Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Not to be an additional source of corporate welfare? Are our tax rates not low enough to provide them with a reasonable profit after cleaning up their mess?

Originally Posted by Weitz

See your problem from the outset is not understanding what a royalty is.

How about you share your views of the purpose of royalties, instead of what they are not. There are, by definition, an infinite number of things they are not.

I understand them very well. And my position is that I think, in principle, it is fair for reclamation to be a cost shared with Albertans, as initial capital, sustaining capital, and operating expenses are.

Originally Posted by Barnes

Of course you dont work for or own shares in a company with orphan wells. Those companies dont exist. It's like saying you are currently not a parent of an orphan or know any parents of orphan children.

Orphan wells are the responsibility of the OWA which is funded by industry and are a large liability to government coffers, but they aren't the only liability. Should we be on the hook for inactive wells, long term shut-in wells of terrible operating companies, D13 non-compliance wells, wells with SCVF and gas migration issues, companies that are ignoring surface abandonment and reclamation requirements? Might as well nationalize the industry. Operators own 100% of a well's liability from licensing to reclamation certificate authorization.

Excellent point and a breakdown in my logic. Thank you. I guess the point I was trying to get across was more that I don't have a dog in this fight other than my position as a royalty receiving Albertan (via funded services).

In general, it is unfortunate we are in this situation due to past oversights. I wish we had had a framework akin to the Mine Financial Security Program to enforce setting aside reclamation dollars during operating lifetimes and well before the spend is needed, similar to what the Oil Sands companies have for the mine and tailings liabilities (which are deductible against royalties).

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Absolutely it is. There are number of ways to increase funding that would not be directly detrimental to lower income Albertans.



Would you argue that it’s more likely the more affluent crowd that would be discouraged or the lower income crowd? Because that’s kinda the point here.

We all come from different places financially but I think your assessment that a fee being small won’t dissuade people is wishful thinking. Perhaps you’ve never been in a situation where you’ve had to pinch every penny(and that’s not meant as a slight, that’s the kind of position we want people to be in) but there are certainly people whose ability to enjoy the parks is affected by this fee being implemented. There’s no denying that.

Totally agree. Poor people don't look at $.25/km for gas and future maintenance and upkeep. It's gas, that's what I worry about. The other stuff get dealt with when it happens. That's terrible financial sense, and it is what it is like to be poor.

The only entertainment I had a lot of time growing up was going for a drive. Pack some food and we can put gas in but we ain't stopping anywhere to spend money. Well maybe enough for an ice cream for the kids.

Just because a family can find the finances to afford $40 in gas for an afternoon out doesn't automatically mean they can afford another $15 for a fee. Could they pay it? Probably. Could they afford to pay it? Not necessarily. It would put hardship just to visit the park. So now, we can go for the drive but we can't enjoy all of Alberta because we have put a barrier to entry on a Provincial Park. Heading to a PRA day use area is fine, and it is probably what people end up doing. But we need to recognize that we have now classed out Kananaskis for a segment of people.

Comments like if they can afford A then they can afford B just shows a lack of understanding of what it is like to be actually poor.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'd rather have a functioning healthcare system that can treat me if I get cancer than this BS vote buying. #### off, Danny!

We should just start our own Health Care system....with hookers! And Blackjack!

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Locke

We should just start our own Health Care system....with hookers! And Blackjack!

Tax payer funded hookers? Someone make this man the PM.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Absolutely it is. There are number of ways to increase funding that would not be directly detrimental to lower income Albertans.



Would you argue that it’s more likely the more affluent crowd that would be discouraged or the lower income crowd? Because that’s kinda the point here.

We all come from different places financially but I think your assessment that a fee being small won’t dissuade people is wishful thinking. Perhaps you’ve never been in a situation where you’ve had to pinch every penny(and that’s not meant as a slight, that’s the kind of position we want people to be in) but there are certainly people whose ability to enjoy the parks is affected by this fee being implemented. There’s no denying that.

Now you are moving the goal posts. Your statement was restrict access not dissuade use.

I agree that a fee will dissuade use. I also think the level of the affect is relatively constant amongst car owners who frequent the parks.

It’s kind of my point if you were pinching every penny you aren’t driving to the parks. The reason it dissuades use is people see a $15 dollar fee and don’t account for the cost of use of gas and vehicles in their calc and think it’s a dramatic increase in cost.

Find me the person who actually is restricted from going and isn’t choosing not to go.

[calf]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Tax payer funded hookers? Someone make this man the PM.

