
Hopefully he will have learned something, his father never did.
-
Question for you. How do you react when you have a concern or grievance and you are ignored and called a whiner? I mean, the suicide rate in Alberta is only up 30%. The wimps.
You realize that their economy is still stronger than anyone else's in Canada? What kind of remedy is it you think I need to provide?
-
You realize that their economy is still stronger than anyone else's in Canada? What kind of remedy is it you think I need to provide?
It is? What do you base that on?
-
Maybe instead of calling provinces like QC and AB whiners and telling them to go eff themselves we can listen and try to put ourselves in their shoes. How would we feel if we were an Alberta oil worker?
-
You realize that their economy is still stronger than anyone else's in Canada? What kind of remedy is it you think I need to provide?
Maybe you don't personally need to provide a remedy and if so, maybe you shouldn't make the problem worse by insulting people for no reason.
-
It is? What do you base that on?
Per capita GDP - Alberta is the wealthiest jurisdiction in the western hemisphere, has the highest employment rate in Canada, and has far from the highest unemployment rate.
-
Maybe you don't personally need to provide a remedy and if so, maybe you shouldn't make the problem worse by insulting people for no reason.
No reason? They're trying to break up the country over their perceived grievances. At this point, I don't really care how they feel.
-
Per capita GDP - Alberta is the wealthiest jurisdiction in the western hemisphere, has the highest employment rate in Canada, and has far from the highest unemployment rate.
Actually Alberta's September unemployment rate was 6.6% vs the national rate of 5.5%
Manitoba receives 2 billion in equalization every year, it doesn't come from the tooth fairy. Between 2007 and 2015, Alberta sent 251 billion more to Ottawa than it received in return, without it the deficit would have been double. You would think Canadians would be happy to see a strong Alberta economy instead of calling them names.
-
Actually Alberta's September unemployment rate was 6.6% vs the national rate of 5.5%
I said employment rate:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410028703
And 6.6% isn't an unreasonably high unemployment rate.
Manitoba receives 2 billion in equalization every year, it doesn't come from the tooth fairy. Between 2007 and 2015, Alberta sent 251 billion more to Ottawa than it received in return, without it the deficit would have been double. You would think Canadians would be happy to see a strong Alberta economy instead of calling them names.
I've told you this before - I'd happily pay higher taxes if it meant having a planet to live on. No one is trying to shut down Alberta's economy. What we're saying is that it's time to get off of oil and gas, as reasonably fast as we can. Alberta has to deal with that reality.
-
I said employment rate:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410028703
And 6.6% isn't an unreasonably high unemployment rate.
It's 1.1% lower than the national average, not the lowest in the country.
I've told you this before - I'd happily pay higher taxes if it meant having a planet to live on. No one is trying to shut down Alberta's economy. What we're saying is that it's time to get off of oil and gas, as reasonably fast as we can. Alberta has to deal with that reality.
You get off the gas and tell us how it works out. Meanwhile, pay your own way.
This country can't even balance a budget, even with Alberta's 20 billion a year.
-
It's 1.1% lower than the national average, not the lowest in the country.
I'll say it again - Alberta has the highest EMPLOYMENT rate in Canada.
You get off the gas and tell us how it works out. Meanwhile, pay your own way.
We all need to get off of fossil fuels - hence the carbon plans put forward by almost all of the major parties. This is happening whether people choose to be ignorant of it or not.
-
I'll say it again - Alberta has the highest EMPLOYMENT rate in Canada.
A 6.6% unemployment rate means 93.4% of the work force are employed. A 5.5% unemployment rate means 94.5% are employed.
-
I've told you this before - I'd happily pay higher taxes if it meant having a planet to live on. No one is trying to shut down Alberta's economy. What we're saying is that it's time to get off of oil and gas, as reasonably fast as we can.
Then let's all buy hybrids and EVs and stop traveling in planes until there's EV planes etc before trying to stifle ABs oil and pipeline building. Stifling AB oil is not going to reduce the demand in Canada or worldwide for oil, it's putting the horse before the cart. A lot of people want to help CC but want Alberta workers to pay the price while they don't put their money where their mouth is.
Greta Thunberg traveled to AB to preach and look at glaciers, meanwhile spewing gas in the airplane she traveled in order to fly halfway around the world. We need to practice what we preach before pooping on others.
-
It’s time some of the tone deaf Alberta haters understood that like it or not, the whole country depends on this industry. For the first time in its history it has even turned Newfoundland into a have province and contributor to equalization. This country can’t balance a budget even with the net 20B Alberta sends to Ottawa, what the heck is it going to do without it.
-
A 6.6% unemployment rate means 93.4% of the work force are employed. A 5.5% unemployment rate means 94.5% are employed.
You have no idea what you're talking about - I provided the link for you to the Stats Can tables several posts ago.
-
It’s time some of the tone deaf Alberta haters understood that like it or not, the whole country depends on this industry.
No, no it doesn't. It's actually likely the case (borne out by evidence) that Alberta's boom was causing Dutch disease in Central Canada. Now we see Ontario and Quebec with economies that are doing very well.
No Canadian province is poor - they're just less rich than Alberta. Canada would be fine without Alberta. In 10 years, I'm not sure I'd say the same of Alberta without Canada.
-
Poor, poor, Alberta:
https://twitter.com/gtlem/status/1188519800932315136?s=20
-
No, no it doesn't. It's actually likely the case (borne out by evidence) that Alberta's boom was causing Dutch disease in Central Canada. Now we see Ontario and Quebec with economies that are doing very well.
No Canadian province is poor - they're just less rich than Alberta. Canada would be fine without Alberta. In 10 years, I'm not sure I'd say the same of Alberta without Canada.
They are 20B a year poorer without Alberta.
Manitoba received 2 billion in equalization last year, about the same amount as Newfoundland contributed. Because of oil.
Quebec receives more in equalization (13 billion) than any other province. Ontario is posting a 7.4 billion deficit this year.
Aside from fact we need fossil fuels to run our economy and the billions in equalization the industry provides, governments collect more than 30 billion in fuel taxes plus a around 1.5 billion in GST on those taxes. B.C. and Quebec collect around 4 billion in carbon taxes. If you got rid of fossil fuels tomorrow, not only would the country grind to a halt but governments would be in a revenue hole so deep they wouldn't be able to see the top.
These are realities that will have to be dealt with.
-
They are 20B a year poorer without Alberta.
So we bring Canada's taxes up to the OECD average.
Manitoba received 2 billion in equalization last year, about the same amount as Newfoundland contributed. Because of oil.
And without Alberta, the formula would readjust, and we'd get less - oh well.
Quebec receives more in equalization (13 billion) than any other province. Ontario is posting a 7.4 billion deficit this year.
A ) Quebec gets the least equalization per capita - it would actually have very little effect on them.
B ) Ontario's deficit has nothing to do with equalization - Ontario has been a net contributor every year since 1867. They have carried Canada. I don't hear them bitching about it.
Aside from fact we need fossil fuels to run our economy and the billions in equalization the industry provides, governments collect more than 30 billion in fuel taxes plus a around 1.5 billion in GST on those taxes. B.C. and Quebec collect around 4 billion in carbon taxes. If you got rid of fossil fuels tomorrow, not only would the country grind to a halt but governments would be in a revenue hole so deep they wouldn't be able to see the top.
No one is saying we need to get off of oil tomorrow - but we need to work towards it quickly over the next 10 - 20 years. That means not expanding oilsands capacity.
-
So we bring Canada's taxes up to the OECD average.
And without Alberta, the formula would readjust, and we'd get less - oh well.
A ) Quebec gets the least equalization per capita - it would actually have very little effect on them.
Yes it would. Alberta wouldn't then be paying for Quebec's $7 day care, it would have to find the money itself.
If it would have very little effect on Quebec, why do they need it?
B ) Ontario's deficit has nothing to do with equalization - Ontario has been a net contributor every year since 1867. They have carried Canada. I don't hear them bitching about it.
Then maybe Ontario shouldn't be paying into equalization, maybe they could then balance their budget.
No one is saying we need to get off of oil tomorrow - but we need to work towards it quickly over the next 10 - 20 years. That means not expanding oilsands capacity.
Tomorrow, 10-20 years, the issues that need to be addressed won't change.
If world demand isn't there, oil sands capacity will look after itself. If world demand is there, someone will meet it and it might as well be us who profits from it.
-
Then maybe Ontario shouldn't be paying into equalization, maybe they could then balance their budget.
The provincial budget has absolutely nothing to do with federal revenue.
-
The provincial budget has absolutely nothing to do with federal revenue.
It does in that those are revenues generated in that province that could be remaining in that province.
-
in 2019/20 Quebec will receive equalization equal to 15.6% of provincially sourced revenue. It just got a 1.4B raise. You don't think that makes a difference?
Other provinces.
Manitoba 18.2%
Nova Scotia 26.2%
New Brunswick 35.3%
PEI 39.2%
Ontario did receive in 2018 but it was less than 1%. They are back to zero this year. Since 2012 its contributions have been around 3 billion, much less than Alberta.
-
Ontario did receive in 2018 but it was less than 1%. They are back to zero this year. Since 2012 its contributions have been around 3 billion, much less than Alberta.
Look, before we continue this discussion, I think it would be important for you to actually understand what you're talking about. A province (Ontario in this case) can receive equalization and be a net contributor. This is so because equalization comes from federal revenue, and has nothing to do with provincial revenues or budgets. No province pays into equalization. Ontario has been a net contributor every single year of confederation. Read, that's all I can tell you:
https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/olivers-flawed-facts-ontario-a-net-contributor-to-canada-ottawas-assertions-notwithstanding
-
Ontario did receive in 2018 but it was less than 1%. They are back to zero this year. Since 2012 its contributions have been around 3 billion, much less than Alberta.
Ontario has always contributed more than Alberta, even in the couple of years it got back a very thin slice. The $20 billion lie you continue to repeat has never been true, and repeating it does not make it true.
-
No one is saying we need to get off of oil tomorrow - but we need to work towards it quickly over the next 10 - 20 years. That means not expanding oilsands capacity.
Trying to tinker a little bit with global supply of oil isn't going to get us off oil. There will always be oil out there to put in our tanks. Feebly trying to reduce supply is not the answer, trying to reduce demand for oil is the answer. This means transitioning off internal combustion engines. Carbon taxes are also a means of trying to reduce demand, which can work as long as there's viable alternatives to using carbon-producing technology. The oilsands and Saudi oilfields will begin pumping less when people buy less oil.
Furthermore, the feds trying to force AB to not expand their oilsands isn't going to work. They won't listen, while pissing them off at the same time.
-
Trying to tinker a little bit with global supply of oil isn't going to get us off oil. There will always be oil out there to put in our tanks. Feebly trying to reduce supply is not the answer, trying to reduce demand for oil is the answer.
We're talking about the dirtiest most polluting oil on the planet. We're talking about the oil that's hardest to refine. We're talking about pipelines through rain forests. TMX can go ahead. Line 3 and KXL can go ahead. That's it. No more.
-
Look, before we continue this discussion, I think it would be important for you to actually understand what you're talking about. A province (Ontario in this case) can receive equalization and be a net contributor. This is so because equalization comes from federal revenue, and has nothing to do with provincial revenues or budgets. No province pays into equalization. Ontario has been a net contributor every single year of confederation. Read, that's all I can tell you:
https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/olivers-flawed-facts-ontario-a-net-contributor-to-canada-ottawas-assertions-notwithstanding
Equalization is the difference between federal revenues collected from a province and revenues returned to that province. Alberta gets back 20 billion less in federal revenues collected and Quebec gets 13 billion more. No one disputes that Ontario has been a net contributor. BC was also a recipient for a short period.
Did you read Oliver's response at the bottom? Federal spending in a province can add a lot more than just transfers.
-
Trying to tinker a little bit with global supply of oil isn't going to get us off oil. There will always be oil out there to put in our tanks. Feebly trying to reduce supply is not the answer, trying to reduce demand for oil is the answer. This means transitioning off internal combustion engines. Carbon taxes are also a means of trying to reduce demand, which can work as long as there's viable alternatives to using carbon-producing technology. The oilsands and Saudi oilfields will begin pumping less when people buy less oil.
Furthermore, the feds trying to force AB to not expand their oilsands isn't going to work. They won't listen, while pissing them of, at the same time.
Well according to this little company known as British Petroleum, (who do seem to have some knowledge of, um...petroleum,) there won't always be oil to put in our tanks. and that it will run out in about 48 years from now. Working toward those alternatives might be a good plan.
-
Equalization is the difference between federal revenues collected from a province and revenues returned to that province.
No it isn't - you have no idea what you're talking about and you refuse to learn.
-
We're talking about the dirtiest most polluting oil on the planet. We're talking about the oil that's hardest to refine. We're talking about pipelines through rain forests. TMX can go ahead. Line 3 and KXL can go ahead. That's it. No more.
It's not the dirtiest most polluting but it is high on the scale.
The TMX doesn't go through rain forest and the current line has been there for 60 years. I live less than 5K from it, between where it branches off to Burnaby and Washington state.
If you want change, it has to be in consumption. Supply will follow consumption. If we think we can change the world but shutting down the oil sands, we are dreaming.
-
It's not the dirtiest most polluting but it is high on the scale.
The TMX doesn't go through rain forest and the current line has been there for 60 years. I live less than 5K from it, between where it branches off to Burnaby and Washington state.
Did you not see where I said TMX can go ahead, and that's it.
-
No it isn't - you have no idea what you're talking about and you refuse to learn.
Yes it is, I just gave you the numbers on what percentage of provincial revenues came from equalization. Federal government spending is another issue. It will tend to spend the most where the votes are.
-
Did you not see where I said TMX can go ahead, and that's it.
Thank you God. It's coming right through my neighbourhood, not yours.
-
Thank you God.
You mean Trudeau.....
-
Yes it is, I just gave you the numbers on what percentage of provincial revenues came from equalization. Federal government spending is another issue. It will tend to spend the most where the votes are.
Equalization is federal government spending. You're not willing to learn anything here.
