Sounds like leaving the CPP is on the table.
Good opening salvo.
Registered User
Sounds like leaving the CPP is on the table.
Good opening salvo.
I assume they are doing all of the work behind the scenes waiting to announce.
Why this wasnt done already is crazy.
Registered User
Because we consistently vote Red Tories into government for the past 15 years. And then most act like the sky is falling over a measly 2.8% reduction in spending over 4 years.... 2.8%!!! Over 4 years!!! That's not a cut, that's a tiny scrape at best.Originally Posted by jwslam
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Looking around
Wondering what became
Of what I once knew
Registered User
Had to wait for fed election to finish.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
The question really shouldn't be "why would Alberta go?". The question should be "why would Alberta stay?"
https://edmontonjournal.com/news/can...box=1573828005
How Alberta pays Quebec’s bills: Four charts that show Alberta picks up the tab
The nearly $240B Albertans have paid out as part of net federal fiscal transfers is more than one-and-a-half times as much as B.C. and Ontario combined
BOBBY HRISTOVA Updated: November 15, 2019
SHARE
ADJUST
COMMENT
In just 11 years, Albertans have paid out almost $240 billion to the rest of Canada.
That number is more than one-and-a-half times as much as B.C. and Ontario combined, whose taxpayers pitched in $54.6 billion and $97.9 billion respectively, the other two largest net contributors to the federal balance sheet.
The money is sent to Ottawa as part of net federal fiscal transfers — basically the residents of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario pay more in federal taxes than they get back in federal programs and transfers — they are net positive contributors to the federal finances. And in Alberta’s case it has been doing that for a lot of years.
Other provinces are net negative contributors — they get more back in federal programs and transfers than they give in taxes. In Quebec’s case its net negative contributor was minus $171.3 billion from 2007-2018.
The numbers from Statistics Canada show that Alberta’s $240 billion comes to about $5,000 a year — for 11 years — for Alberta’s taxpayers.
Ben Eisen, a senior fellow with the Fraser Institute’s Provincial Prosperity Initiative, said the results, per capita, were hard to ignore.
“Despite economic challenges which could reduce net contribution to federal finances, it still remains true that Alberta is a major net contributor to public finances,” he said in a phone interview.
“Far more tax revenue comes to Ottawa from Albertans than what comes back to Alberta in terms of federal services and transfers.”
Trevor Tombe, an associate professor from the department of economics at the University of Calgary, said the results were not surprising.
“The high amount of revenue raised per person is due to high income levels that exists in Alberta,” he said in a phone interview and pointed to the province’s “above average level of economic strength.”
“If you were to ask people ‘Should taxes depend on their income,’ most people would say yes.”
Tombe added that Alberta has the youngest population in Canada, which means it receives less income from federal benefits like the Old Age Security program and the Canada Pension Plan.
The Statistics Canada numbers also show Quebec benefitted most from the equalization program, raking in $107.5 billion. The program shuffles federal tax dollars to provinces with less money so all Canadians have comparable public services at comparable taxation levels.
How the statistics were gathered changed 11 years ago and so Statistics Canada does not have comparable numbers before that. However, a study by the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy showed that from 1961 to 2017, Alberta’s net federal fiscal transfers amounted to more than $600 billion.
How much money Alberta contributes to the rest of Canada is one of the things that will be examined by a panel set up by Premier Jason Kenney as he seeks a “fair deal” from Ottawa.
“Albertans have been working for Ottawa for too long, it’s time for Ottawa to start working for us,” Kenney declared in a speech to the Alberta Manning Networking Conference. “We Albertans will not lose our heads, we are practical people, we are not unreasonable people. Nothing we are asking for is unreasonable.”
The feeling of alienation in the west was highlighted by the Liberals being shut out of Alberta and Saskatchewan in the federal election.
Eisen said he hoped the data would “promote a sense of cooperation and help Canadians from coast to coast understand how big Alberta’s contribution to everyone’s wellbeing is.”
“A strong Alberta benefits the entire country, when there’s an economically strong Alberta it spreads across the country,” he said.
“Ottawa would be far worse off without Alberta’s contribution. It would harm taxpayers all across the province because of the debt-service payments. Canada can’t reach its full economic potential if Alberta doesn’t reach its full economic potential.”
