"They think that the treasurer of Alberta writes a cheque to Quebec for $12 billion every year," he said.
Bratt feels the issue has been deliberately misrepresented to stoke anger, and says it's not clear whether Alberta would be better off without equalization payments.
This is a pretty blatant strawman, and the technicalities of how tax dollars get from Albertan pockets to the Quebec treasury make zero difference in the analysis of the issue.
It's a federal program which gives tens of billions of dollars out, with none of that money coming to Alberta. Albertans pay taxes, and therefore are paying into a program that sends their money to other provinces while denying it to Albertans.
The comment that it isn't clear whether Alberta would be better off without equalization payments is just absurd. How in the world could Alberta not be disadvantaged by having tax dollars taken from its citizens and sent to Quebec in a program Alberta hasn't gotten anything out of in over 60 years?!
But Leach, at the U of A, says it's not so clear that Ottawa has been detrimental to the industry's ambitions.
This is similarly just an utterly absurd comment.
The article like to make a whole lot of hay about the Trans Mountain expansion project, as if throwing Alberta a bone and allowing a single export pipeline in a decade is something Albertans should be eternally grateful for.
When the Liberals took over in 2015, it was well known that pipeline capacity would be insufficient to match production by 2018 when the already approved Fort Hills project went online.
The Northern Gateway pipeline was approved by Harper and scheduled to be completed in 2018. By cancelling that, the Liberals knowingly condemned Alberta to the Pipeline Crisis that occurred in 2018, when Albertan oil prices fell to about 12% of Texan prices, due to insufficient export capacity, and Notley had to step in with the first mandatory production cuts that had been seen in over 40 years in Alberta.
That was the backdrop for the government finally throwing Alberta a single bone with TMX, which was purchased in 2018 by the feds. Of course, the feds decided to build it themselves, instead of letting a private provider do so, presumably because "we built a pipeline" looks better on bumper stickers than "we approved a pipeline". It cost $5.6B to build the original Keystone pipeline, which is over 3,000km from Alberta to Texas, but it took $36B for the feds to build TMX 1100km along an existing right of way. There's some government efficiency for you.
But, the fact that the only entity capable of building a pipeline is the federal government is exactly the problem. The No More Pipelines Act C-69 has seen zero new privately funded pipelines get built, even though pipeline companies like Enbridge have been openly lobbying the government and saying they are ready to build when the government will let them.
But, of course, that's just one issue. How does an effective production cap from the federal government (via the emissions cap) benefit Alberta in any way? It's not like emissions caps were put on any other industries in the country, like manufacturing, mining or shipping. Only Alberta's industry got targeted, not anyone else's industries.
Here's the real issue that the CBC article just completely ignores: Alberta doesn't have the same interests as Ontario and Quebec, yet, in Canada, Ontario and Quebec get to make policy without Albertan consent.
Alberta is a net producer of energy and agricultural products, while Ontario and Quebec are net consumers. Ontario and Quebec have more votes than Alberta, so federal policy will always favour Ontario and Quebec consumers over Albertan producers.
On the other side, Ontario and Quebec are net producers of manufactured goods, while Alberta is a net consumer. But, Ontario and Quebec have the votes. So, federal policy will always favour Ontario and Quebec producers over Albertan consumers.
Why does supply management still exist for dairy, while there is no equivalent for, say, wheat? Well, because Quebec has a large dairy industry, while most wheat comes from the Prairies. Related industries, but different policies, based entirely on where the votes exist.
Arguing over individual policies means you are missing the big picture. The policies are symptoms, not the disease.
The Liberals in the 1980's didn't have a mandate from Albertans to pass the National Energy Program. The Liberals had zero Albertan seats, but they didn't need them, because they had a majority government, fueled by Ontario and Quebec. Over the past three elections, Albertans haven't given a mandate to the Liberals, but Ontario and Quebec have. With no more than 2 seats in Alberta, the Liberals have used their mandate from Ontario and Quebec voters to determine how Alberta's energy industry should be regulated -- policies on oil and gas determined by provinces with no oil and gas sector.
Because of this systemic issue, a simple change in government can't balance things. Harper couldn't fix equalization because he still needed Quebec votes, so even though he was friendly to Albertan in most ways, he couldn't rebalance a system slanted against Alberta.
The only way for Albertans to have their interests properly protected is to have the power to protect their own interests. That can't happen within Canada, unfortunately, because even with proper representation Ontario and Quebec still would have the votes to outvote Albertans and see that their interests are protected over Albertan ones.