-
You mean Trudeau.....
Trudeau had little choice. I don't know that I thank him for ensuring the TMX is the only possible route for a pipeline in Canada.
-
Trudeau had little choice. I don't know that I thank him for ensuring the TMX is the only possible route for a pipeline in Canada.
Trudeau could have let it die with no political cost - in fact not letting it die cost him many seats in BC.
-
Equalization is federal government spending. You're not willing to learn anything here.
One day you will learn where money comes from, not just how to spend it.
-
I live less than 5K from it, between where it branches off to Burnaby and Washington state.
Burnaby? Wasn't there a huge spill there from the pipeline about a decade ago?
-
Trudeau could have let it die with no political cost - in fact not letting it die cost him many seats in BC.
Sure he could, then western separation would have been a very real concern, not just something for us to bicker about.
-
Sure he could, then western separation would have been a very real concern, not just something for us to bicker about.
I thought you told me it was a real concern?
That's the rub here - Trudeau has went out of his way to help Alberta, and what has it gotten him? Not to mention Saskatchewan - a province that just over a decade ago was have not and is still a net recipient - their attitudes are disgusting.
-
Burnaby? Wasn't there a huge spill there from the pipeline about a decade ago?
The pipe didn't fail, an excavator working on a sewer line knocked a hole in it.
-
The pipe didn't fail, an excavator working on a sewer line knocked a hole in it.
True, but that illustrates the very real danger with pipelines. There needs to be much stricter regulation around them so that these types of accidents don't happen.
-
I thought you told me it was a real concern?
That's the rub here - Trudeau has went out of his way to help Alberta, and what has it gotten him? Not to mention Saskatchewan - a province that just over a decade ago was have not and is still a net recipient - their attitudes are disgusting.
I don't think it is a real concern right now but it sure will if the Feds don't do everything they can to put this thing through. I think JT knows that and he will. The energy industry represents over 10% of this country's GDP and over 20% of its exports. He isn't just doing it for Alberta and Saskatchewan. BTW, why is NFLD doing so well? One reason is they have access to world markets for their oil.
Saskatchewan is a contributor, when is Manitoba going to start?
-
True, but that illustrates the very real danger with pipelines. There needs to be much stricter regulation around them so that these types of accidents don't happen.
You won't get an argument from me but BC would be on its knees within a week without that pipeline.
-
You won't get an argument from me but BC would be on its knees within a week without that pipeline.
Actually real estate contributes more to BC's economy than oil and gas does to Alberta's.
-
The energy industry represents over 10% of this country's GDP and over 20% of its exports.
Actually it is slightly under 10%, and that include oil&gas extraction and pipelines, coal mining, uranium mining, and electric power generation and distribution.
-
Equalization is federal government spending. You're not willing to learn anything here.
It's both. Federal gov gives money to the provinces to spend however they want. Do equalization payments not show up in provincial revenue streams come time for their budgets? I would think they do.
-
Do equalization payments not show up in provincial revenue streams come time for their budgets?
Yes, they are provincial revenues. They are not however provincial expenses.
-
It's both. Federal gov gives money to the provinces to spend however they want. Do equalization payments not show up in provincial revenue streams come time for their budgets? I would think they do.
It's not both - for the provinces it's general revenue. For the feds, it's a transfer to the provinces. It's federal spending.
-
It's not both - for the provinces it's general revenue. For the feds, it's a transfer to the provinces. It's federal spending.
It's revenue from provinces.
-
It's revenue from provinces.
No, it's revenue from taxpayers:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/equalization-payments-frequent-questions-answers-1.3862482
-
It's revenue from provinces.
Huh?
-
The energy industry represents over 10% of this country's GDP
Oil and gas portion of GDP is only half of that of the entire energy industry, and about 5% or less of Canada's GDP.
-
Saskatchewan is a contributor, when is Manitoba going to start?
That’s actually not the case.
-
Squid, you don't think BC would be on its knees without that pipe. BC only refines 40% of what it needs and 90% of that oil from that comes through that pipe. The rest is refined product coming from Alberta, through that pipe. A bit comes from Washington refineries but 150,000 barrels of crude a day are going to those same WA refineries, through that pipe.
Maybe not so dumb.
-
No, it's revenue from taxpayers:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/equalization-payments-frequent-questions-answers-1.3862482
Yes revenue from taxpayers in some provinces is being given to other provinces. Do you think Quebec could have the cheapest day care and university tuition in the country if over 15% of their tax revenues weren't coming from the people of other provinces?
-
Yes revenue from taxpayers in some provinces is being given to other provinces.
No - no it's not.
-
No - no it's not.
Of course it is. For crying out loud.
Own source of revenues per capita/Equalization per capita/Equalization plus own source revenues
BC 9118/0/9118
Alta 8890/0/8890
Sask 8682/0/8682
Man 8242/1328/9570
Ont 9115/0/9115
Que 9883/1206/11089
NB 7296/2259/9555
NS 7976/1822/9798
PEI 6892/2573/9465
NFL 10752/0/10752
Except for NFL, every province receiving equalization has total per capita tax revenues greater than those not receiving it. Where do you think those revenues are coming from?
-
Squid, you don't think BC would be on its knees without that pipe. BC only refines 40% of what it needs and 90% of that oil from that comes through that pipe. The rest is refined product coming from Alberta, through that pipe. A bit comes from Washington refineries but 150,000 barrels of crude a day are going to those same WA refineries, through that pipe.
Maybe not so dumb.
BC refugees would certainly be flooding into Alberta begging for food and shelter... but especially for oil. At least, that's the Alberta fantasy.
But I prefer to deal in reality.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/could-alberta-bring-b-c-to-its-knees-by-shutting-off-the-oil
Very quickly, most of B.C. wouldn’t notice
It’s very hard to blockade a place with a port. B.C. can import refined products from as far away as China. Meanwhile, there are plenty of Washington State refineries ready to start sending gasoline over the border in a moment’s notice. All of these methods would be a few cents’ more expensive than the Trans Mountain pipeline, but given the volatile pricing of a product like gasoline, it’s unlikely that it would be particularly noticeable at the pump. At any one time, B.C. also has a fair amount of stored petroleum. The Trans Mountain Pipeline is unique in its ability to carry multiple petroleum products at once. At any one time, the pipeline can contain a rainbow of crude oil, jet fuel and diesel. This means that B.C. terminals all maintain large gasoline storage tanks to tide them over while the pipeline is moving crude. In a sudden shutdown Vancouver already has enough gasoline and jet fuel on hand to keep cars on the road and planes in the air until American supplies can plug the gap.
-----------------------------------------------
The economic blowback on Alberta would be devastating
By almost any measure, shutting down the Trans Mountain pipeline would utterly blow up in Alberta’s face. For one thing, the province would be cutting off a major buyer for its oil; as much as one third of Alberta oil production makes it to market through the Trans Mountain pipeline. And again, it’s not like Alberta would be plunging B.C. into a Mad Max-style dystopia of fuel scarcity. “It’s pretty hard to hold someone hostage … when they have a port,” said Andrew Leach, a resource economist at the University of Alberta. By contrast, he said “its’ really easy for B.C. to hold us hostage.” Shutting down a pipeline is also wildly unfriendly to investment. Canada has long been a preferred market for oil investment for the simple reason that our governments don’t do impulsive things like blockading infrastructure in order to annoy a neighbouring government.
The courts have already handed Alberta an injunction against the "turn off the taps" nonsense.
And the courts have indicated that punishing another province isn't permissible.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4155380/supreme-court-beer-ruling-alberta-pipeline-dispute/
But the part of its decision that talks about punitive trade barriers could likely be interpreted to apply to Alberta’s recent threat to restrict oil and fuel shipments to B.C. and its previous short-lived restriction on buying B.C. wine, he said, both designed to pressure B.C. into dropping its opposition to the pipeline.
“It certainly would limit the short-lived wine ban that Alberta instituted,” said Anglin. “It could potentially limit its ability to restrict the flow of oil. It’s certainly possible.”
Language in the decision suggests the court was thinking about the Trans Mountain dispute, said Shea Coulson, a lawyer who represented five B.C. wineries as interveners in the Comeau case.
“I think the judgement goes directly to those sorts of issues,” he said in an interview. “And they’re probably unconstitutional. That’s my view.”
-
Of course it is. For crying out loud.
EQUALIZATION DOESN'T COME FROM PROVINCIAL TAX REVENUE.
-
EQUALIZATION DOESN'T COME FROM PROVINCIAL TAX REVENUE.
No it comes from the **** taxpayers of the contributing provinces.
Who the hell do you think pays for the equalization Manitoba gets? The revenue that gives you 1328 per capita more than you pay into the system. The revenue that gives you more tax revenue that BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan or Ontario.
-
No it comes from the **** taxpayers of the contributing provinces.
No, it doesn't - it comes from all taxpayers, no matter where they may live. The more you make, the more you pay. That means it's a transfer from wealthy Canadians to provincial governments, if you want to simplify it. There are only three net contributing provinces - Alberta, BC, and Ontario. The rest are all net recipients, Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan included.
-
Of course it is. For crying out loud.
Own source of revenues per capita/Equalization per capita/Equalization plus own source revenues
BC 9118/0/9118
Alta 8890/0/8890
Sask 8682/0/8682
Man 8242/1328/9570
Ont 9115/0/9115
Que 9883/1206/11089
NB 7296/2259/9555
NS 7976/1822/9798
PEI 6892/2573/9465
NFL 10752/0/10752
Except for NFL, every province receiving equalization has total per capita tax revenues greater than those not receiving it. Where do you think those revenues are coming from?
Wilber ... if you are referring to "own source" provincial revenues, then you are totally wrong.
Equalization comes from federal general revenues.
Federal general revenues come from federal income taxes, from each person directly to Ottawa.
-
Wilber ... if you are referring to "own source" provincial revenues, then you are totally wrong.
Equalization comes from federal general revenues.
Federal general revenues come from federal income taxes, from each person directly to Ottawa.
Where the hell do you think federal revenues come from?
I can't believe how financially thick people are. It's no dam wonder this country has a personal debt problem
-
Where the hell do you think federal revenues come from?
From individual taxpayers - where do you think that they come from?
-
BC refugees would certainly be flooding into Alberta begging for food and shelter... but especially for oil. At least, that's the Alberta fantasy.
But I prefer to deal in reality.
So do I. That article conveniently omits the fact half the pipeline capacity (150,000 barrels per day) goes to those American refineries so they wouldn't be supplying BC with anything if that line was cut. I'm not talking about turning off the tap, I'm saying that having that line totally shut down for any reason would be a disaster for BC.
-
From individual taxpayers - where do you think that they come from?
Yes and you get 1328 per capita paid by taxpayers of provinces who get nothing in return for their province.
-
Yes and you get 1328 per capita paid by taxpayers of provinces who get nothing in return for their province.
No, that isn't how it works. You keep saying that, but it isn't remotely true.
-
Where the hell do you think federal revenues come from?
From every person's federal income tax, directly to Ottawa.
Not via the province at all.
I can't believe how financially thick people are. It's no dam wonder this country has a personal debt problem
Right back atcha, wilber! : )
-
From every person's federal income tax, directly to Ottawa.
Not via the province at all.Right back atcha, wilber! : )
Look, I'm not against equalization in principle but don't tell me it doesn't come from taxpayers of provinces who get nothing in return for that money.
-
Yes and you get 1328 per capita paid by taxpayers of provinces who get nothing in return for their province.
Albertans get everything they're entitled to under the same rules and calculations as everyone else.
Albertans make a lot more money than other Canadians, so they pay more income tax.
Alberta has a younger population so they don't get as much back in federal transfers because they don't have as many seniors to support.
Equalization relates to a province's capacity to raise revenues. Alberta has the capacity to raise more revenues because it has a younger, higher paid population.
The fact that Alberta chooses not to raise more revenues, (eg, sales tax) that's Alberta's choice, but it may count as unused capacity in the equalization calculations.
Other provinces are using that capacity to raise provincial revenues.
Alberta gets the assurance that if they ever become a have not province again, they will get equalization.
We understand that Alberta's hurting.
The pain won't go away.
The whole country will suffer from loss of western oil revenues.
Fossil fuels are not the future.
.
-
Look, I'm not against equalization in principle but don't tell me it doesn't come from taxpayers of provinces who get nothing in return for that money.
Even if that were correct (and it's not) you'd still be wrong. The people 'paying into equalization' get the benefit of living in one of the most successful and prosperous societies that this world has ever known. If they don't realize the benefit of that, **** them, it isn't my job to convince them.
-
Even if that were correct (and it's not) you'd still be wrong. The people 'paying into equalization' get the benefit of living in one of the most successful and prosperous societies that this world has ever known. If they don't realize the benefit of that, **** them, it isn't my job to convince them.
I am correct but as I said. I'm not against the principle of revenue sharing.
-
Even if that were correct (and it's not) you'd still be wrong. The people 'paying into equalization' get the benefit of living in one of the most successful and prosperous societies that this world has ever known. If they don't realize the benefit of that, **** them, it isn't my job to convince them.
Ya suck it Alberta!!
-
I am correct but as I said. I'm not against the principle of revenue sharing.
Yes you are correct this time: equalization comes from federal general revenues, including the federal income taxes paid by every taxpayer.
NOT, as you claimed before, from "own source" provincial revenues. That was nonsense.
Ok so if you agree with revenue sharing, what is your problem?
Alberta clearly has a lot of angst, understandably.
Things are changing.
It's a challenge, a reason to dig in and work together.
Nobody's doing it to Alberta.
It's just a new reality.
-
Yes you are correct this time: equalization comes from federal general revenues, including the federal income taxes paid by every taxpayer.
NOT, as you claimed before, from "own source" provincial revenues. That was nonsense.
Ok so if you agree with revenue sharing, what is your problem?
Alberta clearly has a lot of angst, understandably.
Things are changing.
It's a challenge, a reason to dig in and work together.
Nobody's doing it to Alberta.
It's just a new reality.
