Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

This blew my mind...some guy from Ukraine thinks the US Government is complicit in Psyops that fuel feelings of Alberta alienation and discontentment.

https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/s/8baoef3bUu

It's pretty easy to do when you own the media and the ruling party is the dictionary definition of "useful idiot".

[Yamer]

A government with a head of state calling for Canadian statehood is complicit in operations that support sedition and separation?

Mind blown.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

In my head, equalization and disdain for oil & gas would both be less problematic if equalization didn't include resource revenue. Resource revenue for oil & gas should instead have an explicit formula that dictates the royalty split between the rest of Canada and Alberta.

What royalty split? The current royalty split between Canada and Alberta is 0:100.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by simmer2

It takes years to make long term plans for things like oil sands developments. That oil development contributes billions and billions to social programs across the country.

In order for Alberta to grow their economy, (which contributes more per Capita than any other province when taking into account equalization payments) they need to have long term plans for more pipelines. Like planning 10 to 15 years out. So Smith is right, we need another pipeline to continue contributing all the tax revenue that the federal government needs to pay for its debt.

Very little about what Smith says is "right". She lies constantly and almost everything she does goes against the interests of the majority of Albertans.

If a private corporation wants to take the lead on a pipeline under the Liberal's new major project office then there is something to talk about but Smith is currently wasting our money on a project that has no support and is trying to force her will onto another province in a massively hypocritical way that is entirely performative with no substance.

Originally Posted by simmer2

Instead of thinking everyone who posts something fiscally conservative is an automatic 'Berta' redneck, maybe you could also be open-minded and listen to some of the points as well...and who knows, maybe we will find something we agree on!

There is nothing "fiscal" about this exchange. What made me call you an 'Berta Ditchbilly was your ignorant response to the Eby video that I posted. You could have said nothing but instead you had to take the time to run your mouth and slag on the elected leader of the British Columbia government when he was giving a very measured and reasonable response to Smith's unreasonable shenanigans.

You even made a dumb comment about pipelines when, in the very video you were trash talking without watching, Eby was advocating that BC's very real LNG pipeline projects need to go ahead and rightfully should be prioritized over Smith's imaginary pipeline project.

If you want to agree on something, maybe you should agree on how important it is to listen to stakeholders that you need to get any project up and running and understand where they are coming from and what they need to support the project. (The morons of Alberta who think we should have sovereignty are super quick to ignore the rights and "sovereignty" of anyone else.)

We could also agree that real projects take priority over imaginary projects.

Or, if you really wanted to stretch, we could agree that "fiscally conservative" doesn't mean anything anymore. At least it does not mean anything good. Being "fiscally responsible" is good, but "fiscally conservative" now appears to be the act of stealing public sector money to give to individuals or special interest groups with absolutely no return on investment for the people that money was stolen from.

I look forward to hearing about how open-minded you are to what Eby said after you actually listen to his points... Who knows, maybe you will find something that you agree on!

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

This blew my mind...some guy from Ukraine thinks the US Government is complicit in Psyops that fuel feelings of Alberta alienation and discontentment.

https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/s/8baoef3bUu

Considering the news stories about the Alberta separatists (that Smith has been supporting so aggressively) are hanging out in Washington DC and getting funding from Trump's people, I do not think you need to some guy from the Ukraine to break that story.

I think there is a very real chance that someone should get tried for treason here. Colluding with an foreign government to try and break up Canada.... seems pretty spot on.

[malcolmk14]

It's following the Russia/Ukraine propaganda playbook almost a little too closely for my liking. I have a feeling with Smith going around in the media saying this pipeline is the "last chance to see if Canada works..." this might be a precursor to something more sinister. She's outwardly talking about reviving Keystone XL, and her rhetoric is very focused on Canada being dysfunctional.

This "pipeline" is killed, Smith keeps pushing the "Canada is broken" narrative, her rube base eats it up, and down the road somewhere the US comes to "liberate" Alberta from the tyrannical Canadian government who won't approve any projects.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

What royalty split? The current royalty split between Canada and Alberta is 0:100.

Equalization formula includes 50% of resource revenue. Yes, there's no explicit royalty sharing. But there's definitely an implicit sharing of royalty revenue.

I think by making it explicit, all Canadians better understand they directly benefit from oil and gas production

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Equalization formula includes 50% of resource revenue. Yes, there's no explicit royalty sharing. But there's definitely an implicit sharing of royalty revenue.

I think by making it explicit, all Canadians better understand they directly benefit from oil and gas production

Resource revenue counts as part of the fiscal capacity calculation, but no royalty dollars go to any sort of equalization fund.

For natural resources, consistent with the 2006 Expert Panel’s recommendation, fiscal capacity is assessed based on partial inclusion of actual revenue collected by the province. However, a province’s Equalization payment cannot raise its fiscal capacity above that of a non-receiving province when all resource revenues are taken into account.

The way I read this is it's only going to matter if you are a have-not province.


It's such a weird thing to want. "If only other Canadians knew how much we helped them, maybe they'd give into our demands more." Do you see how infantile this is? Do you know how much the auto sector or forestry or aerospace or tech help Canada? Do you care? Probably not.


And furthermore, it's basically an admission that yes, all our glory and superiority is, in fact, based on something natural that just happens to be more concentrated in the part of Canada we live in. BOW DOWN TO US.


Embarrassing.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Resource revenue counts as part of the fiscal capacity calculation, but no royalty dollars go to any sort of equalization fund.




The way I read this is it's only going to matter if you are a have-not province.


It's such a weird thing to want. "If only other Canadians knew how much we helped them, maybe they'd give into our demands more." Do you see how infantile this is? Do you know how much the auto sector or forestry or aerospace or tech help Canada? Do you care? Probably not.


And furthermore, it's basically an admission that yes, all our glory and superiority is, in fact, based on something natural that just happens to be more concentrated in the part of Canada we live in. BOW DOWN TO US.


Embarrassing.

Yes - the bottom line is that 50% of resource revenue is included into equalization formulas, so have -not provinces get backdoor sharing of Alberta's oil sands royalties.

If Alberta oil sands provided $10b to Quebec and $3b to BC via fiscal federalism as an example, then I think that should be explicit. Because then - also explicit - is that a new pipeline drives more royalty dollars, so more money for Quebec and BC and all the other provinces too because they share in those royalties. I would think that also increases public support for pipelines and egress all across the country. Right now, that's exactly what happens, but it happens via equalization so it's hidden in a complex formula.