Alberta Politics Thread v2

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Locke

So....the obvious.

Raising taxes, raising minimum wage and the royalty review while facing an economic downturn was just stupid.

Probably the best time for a royalty review considering it had been 10 years from the failed royalty review. And the pricing environment was killing investment and adding far more uncertainty than any review could. The changes on the conventional side were meaningful. When and how often should Royalty reviews be conducted?

Raising taxes was also prudent. We are now the second least taxed province. I agree with the article that the US tax cut put us in a bind. There 21% combined rate in Texas puts us at a disadvantage. Comparing the 26.5 in Quebec and Ontario to the 27 here and attributing the differences in job growth to that is nonsense.

I agree with you that raising minimum wage to $15 was a bad idea. I didn’t mind the first few increases as the $9 or so it was before was too low. If they had stoped at $11 or $12 that would have been reasonable in my opinion.

As the article concludes a change in government is unlikely to fix the main issues.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GGG

Probably the best time for a royalty review considering it had been 10 years from the failed royalty review. And the pricing environment was killing investment and adding far more uncertainty than any review could. The changes on the conventional side were meaningful. When and how often should Royalty reviews be conducted?

Raising taxes was also prudent. We are now the second least taxed province. I agree with the article that the US tax cut put us in a bind. There 21% combined rate in Texas puts us at a disadvantage. Comparing the 26.5 in Quebec and Ontario to the 27 here and attributing the differences in job growth to that is nonsense.

I agree with you that raising minimum wage to $15 was a bad idea. I didn’t mind the first few increases as the $9 or so it was before was too low. If they had stoped at $11 or $12 that would have been reasonable in my opinion.

As the article concludes a change in government is unlikely to fix the main issues.

Yes because foundational damage was done and investment dried up and was spent elsewhere, and its unlikely to come back unless whatever Alberta Government takes steps to renew investor confidence. Unfortunately it was a double whammy as both the Provincial Government and Federal Government policies effected investor confidence.


As was stated today in an interview on the West Block, Doug Black believes the passage of Bill C-69 will put a bullet in the Oil Sands and Pipeline investment and also completely harm investment in all of Canada's resource sectors.


As he had stated previously, Investment applications in resource projects has pretty much gone away in the face of uncertainty due to this bill potential passage.

[GGG]

Yeah federally C-69 is a disaster. It effectively caps the oil production in Canada to at best about 5 million barrels assuming keystone and TMX somehow make it through.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Notley deserves every bit of blame for empty office towers and current economic woes.

The price crash in 2015 created a short term economic problem. Her decisions and policies made it a long term one by making Alberta a less stable and more expensive place to invest.

Worse, she utterly failed to protect Alberta’s interests with the feds. Her job was not to help support a national climate strategy and get a pat on the head from JT and eco lobbyists. Her job was to get the most for Alberta. She didn’t even try. There should have been significant returns for throwing in the towel on all but one pipeline, shuttering coal and de facto agreeing to buy B.C. hydro, implementing a carbon tax, capping the oil sands, and becoming the national patsy for emissions. If she supports it that’s fine, but her opening should still have been sure we’ll do all of that, for $XB a year in cash + expenses to help Alberta transition.

Instead she threw in every card and committed Albertans to pay for it, in exchange for a soft agreement to one pipeline in front of a slamming door on future prospects. That’s nuts.
Just imagine what Quebec would get if we asked them to shutter hydro or manufacturing. Do you think they’d be paying for it themselves?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Notley deserves every bit of blame for empty office towers and current economic woes.

The price crash in 2015 created a short term economic problem. Her decisions and policies made it a long term one by making Alberta a less stable and more expensive place to invest.

Worse, she utterly failed to protect Alberta’s interests with the feds. Her job was not to help support a national climate strategy and get a pat on the head from JT and eco lobbyists. Her job was to get the most for Alberta. She didn’t even try. There should have been significant returns for throwing in the towel on all but one pipeline, shuttering coal and de facto agreeing to buy B.C. hydro, implementing a carbon tax, capping the oil sands, and becoming the national patsy for emissions. If she supports it that’s fine, but her opening should still have been sure we’ll do all of that, for $XB a year in cash + expenses to help Alberta transition.

Instead she threw in every card and committed Albertans to pay for it, in exchange for a soft agreement to one pipeline in front of a slamming door on future prospects. That’s nuts.
Just imagine what Quebec would get if we asked them to shutter hydro or manufacturing. Do you think they’d be paying for it themselves?

Yeah but they changed everyones light bulbs man!!

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Notley deserves every bit of blame for empty office towers and current economic woes.

The price crash in 2015 created a short term economic problem. Her decisions and policies made it a long term one by making Alberta a less stable and more expensive place to invest.

Worse, she utterly failed to protect Alberta’s interests with the feds. Her job was not to help support a national climate strategy and get a pat on the head from JT and eco lobbyists. Her job was to get the most for Alberta. She didn’t even try. There should have been significant returns for throwing in the towel on all but one pipeline, shuttering coal and de facto agreeing to buy B.C. hydro, implementing a carbon tax, capping the oil sands, and becoming the national patsy for emissions. If she supports it that’s fine, but her opening should still have been sure we’ll do all of that, for $XB a year in cash + expenses to help Alberta transition.

Instead she threw in every card and committed Albertans to pay for it, in exchange for a soft agreement to one pipeline in front of a slamming door on future prospects. That’s nuts.
Just imagine what Quebec would get if we asked them to shutter hydro or manufacturing. Do you think they’d be paying for it themselves?

Its not even just that. Canada, and Alberta in Particular have basically turned ourselves into a Banana Republic.