No need for new spending...the UCP ####s us every day

[GGG]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Totally agree. Poor people don't look at $.25/km for gas and future maintenance and upkeep. It's gas, that's what I worry about. The other stuff get dealt with when it happens. That's terrible financial sense, and it is what it is like to be poor.

The only entertainment I had a lot of time growing up was going for a drive. Pack some food and we can put gas in but we ain't stopping anywhere to spend money. Well maybe enough for an ice cream for the kids.

Just because a family can find the finances to afford $40 in gas for an afternoon out doesn't automatically mean they can afford another $15 for a fee. Could they pay it? Probably. Could they afford to pay it? Not necessarily. It would put hardship just to visit the park. So now, we can go for the drive but we can't enjoy all of Alberta because we have put a barrier to entry on a Provincial Park. Heading to a PRA day use area is fine, and it is probably what people end up doing. But we need to recognize that we have now classed out Kananaskis for a segment of people.

Comments like if they can afford A then they can afford B just shows a lack of understanding of what it is like to be actually poor.

Then advocate for means testing if you believe this group exists. The reality is that hiking and camping are middle class activities and unfortunately not lower income activities do due the limited access and requirements for vehicles to access parks.

Keep the fee, if access is something you want to champion then champion transportation to parks at prices everyone can afford.

Also if owning a car and having gas money to drive to parks is your definition of poor I don’t think you know what poor is either.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by calf

No need for new spending...the UCP ####s us every day

But this would give us the opportunity to turn around and #### someone else, essentially trickle-down ####ing.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

But this would give us the opportunity to turn around and #### someone else, essentially trickle-down ####ing.

Not to be confused with the Tickle Down ####ing, for which you need to pay extra.

[para transit fellow]

nevermind

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

How about you share your views of the purpose of royalties, instead of what they are not. There are, by definition, an infinite number of things they are not.

I understand them very well. And my position is that I think, in principle, it is fair for reclamation to be a cost shared with Albertans, as initial capital, sustaining capital, and operating expenses are.

Royalties are compensation to the province for allowing these businesses to profit from extracting and selling OUR resources.

Since when were they defined as a means to cover costs associated with the cleanup activities for multibillion dollar corporations?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

Now you are moving the goal posts. Your statement was restrict access not dissuade use.

6 of one half a dozen of another? Are you seriously going to argue that if someone is dissuaded from attending due to financial reasons(a fee that they can’t afford) then their access hasn’t been restricted compared to when that financial component was not a factor?

I agree that a fee will dissuade use. I also think the level of the affect is relatively constant amongst car owners who frequent the parks.

It’s kind of my point if you were pinching every penny you aren’t driving to the parks. The reason it dissuades use is people see a $15 dollar fee and don’t account for the cost of use of gas and vehicles in their calc and think it’s a dramatic increase in cost.

The $15 fee contributes a significant increase to the cost of a day trip. If we assume gas for the round trip is anywhere between $15-$30, that additional $15 increases the costs by 50-100%.

Find me the person who actually is restricted from going and isn’t choosing not to go.

If someone makes the “choice” to not go because they can no longer afford to it is effectively restricting their access. You could argue any specific examples I present are anecdotal so I’m not going to bother playing that game. You go ahead and explain how pricing someone out of a service isn’t restricting their access to that service.

What you’re saying is like arguing that if we gave up universal healthcare to implement a pay for service model it wouldn’t restrict access and those who can’t afford it are simply choosing not to seek care, that they couldn’t be consider as having their access restricted even if they can’t afford it.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

Also if owning a car and having gas money to drive to parks is your definition of poor I don’t think you know what poor is either.

I’d argue that if you think owning a car and occasionally having an extra $20 in gas money to make a trip up to a park means you’re not poor, then your opinion is out of touch with reality. Some families struggle living in small apartments and own a cheap car because one of both parents need it to get to work. They still live paycheque to paycheque and they may occasionally be able to afford that extra bit of gas to do something nice as a family, they don’t need more road blocks.

You can argue making it means tested all day, but before that we should first look at whether or not the additional fees have even improved the parks to begin with. From what I’m hearing, they haven’t.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

....

Excellent point and a breakdown in my logic. Thank you. I guess the point I was trying to get across was more that I don't have a dog in this fight other than my position as a royalty receiving Albertan (via funded services).

In general, it is unfortunate we are in this situation due to past oversights. I wish we had had a framework akin to the Mine Financial Security Program to enforce setting aside reclamation dollars during operating lifetimes and well before the spend is needed, similar to what the Oil Sands companies have for the mine and tailings liabilities (which are deductible against royalties).

