Alberta Election Thread - Election Day April 16 2019

[Mr.Coffee]

I’m not sure if this is even much of a debate but both “sides” are presenting truths here.

It’s not corporate taxes exclusively to blame. It’s not an over the top regulatory burdening system that’s to blame. It’s not long timelines for projects exclusively to blame. It’s not even the pipeline egress issue exclusively to blame. But it’s the combination of everything plus consideration of a hostile political environment both (what appears) provincially but most certainly federally.

All the above combined with math. A good well in Canada is not the same as a good well in the large majority of international locations. I used to work for a large multinational and I can tell you that political risk / stability is actually given a factor and multiplied into geographic locations to help assist decision making. Canada used to have extremely low political risk. Combined with lesser(ish) results, and even with higher cost structures- Canada was still a decent place to do business in oil and gas. Canada has broad infrastructure, technical expertise, there were capital markets...

Today capital markets have dried up. This means juniors aren’t funded, aren’t exploring, and can’t easily be bought by mid sized or large companies. Infrastructure is a mess. Not just the obvious large inter-provincial pipelines with federal jurisdiction that are screwed for no real good reason. But because even intra-provincially... does anyone here know how hard it is to build a pipeline? It’s ####ing ridiculous! The amount of red tape, planning, bull#### that Alberta demands is insane and even when you DO get through all that heavy lifting it still takes the province now 6-10 months to get approval. That’s not acceptable to be competitive internationally. The AER needs to get #### moving faster. That’s just the bottom line. It’s these little things that matter to investment, but people don’t talk about a lot.

Every jurisdiction has their issues. But Canada’s have (obviously) become too much. It’s not that oil and gas is no longer a good investment. People make good returns. Look at Brent or WTI prices. People are making great money at those prices. And people are still making money in Canada too. It’s just way harder than it needs to be compared to other jurisdictions for lesser results.

Anyway the good news is that it’s believed that heavy oil will be priced and demanded for in the near future which should help Canada. Theoretically even though we can’t get it to market.

If Notley or Kenney has a campaign promise of things like; promise not to change royalties. Get the AER to move applications quicker and create some clearer rules in key instances. Be helpful to industry rather than hinder. But what happens? People can NIMBY projects and #### them up. There’s still uncertainty about what the government thinks (the dude they just put in charge of the AER? Wtf??). Oil and gas needs HELP. This is fairly basic.

Lastly it’s not just international companies leaving. Local companies are now trying to leave as well. Awesome.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Canadianman

Man, what a crazy echo chamber this thread is.

Blaming the NDP for investment fleeing when oil prices tanked and we can't get our product to anyone except the US?

Being mad at the NDP for hiring people to avoid having a 20% unemployment rate?

Firmly believing that the party that held power for 50 years, didn't do anything to diversify our economy and didn't get any pipelines built to alternative markets is somehow the solution?

Holding your nose and assuming that the UCP doesn't really mean all of the crazy right wing crap they spew on a daily basis?

I don't love the NDP (didn't even vote for them) but Notley has been a great premier. If they had a name that didn't have NDP in it I suspect they would win the election.

Oil prices had tanked globally when NDP took office, agreed. Oil prices have been depressed locally as a result of no new export pipelines, all of which fell through under NDP's watch. No one is saying the PCs/WR could have gotten all or any built, but the NDP could have done a tonne more to help the situation rather than kicking the industry while it was down, and not doing anything to support pipelines until it was too late and she realized she needed to get re-elected. You don't throw the industry into chaos with a royalty review when things are already uncertain and in a low-price environment.

Don't let her support of the industry today fog over the fact she did a number of things to hamper the industry at a time when it needed help the most in the firs 2 years of their reign.

And also, please don't blame global oil prices. The last 3 years, global oil prices have been FANTASTIC. It is a great time in the O&G sector basically everywhere except Alberta where we're still in sad recession mode.

Worldwide and in the States they're getting triple meat on their subs, while here, we're getting 6-inch veggie subs.

[OldDutch]

I find it interesting that the NDP are full on witch hunt mode against UCP on social issues. So much so you have Sarah Hoffman a minister from Edmonton now trying to deamonize the replacement candidate for Calgary Mountian View.

Meanwhile it has been clearly reported economy is the most important issue to Albertans. Yet NDP want to avoid that topic and fixate on discrediting candidtaes on social issues.

They must know the damage economically they have done to this province. They want to avoid that conversation at any cost.

Why would someone want 4 years more of this?

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

I find it interesting that the NDP are full on witch hunt mode against UCP on social issues. So much so you have Sarah Hoffman a minister from Edmonton now trying to deamonize the replacement candidate for Calgary Mountian View.

Meanwhile it has been clearly reported economy is the most important issue to Albertans. Yet NDP want to avoid that topic and fixate on discrediting candidtaes on social issues.

They must know the damage economically they have done to this province. They want to avoid that conversation at any cost.

Why would someone want 4 years more of this?