I've never claimed they were own source, the numbers posted show own source vs equalization source.
-
I've never claimed they were own source, the numbers posted show own source vs equalization source.
Figures that are entirely irrelevant to equalization.
-
Figures that are entirely irrelevant to equalization.
Entirely relevant, they show total tax revenues vs those raised within the province. That is equalization. Except they aren't equal, all the receiving provinces have higher per capita totals than those that don't receive, barring NFLD.
-
Entirely relevant, they show total tax revenues vs those raised within the province. That is equalization. Except they aren't equal, all the receiving provinces have higher per capita totals than those that don't receive, barring NFLD.
That's because those provinces choose to have lower taxes. It has nothing to do with equalization. Equalization only brings the have not provinces up to the average.
-
That's because those provinces choose to have lower taxes. It has nothing to do with equalization. Equalization only brings the have not provinces up to the average.
Up to the average of what?
So you think they should have higher taxes and provide equalization?
-
So you think they should have higher taxes and provide equalization?
What? You still aren't making any sense - they don't provide equalization. Quit saying that.
-
What? You still aren't making any sense - they don't provide equalization. Quit saying that.
OK. Some provinces are sending more money in taxes than they get back. That money is sent to other provinces in the form of equalization. Are you saying they should increase the tax load on their own tax payers and still send the same amount to Ottawa to be given to other provinces in the form of equalization? If not, where are those provinces going to get the equalization payments they are already getting? It’s the same tax payer.
-
OK. Some provinces are sending more money in taxes than they get back.
Provinces don't get money back - that's a dumb way of putting it. All Canadians pay taxes. Wealthy Canadians generally get back less in services than the pay in taxes, and less wealthy Canadians get more. Alberta is lucky enough to have a lot of wealthy Canadians - good for them.
That money is sent to other provinces in the form of equalization.
A tiny part of Ottawa's budget is directed to the 5 have not provinces, yeah. Most of the money is spent in other areas, such as transfers to provinces that all provinces get, departmental spending, and transfers to individuals.
Are you saying they should increase the tax load on their own tax payers and still send the same amount to Ottawa to be given to other provinces in the form of equalization?
I'm saying that they choose to have lower provincial taxes - that is their right. Other provinces choose to have higher taxes. That is also their right. It has next to nothing to do with equalization (though average tax rates do affect the fiscal capacity measure)
If not, where are those provinces going to get the equalization payments they are already getting? It’s the same tax payer.
Again, equalization comes from federal taxes. What provinces choose to tax has little affect. There may only be one taxpayer, but they aren't all paying equivalent tax rates. Have not provinces tend to need higher tax rates to have similar services to have provinces, even with equalization, as they simply don't have the revenue potential. They also tend to have more expensive, older populations. It isn't as simple as you're trying to make it.
-
BTW - if you're not opposed to equalization, what exactly is it that you're arguing against? I'm not understanding your point.
-
All the have not provinces except PQ have lower per capita provincial tax revenues than the have provinces but after equalization they all have higher revenues. The exception is NFLD.
It’s not that I oppose equalization it’s that some people just won’t acknowledge where the money comes from.
-
All the have not provinces except PQ have lower per capita tax revenues than the have provinces before equalization but after equalization they all have higher revenues. NFLD is the exception.
And that's why equalization exists - the have not provinces don't have the revenue potential that the have provinces do. That's why, despite having higher tax rates, they manage to collect less revenue than the have provinces.
-
And that's why equalization exists - the have not provinces don't have the revenue potential that the have provinces do. That's why, despite having higher tax rates, they manage to collect less revenue than the have provinces.
But if the after equalization revenues aren’t the same, it isn’t equal.
-
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/peter-holle-artificially-cheap-hydro-power-your-equalization-dollars-at-work
-
But if the after equalization revenues aren’t the same, it isn’t equal.
Yeah, it is - the formula uses that average fiscal capacity. Some provinces are choosing to tax below that capacity. It doesn't mean that they don't have the capacity. Alberta, with the highest fiscal capacity, would have massive revenues at average tax rates:
(https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Graph-3.png)
(https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/graph-1.png)
https://www.policyschool.ca/unpacking-canadas-equalization-payments-2018-19/
-
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/peter-holle-artificially-cheap-hydro-power-your-equalization-dollars-at-work
There is no 'market price for electricity' like there is for a barrel of oil. Equalization allows for all resource revenues to be discounted. This opinion piece is full of inaccuracies.
-
There is no 'market price for electricity' like there is for a barrel of oil. Equalization allows for all resource revenues to be discounted. This opinion piece is full of inaccuracies.
Lucky for you eh.
-
Yeah, it is - the formula uses that average fiscal capacity. Some provinces are choosing to tax below that capacity. It doesn't mean that they don't have the capacity. Alberta, with the highest fiscal capacity, would have massive revenues at average tax rates:
(https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Graph-3.png)
(https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/graph-1.png)
https://www.policyschool.ca/unpacking-canadas-equalization-payments-2018-19/
So if those provinces taxed at the average rate, equalization payments should go down. You are saying that the people living in provinces that provide most of the equalization revenue should pay even hiigher taxes.
-
So if those provinces taxed at the average rate, equalization payments should go down. You are saying that the people living in provinces that provide most of the equalization revenue should pay even hiigher taxes.
I'm saying that right now they pay lower taxes than people living in have not provinces. You don't seem to be understanding that.
-
This is how much lower Alberta's taxes are:
https://twitter.com/trevortombe/status/1187874878038274048?s=20
If they were the same level as even Ontario, the next lowest tax province, Alberta would have a massive surplus.
-
I thought you told me it was a real concern?
That's the rub here - Trudeau has went out of his way to help Alberta, and what has it gotten him? Not to mention Saskatchewan - a province that just over a decade ago was have not and is still a net recipient - their attitudes are disgusting.
And it wasn’t Trudeau who sold off the Wheat Board, which is the key source of any “problems” SK might think it has.
-
Look, I'm not against equalization in principle but don't tell me it doesn't come from taxpayers of provinces who get nothing in return for that money.
Alberta and Saskatchewan not only get something for their money, Trudeau bailed them the tuck out by buying a pipeline and helping with unemployment in the oil patch. The **** are you even talking about? Your replies in his thread are embarrassing. You’re wrong at every turn and instead of learning a thing or two, you’re doubling down on your ignorance.
-
Compare how Norway handled it’s wealth by socializing oil and creating a fund that has grown exponentially and is used to provide services people need. Then look at what Conservatives in Alberta did....they gave away the revenues to billionaires and now whine they don’t have funding for basic social services. **** them and 5e people who continue to shoot themselves in the foot by voting for them and wondering why nothing changes.
-
Compare how Norway handled it’s wealth by socializing oil and creating a fund that has grown exponentially and is used to provide services people need. Then look at what Conservatives in Alberta did....they gave away the revenues to billionaires and now whine they don’t have funding for basic social services. **** them and 5e people who continue to shoot themselves in the foot by voting for them and wondering why nothing changes.
Norway has the 3rd highest tax rate in the world and highest in the OECD. Alberta has low taxes, which wasn't a problem until revenue took a dive when the price of oil dropped 40% around 2014. AB simply would need to boost taxes a bit, especially on those billionaires, but they refuse and Kenney has chosen budget cuts. AB has traditionally done fantastically well without mass socializing oil.
-
Alberta has low taxes, which wasn't a problem until revenue took a dive when the price of oil dropped 40% around 2014.
It seems to me you could say: "X , which wasn't a problem until Y" about a lot of things that are eminently avoidable
-
This is how much lower Alberta's taxes are:
https://twitter.com/trevortombe/status/1187874878038274048?s=20
If they were the same level as even Ontario, the next lowest tax province, Alberta would have a massive surplus.
Alberta’s deficit is its problem but tell me genius, how does people in the have provinces paying more provincial taxes change the equalization formula?
-
Alberta’s deficit is its problem but tell me genius, how does people in the have provinces paying more provincial taxes change the equalization formula?
It would raise the average fiscal capacity slightly, possibly increasing equalization (although not using the current formula which grows with Canada's GDP and has a capacity cap).
-
Del
-
Before equalization, Alberta’s per capita tax revenue is only slightly lower than B.C. and Ontario and higher than every other province other than PQ and NFLD.
-
It seems to me you could say: "X , which wasn't a problem until Y" about a lot of things that are eminently avoidable
A budget is revenue minus expenditures. When revenues drop but expenditures remain similar, you get a deficit. Global oil prices dropping was not avoidable, increasing revenue (higher taxes) or decreasing expenditures (cuts) are the only 2 options. Could they have done so earlier? Sure.
-
Running deficits during an economic downturn is not bad policy, and you certainly don't want to cut social services when people need them the most. But it's been several years since the downturn and these oil prices seem like the new normal so the AB gov needs to adjust. I would have raised AB's very low taxes instead of Kenney making huge cuts.
-
Before equalization, Alberta’s per capita tax revenue is only slightly lower than B.C. and Ontario and higher than every other province other than PQ and NFLD.
Equalization is not calculated by per capita tax revenue nor has anything to do with a province's actual tax revenue, but is calculated by a province's capability of raising taxes. AB has that kind of tax revenue because it chooses to have low taxes, which until recently it's been able to get away with because it's a rich province that raises a lot of taxes anyways. It also doesn't flush money down the toilet like the ON gov.
-
Equalization is not calculated by per capita tax revenue nor has anything to do with a province's actual tax revenue, but is calculated by a province's capability of raising taxes. AB has that kind of tax revenue because it chooses to have low taxes, which until recently it's been able to get away with because it's a rich province that raises a lot of taxes anyways. It also doesn't flush money down the toilet like the ON gov.
Well that depends how you look at it - Alberta has the most expensive government in the country, while Ontario has one of the least expensive.
-
A budget is revenue minus expenditures. When revenues drop but expenditures remain similar, you get a deficit. Global oil prices dropping was not avoidable, increasing revenue (higher taxes) or decreasing expenditures (cuts) are the only 2 options. Could they have done so earlier? Sure.
Also - when is someone over there going to start telling them that diversification's time is now ?
Why are people confusing economics with patriotism ?
-
Well that depends how you look at it - Alberta has the most expensive government in the country, while Ontario has one of the least expensive.
If that's the case, then there's no excuse for ON bleeding money. Even if it's not the case, there's no excuse for their mismanagement. Unfortunately they're trapped in longterm contracts with electricity plants that are running at far below capacity because of their stupidity, so cuts can't cure the problem. And ON residence are stuck with by far the most expensive hydro in the country while the GTA is suffocating over expensive housing so taxation can't be raised much. AB will be fine lol.
-
Also - when is someone over there going to start telling them that diversification's time is now ?
Well price of oil dropped 40% almost overnight and they've survived, i can't think of any more sudden catastrophe that could affect them more than that. The world will wean off oil much more slowly so they luckily have lots of time to adjust.
-
Compare how Norway handled it’s wealth by socializing oil and creating a fund that has grown exponentially and is used to provide services people need. Then look at what Conservatives in Alberta did....they gave away the revenues to billionaires and now whine they don’t have funding for basic social services. **** them and 5e people who continue to shoot themselves in the foot by voting for them and wondering why nothing changes.
Norway gets world price for its oil and it doesn’t share the revenues with 9 other provinces and three territories.
On edit
As you insist on comparing a province with a sovereign country, maybe Alberta separatists have a point.
-
Equalization is not calculated by per capita tax revenue nor has anything to do with a province's actual tax revenue, but is calculated by a province's capability of raising taxes. AB has that kind of tax revenue because it chooses to have low taxes, which until recently it's been able to get away with because it's a rich province that raises a lot of taxes anyways. It also doesn't flush money down the toilet like the ON gov.
I know it doesn’t but it is the reality for those paying the taxes.
-
It seems to me you could say: "X , which wasn't a problem until Y" about a lot of things that are eminently avoidable
On the other hand, provinces that receive equalization are cushioned from such things.
-
This is how much lower Alberta's taxes are:
https://twitter.com/trevortombe/status/1187874878038274048?s=20
If they were the same level as even Ontario, the next lowest tax province, Alberta would have a massive surplus.
Alberta per capita tax revenues are $225 less than Ontario.
-
Alberta per capita tax revenues are $225 less than Ontario.
Per capita isn't an accurate measure of the fiscal capacity of a province.
-
Per capita isn't an accurate measure of the fiscal capacity of a province.
That's like taxing air. Do you think other provinces should dictate Manitoba's taxation rates?
Per capita means how much taxes I pay.
-
Per capita means how much taxes I pay.
Per capita GDP is a far better measure - Alberta, because of a high per capita GDP, can have far lower tax rates, yet high tax revenue.
-
...doesn’t share the revenues with 9 other provinces and three territories.
Alberta doesn't either. Its citizens are taxed by the national government. These are not "Alberta revenues".
-
Alberta doesn't either. Its citizens are taxed by the national government. These are not "Alberta revenues".
True, more like Albertan's revenues.
-
True, more like Albertan's revenues.
That's still not correct - tax revenues come from all Canadians - poor Albertans don't contribute more than wealthy Quebecers.
-
True, more like Albertan's revenues.
A Newfoundlander who works in the Alberta tar sands pays the same tax as the Albertan federally. Now all of a sudden, according to your logic, these are Newfoundland revenues!
-
Norway gets world price for its oil and it doesn’t share the revenues with 9 other provinces and three territories.
On edit
As you insist on comparing a province with a sovereign country, maybe Alberta separatists have a point.
The oil companies in Alberta don't share their revenues with 9 other provinces either.
-
That's like taxing air. Do you think other provinces should dictate Manitoba's taxation rates?
Per capita means how much taxes I pay.
Per capita does not at all mean how much taxes YOU personally pay. You pay the exact same tax rate as everyone else in this country. Everyone in Alberta pays the same federal taxes as everyone else in the country too. You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here. You should spend a day reading, instead of writing.
-
Per capita does not at all mean how much taxes YOU personally pay. You pay the exact same tax rate as everyone else in this country. Everyone in Alberta pays the same federal taxes as everyone else in the country too. You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here. You should spend a day reading, instead of writing.
