Quebec Riots start up again

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Makarov

No, that's true. But neither is revenue from Quebec's hydro-electric resources or revenue derived from Ontario's manufacturing or transportation industries. And there is no doubt that the returns on investment in the energy industry far exceed those in any other industry.

Don't Quebec and Manitoba play a numbers game with their Hydro power to help out their equalization numbers.
AFAIK Quebec sells their Hydro at below market rates to residents to reduce the revenue that Hydro Quebec generates which is counted towards equalization.

It would be as if Alberta lowered the royalties on O and G on the condition that fuel costs in Alberta were lowered by a similar amount. They then raise taxes to maintain the same level of revenue but suddenly they have less revenue room on paper so their share of equalization goes up.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by jammies

The problem with trying to use a reductio ad absurdum argument is that you actually have to take someone's argument to its conclusion

Originally Posted by transplant99

Or is that " reductio ad absurdum ". I guess my "inductive logic" classes would help?

Alright, I've had it, I've just HAD it.

This is the second time this week someone has disparaged reductio ad absurdum in a thread in off-topic. Can we please at least get it straight that this is a valid logical form of argument? Stop talking about it like it's a fallacy or I'm going to have to find you and beat you all over the head with a modal logic textbook.

If a then b.
If b then c.
Not c.
Therefore not a.

Clear?

[jammies]

Uh, my sentence is saying that you have to get to "Not C" to make it a valid argument. So... maybe your reductio isn't absurdum enough, but mine has plenty of ad in the tank.

[AR_Six]

Earlier this week someone else, I forget who, maybe Resolute, dismissed someone's argument as being a reductio, as if he was saying it was affirming the disjunct. Now in this thread there's the implication that there's something wrong with it AGAIN, and that, sirs, is a perspective up with which I will not put. The record must be set straight!

Originally Posted by Makarov

Anyway, I guess the point I was trying to make (albeit clumsily) is that I don't have any problem with people taking to the streets to try and make their voice heard.

I don't think anyone really does... but once their voices are heard, and their perspective adjudged to be stupid, you can't really expect people to do anything other than scoff. I'm not going to sit here and celebrate any political action, no matter how much I disagree with it, as a laudable exercise of charter rights. They're perfectly within their rights to protest (within the law and s.1 limits), but I think this particular protest is dumb.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I get it. Free money is good for Alberta, just not for those spoiled babies in Quebec.

I don't understand how this is free money. The province owns the resource. It then allows others to purchase a working interest and extract the resource, in exchange for which they may keep a portion of what they extract. If I own an apartment building and rent out a suite, how am I getting "free money"?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

I don't understand how this is free money. The province owns the resource. It then allows others to purchase a working interest and extract the resource, in exchange for which they may keep a portion of what they extract. If I own an apartment building and rent out a suite, how am I getting "free money"?

Its free because Alberta (and Albertans) did nothing to earn it. We fell ass backwards into a bath tub full of oil and natural gas. Quebec, to date, has not had that good fortune. We only own it (and are therefore entitled to receive royalties for its extraction) pursuant to the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement. Quebec is essentially entitled to a (small) share of that wealth pursuant to the Equalization Program. What is the difference?

[AR_Six]

The difference is that we fell ass-backwards into it (or in my case moved here in order to take advantage of an area blessed with such resources) and they did not. Isn't your argument equally applicable to, say, inherited wealth? I suppose the analogy fails in that one does not have the alternative to take direct advantage of someone else's inherited wealth by moving to their province.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

The difference is that we fell ass-backwards into it (or in my case moved here in order to take advantage of an area blessed with such resources) and they did not. Isn't your argument equally applicable to, say, inherited wealth? I suppose the analogy fails in that one does not have the alternative to take direct advantage of someone else's inherited wealth by moving to their province.

Well, one could just as easily say that Quebec fell ass backwards into Equalization money.