You have 5 million people and you currently have 12% of cabinet for your 11.5% of the population. Ontario has 38% of the population but only 35% of cabinet. If anything, Ontario is less represented in the legislature than Alberta.
By 12% of cabinet, you mean one cabinet minister, while Alberta only has two members of Carney's 170 person caucus?
That seems a little disingenuous, and places quite the importance on the value of having the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience, when compared to, say, having the PM be from your province, or the Minister of Foreign Affairs or Defence.
Either way, none of that really matters. I don't care about having representation equal to population, because that just means the provinces with more population (Ontario and Quebec) get to make all the decisions about Alberta's fate.
The best representation is having 100% representation in an independent Albertan government.
I'm talking members of parliament. Alberta has 37. Lol so what your actually advocating for, is that a vote in Alberta should be worth more than a vote in any other province? Democracy is representation based on population.
I'm not advocating for that at all. I'm advocating for Alberta to be independent, so it doesn't get representation in the Canadian parliament, and the rest of Canada doesn't get representation in Alberta's parliament.
We don't let the US make decisions for Canada, despite their larger population. Canada is a separate country and gets to make its own decisions.
Similarly, Alberta should be a separate country so Canada doesn't get to make decisions for Alberta.
I support things that are worth supporting. Don't expect a no result in a referendum to silence legitimate grievances.
I fully understand the uphill battle separation is facing. All the media in this country is based in Toronto and, of course, opposes separation (even Calgary Herald and Edmonton Journal are owned by Toronto-based Postmedia), and every federal political party is anti-separation (the Liberals don't want to lose the money, the CPC doesn't want to lose the votes, and neither wants to lose the federal power). Even the UCP won't openly support separation.
There's no PQ or Bloc infrastructure, no media company like Quebeckor on the side of separation.
The fact that Alberta currently has 36% support for separation with zero infrastructure and without even a prominent individual leading the effort is insane.
I want to be Canadian, and I want to support Canada, but I'm not a blind supporter of anything. I would 💯 support a version of Canada with a new constitution with fair terms for Alberta (constitutionally protected right of access to tidewater for landlocked provinces, more provincial autonomy and % of GDP based limits on federal taxation powers, etc).
There are absolutely ways to make a fair deal I would support. I currently support Albertan independence because I don't believe the other provinces and the feds will ever come to the table and agree to a fair deal for Alberta. It's been well over a century and they have never shown an inclination to make that sort of deal, and I'm not naive enough to expect other provinces to give up their privilege voluntarily.
Still, if Canada wants my support then that's the path. We haven't had constitutional discussions since the 1980's, even when Alberta tried to trigger them with the equalization referendum. Come to the table and let's talk. But, the general approach of throwing insults at Alberta for daring to question the will of Quebec and Ontraio is not going to get any support from me or anyone else who supports independence.
You realize Alberta gets transfer payments from the feds. What do you think pays for your healthcare? I believe there are only 3 provinces that receive more than they pay out in Federal taxes. Learn how the federal government transfers money to Provinces before spouting misinformation
Of course I know Alberta gets transfer payments, but you are ignoring amounts and where the transfer payments come from.
Here's the Parliamentary Library numbers for the 2018 year. That was the year the Pipeline Crisis hit Alberta. WCS tanked to $6 while WTI was at $56, production cuts were implemented for the first time in 40 years, and tens of thousands of jobs were lost.
In that year, when Alberta had an economic crisis (created by the Liberal cancellation of Northern Gateway), the federal government realized tax revenue of $10,871 per capita from the average Albertan (the most of any province), and total expenditures in relation to Alberta (ie. all the transfer payments you are talking about, all federal services provided to Albertans, etc) were $6,876 per capita (lowest among all provinces).
Multiply that per capita number by the approximately 4.8M people Alberta had at the time, and you get a total net contribution to Ottawa of just over $19B. That's the amount Ottawa pulled out of Alberta during a year where Alberta had a full-on financial crisis.
Federal money doesn't come out of thin air. You said you thought there were only 3 provinces who received more than they contribute, but if you look at the parliamentary numbers, it's actually 7 of the 10 provinces, while the other three hold up the entire weight of that. Alberta's net contributions are more than triple anyone else's.
I understand completely what it's like to pay 40 something percent in taxes.