Finally, someone who actually understands the tax system weighs in.
-
Alberta doesn't either. Its citizens are taxed by the national government. These are not "Alberta revenues".
They come from people in Alberta and the other have provinces.
-
Per capita does not at all mean how much taxes YOU personally pay. You pay the exact same tax rate as everyone else in this country. Everyone in Alberta pays the same federal taxes as everyone else in the country too. You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here. You should spend a day reading, instead of writing.
FFS it is exactly that. It is the average amount of provincial tax paid by individuals. It has nothing to do with tax rates other than people in higher income brackets will have much of their income taxed at higher rates.
-
Finally, someone who actually understands the tax system weighs in.
You still don't know where money comes from
For every dollar in provincial tax people pay in BC, Alta, Sask, ONT and NFLD, they get one dollar in value.
Because of equalization for every dollar people pay in
Manitoba they get $1.16 in value
Quebec $1.12
NB $1.31
NS $1.22
PEI $1.56
That is the difference between what they pay in provincial taxes and the total of what their province receives in tax revenues because of equalization.
We can debate the fairness till we're blue in the face and we might not even disagree but the numbers don't lie.
-
A Newfoundlander who works in the Alberta tar sands pays the same tax as the Albertan federally. Now all of a sudden, according to your logic, these are Newfoundland revenues!
Newfie separation!
-
They come from people in Alberta and the other have provinces.
No. It doesn't. ::) It comes from individual taxpayers in every province. A person making $100k in Alberta contributes the same as someone in Quebec making the same.
-
No. It doesn't. ::) It comes from individual taxpayers in every province. A person making $100k in Alberta contributes the same as someone in Quebec making the same.
Not actually because provincial tax rates vary, but that isn't the point.
Because of equalization, the province of Quebec gets more per capita tax revenue than the have provinces. $1.12 compared to every tax dollar paid by residents of the have provinces. Do you even know what equalization is?
-
Not actually because provincial tax rates vary
That has nothing to do with federal taxes.
-
That has nothing to do with federal taxes.
Federal taxes are paid by people who live in provinces.
-
Federal taxes are paid by people who live in provinces.
They don’t vary based on provincial tax rates
-
They don’t vary based on provincial tax rates
I've never said they do. In reality, provincial income tax rates are calculated on a percentage of federal tax paid.
-
F*** this thread.
-
F*** this thread.
Indeed! As they used to say in my neck of the woods if you continue to turn in ever decreasing circles eventually you end up up your own ****.
-
It’s not that I oppose equalization it’s that some people just won’t acknowledge where the money comes from.
That is for sure. The fact that about 25% of federal revenue is collected in Quebec, more than is collected in Alberta, is never acknowledged by some people.
They come from people in Alberta and the other have provinces.
Yes, and from people in Quebec and other "have not" provinces as well.
-
That is for sure. The fact that about 25% of federal revenue is collected in Quebec, more than is collected in Alberta, is never acknowledged by some people.
Yes, and from people in Quebec and other "have not" provinces as well.
Interesting how they do that with less than 20% of the country's GDP.
According to Stats Can, in 2016 Alberta sent 49 billion in federal taxes to Ottawa and received 27.2 billion back in federal spending. Quebec paid 50.3 billion in federal taxes and received 66.4 billion in federal expenditures.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/of-course-alberta-is-getting-fleeced-by-ottawa-just-not-in-the-way-you-think
This is before the recession in Alberta really started to bite.
-
And? And what's your point, exactly?
-
And? And what's your point, exactly?
My point is that while high income earners in Alberta and Quebec may be paying the same federal tax, Quebec high income earners are getting $1.34 in federal spending coming back to their province for every dollar they send to Ottawa, while Alberta high income earners are getting $0.56 in federal spending coming to their province.
-
What's so dumb squid, are you challenged by basic arithmetic?
-
F*** this thread.
I was told there would be no math....
-
Simple percentages. Guess the truth hurts.
-
According to Stats Can
Well, where is you link to Statistics Canada, and not some National Post incitement piece from hack Tristan Hooper?
-
Well, where is you link to Statistics Canada, and not some National Post incitement piece from hack Tristan Hooper?
Where's yours that says Quebec provides 25% of federal revenues?
But here is one.
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201701E
-
I've never said they do. In reality, provincial income tax rates are calculated on a percentage of federal tax paid.
Provincial income taxes are based on....brace yourself....YOUR INCOME, not the income tax rate. How can you be this lost about taxes?
-
Where's yours that says Quebec provides 25% of federal revenues?
But here is one.
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201701E
Those are per capita revenues collected. Alberta has half the population of Quebec, which is why Quebec sends more in absolute dollars to Ottawa than Alberta does.
The fact that Alberta pays more in federal taxes per capita is because we have a progressive tax system and people make A LOT more money in Alberta. It's not because Albertans they're taxed at a higher rate than Canadians in other provinces. They're taxed at the exact same rate as people in EVERY province. They pay the SAME federal taxes. Full stop. They send more money to Ottawa because they have more people in higher income brackets. It literally has NOTHING to do with which province they live in.
-
Those are per capita revenues collected. Alberta has half the population of Quebec, which is why Quebec sends more in absolute dollars to Ottawa than Alberta does.
The fact that Alberta pays more in federal taxes per capita is because we have a progressive tax system and people make A LOT more money in Alberta. It's not because Albertans they're taxed at a higher rate than Canadians in other provinces. They're taxed at the exact same rate as people in EVERY province. They pay the SAME federal taxes. Full stop. They send more money to Ottawa because they have more people in higher income brackets. It literally has NOTHING to do with which province they live in.
So what, it is exactly like I said. For every tax dollar Pierre from Pierrefonds sends to Ottawa, Quebec gets about $1.30 in return. For every tax dollar Mike from Canmore sends to Ottawa, Alberta gets about 56 cents in return. It has nothing to do with federal taxation rates, it’s about federal spending.
You go on about Alberta not being like Norway. It couldn’t if it wanted to. It’s bankrolling the RoC.
So why isn’t Canada like Norway?
-
No. It doesn't. ::) It comes from individual taxpayers in every province. A person making $100k in Alberta contributes the same as someone in Quebec making the same.
But Alberta gets back just over half of what it sends. Quebec gets 30% more. When is that going to sink in and where the hell do you think that 30% is coming from?
-
Dumb is a really dumb response. Or are you just trolling with nothing to say?
-
Dumb is a really dumb response. Or are you just trolling with nothing to say?
Dumb is the proper response to your troll posts that have been asked and answered. When are you going to get over the election and stop posting stupid ****?
-
Dumb is the proper response to your troll posts that have been asked and answered. When are you going to get over the election and stop posting stupid ****?
It's not about the election.
I'll make it so a grade two should understand.
If you and I each give Omni a dollar, then Omni gives me a a dollar thirty and you fifty five cents. Who did my extra thirty cents and the fifteen Omni kept for himself come from?
-
It's not about the election.
I'll make it so a grade two should understand.
If you and I each give Omni a dollar, then Omni gives me a a dollar thirty and you fifty five cents. Who did my extra thirty cents and the fifteen Omni kept for himself come from?
I'll include my postal address next time and then lets get that experiment off the ground. We'll have to up the ante somewhat though since I'll have to do all that math.
-
I'll include my postal address next time and then lets get that experiment off the ground. We'll have to up the ante somewhat though since I'll have to do all that math.
As long as I get the dollar thirty. ;D
-
It's not about the election.
I'll make it so a grade two should understand.
If you and I each give Omni a dollar, then Omni gives me a a dollar thirty and you fifty five cents. Who did my extra thirty cents and the fifteen Omni kept for himself come from?
You've now gone from dumb to idiotic. Quit while you're behind.
-
You've now gone from dumb to idiotic. Quit while you're behind.
Obviously wasting my time with someone who doesn't understand the difference between revenue and spending.
-
You've now gone from dumb to idiotic. Quit while you're behind.
We should get the site admin to make you an "idiotic" button lol.
-
We should get the site admin to make you an "idiotic" button lol.
We can disagree but let's not lower this forum to the level of MLW.
-
We can disagree but let's not lower this forum to the level of MLW.
It's already there, minus Mein Furher Charles and anyone conservative.
Come to think of it, MLW and this place are ideological bubbles, one right and one left. This was created subconsciously but intently, now we have to live in it.
-
It's already there, minus Mein Furher Charles and anyone conservative.
Come to think of it, MLW and this place are ideological bubbles, one right and one left. This was created subconsciously but intently, now we have to live in it.
"Minus mein furher CA" should be your first clue. No idea what u mean by "created subconsciously". And have you read the likes of (taxme, doug93, dop. bco4 etc.) and not seen the narrow focus of the most folks over there?
-
And have you read the likes of (taxme, doug93, dop. bco4 etc.) and not seen the narrow focus of the most folks over there?
They think differently than you do. And so you are here and they are there, each in your own bubbles. Not much different than watching FOX News vs MSNBC.
-
They think differently than you do. And so you are here and they are there, each in your own bubbles. Not much different than watching FOX News vs MSNBC.
Hah, I will agree that MSNBC for instance, has a somewhat left wing slant, but if you can't see the outrageous bs Fox presents you must have serious blinders on. Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson for instance. Even the owner Roger Ailes admits Faux news is entertainment, not news.
-
So what, it is exactly like I said. For every tax dollar Pierre from Pierrefonds sends to Ottawa, Quebec gets about $1.30 in return. For every tax dollar Mike from Canmore sends to Ottawa, Alberta gets about 56 cents in return. It has nothing to do with federal taxation rates, it’s about federal spending.
Wilber ... it is not about federal spending.
It is primarily about higher wages in Alberta.
It's also somewhat about younger ages in Alberta (fewer seniors = less federal OAS/GIS received)
And it is also somewhat about no provincial sales tax in Alberta: Since Alberta does not use all of its taxation capacity, that counts against it in the equalization formula, I believe, so it pays more.
-
And it is also somewhat about no provincial sales tax in Alberta: Since Alberta does not use all of its taxation capacity, that counts against it in the equalization formula, I believe, so it pays more.
The other stuff was right - but not this part. It's simple that Alberta isn't using it's fiscal capacity.
-
Wilber ... it is not about federal spending.
It is primarily about higher wages in Alberta.
It's also somewhat about younger ages in Alberta (fewer seniors = less federal OAS/GIS received)
And it is also somewhat about no provincial sales tax in Alberta: Since Alberta does not use all of its taxation capacity, that counts against it in the equalization formula, I believe, so it pays more.
Granny, it is about federal spending. It isn't even so much about equalization. Equalization is only part of federal spending. When you get back 56 cents for every dollar you send to Ottawa, it is about federal spending. There are twice as many people in Gatineau alone feeding off the federal tit than in all of Alberta and Albertans are paying a bigger chunk of their salaries than any other Canadians. Increasing taxation in their own province won't change that by one nickel. Albertans will still be getting back 56 cents on every dollar they send to Ottawa.
Why do you think other Canadians have the right to tell Albertans how much provincial taxes they should pay. Would your province stand for that?
-
Granny, it is about federal spending. It isn't even so much about equalization. Equalization is only part of federal spending. When you get back 56 cents for every dollar you send to Ottawa, it is about federal spending. There are twice as many people in Gatineau alone feeding off the federal tit than in all of Alberta and Albertans are paying a bigger chunk of their salaries than any other Canadians. Increasing taxation in their own province won't change that by one nickel. Albertans will still be getting back 56 cents on every dollar they send to Ottawa.
You realize that Canada's capital is in Ottawa-Gatineau, right? That Quebec also contains more than one CCG base? That Quebec has an older population, meaning more OAS and GIS? Do you not understand why spending is more in Quebec than Alberta? The federal government has to be funded where their operations are.
Why do you think other Canadians have the right to tell Albertans how much provincial taxes they should pay. Would your province stand for that?
You have that backwards. Canadians aren't telling Albertans how to tax themselves - we're telling them to deal with it themselves....let those western bastards freeze in the dark, if you will.
-
You realize that Canada's capital is in Ottawa-Gatineau, right? That Quebec also contains more than one CCG base? That Quebec has an older population, meaning more OAS and GIS? Do you not understand why spending is more in Quebec than Alberta? The federal government has to be funded where their operations are.
I do realize that but it doesn't change the fact that Quebec gets 74 cents on the dollar more than Alberta for its federal tax dollars. Manitoba gets about 94 cents more. d
You have that backwards. Canadians aren't telling Albertans how to tax themselves - we're telling them to deal with it themselves....let those western bastards freeze in the dark, if you will.
Then why are they telling them to impose provincial sales tax? Doing so won't change the inequity of federal spending one bit.
-
I do realize that...
You realize that, but you’re going to make really bad arguments about federal spending anyway.
::)
-
You realize that, but you’re going to make really bad arguments about federal spending anyway.
::)
d
You aren't making any arguments at all, other than dumb emojis.
-
d
You aren't making any arguments at all, other than dumb emojis.
I’m not going to say and post the same thing 50 times in the hopes that you’ll finally become rational.
-
I’m not going to say and post the same thing 50 times in the hopes that you’ll finally become rational.
Good because it didn't refute anything I have posted and provide links too.
-
Then why are they telling them to impose provincial sales tax? Doing so won't change the inequity of federal spending one bit.
They blame their deficit on federal spending - it's nonsensical. Their deficit exists because of a combination of overspending and under taxation.
-
They blame their deficit on federal spending - it's nonsensical. Their deficit exists because of a combination of overspending and under taxation.
Their deficit is one issue. The inequity in federal spending is another issue.
However, if you have less coming back than other provinces in federal revenues, means you have to make up the difference with provincial revenues to provide equal services.
-
Their deficit is one issue. The inequity in federal spending is another issue.
However, if you have less coming back than other provinces in federal revenues, means you have to make up the difference with provincial revenues to provide equal services.
Or... it could mean that you have less federal gov’t employees in your province, you have a much younger demographic than other provinces so they need less services like CPP and healthcare spending, you have more people working and making more money so they also need less gov’t services, don't receive things like GST credits, etc, etc....
