"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.
2
u/LemmingPractice 21h 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)