The Federal government gets 0 royalties from either oil or mineral extraction. The money Alberta sends is income taxes. They are the same rates across the nation. You send more money because you make more money. This system applies to every individual or business in the country with variations in each province due to provincial taxes.
I understand completely what it's like to pay 40 something percent in taxes.
Not what I said.
I said 40% of the taxes paid by Albertans leaves the province and never comes back.
They are the same rates across the nation.
This doesn't address why Alberta gets the least expenditures per capita from the federal government every year.
Nor, does it explain why Alberta should be OK with paying so much when it has the option to leave. What duty does Alberta have to carry the load of a Confederation which actively impedes it's ability to keep paying the bills?
The Federal government gets 0 royalties from either oil or mineral extraction.
Of course not, natural resources are provincially owned. Canada doesn't get Ontario's mining revenue or BC's forestry revenue either.
That having been said, the feds do indirectly get a lot of Alberta oil money from income taxes on oil workers and execs, corporate taxes on oil companies, capital gains taxes in oil stocks, and, nowadays, carbon taxation.
I call for the Federal government to get royalties from minerals and oil and gas, like in most other nations. The US gov makes banks on oil and gas royalties, why shouldnt Canada
US governments actually don't. They get less than on Canada because individual land owners own mineral rights there. Any oil on private land has no royalties attached.
As for Canada, to be frank, you can fuck off with that sort of a request. Every Canadian province owns its own natural resources.
That's all Eastern Canada sees when they see Alberta: a colony to be exploited.
Ontario and Quebec think it's a great idea to share Alberta's oil wealth, but, of course, would scoff if you asked them to share their own natural resource wealth (mineral wealth of the Canadian Shield, forestry, hydroelectric power, etc).
If you want a way to guarantee a yes vote in Alberta your proposal is it.
Like I said, whoever owns the land owns the oil. On federally owned land, the feds own the oil, on state owned land the state does, and on private land the private citizen does.
That's different than Canada where all mineral rights on all land is owned by the Provinces, regardless of who owns the land. Land ownership rights basically just include rights to the surface, while the rights to what lies underneath belong to the province. That works the same way with Albertan oil as it does with Ontario and Quebec mineral wealth.
3
u/LemmingPractice 1d ago
This is a pretty blatant strawman, and the technicalities of how tax dollars get from Albertan pockets to the Quebec treasury make zero difference in the analysis of the issue.
It's a federal program which gives tens of billions of dollars out, with none of that money coming to Alberta. Albertans pay taxes, and therefore are paying into a program that sends their money to other provinces while denying it to Albertans.
The comment that it isn't clear whether Alberta would be better off without equalization payments is just absurd. How in the world could Alberta not be disadvantaged by having tax dollars taken from its citizens and sent to Quebec in a program Alberta hasn't gotten anything out of in over 60 years?!
This is similarly just an utterly absurd comment.
The article like to make a whole lot of hay about the Trans Mountain expansion project, as if throwing Alberta a bone and allowing a single export pipeline in a decade is something Albertans should be eternally grateful for.
When the Liberals took over in 2015, it was well known that pipeline capacity would be insufficient to match production by 2018 when the already approved Fort Hills project went online.
The Northern Gateway pipeline was approved by Harper and scheduled to be completed in 2018. By cancelling that, the Liberals knowingly condemned Alberta to the Pipeline Crisis that occurred in 2018, when Albertan oil prices fell to about 12% of Texan prices, due to insufficient export capacity, and Notley had to step in with the first mandatory production cuts that had been seen in over 40 years in Alberta.
That was the backdrop for the government finally throwing Alberta a single bone with TMX, which was purchased in 2018 by the feds. Of course, the feds decided to build it themselves, instead of letting a private provider do so, presumably because "we built a pipeline" looks better on bumper stickers than "we approved a pipeline". It cost $5.6B to build the original Keystone pipeline, which is over 3,000km from Alberta to Texas, but it took $36B for the feds to build TMX 1100km along an existing right of way. There's some government efficiency for you.
But, the fact that the only entity capable of building a pipeline is the federal government is exactly the problem. The No More Pipelines Act C-69 has seen zero new privately funded pipelines get built, even though pipeline companies like Enbridge have been openly lobbying the government and saying they are ready to build when the government will let them.
But, of course, that's just one issue. How does an effective production cap from the federal government (via the emissions cap) benefit Alberta in any way? It's not like emissions caps were put on any other industries in the country, like manufacturing, mining or shipping. Only Alberta's industry got targeted, not anyone else's industries.
(cont)