These have been pointed out to you previously, and you claim you know these things, yet you continue to make the same really stupid arguments that Alberta is hard done by.
-
Or... it could mean that you have less federal gov’t employees in your province, you have a much younger demographic than other provinces so they need less services like CPP and healthcare spending, you have more people working and making more money so they also need less gov’t services, don't receive things like GST credits, etc, etc....
These have been pointed out to you previously, and you claim you know these things, yet you continue to make the same really stupid arguments that Alberta is hard done by.
Exactly, you have less government facilities with their employees and supporting businesses in your province contributing to your economy with funds provided by other provinces.
-
Exactly, you have less government facilities with their employees and supporting businesses in your province contributing to your economy with funds provided by other provinces.
So you think federal gov’t employees, services and funds should be exactly equal across the board. OK. Bizarre... but I guess it’s an opinion.
Let’s have 13 IT call centres rather than a central IT call centre. Not the most efficient use of tax dollars... better increase that GST!!
-
So you think federal gov’t employees, services and funds should be exactly equal across the board. OK. Bizarre... but I guess it’s an opinion.
It's worse than that - he thinks that they should be equal to the taxes paid within a province, and have nothing to do with servicing the needs of said province.
-
It's worse than that - he thinks that they should be equal to the taxes paid within a province, and have nothing to do with servicing the needs of said province.
Hmm... yeah... it’s even more senseless than I thought.
-
AB's higher incomes and therefore higher federal tax contributions per capita also means they pay out more per capita to fund all sorts of federal programs I would imagine. Just don't tell them that, they'll get more angry LOL
-
AB's higher incomes and therefore higher federal tax contributions per capita also means they pay out more per capita to fund all sorts of federal programs I would imagine. Just don't tell them that, they'll get more angry LOL
They think people making less money should be paying the same amount? That’s sheer stupidity.
-
They think people making less money should be paying the same amount? That’s sheer stupidity.
Maybe they want a special Alberta rebate on their taxes? Yeah, that's how stupid it is.
-
They think people making less money should be paying the same amount? That’s sheer stupidity.
I don't know.
I think what gets Albertans irked is that they're always contributing to equalization dollars but never receive any of it. They haven't received equalization since 1965. They basically provide welfare for the RoC, while they think they're being spit on by the RoC, while also being totally shut out of the governing party this past election even when the party they voted for won the popular vote. They help provide equalization revenue for QC but QC doesn't want their pipelines, so that makes them mad. Not to mention the economic hardship AB has gone through the last several years.
They're just frustrated. Throw them a bone or 2 and it will likely pass. Also, buying the pipeline isn't enough if it doesn't get built. They're frustrated over that too, and Trudeau banned tankers along the northern BC coast and then killed the northern gateway pipeline altogether. I think they feel the left in general in this country is always crapping on them. Taking a look at this thread, are they far off the mark?
-
I think what gets Albertans irked is that they're always contributing to equalization dollars but never receive any of it.
Why would the richest jurisdiction in the western hemisphere get equalization?
-
Why would the richest jurisdiction in the western hemisphere get equalization?
It seems some folks think natural resources in a particular province belong solely to that province, and they also have trouble with basic math.
-
Let’s clarify something. Equalization and federal spending are two different things. Equalization is what provincial governments get to spend at their own discretion, federal spending is what the government itself depends.
In typical Canadian fashion, we calculate equalization on a province’s ability to tax rather than produce. This provides a disincentive to some provinces to produce or develop their resources. Why increase your ability to tax if it just gets you less equalization. In this respect equalization can be like welfare.
The equalization formula also plays tricks like not including things like hydro as a resource like oil and gas, mining forestry etc, which give Quebec and Manitoba large sources of revenue outside the equalization formula.
When it comes to federal spending, recognizing there will be some inequities as a result of necessary locations for military bases and some other federal facilities, natural disasters etc, a genuine attempt should be made to equalize spending on a per capita basis. Otherwise it is just another way for governments to buy votes by shoveling money into select provinces, outside of the equalization formula.
-
Let’s clarify something. Equalization and federal spending are two different things.
Yes, lets clarify - No, they in fact aren't different things. They come from federal revenues and are an outlay of the federal government.
To provinces, they are simply general revenue.
In typical Canadian fashion, we calculate equalization on a province’s ability to tax rather than produce.
A provinces ability to tax is almost directly related to its ability to produce.
This provides a disincentive to some provinces to produce or develop their resources. Why increase your ability to tax if it just gets you less equalization. In this respect equalization can be like welfare.
Every single have not province is worse off than they would be if they some how managed to be a have province. Have provinces are wealthier than the average. Equalization does not bring anyone above the average, but only to it.
The equalization formula also plays tricks like not including things like hydro as a resource like oil and gas, mining forestry etc, which give Quebec and Manitoba large sources of revenue outside the equalization formula.
That's not what the complaint is - the complaint is that Quebec and Manitoba sell hydro electricity for less than the market rate. The problem with that is that there is no world market rate for electricity.
When it comes to federal spending, recognizing there will be some inequities as a result of necessary locations for military bases and some other federal facilities, natural disasters etc, a genuine attempt should be made to equalize spending on a per capita basis. Otherwise it is just another way for governments to buy votes by shoveling money into select provinces, outside of the equalization formula.
You seem to be not understanding Alberta's complaint, and I find myself not surprised by that. Alberta gets roughly equal spending per capita in areas where that is possible (disparate average ages in population make it impossible for things like OAS, GIS, and CPP). Because Albertans have larger average incomes they pay a larger amount of tax, on average, per person. This isn't about per capita spending, but about Albertans having more money, and so paying far more tax than they'd ever get back in services and transfers under any arrangement. It's a good thing, and you, like most Albertans, refuse to understand that.
-
Here are two great resources for you to look at if you actually have interest in understanding this:
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201701E
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/of-course-alberta-is-getting-fleeced-by-ottawa-just-not-in-the-way-you-think
-
Yes, lets clarify - No, they in fact aren't different things. They come from federal revenues and are an outlay of the federal government.
To provinces, they are simply general revenue.
Yes they are different. They both come out of federal revenues but equalization is money given to provincial governments according to a formula, to spend as they see fit. Federal spending is money the Federal government itself spends according to its own priorities. I'm surprised you can't comprehend the difference.
A provinces ability to tax is almost directly related to its ability to produce.
No, it is directly related to its willingness to produce. Less point in increasing your ability to tax if equalization is going to be clawed back as a result.
Not developing your own resources gives the added pleasure of being able to lord it over producing provinces by claiming to be more green.
Every single have not province is worse off than they would be if they some how managed to be a have province. Have provinces are wealthier than the average. Equalization does not bring anyone above the average, but only to it.
It isn't equal and Quebec is the biggest example.
The $50.3 billion in total federal taxes paid by Quebec, in fact, are almost identical to the $49 billion paid by Alberta. But Quebec received $66.4 billion in federal expenditures in 2016 — 244 per cent more than the federal monies poured into Alberta in the same period.
That's not what the complaint is - the complaint is that Quebec and Manitoba sell hydro electricity for less than the market rate. The problem with that is that there is no world market rate for electricity.
Which conveniently exempts their hydro exports from the equalization formula.
There is a Canadian market for electricity. BC also gets most of its electricity from hydro and while it is relatively cheap it is much more expensive than Quebec and Manitoba. 15% more than Manitoba and 30% more than Quebec at the 1000KWH rate and 40% more than both at the 5000KWH rate (source Ontario Hydro) which leads one to believe they are heavily subsidized.
You seem to be not understanding Alberta's complaint, and I find myself not surprised by that. Alberta gets roughly equal spending per capita in areas where that is possible (disparate average ages in population make it impossible for things like OAS, GIS, and CPP). Because Albertans have larger average incomes they pay a larger amount of tax, on average, per person. This isn't about per capita spending, but about Albertans having more money, and so paying far more tax than they'd ever get back in services and transfers under any arrangement. It's a good thing, and you, like most Albertans, refuse to understand that.
True, Albertans aren't taking the same amount out of the economy in OAS, GIS and CPP as most other provinces but instead of other Canadians seeing that as a benefit to them, because they get even more Alberta tax dollars to provide their benefits, they crap on Alberta, like they are somehow entitled. You can expect them to be taking out more in EI and possibly GIS in future however.
If as you say Albertans are in a higher tax bracket, they pay a bigger chunk of every federal dollar in spending that they do get back to their province.
No worries though. Three of the five net contributors to equalization and federal spending are the western provinces. It their economies go in the tank, I'm sure Quebec will pick up the slack and all the provinces on the receiving end won't notice a thing.
-
Here are two great resources for you to look at if you actually have interest in understanding this:
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201701E
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/of-course-alberta-is-getting-fleeced-by-ottawa-just-not-in-the-way-you-think
I posted both those links some time ago, I guess you didn't read them. They basically confirm what I have been saying.
-
I posted both those links some time ago, I guess you didn't read them. They basically confirm what I have been saying.
How is it that you can read those and not understand that they don't back up your position?
-
Albertans are paying a bigger chunk of their salaries than any other Canadians
Complete and udder cowshyte. All Canadians pay exactly the same in federal taxes based on their income, and Albertans pay less than all other Canadians in provincial taxes.
-
Yes they are different. They both come out of federal revenues but equalization is money given to provincial governments according to a formula, to spend as they see fit. Federal spending is money the Federal government itself spends according to its own priorities. I'm surprised you can't comprehend the difference.
To the federal government, it's an expenditure, counted under transfers to provinces.
No, it is directly related to its willingness to produce. Less point in increasing your ability to tax if equalization is going to be clawed back as a result.
No - you'd be better off developing the resources if you would become have, as you'd have more fiscal capacity than a have not with equalization payments.
Not developing your own resources gives the added pleasure of being able to lord it over producing provinces by claiming to be more green.
It isn't equal and Quebec is the biggest example.
Which conveniently exempts their hydro exports from the equalization formula.
The formula counts 50% of resource revenue or 0% - whichever is more beneficial for the province. It does this for all provinces, not just Quebec and Manitoba.
There is a Canadian market for electricity. BC also gets most of its electricity from hydro and while it is relatively cheap it is much more expensive than Quebec and Manitoba. 15% more than Manitoba and 30% more than Quebec at the 1000KWH rate and 40% more than both at the 5000KWH rate (source Ontario Hydro) which leads one to believe they are heavily subsidized.
Manitoba Hydro turns a profit, so it's unlikely that it's subsidized. There is no market rate for electricity.
True, Albertans aren't taking the same amount out of the economy in OAS, GIS and CPP as most other provinces but instead of other Canadians seeing that as a benefit to them, because they get even more Alberta tax dollars to provide their benefits, they crap on Alberta, like they are somehow entitled. You can expect them to be taking out more in EI and possibly GIS in future however.
And?
If as you say Albertans are in a higher tax bracket, they pay a bigger chunk of every federal dollar in spending that they do get back to their province.
That's a good thing, not a negative. They pay the same federal taxes as anyone else, but make more money.
No worries though. Three of the five net contributors to equalization and federal spending are the western provinces. It their economies go in the tank, I'm sure Quebec will pick up the slack and all the provinces on the receiving end won't notice a thing.
There are only 4 net contributing provinces, not 5. The formula readjusts every year. Provinces have gone from have to have not and back (BC). Alberta is so far above the have line that it's unlikely to ever change for them at any time in the near future. That, again, is a good thing.
-
I posted both those links some time ago, I guess you didn't read them. They basically confirm what I have been saying.
I mean, actual federal operational spending is not all that dissimilar per capita between Alberta and Quebec - do you not see that from the link?
-
To the federal government, it's an expenditure, counted under transfers to provinces.
Who cares what it is to the federal government. To the provinces, one is the money they get to spend according to the formula and the other is what Ottawa decides to spend.
No - you'd be better off developing the resources if you would become have, as you'd have more fiscal capacity than a have not with equalization payments.
Not developing your own resources gives the added pleasure of being able to lord it over producing provinces by claiming to be more green.
More fiscal capacity means less equalization. It's like the old, why get a minimum wage job if they are just going to claw back my welfare and disability.
It isn't equal and Quebec is the biggest example.
The formula counts 50% of resource revenue or 0% - whichever is more beneficial for the province. It does this for all provinces, not just Quebec and Manitoba.
So it conveniently doesn't exist.
That's a good thing, not a negative. They pay the same federal taxes as anyone else, but make more money.
We each pay the same as others in our tax bracket, we don't pay the same as anyone else.
There are only 4 net contributing provinces, not 5. The formula readjusts every year. Provinces have gone from have to have not and back (BC). Alberta is so far above the have line that it's unlikely to ever change for them at any time in the near future. That, again, is a good thing.
Five.
BC, Alta Sask, Ont, Nfld.
It's changing for Alberta as we speak and if other provinces don't think there will be consequences for them, they are dreaming. And that's a bad thing.
-
There is a Canadian market for electricity. BC also gets most of its electricity from hydro and while it is relatively cheap it is much more expensive than Quebec and Manitoba. 15% more than Manitoba and 30% more than Quebec at the 1000KWH rate and 40% more than both at the 5000KWH rate (source Ontario Hydro) which leads one to believe they are heavily subsidized.
Electricity is bounded by distance and time. Physics dictates the market as regional, although there can be some interconnection. It must be used at the time it is generated, and every mile between the point of generation and consumption costs. Those costs can be reduced by increasing the voltage, in the case of Quebec they made significant investment in a 735kV transmission network and managed to reduce the distance loses to just over 1% per 100 miles. Even with such a network, if you wanted to use Quebec electricity in Calgary you would pay about 25% premium compared to Montreal on line losses alone, plus of course the cost for building and maintaining such a transmission network.
-
Who cares what it is to the federal government.
Since it's federal spending, it's obviously matters.
More fiscal capacity means less equalization. It's like the old, why get a minimum wage job if they are just going to claw back my welfare and disability.
If you become have, it means having even more fiscal capacity than you can ever get from equalization - how is that hard to understand?