I misspoke here:

Orphan wells are the responsibility of the OWA which is funded by industry and are would be a large liability to government coffers if the OWA did not exist.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Royalties are compensation to the province for allowing these businesses to profit from extracting and selling OUR resources.

Since when were they defined as a means to cover costs associated with the cleanup activities for multibillion dollar corporations?

Not "cover". Goodness no. That would imply 100% offloading to Albertans. I am talking about being ok with them being deductible against revenues which, effectively, nets to Albertans sharing a % of the cost equal to the royalty rate.

And that is how it is currently defined by our province.

https://www.alberta.ca/royalty-overview.aspx

Factors influencing costs
The cost to produce and transport our resources also affects our share of the value. The higher the cost, the less value is available. Costs are influenced by:

• upfront and capital investments (explorations, engineering, processing and transportation)
• operating costs (power, heat, labour, reporting and maintenance)
• regulatory compliance costs (taxes, carbon levies, reporting, reclamation, remediation, surface access and other fees which would include bonuses paid to acquire development rights from the province)

The cost to develop resources can differ greatly between and within jurisdictions, depending on local conditions at the time. If investors cannot recover their costs and make a return on their investment, they will not invest, and the resource will not generate jobs or economic value. All current royalty frameworks encourage industry to innovate and reduce capital and operating costs, which will increase value no matter what oil prices are.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Not "cover". Goodness no. That would imply 100% offloading to Albertans. I am talking about being ok with them being deductible against revenues which, effectively, nets to Albertans sharing a % of the cost equal to the royalty rate.

And that is how it is currently defined by our province.

https://www.alberta.ca/royalty-overview.aspx

If your argument is that Alberta is sharing part of the cost of remediation, as that is tax deductible, then the sharing would be a factor of the tax rate. Nothing to do with the royalty rate.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by GGG

Also if owning a car and having gas money to drive to parks is your definition of poor I don’t think you know what poor is either.

Not to derail this thread, but this comment is....something. Having a car does or does not qualify someone as being "poor". Some people have jobs, a car....and no place/house to live. As been pointed out, some people have to have a car - especially in a spread out city, poor transit, etc - to even get to work. In that case, that might illustrate just one of the many challenges of being poor - car vs food amount, etc.

Means testing the parks pass is a nice idea, but really....that's a lot of additional road blocks for someone who is poor. They need a computer or access to one (to apply), and/or they need to get to a gov't office (assuming you can even do that in person at a GOA office in Calgary, and its not out actually in the park) which implies in some cases potentially having a car or using transit, there is also the feeling of shame and stereotypes some may have or encounter for accessing something like this, etc.

Not everything is as logical and straightforward as you may think it is.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Not to derail this thread, but this comment is....something. Having a car does or does not qualify someone as being "poor". Some people have jobs, a car....and no place/house to live. As been pointed out, some people have to have a car - especially in a spread out city, poor transit, etc - to even get to work. In that case, that might illustrate just one of the many challenges of being poor - car vs food amount, etc.

Means testing the parks pass is a nice idea, but really....that's a lot of additional road blocks for someone who is poor. They need a computer or access to one (to apply), and/or they need to get to a gov't office (assuming you can even do that in person at a GOA office in Calgary, and its not out actually in the park) which implies in some cases potentially having a car or using transit, there is also the feeling of shame and stereotypes some may have or encounter for accessing something like this, etc.

Not everything is as logical and straightforward as you may think it is.

It's too bad they couldn't think of a system that is better than user-pay and/or means tested, and instead took a percentage of your income (after providing for a base level deduction) and then used that money to fund what should be a public good, available to all.

[Fuzz]

So the UCP is all about reducing government overhead, costs and read tape. Could someone explain how adding what is esssentially a government insurance company to manage our health spending account, and all the billing and payments fits into that? Because it seems to me this is just going to be more government bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy that takes tax dollars from patient care and spends it on administration.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So the UCP is all about reducing government overhead, costs and read tape. Could someone explain how adding what is esssentially a government insurance company to manage our health spending account, and all the billing and payments fits into that? Because it seems to me this is just going to be more government bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy that takes tax dollars from patient care and spends it on administration.

Well sure. Then next year, they can show how ridiculous it is of a policy to have the government be an insurance company to a health spending account and how much better it would be if the private sector took that role instead. It would eliminate all the red tape!

It's Prophetic.. or "profit"ic?