We've become untrustworthy. Because Licenses and government approval of projects have become meaningless.

[transplant99]

Dont forget the 4 credit downgrades in less than 4 years.

That takes some serious work.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Notley deserves every bit of blame for empty office towers and current economic woes.

The price crash in 2015 created a short term economic problem. Her decisions and policies made it a long term one by making Alberta a less stable and more expensive place to invest.

Worse, she utterly failed to protect Alberta’s interests with the feds. Her job was not to help support a national climate strategy and get a pat on the head from JT and eco lobbyists. Her job was to get the most for Alberta. She didn’t even try. There should have been significant returns for throwing in the towel on all but one pipeline, shuttering coal and de facto agreeing to buy B.C. hydro, implementing a carbon tax, capping the oil sands, and becoming the national patsy for emissions. If she supports it that’s fine, but her opening should still have been sure we’ll do all of that, for $XB a year in cash + expenses to help Alberta transition.

Instead she threw in every card and committed Albertans to pay for it, in exchange for a soft agreement to one pipeline in front of a slamming door on future prospects. That’s nuts.
Just imagine what Quebec would get if we asked them to shutter hydro or manufacturing. Do you think they’d be paying for it themselves?

There's a good chance Prentice - as much as Notley - would have seen Alberta unravel no matter which color of shirt was in power.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...t-if-1.5010755

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

shuttering coal and de facto agreeing to buy B.C. hydro

This isn't actually at all accurate.

Without anything else, all the coal-phase out would have done was change the resource from coal to natural gas. The 30 by 30 increased renewables. (But do note that B.C. exports natural gas to Alberta, so coal-phase out was still arguably beneficial to it).

The quid pro quo for Site C import didn't really materialize at all as part of the coal-phase out. In any case, the maximum capacity between the two provinces is 780 MW, which is already being "used." So without a heavy increase in the intertie, which was not going to be supported without the pipelines (I would hope), it's not like they really could 'buy' B.C. at any noticeable change. And the increase capacity for the intertie had long been contemplated before NDP even got in power or the coal-phase out was announced.

Because of B.C.'s electricity market, Notley's threat to restrict imports from B.C. was actually laughable, it's such a tiny difference. I mean in 2016, Alberta actually exported more electricity to B.C. then it imported. The bigger threat would be if Alberta restricted exporting electricity to B.C. B.C. has been a net importer more often than not, and relies on Alberta's import for low electricity during times of high demand. Cutting that off would actually have an impact on B.C. residents electricity bills.

[CaptainCrunch]

Kenney would reduce Minimum wage for Youth and Alcohol servers


https://globalnews.ca/news/4954193/a...medium=Twitter

[Lubicon]

How do they define 'young' workers. Under 18? Under 21? Students?

[CaptainCrunch]

Sounds like it would be selective

Kenney’s suggested graduated minimum wage would see young people make less than adults on the assumption adults are the breadwinners in the home.

[Parallex]

Ridiculous. Work is work... why should someone get paid less for the same job on account of age and why should folk who serve alcohol have a separate minimum wage?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Ridiculous. Work is work... why should someone get paid less for the same job on account of age and why should folk who serve alcohol have a separate minimum wage?

Because they get tipped and dont claim it. Its actually a low-cost alternative to ball-busting (and brutally expensive and ineffective) tax enforcement. It actually makes a fair amount of sense. And that industry has kind of brought it on themselves.

[Ozy_Flame]

With how high tipping is these days, I am surprised some restaurants still can't make ends meet. I know they go to the employees as extra bucks after wages, but this suggests to me that lots of waiters/servers/bartenders/cooks/floor staff are making great take-home wages while the restaurants see none of it?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Locke

Because they get tipped and dont claim it. Its actually a low-cost alternative to ball-busting (and brutally expensive and ineffective) tax enforcement. It actually makes a fair amount of sense. And that industry has kind of brought it on themselves.

So they should do it in order to facilitate tax evasion? Call me crazy but I kind of think that the cost of labour should be included in the end-price of goods/services.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

With how high tipping is these days, I am surprised some restaurants still can't make ends meet. I know they go to the employees as extra bucks after wages, but this suggests to me that lots of waiters/servers/bartenders/cooks/floor staff are making great take-home wages while the restaurants see none of it?

I think the word you're looking for is 'Margins.'

On food its low. On booze it varies but is usually good. On pop its criminally high but its very small dollars.

Getting rich running restaurants requires a lot of them. The average restauranteur isnt buying yachts or anything.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Parallex

So they should do it in order to facilitate tax evasion? Call me crazy but I kind of think that the cost of labour should be included in the end-price of goods/services.

Okay crazy.

Its actually not crazy. Travel a bit, you'll get to places just like this. They're expensive as hell though.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Locke

On pop its criminally high but its very small dollars.

Oh yeah, the margins on pop are insanely high... if you ever wondered how McDonalds can give free refills it's because pop costs them literally pennies a cup.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Ridiculous. Work is work... why should someone get paid less for the same job on account of age and why should folk who serve alcohol have a separate minimum wage?

Because in countries like France where they've made all jobs expensive, they have chronically high youth unemployment. Only 29 per cent of 15–24 year olds in France work, compared to 55 per cent in Canada. In Australia, which has a graduated minimum wage by age, 60 per cent of 15-24 year olds work.

https://data.oecd.org/emp/employment...-age-group.htm

If you're a 16 or 19 year old who isn't paying rent or supporting a family, it's better to have a low-paying part-time job to earn spending money and gain work experience than have no work at all. Lots of jurisdictions (like Australia) have graduated minimum wages for this reason.