We each pay the same as others in our tax bracket, we don't pay the same as anyone else.
Are you saying this should change?
Five.
BC, Alta Sask, Ont, Nfld.
Newfoundland is a net recipient province - you refuse to learn anything about this and just keep spouting the same nonsense.
It's changing for Alberta as we speak and if other provinces don't think there will be consequences for them, they are dreaming. And that's a bad thing.
Alberta remains the wealthiest province (by a country mile) with the largest percentage of people working of any province in Canada. That isn't changing. That, again, is a good thing for Alberta, not a bad thing.
-
Electricity is bounded by distance and time. Physics dictates the market as regional, although there can be some interconnection. It must be used at the time it is generated, and every mile between the point of generation and consumption costs. Those costs can be reduced by increasing the voltage, in the case of Quebec they made significant investment in a 735kV transmission network and managed to reduce the distance loses to just over 1% per 100 miles. Even with such a network, if you wanted to use Quebec electricity in Calgary you would pay about 25% premium compared to Montreal on line losses alone, plus of course the cost for building and maintaining such a transmission network.
James Bay is farther from Montreal than any of the BC dams are from Vancouver except for Site C, which isn't built yet.
-
James Bay is farther from Montreal than any of the BC dams are from Vancouver except for Site C, which isn't built yet.
Too bad those damn rivers wouldn't have placed themselves a little closer to town.
-
Since it's federal spending, it's obviously matters.
Only to the federal government. It doesn't control equalization because it is according to a formula. It has 100% control over what it decides to spend itself.
It depends on what you develop.
Are you saying this should change?
No but it would be nice if some people would acknowledge where money comes from.
Newfoundland is a net recipient province - you refuse to learn anything about this and just keep spouting the same nonsense.
In 2016-17 Newfoundland received zero equalization. Because of oil. You are living in the past.
It's federal transfers are capped $1464 per capita, same as the other four contributing provinces, compared to $3000 for Quebec, between $3300 and $4400 for the other Atlantic provinces and $3100 to Manitoba. Meanwhile, they are struggling under huge debt while watching Quebec balance its budget. It isn't just Alberta that is pissed about the equalization formula.
https://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp
Alberta remains the wealthiest province (by a country mile) with the largest percentage of people working of any province in Canada. That isn't changing. That, again, is a good thing for Alberta, not a bad thing.
It is changing as we speak and if the RoC doesn't think there will be consequences for them, they had better wake up.
-
Only to the federal government. It doesn't control equalization because it is according to a formula. It has 100% control over what it decides to spend itself.
The federal government sets the formula - the current formula was put in place during Alberta's boom years to keep the program from growing too large.
No but it would be nice if some people would acknowledge where money comes from.
Who has denied it?
In 2016-17 Newfoundland received zero equalization. Because of oil. You are living in the past.
Oh my - if you read the link you posted (and I posted) and look at figure 2, you see that Newfoundland and Labrador is a net recipient. Have and have not status have nothing to do with net recipient or contributor status:
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201701E
It's federal transfers are capped $1464 per capita, same as the other four contributing provinces, compared to $2800 for Quebec, between $3300 and $4400 for the other Atlantic provinces and $3100 to Manitoba. Meanwhile, they are struggling under huge debt while watching Quebec balance its budget. It isn't just Alberta that is pissed about the equalization formula.
Have and have not status have nothing to do with balancing budgets.
-
James Bay is farther from Montreal than any of the BC dams are from Vancouver except for Site C, which isn't built yet.
The higher efficiency of the Quebec grid that they have been investing in for over 50 years lowers their losses, BC has nothing comparable. I am not that familiar with BC, but from what I understand the topography dictated that their transmission corridors follow the valleys and are much further than "as the crow flies" distance.
-
Oh my - if you read the link you posted (and I posted) and look at figure 2, you see that Newfoundland and Labrador is a net recipient. Have and have not status have nothing to do with net recipient or contributor status:
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201701E
Have and have not status have nothing to do with balancing budgets.
John, please learn the difference between equalization and total federal expenditures. If Nfld is getting more federal spending it is not because of equalization.
You don't think getting 13 billion in equalization has anything to do with its ability to balance a budget? Who does your finances?
-
John, please learn the difference between equalization and total federal expenditures. If Nfld is getting more federal spending it is not because of equalization.
No one said it was - the gap that Alberta politicians complain about is not because of equalization, but all federal transfers and spending. you keep changing what you're talking about.
You don't think getting 13 billion in equalization has anything to do with its ability to balance a budget? Who does your finances?
Alberta and Newfoundland have more capacity to balance their budget than Quebec does. That's what you're not getting.
-
No one said it was - the gap that Alberta politicians complain about is not because of equalization, but all federal transfers and spending. you keep changing what you're talking about.
You have said it several times.
Alberta and Newfoundland have more capacity to balance their budget than Quebec does. That's what you're not getting.
NFLD has the highest provincial revenues of any province in the country. They are still swimming in debt because of the bad old days.
10700 per capita compared to 9800 in Quebec and 9100 in Ont. and BC.
-
The higher efficiency of the Quebec grid that they have been investing in for over 50 years lowers their losses, BC has nothing comparable. I am not that familiar with BC, but from what I understand the topography dictated that their transmission corridors follow the valleys and are much further than "as the crow flies" distance.
Ya getting power from Churchill Falls in Labrador and selling it for 20 to 40 times the price couldn't have anything to do with it. Quebec stands to make 250 billion over the life of that contract. At NFLD's expense.
-
You have said it several times.
Where?
NFLD has the highest provincial revenues of any province in the country. They are still swimming in debt because of the bad old days.
10700 per capita compared to 9800 in Quebec and 9100 in Ont. and BC.
Per capita is not an appropriate measure of fiscal capacity. It's been explained why, but yet you keep repeating it.
-
Ya getting power from Churchill Falls in Labrador and selling it for 20 to 40 times the price couldn't have anything to do with it. Quebec stands to make 250 billion over the life of that contract. At NFLD's expense.
Yes, the whole Hamilton/Churchill Falls history is very complicated. You also need to realize that Quebec invested heavily in both transmission as well as the the original Hamilton Falls Power Company that built the dams (now Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation). I agree that Newfoundland is not getting the best deal, but making the claim it is all one sided is ignoring the investment. I don't hear you saying the same about the American, Chinese, and French companies that benefit the most from Alberta tar sands.
-
Where?
Yes, lets clarify - No, they in fact aren't different things. They come from federal revenues and are an outlay of the federal government.
To provinces, they are simply general revenue.
Per capita is not an appropriate measure of fiscal capacity. It's been explained why, but yet you keep repeating it.
It is the only way you can make comparisons. You can't compare gross because of population differences. How much more do you think Newfoundlanders should pay in provincial taxes compared to Manitoba?
-
Yes, the whole Hamilton/Churchill Falls history is very complicated. You also need to realize that Quebec invested heavily in both transmission as well as the the original Hamilton Falls Power Company that built the dams (now Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation). I agree that Newfoundland is not getting the best deal, but making the claim it is all one sided is ignoring the investment. I don't hear you saying the same about the American, Chinese, and French companies that benefit the most from Alberta tar sands.
It still represents a 250B windfall at NFLDS expense and helps subsidize Quebec’s ridiculously low hydro rates.
-
Yes, the whole Hamilton/Churchill Falls history is very complicated. You also need to realize that Quebec invested heavily in both transmission as well as the the original Hamilton Falls Power Company that built the dams (now Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation). I agree that Newfoundland is not getting the best deal, but making the claim it is all one sided is ignoring the investment. I don't hear you saying the same about the American, Chinese, and French companies that benefit the most from Alberta tar sands.
I worked fort a while way back when on the SEBJ project and later on ended up at a party in St. John's which was attended by non other than Joey Smallwood. Over the dinner table he spoke about the situation saying he could settle things by simply inviting Renee Lavesque to meet him at Schefferville where they could duke it out. He said he'd win because he doesn't smoke.
-
I worked fort a while way back when on the SEBJ project and later on ended up at a party in St. John's which was attended by non other than Joey Smallwood. Over the dinner table he spoke about the situation saying he could settle things by simply inviting Renee Lavesque to meet him at Schefferville where they could duke it out. He said he'd win because he doesn't smoke.
NFLD got hosed on Churchill Falls because Quebec had them by he short and curlies when it came to getting power to market. Just like the RoC when it comes to Alberta and it’s oil.
-
It still represents a 250B windfall at NFLDS expense and helps subsidize Quebec’s ridiculously low hydro rates.
Churchill falls represents less than 13% of the provinces total hydro generating capacity, and 11.5% of overall capacity.
-
NFLD got hosed on Churchill Falls because Quebec had them by he short and curlies when it came to getting power to market. Just like the RoC when it comes to Alberta and it’s oil.
Nah, Quebec had the power lines, Alberta doesn't have the pipelines.
-
It is the only way you can make comparisons. You can't compare gross because of population differences. How much more do you think Newfoundlanders should pay in provincial taxes compared to Manitoba?
No, it isn't. Newfoundlanders have higher average salaries, and so their government can generate more tax revenue.
-
JMT, why bother, man? You have someone who is clearly unwilling to understand what you’re saying
-
Why would the richest jurisdiction in the western hemisphere get equalization?
They shouldn't. The question Albertans are asking themselves is why should AB remain as part of Canada when Albertans have consistently paid out a lot of money over half a century to subsidize other provinces when Albertans could keep that wealth in their own pockets if they left?
-
They shouldn't. The question Albertans are asking themselves is why should AB remain as part of Canada when Albertans have consistently paid out a lot of money over half a century to subsidize other provinces when Albertans could keep that wealth in their own pockets if they left?
And how would this now landlocked province of Alberta get it's resources to market so as to keep that wealth flowing?
-
JMT, why bother, man? You have someone who is clearly unwilling to understand what you’re saying
I understand what he is saying.
-
Nah, Quebec had the power lines, Alberta doesn't have the pipelines.
Pretty glib but you know it is true. NFLD couldn't build its own lines because they were blocked by Quebec. Alberta is in the same situation because of the obstruction of other provinces.
-
Churchill falls represents less than 13% of the provinces total hydro generating capacity, and 11.5% of overall capacity.
I got the 250 billion from a Globe and Mail article, I didn't dream it up. That's 13% Quebec gets for basically nothing other than the cost of taking it away.
-
No, it isn't. Newfoundlanders have higher average salaries, and so their government can generate more tax revenue.
They already are.
-
I got the 250 billion from a Globe and Mail article, I didn't dream it up. That's 13% Quebec gets for basically nothing other than the cost of taking it away.
Like the billions Americans, Chinese, and French get for basically nothing from the tar sands.
-
They shouldn't. The question Albertans are asking themselves is why should AB remain as part of Canada when Albertans have consistently paid out a lot of money over half a century to subsidize other provinces when Albertans could keep that wealth in their own pockets if they left?
Why ever have a country of any kind?
-
Why ever have a country of any kind?
To secure common interests. Are the interests of Albertans being protected/served better in Canada, or alone? That's the question. If they feel they'd have more money as a sovereign country, they could leave.
It costs a lot of money to run a country though, some if not all of that extra money they'd get back (which is a lot, considering all federal taxes) would go towards that. Though they already have a legislature set-up, but they'd need a lot more government departments. And in however many decades oil will probably be less lucrative if demand sinks, then they're back to square one.
-
Don't forget their share of the federal debt they need to pay back first.
-
Don't forget their share of the federal debt they need to pay back first.
Are you just guessing or is that a requirement somewhere?
-
Are you just guessing or is that a requirement somewhere?
That is all I hear from Albertans when it comes to Quebec separating, so yes it is a requirement from them.
-
To secure common interests. Are the interests of Albertans being protected/served better in Canada, or alone? That's the question. If they feel they'd have more money as a sovereign country, they could leave.
Usually, a country is about far more than convenience. If it's only about money, it's not only selfish, but shortsighted.
It costs a lot of money to run a country though, some if not all of that extra money they'd get back (which is a lot, considering all federal taxes) would go towards that. Though they already have a legislature set-up, but they'd need a lot more government departments. And in however many decades oil will probably be less lucrative if demand sinks, then they're back to square one.
No one said it was a smart idea.
-
Are you just guessing or is that a requirement somewhere?
Alberta can't separate unilaterally.
-
Don't forget their share of the federal debt they need to pay back first.
Why, they are the only reason federal deficits aren't double what they already are.
-
Why, they are the only reason federal deficits aren't double what they already are.
Albertans, like the rest of us, are privileged to live in one of the world's finest countries. Making a lot of money and paying taxes on it seems like a small price to pay for that.
Countries like New Zealand, btw, are far less wealthy per capita than Canada - yet they seem to do just fine. The sky wouldn't fall with $20B less in taxes.
-
Albertans, like the rest of us, are privileged to live in one of the world's finest countries. Making a lot of money and paying taxes on it seems like a small price to pay for that.
Countries like New Zealand, btw, are far less wealthy per capita than Canada - yet they seem to do just fine. The sky wouldn't fall with $20B less in taxes.
No, the deficit would just be 40B instead of 20B.
-
Snore. Wake me up when the Wexits wake up.
-
No, the deficit would just be 40B instead of 20B.
No - we'd simply have to raise taxes to the OECD average.
-
No - we'd simply have to raise taxes to the OECD average.
Tax what, it seems to be your answer to everything?
-
Alberta can't separate unilaterally.
Why not? Is that law?
Even if it's not legal, they could choose to secede unilaterally, they could make their own "declaration of independence". Who's going to stop them? The military? That would be ugly, don't see Albertans the type to back down from a fight.
I hope they don't seperate, i don't think it would get to that point anyways. The feds and/or other provinces i think would concede something to them to keep them, just like they kiss Quebec's butt to keep them in confederation. I'm a big believer in local and provincial rights and keeping as much power in their hands so things like this don't happen. People generally want self-determination rather than the central gov trying to tell them what to do, especially if the fed gov is voted in by a party they didn't vote for. Quebec is no different.