This whole argument started when some posters started deriding Quebec because it used "free money" to lavishly spend on daycaee and higher education while hard working Alberta cannot afford to do the same. It is untrue.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Its free because Alberta (and Albertans) did nothing to earn it. We fell ass backwards into a bath tub full of oil and natural gas. Quebec, to date, has not had that good fortune. We only own it (and are therefore entitled to receive royalties for its extraction) pursuant to the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement. Quebec is essentially entitled to a (small) share of that wealth pursuant to the Equalization Program. What is the difference?

Or you can argue that Alberta earned the money by being willing to exploit the reserve, whereas you can argue that Quebec has not done a good job in exploiting the natural resources in that province. ie Quebec natural gas.

Its not free money if you work hard to earn it.

[WCan_Kid]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

The difference is that we fell ass-backwards into it (or in my case moved here in order to take advantage of an area blessed with such resources) and they did not. Isn't your argument equally applicable to, say, inherited wealth? I suppose the analogy fails in that one does not have the alternative to take direct advantage of someone else's inherited wealth by moving to their province.

Well, there was time and effort involved with actually figuring out how to produce Albertas resources. It's not like the Beverley Hillbillies shooting a gopher and oil sprays out, the WCSB is a fairly tricky region to produce economically and the efforts of those who developed the technologies should be recognized.

Pretty sure Quebec didn't do anything to "earn" their hydro power either.

[AR_Six]

^Very true, this is all simplistic, but I don't suggest that the production from hydro resources that benefits B.C. or Quebec should be re-appropriated to serve the citizens of Saskatchewan, either. At least, I see no immediately obvious moral imperative that would suggest it should be so. If there's a practical argument, so be it.

Originally Posted by Makarov

Well, one could just as easily say that Quebec fell ass backwards into Equalization money.

This whole argument started when some posters started deriding Quebec because it used "free money" to lavishly spend on daycaee and higher education while hard working Alberta cannot afford to do the same. It is untrue.

Isn't equalization the product of a transfer system that was imposed on a policy basis? Whereas resources physically exist within Alberta? I mean our ownership of resources sitting under the land we live on is a far more intuitive result, given the history of property law, than re-appropriating wealth to different territories based on... you know, I'm not exactly sure.

It's clearly untrue. Alberta could very easily make free daycare and cheaper post-secondary a higher priority than tax relief. I suppose my point is that I do not see "we should be a net payor of money to Quebec" as a starting point. I believe others in this thread have expressed similar views. Not surprisingly, as we are primarily situated in Alberta and that system works to our detriment. The opposite opinion would hold true in Quebec. It's ultimately a moral issue and the onus to establish why it is that we ought to be sending money to Quebec is on the proponents of the system.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Or you can argue that Alberta earned the money by being willing to exploit the reserve, whereas you can argue that Quebec has not done a good job in exploiting the natural resources in that province. ie Quebec natural gas.

Its not free money if you work hard to earn it.

The formula for calculating tge fiscal capacity of the provinces only considers half of a province's natural resource revenues. Therefore, there is no incentive to purposely not develop or exploit nstural resources. It would only leave Quebec with less revenue.

[MarchHare]

It's ultimately a moral issue and the onus to establish why it is that we ought to be sending money to Quebec is on the proponents of the system.

You're phrasing the question incorrectly. When debating equalization, the question shouldn't be "Should the federal government transfer money to Quebec?", it should be, "should the federal government transfer money to the less wealthy provinces to pay for the world-class health and education programs Canadians expect?"

It's easy for Albertans to bash equalization when the question is framed such that the hard-working citizens of this province are losing out on money that is rightfully theirs to ungrateful, lazy, language-policing Quebeckers. That same argument doesn't work when you debate the merits of equalization payments to non-Quebec provinces, though.

Also, keep in mind that every province (including Alberta) has been a recipient of equalization payments at one time or another. Historically, Ontario had been the only province that had never received equalization, but their fortunes changed a few years ago.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

You're phrasing the question incorrectly. When debating equalization, the question shouldn't be "Should the federal government transfer money to Quebec?", it should be, "should the federal government transfer money to the less wealthy provinces to pay for the world-class health and education programs Canadians expect?"