POSITIVE CONTRIBUTORS
Alberta
Net federal fiscal transfer
$22.2 billion – 2007
$22.5 billion – 2008
$17.7 billion – 2009
$16.6 billion – 2010
$17.9 billion – 2011
$19.2 billion – 2012
$23.5 billion – 2013
$27.1 billion – 2014
$24.8 billion – 2015
$16.0 billion – 2016
$15.3 billion – 2017
$17.2 billion – 2018
Total: $239.847 billion
Equalization received
None
British Columbia
Net federal fiscal transfer
$6.6 billion – 2007
$4.4 billion – 2008
$935 million – 2009
-$1.8 billion – 2010
$1.4 billion – 2011
$3.2 billion – 2012
$3.2 billion – 2013
$4.7 billion – 2014
$6.1 billion – 2015
$7.2 billion – 2016
$8.5 billion – 2017
$10.2 billion – 2018
Total: $54.7 billion
Equalization received
$116 million – 2007
$187 million – 2009
$62 million – 2010
Total: $365 million
Ontario
Net federal fiscal transfer
$18.2 billion – 2007
$9.1 billion – 2008
-$2.5 billion – 2009
-$10.8 billion – 2010
-$991 million – 2011
$1.3 billion – 2012
$2.5 billion – 2013
$8.9 billion – 2014
$13.5 billion – 2015
$16.3 billion – 2016
$20.7 billion – 2017
$21.7 billion – 2018
Total: $97.914 billion
Equalization received
None in 2007 and 2008
$285 million – 2009
$851 million – 2010
$2.0 billion – 2011
$3.0 billion – 201
$3.2 billion – 2013
$2.3 billion – 2014
$2.3 billion – 2015
$2.3 billion – 2016
$1.4 billion – 2017
$968 million – 2018
Total: $18.527 billion
NEGATIVE CONTRIBUTORS
Quebec
Net federal fiscal transfer
-$7.0 billion – 2007
-$13.0 billion – 2008
-$16.3 billion – 2009
-$18.5 billion – 2010
-$15.8 billion – 2011
-$14.8 billion – 2012
-$14.7 billion – 2013
-$15.0 billion – 2014
-$14.0 billion – 2015
-$14.3 billion – 2016
-$15.1 billion – 2017
-$12.9 billion – 2018
Total: -$171.3 billion
Equalization received
$6.8 billion – 2007
$8.1 billion – 2008
$8.4 billion – 2009
$8.8 billion – 2010
$8.7 billion – 2011
$7.8 billion – 2012
$7.8 billion – 2013
$9.0 billion – 2014
$9.6 billion – 2015
$9.8 billion – 2016
$11.0 billion – 2017
$11.8 billion – 2018
Total: $107.6 billion
Nova Scotia
Net federal fiscal transfer
-$5.1 billion – 2007
-$6.0 billion – 2008
-$6.2 billion – 2009
-$6.5 billion – 2010
-$6.5 billion – 2011
-$6.8 billion – 2012
-$6.6 billion – 2013
-$6.3 billion – 2014
-$6.5 billion – 2015
-$6.4 billion – 2016
-$6.7 billion – 2017
-$7.1 billion – 2018
Total: -$76.7 billion
Equalization received
$1.4 billion – 2007
$1.5 billion – 2008
$1.5 billion – 2009
$1.4 billion – 2010
$1.5 billion – 2011
$1.6 billion – 2012
$1.8 billion – 2013
$1.8 billion – 2014
$1.8 billion – 2015
$1.8 billion – 2016
$1.8 billion – 2017
$1.9 billion – 2018
Total: $19.9 billion
New Brunswick
Net federal fiscal transfer
-$3.7 billion – 2007
-$3.9 billion – 2008
-$4.4 billion – 2009
-$4.8 billion – 2010
-$4.7 billion – 2011
-$4.5 billion – 2012
-$4.4 billion – 2013
-$4.3 billion – 2014
-$4.5 billion – 2015
-$4.6 billion – 2016
-$4.8 billion – 2017
-$4.9 billion – 2018
Total: -$53.6 billion.