-
Tax what, it seems to be your answer to everything?
Yeah, well, I like living in society.
-
Why not? Is that law?
Yeah - that was settled in the reference question to the supreme court that necessitated the creation of the Clarity Act.
-
Yeah, well, I like living in society.
Tax a shrinking tax base even more. That's the ticket.
-
Tax a shrinking tax base even more. That's the ticket.
Canadians are taxed below the average for advanced economies - I’m just pointing out that there are always alternatives.
-
Granny, it is about federal spending. It isn't even so much about equalization. Equalization is only part of federal spending. When you get back 56 cents for every dollar you send to Ottawa, it is about federal spending. There are twice as many people in Gatineau alone feeding off the federal tit than in all of Alberta and Albertans are paying a bigger chunk of their salaries than any other Canadians. Increasing taxation in their own province won't change that by one nickel. Albertans will still be getting back 56 cents on every dollar they send to Ottawa.
Why do you think other Canadians have the right to tell Albertans how much provincial taxes they should pay. Would your province stand for that?
Albertans pay more in income taxes to Ottawa because they make a lot more money.
And we're supposed to feel sorry for them about that?
If their provincial government doesn't get it's sh!t together and make a plan for employment beyond oil, they'll soon be making a lot less and paying less. Will they stop complaining then?
When their government continues to royally screw them up, we'll send them equalization.
Will they stop complaining then?
No. Because that's what their government wants them to do: Blame 'the East'.
It's like an addiction. Logic is irrelevant.
Alberta has already removed itself from being Canadian. They just sh!t on all of us, have no interest in the rest of Canada.
I can feel sorry for oil workers who are unprepared for the end of oil because they're being lied to.
But the hatred and violent threats being encouraged promoted by their leaders against the rest of Canadians is disgusting.
And all because they make more money than most Canadians, so they pay more taxes?
Wth are we supposed to do about that?
Shut down the oil industry faster so they can make less money and pay less taxes?
-
Albertans pay more in income taxes to Ottawa because they make a lot more money.
And we're supposed to feel sorry for them about that?
If their provincial government doesn't get it's sh!t together and make a plan for employment beyond oil, they'll soon be making a lot less and paying less. Will they stop complaining then?
When their government continues to royally screw them up, we'll send them equalization.
Will they stop complaining then?
No. Because that's what their government wants them to do: Blame 'the East'.
It's like an addiction. Logic is irrelevant.
Alberta has already removed itself from being Canadian. They just sh!t on all of us, have no interest in the rest of Canada.
I can feel sorry for oil workers who are unprepared for the end of oil because they're being lied to.
But the hatred and violent threats being encouraged promoted by their leaders against the rest of Canadians is disgusting.
And all because they make more money than most Canadians, so they pay more taxes?
Wth are we supposed to do about that?
Shut down the oil industry faster so they can make less money and pay less taxes?
Listen Granny, the whole country better start making a plan if it won’t be able to rely on Alberta to feed the trough They make more money than other Canadians and send it to Ottawa for other Canadians to use so you better come up with a plan to do without if they can no longer do that.
Don’t rag on Alberta because they have been carrying the country with a single industry because you benefited all these years
If alternate energy sources are the coming thing and will save the economy, maybe some other provinces should get off their collective asses and pick up the slack. You don’t need an oil and gas industry to build a renewable energy industry so STFU up and do something about it yourself instead of blaming the hand that has been feeding you.
-
BTW after PQ and Ont, Alberta is the biggest generator of electricity from wind, generating almost as much as the seven other provinces combined, In 2017, 7% of its power was from renewable sources and they are planning on 30% by 2030. Polling has shown that 74% of Albertans think the province should be increasing the amount of electricity generated from renewable sources.
-
Why, they are the only reason federal deficits aren't double what they already are.
The Alberta mob irresponsibly increased the federal debt by $170 billion a few years back.
-
The Alberta mob irresponsibly increased the federal debt by $170 billion a few years back.
While dealing with the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression and a war in Afghanistan. Trudeau has increased it by 65 billion in his first four years and was promising another 90 billion in the next four. That's with no recessions or wars and before he wound up with a minority.
-
While dealing with the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression and a war in Afghanistan.
Useless gazebos and tax cuts for foreign owned multinationals have nothing to do with the above.
-
Useless gazebos and tax cuts for foreign owned multinationals have nothing to do with the above.
So what's Trudeau's excuse?
-
Don't forget their share of the federal debt they need to pay back first.
dont forget the unceded indigenous peoples’ territory that doesn’t belong to them either
-
dont forget the unceded indigenous peoples’ territory that doesn’t belong to them either
If the new country gave FN a better deal than the RoC, they might be just fine with that.
-
If the new country gave FN a better deal than the RoC, they might be just fine with that.
Rednexit supporters are going to be sympathetic to indigenous people and rights... The Make Alberta Great Again hat wearers often espouse how Canada has ignored indigenous rights and how they will do better...... not.
-
Rednexit supporters are going to be sympathetic to indigenous people and rights... The Make Alberta Great Again hat wearers often espouse how Canada has ignored indigenous rights and how they will do better...... not.
Actually their leader was just on CKNW this afternoon and he seemed exactly that. I don't support them but I was somewhat impressed. I'm not sure it is possible to do a worse job than Canada has already done.
-
Actually their leader was just on CKNW this afternoon and he seemed exactly that. I don't support them but I was somewhat impressed. I'm not sure it is possible to do a worse job than Canada has already done.
He's a white supremacist - apparently you're easily fooled.
-
He's a white supremacist - apparently you're easily fooled.
Maybe so but the issues he raised were coherent and credible and should be of concern to Canadians.
-
Maybe so but....
No but. He's a white supremacist. Fock him.
-
No but. He's a white supremacist. Fock him.
The issues aren't white supremacist issues. Shoot the messenger if you want but the issues are still real.
-
The issues aren't white supremacist issues. Shoot the messenger if you want but the issues are still real.
The issues are always the same with this gang. Someone else is responsible for my failure in life.
-
A few hundred nutbars show up at a separatist rally and it’s font page news across the nation. Kenney claims the fabric of the nation is being torn apart and they need a new deal in Canada where they get more stuff!
8,000 people showed up in Edmonton at the Greta rally.
-
The issues aren't white supremacist issues. Shoot the messenger if you want but the issues are still real.
#wexit is a far-right movement. Feel free to follow this nutbar. Personally, I don't think Albertan grievances are going to be alleviated with people like this at the helm.
The Prairie Freedom Movement, a Facebook page with over 26,000 followers associated with both Downing and Wexit, frequently shares fake news and conspiracy theories around Trudeau, immigration and the federal election. Downing, a former federal candidate for the Christian Heritage Party, is also a confirmed believer in Pizzagate — a debunked far-right conspiracy theory involving former U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/what-is-wexit-western-separation_ca_5db2317ae4b0b9ba5c48e1dd
Alberta hitching their wagon to this nutbar is actually grotesque.
-
The issues are always the same with this gang. Someone else is responsible for my failure in life.
I'm not referring to this gang, I'm referring to Alberta. I don't think Wexit is going anywhere but don't be surprised if something more credible replaces it.
-
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-saskatchewan-western-alienation-kathleen-petty-1.5350082
-
Anybody hear yet if Scheer survived the party meeting today? I suspect the knives would have been out.
-
Anybody hear yet if Scheer survived the party meeting today? I suspect the knives would have been out.
Apparently he did.
-
The issues are always the same with this gang. Someone else is responsible for my failure in life.
Far right and far left are always finding scapegoat groups to blame for all their problems.
-
Far right and far left are always finding scapegoat groups to blame for all their problems.
And now, these particular Albertan nuts, have a following. They’re now mainstream in Alberta.
-
And now, these particular Albertan nuts, have a following. They’re now mainstream in Alberta.
Maybe one possible solution would be to send all the Wexit Albertan nuts on a train and ferry out to Newfoundland were they can seperate as they wish and bring the Newfies out west. They know how to farm and produce oil. They could take the quick trip to the west coast if they wanted to be near the sea and/or on an island for a while.
-
Maybe one possible solution would be to send all the Wexit Albertan nuts on a train and ferry out to Newfoundland were they can seperate as they wish and bring the Newfies out west. They know how to farm and produce oil. They could take the quick trip to the west coast if they wanted to be near the sea and/or on an island for a while.
I would support a Go-Fund-Me page for bus tickets to Texas for the Wexiters....
-
I would support a Go-Fund-Me page for bus tickets to Texas for the Wexiters....
Trump would be on board with that I reckon. He likes rednecks.
-
Far right and far left are always finding scapegoat groups to blame for all their problems.
Except the far left blames the powerful, while the far right blames the powerless. Their arguments aren't at all equivalent, despite your desperate attempt to feel like you're above both sides.
-
And now, these particular Albertan nuts, have a following. They’re now mainstream in Alberta.
Ya, them Alberta rednecks. If Alberta passed anything like Quebec’s Bills 101,21 or instigated a values test. Oh the Horror. When the only province never to sign on to the Constitution or Charter does it. Meh.
-
Ya, them Alberta rednecks. If Alberta passed anything like Quebec’s Bills 101,21 or instigated a values test. Oh the Horror. When the only province never to sign on to the Constitution or Charter does it. Meh.
If their hero of separation is a Christian Heritage white supremacist conspiratard, then God bless and best of luck. Try not to get too angry when the RoC laughs at your choices.
-
If their hero of separation is a Christian Heritage white supremacist conspiratard, then God bless and best of luck. Try not to get too angry when the RoC laughs at your choices.
They are a problem in that they allow other Canadians to ignore real issues. They don't speak for all Albertans but they allow the RoC to ignore the real concerns of all Albertans. Not just Alberta but Saskatchewan and good chunks of BC and Manitoba as well. West of Ontario, other than one on the Sunshine Coast, the Liberals didn't get a seat outside of metropolitan Winnipeg and Vancouver.
-
They are a problem in that they allow other Canadians to ignore real issues. They don't speak for all Albertans but they allow the RoC to ignore the real concerns of all Albertans. Not just Alberta but Saskatchewan and good chunks of BC and Manitoba as well. West of Ontario, other than one on the Sunshine Coast, the Liberals didn't get a seat outside of metropolitan Winnipeg and Vancouver.
Or, to paraphrase: "Other than the 15 seats they won, they didn't get any seats" ::)
-
If their hero of separation is a Christian Heritage white supremacist conspiratard, then God bless and best of luck. Try not to get too angry when the RoC laughs at your choices.
Carve out the whimpering rednecks, give 'em one way bus tickets south and let them tag up with the likes of Trump/John Kennedy where they will fit in better.
-
Or, to paraphrase: "Other than the 15 seats they won, they didn't get any seats" ::)
Are you that blind? It shows a huge urban rural divide in those provinces.
But hey, sit there in your bunkers and keep calling people losers, you are guaranteed to win them over.
-
Except the far left blames the powerful, while the far right blames the powerless. Their arguments aren't at all equivalent, despite your desperate attempt to feel like you're above both sides.
It's not just about blaming the powerful vs powerless, it's about stereotyping entire groups of people and then blaming them. The far right blames "Jews" or "immigrants", the far left blames "white people" or "rich people".
They're mirror opposites, and yet have many similarities. The USSR wasn't much different than Nazi Germany in many ways. You're clearly defending the one side you associate yourself with, so much so that you're triggered and have resorted to insulting me as some sort of futile comebacker because i've hurt your feelings. I am above both sides. I don't associate myself with extremist ideas.
-
Are you that blind? It shows a huge urban rural divide in those provinces.
You are falling into the common trap of looking at who won a particular riding and making a blanket statement about who lives in that riding, even though all the ridings have a mix of voting preference.
Yes, there is a rural/urban divide, but I don't think it's as large as you claim. Many urbanites voted for the CPC.
1 of 5 voters in Vancouver Centre voted for CPC...
And 2 in 5 people voted Liberal/NDP/Green in the supposedly ultra-conservative wanna-join-Alberta-separatists Cariboo-Prince George.
The urban/rural "huge divide" as you call it, is mostly fictional.
But hey, sit there in your bunkers and keep calling people losers, you are guaranteed to win them over.
The ultra rightwing leaders of this "movement" in Alberta are a bunch of **** losers. There. I said it and I mean it in the most insulting way possible. Conspiratard, Trump-loving idiots. And the people who are falling for their rhetoric... those conservative-voting, Trudeau-hating average Albertans are even stupider for falling for their nonsense.
-
You are falling into the common trap of looking at who won a particular riding and making a blanket statement about who lives in that riding, even though all the ridings have a mix of voting preference.
Yes, there is a rural/urban divide, but I don't think it's as large as you claim. Many urbanites voted for the CPC.
1 of 5 voters in Vancouver Centre voted for CPC...
And 2 in 5 people voted Liberal/NDP/Green in the supposedly ultra-conservative wanna-join-Alberta-separatists Cariboo-Prince George.
The urban/rural "huge divide" as you call it, is mostly fictional.
Ya I know. The typical Liberal, what's ours is ours and what's yours, should have been ours.
Trudeau-hating average Albertans are even stupider for falling for their nonsense.
With an attitude like that, you shouldn't be surprised if the contempt is mutual. Feel better?
So where do we go from here?
-
Ya I know. The typical Liberal, what's ours is ours and what's yours, should have been ours.
That response had nothing to do with what I posted... ???
With an attitude like that, you shouldn't be surprised if the contempt is mutual. Feel better?
Contempt from conspiratard rednecks? Good.
So where do we go from here?
They go away... there will be whining in the background... Canadians, including most Albertans, will carry on with life.
-
It's not just about blaming the powerful vs powerless... The far right blames "Jews" or "immigrants", the far left blames "white people" or "rich people".
Do you read what you write?
-
That response had nothing to do with what I posted... ???
Contempt from conspiratard rednecks? Good.
They go away... there will be whining in the background... Canadians, including most Albertans, will carry on with life.