Well, really, it's "should the federal government mandate the transfer of money from more wealthy provinces to less", and the use of the funds may factor into the "why". But okay, the onus is still on the proponents to establish why that's the right thing to do.

It's easy for Albertans to bash equalization when the question is framed such that the hard-working citizens of this province are losing out on money that is rightfully theirs to ungrateful, lazy, language-policing Quebeckers. That same argument doesn't work when you debate the merits of equalization payments to non-Quebec provinces, though.

Sure it does. Or more aptly, it's not an argument - it's a request for one. At the outset, the assumption is it's our money - it was produced by resources situated in our territory. We own the resources, we sell them for money. Now explain why we should have to give that money to you. I will listen with an open mind (not without bias, but with an open mind). I don't care who the recipient is. It can either be justified generally or in the case of a particular subset of recipients (i.e. the people of Quebec) or an individual recipient (Bob from Moncton). But it should be justified.

Also, keep in mind that every province (including Alberta) has been a recipient of equalization payments at one time or another. Historically, Ontario had been the only province that had never received equalization, but their fortunes changed a few years ago.

That is a pragmatic argument - i.e., we should pay these payments now, because we may be in a position where we need them in the future and at that point the existence of the system will improve our quality of life. We should maintain the system as insurance in case that happens. I don't know how convincing I find that, personally, but fair enough.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

^Very true, this is all simplistic, but I don't suggest that the production from hydro resources that benefits B.C. or Quebec should be re-appropriated to serve the citizens of Saskatchewan, either. At least, I see no immediately obvious moral imperative that would suggest it should be so. If there's a practical argument, so be it.

Isn't equalization the product of a transfer system that was imposed on a policy basis? Whereas resources physically exist within Alberta? I mean our ownership of resources sitting under the land we live on is a far more intuitive result, given the history of property law, than re-appropriating wealth to different territories based on... you know, I'm not exactly sure.

It's clearly untrue. Alberta could very easily make free daycare and cheaper post-secondary a higher priority than tax relief. I suppose my point is that I do not see "we should be a net payor of money to Quebec" as a starting point. I believe others in this thread have expressed similar views. Not surprisingly, as we are primarily situated in Alberta and that system works to our detriment. The opposite opinion would hold true in Quebec. It's ultimately a moral issue and the onus to establish why it is that we ought to be sending money to Quebec is on the proponents of the system.

Well,, I'm not convinced that Alberta's sole ownership of its resources is as intuitive as you suggest. To begin with, obviously property ownership is a very abstract idea. In common law jurisdictions, we understand "ownership" as a bundle of rights that a person has over some thing or some land. However, which rights are included and excluded from this bundle is not always intuitive.

For example, by your argument, I might draw the conclusion that resources under the ground should belong to whomever owns the surface land. However, in western Canada, this not the case. Pursuant to treaties signed between various First Nations and the Crown, subsurface resources belong exclusively to the Crown. Thanks to the compromises of Canadian federalism (and Confederation), the Crown in Canada has a very counterintuitive dual nature: there are both federal and provincial Crowns. I don't see anything intuitive about which Crown should own which resources though. It is also worth noting that there is nothing intuitive about the way in which provincial boundaries have been drawn and therefore the resource riches of northern Alberta could just as easily belong to the Province of Rupert's Land as to the Province of Alberta.

[MarchHare]

Well, really, it's "should the federal government mandate the transfer of money from more wealthy provinces to less", and the use of the funds may factor into the "why". But okay, the onus is still on the proponents to establish why that's the right thing to do.

That's simple: I consider myself a Canadian first and foremost above any loyalties I may have to a particular province. As a citizen of this nation, I believe we have a societal imperative to ensure that all our countrymen have equal access to essential government services such as healthcare and public education. The quality of those services should be similar regardless of which province you live in. Without equalization, less prosperous provinces could simply not afford to provide services of a similar quality as the wealthier provinces.