Equalization received
$1.5 billion – 2007
$1.6 billion – 2008
$1.7 billion – 2009
$1.7 billion – 2010
$1.7 billion – 2011
$1.6 billion – 2012
$1.6 billion – 2013
$1.6 billion – 2014
$1.7 billion – 2015
$1.7 billion – 2016
$1.7 billion – 2017
$1.9 billion – 2018
Total: $20.0 billion
Manitoba
Net federal fiscal transfer
-$4.0 billion – 2007
-$4.6 billion – 2008
-$4.9 billion – 2009
-$5.3 billion – 2010
-$4.9 billion – 2011
-$4.5 billion – 2012
-$4.0 billion – 2013
-$3.6 billion – 2014
-$3.6 billion – 2015
-$4.0 billion – 2016
-$4.4 billion – 2017
-$4.6 billion – 2018
Total: -$52.6 billion
Equalization received
$1.8 billion – 2007
$2.1 billion – 2008
$2.1 billion – 2009
$2.1 billion – 2010
$2.0 billion – 2011
$1.9 billion – 2012
$1.8 billion – 2013
$1.8 billion – 2014
$1.7 billion – 2015
$1.7 billion – 2016
$1.8 billion – 2017
$2.0 billion – 2018
Total: $22.9 billion
Newfoundland and Labrador
Net federal fiscal transfer
-$2.3billion – 2007
-$1.7 billion – 2008
-$2.6 billion – 2009
-$2.6 billion – 2010
-$1.9 billion – 2011
-$1.7 billion – 2012
-$1.2 billion – 2013
-$1.1 billion – 2014
-$1.2 billion – 2015
-$1.4 billion – 2016
-$1.5. billion – 2017
-$1.1 billion – 2018
Total: -$20.3 billion
Equalization received
$533 million – 2007
$124 million – 2008
$32 million – 2016
Total: $689 million
Prince Edward Island
Net federal fiscal transfer
-$919 million – 2007
-$1.1 billion – 2008
-$1.2 billion – 2009
-$1.3 billion – 2010
-$1.2 billion – 2011
-$1.1 billion – 2012
-$1.2 billion – 2013
-$1.1 billion – 2014
-$1.1 billion – 2015
-$1.1 billion – 2016
-$1.3 billion – 2017
-$1.4 billion – 2018
Total: -$13.9 billion
Equalization received
$295 million – 2007
$328 million – 2008
$338 million – 2009
$344 million – 2010
$346 million – 2011
$331 million – 2012
$337 million – 2013
$355 million – 2014
$363 million – 2015
$371 million – 2016
$389 million – 2017
$421 million – 2018
Total: $4.2 billion
Saskatchewan
Net federal fiscal transfer
-$1.2 billion – 2007
-$821 million – 2008
-$519 million – 2009
-$867 million – 2010
-$266 million – 2011
$46 million – 2012
$780 million – 2013
$1.3 billion – 2014
$1.1 billion – 2015
$126 million – 2016
-$369 million – 2017
-$315 million – 2018
Total: -$1.1 billion
Equalization received
$173 million – 2007
$59 million – 2008
Total: $232 million
Registered User
I see Calgary's economic dunce Tombe is finally no longer flummoxed by a little bit of accounting.
That guy...
Registered User
Those transfer numbers are sickening... fuck quebec
Registered User
Registered User
Probably already shared but when I see Nenshi complain about higher costs, I don't think he gets it. Sorry but short term costs to long term prosperity with no transfer payments.
He's clearly just posturing for a Trudeau cabinet seat... That fat purple lard.
Good interview.
The actual case for separatism is not a legal or even a government one. The problem is that Canada as it exists is no longer a country that will be able to reach consensus on important issues amongst it's population. In other words, it's not Trudeau that is the problem (or even the federal government). It is the population of the rest of Canada.
Registered User
Were people shitting on them? Quebec and Eastern Canada have taken the brunt of my shitting since I learned about this whole messed up systemThis quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Registered User
Read the comments of anything posted in the Wexit FB group. It's basically just a bunch of people bitching and saying "Fuck Ontario and Quebec" When more accurately it is "Fuck Toronto and Quebec"This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
I dont think it's fair for Alberta or Saskatchewan residents to take a "fuck" anyone approach. People operate in their own self interest - that includes Ontario, Quebec, the lower mainland...etc. The problem is that Alberta is reliant on Ontario/Quebec's generosity and magnanimity in order to have its self interests accomodated. In other words, the issue is not Ontario's application of their control but rather that the control exists. Once Albertans realize this distinction, I think that the separatists sentiment will grow rapidly. They fucked up by not continuing to throw enough scraps to Alberta.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Registered User
Question for those in favor of separation.
Even the most optimistic forecasts for Oil Demand are calling for Oil Demand to start to decline by 2040, most are now calling for peak demand in the 2030's. If that means that the Alberta Oil industry will be a shell of it's current self by the late 2040's or early 2050's, do you still want to separate? What do you see as the basis for the economy then?
Last edited by dj_patm; 11-20-2019 at 04:25 PM.
Registered User
I asked this a couple times ... one time I got we'll separate and then if things decline we'll just rejoin Canada (or the US). I've heard that same argument over why we should leave the CPP too and they say we can just rejoin later.... definitely a lot of IQ points put into that plan.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Let's assume those number are correct....I doubt they are one way or the other because that's far too long of a timeline to be predicting with any reasonable accuracy. Peak demand is different than overall demand. And it's also different than the supply/demand curve.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Be that as it may - I don't agree with the premise of the question. You assume that Alberta will be better off in a low oil environment as part of Canada, than not a part of Canada. IT's a particularly "big government" way of looking at the world. If Alberta (or Canada) is going to thrive it is from creating wealth. Being part of Canada does not create wealth now, and it won't then. Alberta won't be able to rely on the RoC as a source of some mysterious GDP. IF oil were to stop production right now...go oto zero...being part of Canada would have limited benefit....unless some version of welfare from the RoC will somehow be implemented? That's silly.