As an outside observer I thought Notley was the best Alberta PM since Lougheed. She tried to play nice with the RoC but where did it get her. You call Albertans rubes for electing someone like Kenny but it is attitudes like yours that have to carry at least some of the responsibility. As well as local politics, electing Kenny was a giant middle finger to the rest of Canada.
If we keep going the way we are, this country is ****.
-
Albertans who think they need to separate from the country ARE rubes. They live in a fantasy world. The reality is that the federal government over the last several years have done a ton for them from disaster relief for the wildfires to buying pipelines to try to save jobs. The ones who don't recognize that can get bent.
-
Like I said, this country is ****. Full of people who just want to shout instead of listen.
You guys are a big disappointment, liberals my ass.
-
Like I said, this country is ****. Full of people who just want to shout instead of listen.
You guys are a big disappointment, liberals my ass.
Sounds to me like Peter Downing is doing most of the shouting, especially at his meetings complete with Confederate flags being waved. Maybe he should quiet down and take some advice from lucien Bouchard.
-
Albertans who think they need to separate from the country ARE rubes. They live in a fantasy world. The reality is that the federal government over the last several years have done a ton for them from disaster relief for the wildfires to buying pipelines to try to save jobs. The ones who don't recognize that can get bent.
It is true that the federal government does provide some benefits to Alberta. But, Alberta also contributes to the Canadian economy; in effect the Federal government is doing stuff for Alberta with money they collected from Alberta in the first place.
Now, I do think the idea of separation is foolish, mostly because so much of Alberta's economy is based on the oil sector, and oil is a finite resource. It will run out (or the world's economy will eventually move away from fossil fuel). But I do think Alberta has valid complaints about how it is treated in confederation, and pointing out a few crumbs that get tossed their way doesn't negate all the problems they have
-
As an outside observer I thought Notley was the best Alberta PM since Lougheed. She tried to play nice with the RoC but where did it get her.
Nothing will make the oil sands anything other than a boom/bust industry. I don't remember a single thing Notley said or did... She probably had her head down working on alleviating the damage done by successive Conservative governments.
You call Albertans rubes for electing someone like Kenny ...
No, never did that actually. I wasn't surprised in the least. Kenney is a continuation of what Albertans usually vote for, with Notley being the one blip in decades.
but it is attitudes like yours that have to carry at least some of the responsibility.
No. Albertans always vote for Conservatives who give away the farm to oil companies. Has nothing to do with any attitudes anywhere else.
...electing Kenny was a giant middle finger to the rest of Canada.
No... it was Albertans electing the same thing over and over for decades with a 4 year break in there. I'm not sure where you get the idea that Alberta is any different now than it was 5, 10, 20 years ago. The only difference is that they seem to get more publicity.
-
It is true that the federal government does provide some benefits to Alberta. But, Alberta also contributes to the Canadian economy; in effect the Federal government is doing stuff for Alberta with money they collected from Alberta in the first place.
Now, I do think the idea of separation is foolish, mostly because so much of Alberta's economy is based on the oil sector, and oil is a finite resource. It will run out (or the world's economy will eventually move away from fossil fuel). But I do think Alberta has valid complaints about how it is treated in confederation, and pointing out a few crumbs that get tossed their way doesn't negate all the problems they have
Alberta doesn't get treated any differently than any other part of the country.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/ches-crosbie-pc-equalization-referendum-1.5339224
-
It is true that the federal government does provide some benefits to Alberta. But, Alberta also contributes to the Canadian economy; in effect the Federal government is doing stuff for Alberta with money they collected from Alberta in the first place.
Now, I do think the idea of separation is foolish, mostly because so much of Alberta's economy is based on the oil sector, and oil is a finite resource. It will run out (or the world's economy will eventually move away from fossil fuel). But I do think Alberta has valid complaints about how it is treated in confederation, and pointing out a few crumbs that get tossed their way doesn't negate all the problems they have
Alberta doesn't get treated any differently than any other part of the country.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/ches-crosbie-pc-equalization-referendum-1.5339224
First of all, I am not really sure why the one event (the linked-to article) manages to prove Alberta is "not treated differently".
Secondly, lets look at some of the things Albertans might be miffed about:
- The National Energy Program (yes, its a long time ago, but it was perhaps the most blatant example), which saw billions of dollars of potential revenue transferred to other parts of the country
- Equalization payments which punish oil producing provinces but benefit those with hydro electricy
From: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/peter-holle-artificially-cheap-hydro-power-your-equalization-dollars-at-work
...a quirk in the equalization formula excludes the true value of hydro electric energy produced by Manitoba and Quebec, which sell their hydropower in local markets for below-market prices without penalty....The formula is correct to deduct the market price of oil...The same logic should apply to Quebec and Manitoba’s hydro revenues under the equalization rules — but doesn’t.
- Alberta has the worst per-capita representation in the house of commons (number of voters per riding)
Alberta is a net contributor to federal finances, and have been for decades, yet they see Quebec continue to be a 'have not' province, collecting more than they 'pay in' to the system in terms of both equalization payments and other government programs. Successive federal governments seem to bend over backwards to keep Quebec appeased, while at the same time other provinces often take actions that oppose Alberta's best interests (such as Quebec opposing the Energy East pipeline and B.C. opposing Transmountain.)
-
Alberta has the worst per-capita representation in the house of commons (number of voters per riding)
Yes, balancing representation is always a problem, especially when there is rapid population growth. BC, Alberta, and Ontario are the losers and Quebec has almost perfect balance. The rest are winners.
-
Alberta doesn't get treated any differently than any other part of the country.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/ches-crosbie-pc-equalization-referendum-1.5339224
NFLD is prime example of how they are treated differently.
Even though both are considered "have" provinces and get the same per capita transfer as all the "have" provinces, in 2017 Albertans sent just under 12k per capita to Ottawa and received 6K of federal expenditures in return. Newfoundlanders sent 9K to Ottawa and received just under 12 K in return.
-
Also, the current equalization formula is set in stone till 2024 so will Alberta, Sask. and Nfld have to keep ponying up the same amount for the next four years, no matter how badly their economies are bleeding? Will the receiving provinces get less? Or will BC and Ont. have to pick up the slack and pay more?
-
NFLD is prime example of how they are treated differently.
Even though both are considered "have" provinces and get the same per capita transfer as all the "have" provinces, in 2017 Albertans sent just under 12k per capita to Ottawa and received 6K of federal expenditures in return. Newfoundlanders sent 9K to Ottawa and received just under 12 K in return.
Because Albertans make more money, are younger, etc. What an idiotic argument you keep going back to. It has been debunked over and over... now you're just being an idiot. ::)
-
Because Albertans make more money, are younger, etc. What an idiotic argument you keep going back to. It has been debunked over and over... now you're just being an idiot. ::)
And as has been pointed out, a lot of Nflander's and other east coasters went west to work in the tar sands, made good money, paid a lot of provincial tax, and then retired back to the island and as older people put more of a strain on provincial healthcare.
-
Because Albertans make more money, are younger, etc. What an idiotic argument you keep going back to. It has been debunked over and over... now you're just being an idiot. ::)
Yes they do and that determines equalization, it doesn’t control federal spending. No doubt Nfld needs the money but comparing the two is a prime example of how the federal government can shovel money into the provinces of its choice outside of the equalization formula.
-
Also, the current equalization formula is set in stone till 2024 so will Alberta, Sask. and Nfld have to keep ponying up the same amount for the next four years, no matter how badly their economies are bleeding? Will the receiving provinces get less? Or will BC and Ont. have to pick up the slack and pay more?
That's not how the formula works.
-
That's not how the formula works.
So the have nots will be getting less and some of them will become haves.
-
Just for fun, I will comment on the topic. I believe the result was unfortunate. We need a government with enough of a mandate (a majority) to make critical and difficult decisions to respond effectively to the threat of climate change.
I do not believe I am alone in posting my opinions to appear to be intelligent. The truth is, nobody really cares what any of us says and none of us will change our minds based on what our fellow correspondents on this forum say. But it is entertaining and in the end, isn't that what is really important?
-
Just for fun, I will comment on the topic. I believe the result was unfortunate. We need a government with enough of a mandate (a majority) to make critical and difficult decisions to respond effectively to the threat of climate change.
I do not believe I am alone in posting my opinions to appear to be intelligent. The truth is, nobody really cares what any of us says and none of us will change our minds based on what our fellow correspondents on this forum say. But it is entertaining and in the end, isn't that what is really important?
I think history shows that minority governments here in Canada (we've had 7 over the past 60 years) have been quite effective. The main reason being that have to step away from the partisanship a little and make concessions with other parties lest the government be brought down. Looking at the current situation it's hard to imagine Trudeau and Scheer seeing eye to eye on much but the NDP carry enough weight to get things done and they seem to talk the same talk on various issues including your issue of climate change. Let's hope they can work together and not have us heading back to the ballot box any time soon. I have other things to do, just for fun. :)
-
Deficits doubling, GDP growth almost stagnant.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/trudeau-s-deficits-likely-to-grow-on-weakening-fiscal-outlook-1.1348113
So much for the debt to GDP BS.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/expect-bigger-deficits-and-energy-unease-under-a-trudeau-minority-1.1335411
-
Deficits doubling, GDP growth almost stagnant.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/trudeau-s-deficits-likely-to-grow-on-weakening-fiscal-outlook-1.1348113
So much for the debt to GDP BS.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/expect-bigger-deficits-and-energy-unease-under-a-trudeau-minority-1.1335411
Debt to GDP is the standard measure used by the IMF. It isn’t BS. It also doesn’t say that the deficit may double.
-
Debt to GDP is the standard measure used by the IMF. It isn’t BS. It also doesn’t say that the deficit may double.
It is when GDP is stalled and you are doubling your deficits. But hey, let’s borrow more, your grandkids won’t mind paying the interest even if rates triple in future.
-
It is when GDP is stalled and you are doubling your deficits. But hey, let’s borrow more, your grandkids won’t mind paying the interest even if rates triple in future.
GDP isn’t stalled.
-
GDP isn’t stalled.
It's going down and not far from a recession.
-
It's going down and not far from a recession.
It’s not like it’s going to stay that way. Overall the federal government is in great economic health.
-
It’s not like it’s going to stay that way. Overall the federal government is in great economic health.
Nothing ever remains the same. In the late seventies I bought a home with a 9% mortgage. Fiver years later I renewed at 18% and thought I got a deal because they hit 20% a few weeks later.
The next time a Millennial or Gen X'er starts going on about Boomers driving up the debt I'm going to tell them to stick it in their ear. They are just as bad, if not worse.
-
It’s not like it’s going to stay that way. Overall the federal government is in great economic health.
I don't disagree but I think the world is in big trouble... everyone has taken on debt betting on growth continuing and the ones who hold the debt are in bed with the ones who are in debt.
It feels very tenuous.
-
It's going down and not far from a recession.
We have had 2 negative quarters since the last recession, one in 2015 (Harper) and one in 2016 (Trudeau). I have no friggen idea what is on the horizon, and neither do you, and certainly those professional "economists" have a track record that proves they know less than both of us put together.
-
I don't disagree but I think the world is in big trouble... everyone has taken on debt betting on growth continuing and the ones who hold the debt are in bed with the ones who are in debt.
It feels very tenuous.
I'm at a point in my life where I'm debt free and a lender. I'd love rates to go up but that would be a disaster for so many people. When rates hit 20%, property values cratered and people were walking away from their homes because they weren't worth close to what they were mortgaged for. It wouldn't take anywhere near that today. We are indeed on shaky ground.
-
We have had 2 negative quarters since the last recession, one in 2015 (Harper) and one in 2016 (Trudeau). I have no friggen idea what is on the horizon, and neither do you, and certainly those professional "economists" have a track record that proves they know less than both of us put together.
Debt is going up and growth is slowing down. The planet is only so big and can only provide so much, we are at a point now where we are burning through renewable resources much faster than the earth can renew them.
-
Debt is going up and growth is slowing down. The planet is only so big and can only provide so much, we are at a point now where we are burning through renewable resources much faster than the earth can renew them.
Agreed, that is a real recession we need to fear. Not this artificial economy that everyone is worked up about.
-
Agreed, that is a real recession we need to fear. Not this artificial economy that everyone is worked up about.
Deficits drive an artificial economy, they are a country living on credit.
-
Deficits drive an artificial economy, they are a country living on credit.
If we had the current deficit in an 'average' economy, I would be ok with it. My understanding is the deficit covers infrastructure spending which is a good approach IMO
-
If we had the current deficit in an 'average' economy, I would be ok with it. My understanding is the deficit covers infrastructure spending which is a good approach IMO
Some of it but some is also to expand some social programs. As I have said many times, borrowing is not something I am completely against, it is the mentality that feels there is no obligation to ever pay it back, we will just pass the burden on to future generations. Gen Xers and Millennials have been critical of Boomers for doing that but it seems they haven't learned a damn thing from it.
-
Some of it but some is also to expand some social programs. As I have said many times, borrowing is not something I am completely against, it is the mentality that feels there is no obligation to ever pay it back, we will just pass the burden on to future generations. Gen Xers and Millennials have been critical of Boomers for doing that but it seems they haven't learned a damn thing from it.
https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/plan/about-invest-apropos-eng.html
$15B / year so you are generally right. But $3B isn't much over $300B...
-
https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/plan/about-invest-apropos-eng.html
$15B / year so you are generally right. But $3B isn't much over $300B...
It is if you are doing it every year. In ten years 3B becomes 30B.
As the economy slows and NDP demands increase, those deficit numbers will look very good compared to reality.
-
Trudeau has increased the debt by 64 billion in his first four years compared to 52 billion for Harper in his last four. In 2016 the debt stood at 616 billion so that is more than a 10% increase in a supposedly strong economy. That doesn't bode well for the future.
-
If we had the current deficit in an 'average' economy, I would be ok with it.
In an average economy the budget should be more or less balanced. In a struggling economy we can run recessions. In a strong economy we should run surpluses or at the very least balanced budgets.
If the deficit was 5 billion or so it wouldn't be such an issue. Liberals have been running ~20 billion annual deficits in an average to good economy since elected.