I'm sure the response of many people to that reality will be, "So what? Eff 'em!" However, equalization also benefits the people in the wealthier provinces. Since you're a fan of pragmatic arguments, have you considered this one:

Alberta's success is largely dependant on having a highly-educated labour pool. During boom periods, there are significantly more available jobs here than there are Albertans to fill them, making staffing a significant challenge that impedes economic growth. Because of Equalization, other provinces can afford to provide a high-quality education to their citizens. Many of those citizens subsequently move to Alberta and contribue to this province's economic success.

Personal anecdote: I was born, raised, and educated in New Brunswick. Within a month of graduating from university, I moved to Alberta to start my professional career. I have been living here for the past 11 years. During that time, I have positively contributed to the economy of this province by working, paying taxes, and spending money at local businesses. The citizens of New Brunswick have received zero ROI from the money the provincial government (with support from Ottawa in the form of equalization payments) spent on my education whereas the province of Alberta has enjoyed 100% of the returns from that long-term investment. My anecdote is hardly unique, as I'm sure you're aware. Afterall, the #1 export of Atlantic Canada is educated young people. And where do those educated young people tend to move? To the provinces with strong economies which are therefore net contributors to the Equalization program, of course.

[AR_Six]

I didn't say I was a FAN of pragmatic arguments, I merely cast your previous statement as one, which disqualifies it in any meaningful way from being a moral argument (at least, I think moral pragmatism isn't really a moral theory). However, the opening paragraph of that post is certainly framed as a moral argument - we out to ensure that all of our countrymen have equal access to essential government services. Alright, I think that's probably, by and large, uncontroversial. What amount of transfer payments need to be made in order to ensure that everyone has access to the necessary minimum level of health care, education etc., and are we exceeding that threshold (built into this is what the threshold should be)? Are the payments actually being used for that purpose?

I mean, this accepts your basic point that we ought to ensure that everyone in Canada gets X and Y, which not only leads to the question of "why is that so", but further, "why just X and Y, and not Z?"

For example, by your argument, I might draw the conclusion that resources under the ground should belong to whomever owns the surface land. However, in western Canada, this not the case. Pursuant to treaties signed between various First Nations and the Crown, subsurface resources belong exclusively to the Crown. Thanks to the compromises of Canadian federalism (and Confederation), the Crown in Canada has a very counterintuitive dual nature: there are both federal and provincial Crowns. I don't see anything intuitive about which Crown should own which resources though. It is also worth noting that there is nothing intuitive about the way in which provincial boundaries have been drawn and therefore the resource riches of northern Alberta could just as easily belong to the Province of Rupert's Land as to the Province of Alberta.

Well, I'm not really questioning the fundamental tenets of common law. Surface rights vs. subsurface rights vs. land-to-sky is somethat that's evolved over a number of centuries. The division of legislative authority and property in this country is also sort of taken as read from where I sit. It's unlikely we're in a position where we could easily legislate a change in the concept of property rights as they exist in our legal system. There are policy decisions that are realistically available to us, one of which is the structure (or basic existence) of equalization. That's more or less a political discussion based on morality and as noted by March, pragmatism. A discussion of whether the idea that property can be owned and how that should look is basically academic in my view.

That's a disappointing answer and I wish I had time to engage in this discussion on a more complete and well-thought-out basis but I'm busy working to generate revenue that can be used to subsidize the education of those frog freeloaders back east.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

That's a disappointing answer and I wish I had time to engage in this discussion on a more complete and well-thought-out basis but I'm busy working to generate revenue that can be used to subsidize the education of those frog freeloaders back east.

Speaking of disappointing answers...

[Makarov]

Considering AR Six's valuable and reasonable contributions to this discussion (which distinguished him from some other posters), I presume that was posted with tongue firmly in cheek.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I would hope so, I actually was enjoying his arguments even if I didn't necessarily agree with them.