This is why we have markets. Investors, and the markets determine what is a useful way to deploy capital. The issue with Alberta in Canada, is it prevents the market from determining the appropriate level of investment in Canada's energy sector. Free access to transport our energy out of Alberta would be turning these long term decisions over to the market and investors. Right now, Alberta is choosing to be part of a regime which is refusing to let the market do what markets do best.
Registered User
2040 Peak Demand has been the industry standard for quite some time and has recently started to be brought forward. BoA has it at 2030 (https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-G...-A-Decade.html), Opec says 2040's, everyone else tends to be in the middle to late 2030's. This shouldn't come as a surprise to someone who is so sure of the economics of a separated Alberta.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
How do you forecast Alberta creating wealth should it be Separated from Canada? Are you seeing heavy investment in other non-petroleum industry by current government that you think will be ready to fill the gap by the 2030's-40's or sooner? Once oil revenue starts to drop significantly, how will the government be able to invest in the infrastructure needed to bring in new industry? Do you think that cutting funding to the universities will affect Alberta's ability to attract young talent and entrepreneurs to the province? The students of today would be the business leaders in 20 years. Outside of Alberta, Canada has a growing service economy and while you're totally right that losing the benefit of what is currently the Nations biggest export will hurt, it's 8% of Canadian GDP. It's over 30% of Albertas GDP and much higher indirectly. Remaining in Canada would allow us to receive the same equalization we currently send out of the province as well as receiving federal funding for infrastructure and other projects.
Again you're relying on the energy sector, and while I completely disagree that you'll have any easier of a time getting product to market after a potential separation (the US has not been able to build two pipelines out of Alberta today even with Trump in office, if someone like Bernie gets in then what?), that is not what I was asking. I'm asking what you think will drive the economy of a separated Alberta in 2030 and on? The only recent example we have of a similar situation playing out is Brexit, where capital flight is what most economists predict and that is a much stronger and attractive market than anything we can offer. Why would you see Capital come into a now have-not Alberta should they leave? What does Alberta have to offer outside of Oil that will bring in capital and attract investors and why haven't we seen anything today in a depressed economy with wages and costs being as low as they have been in Alberta for well over a decade and a half? It seems like, from my view, that all signs point to the market deciding that capital is best spent outside of Alberta once oil demand starts to drop which is what we see today when prices are suppressed to similar levels.
Last edited by dj_patm; 11-21-2019 at 11:02 AM.
I don't agree with ANY forecasts that go out 30, 40, 50 years on oil or any other topic - at least without giant error bars. That's just being sensible and acknowledging the limitations of predicting unpredictable events.
To answer your question on what will drive the Alberta economy in 2030 and beyond? Well which is it? 2030? 2050? 2100? It's not a useful question to ask in this context. The idea is to let he market determine, at any given time, how it will deploy capital and its resources. Right now, Alberta;s free market is constrained in a variety of ways within Canada (extraction of capital through taxes, a non-functional regulatory environment, amongst others). That's the problem we are trying to solve.
If you are identifying a problem with Alberta's economy in 20-50 years because energy will no longer be petroleum based, then you need to identify the best solution to that problem. It isn't being part of an inefficient, un-representative national construct with people from RoC. Given the current state of mind of Canadians with respect to generating wealth (ie they don't get it), then other Canadians are the last people you want to be tied to when flexibility is necessary down the road. So you have it precisely backward: I'm not relying on the energy sector, I'm encouraging an economic and political environment which encourages growth and the creation of wealth. These are not Canadian principles. That environment would serve energy interests in the short term, sure...but in the long term it's how you create any wealth. What people naively refer to as "diversification".
What has become clear to me, and should be clear to Canadians, is that the enormous wealth generated from our resource extraction has subsidized not only our comfy quality of life, but it has also subsidized our sense of hubris that we have value in other areas. We don't, as Canadians. You have to earn that through good policy and a good understanding of what drives human motivations and wealth creation. If you want us to move beyond exporting petro bucks and coal and other commodities, you're going to have to come to grips with how people actually create value. And Canadians don't really want to hear it.
I don't draw many useful comparisons to Brexit.
Registered User
^ What are you expecting the difference to be if Alberta is still part of Canada? Are you expecting equalization will suddenly be sent Alberta's way or what difference do you see?
I assume that question if for @dj_patm ?This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Posting Permissions
Quote