That's the playbook of politics these days in North America. Who cares about substantive issues if you can make your opponent look like the boogeyman on social issues and activate the SJW Twitter horde? All you need to do is appeal to the that small but loud base and pray the media takes it and runs with it.

Honestly, I hope Albertans keep avoiding the bait. I don't care if X said Y offensive, I don't care that they posted a dumb meme, I don't care they said something that could be construed as offensive 2 years ago to some small group. Heck, truth be told, I'm not overly fussed about niche-issues like GSA since they impact such a small piece of the population compared to the economy as a whole.

I'll take a Jason Kenney socially-regressive boogeyman any day of the week over a squeaky clean Notley given my financial outcome is on the line. I'd prefer to retire before 75, thanks.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Canadianman

Man, what a crazy echo chamber this thread is.

Blaming the NDP for investment fleeing when oil prices tanked and we can't get our product to anyone except the US?

Being mad at the NDP for hiring people to avoid having a 20% unemployment rate?

Firmly believing that the party that held power for 50 years, didn't do anything to diversify our economy and didn't get any pipelines built to alternative markets is somehow the solution?

Holding your nose and assuming that the UCP doesn't really mean all of the crazy right wing crap they spew on a daily basis?

I don't love the NDP (didn't even vote for them) but Notley has been a great premier. If they had a name that didn't have NDP in it I suspect they would win the election.

Hiring people to change lightbulbs regardless of economic circumstances is never a good idea. Hiring should be done to fill needs not to lower unemployment. You can have a debate over whether service cuts should be made or not and part
Of the argument can be eliminating jobs during a recession isn’t a good idea. But this thought that keeps being restated that the government creating positions for the sake of creating positions (ie lightbulb programs) or as an an excuse to not have done anything to improve the efficiency of service delivery is just wrong.

The economy has been diversified over the past 30 years. The energy industry contribution to our economy is 50% less than what it was in 1985. Show me any economy worldwide that can endure their number 1 sector losing 15-20 billion per year in foreign investment and whose product value went from $100 to $0 and look as good as we do.

The NDP should be blamed for many things. Their handling of The PPAs was incompetent. The way the Carbon tax revenues are being spent is terrible. They aren’t responsible for the loss of investment and the current state of pipelines but they are 100% responsible for their budget. They have not done anything on the spending side to recognize that today’s oil industry is the new normal so their budget currently gets a failing grade.

They have not done enough to warrant being voted back in.

Also you should talk to Travis Monroe when you call this place an echo chamber as he would agree with you aside from who it is an echo chamber for.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Canadianman

Being mad at the NDP for hiring people to avoid having a 20% unemployment rate?

This is a tremendously bad strategy for gaming un employment numbers. A government should never be a make work project based on tax revenue vs cost.

[CaptainCrunch]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1109849538922074112

[redforever]

Originally Posted by GGG

Are people arguing Capital hasn’t left or are people arguing that NDP policy hasn’t caused this exodus of Capital?

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/business...t-the-ways/amp

Here is a good article from Tertzakian on some of the causes in addition to the pipeline issue causing capital flight.

Well, I agree with what this person's response to that article was. I am a big fan of Tertzakian though.

I'm afraid you are behind the times. the World Bank and IFC have had Environmental and Social Standards and Procedures for decades and anyone wanting to be associated with their funding must follow them. From time to time others write their own but all must, in essence, follow and agree with the WB standards if they want financing.

What disappoints me is that you do not mention the real reasons why the US and others are staying away from Canada - they range from high construction and operating costs (carbon tax is only one of many high taxes compared to other countries), a bureaucratic approval process that even the government cannot follow or agree on, a lack of Leadership from the Federal government that would allow projects to be approved, constructed and operated in all regions, a need to negotiate with hundreds of individual bands and individuals who cannot agree with each other, never knowing when the law will be changed mid-stream or when additional requirements will be added and one of the most arduous for me - that perception is more important than accomplishment.

Results and impacts are not important - only that it looks good and the regulating authorities can easily defend it. We have been labeled as "anti-development" and it is true - due to both an abnormally difficult and lengthy approval process as well as due to support from our Federal government.

We used to be among the best for environmental regulations in the world. Now we are a joke. All in three years. Every government official whose job it is to approve a project is scared to make a decision. Asking for more and more and more information instead. No one. And I repeat, No One is looking after the best interests of Canada and doing what is needed for the benefit of all.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

https://twitter.com/user/status/1109849538922074112

Again...

[Canadianman]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

This is a tremendously bad strategy for gaming un employment numbers. A government should never be a make work project based on tax revenue vs cost.

What would be the alternative? Cutting spending, pushing us into more unemployment?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Canadianman

What would be the alternative? Cutting spending, pushing us into more unemployment?

If a government insists on deficit spending, I would propose it be done on individual infrastructure on a project by project basis where private sector labour is being used. Ideally the government can pull back if the private sector is hopping again without bloated bureaucracy and resorting to a lay off of public employees... it employs more people, the labour is cheaper, and it doesn't become a long term operational line item to hamper future budgets. Operational deficits are always messy and will create some pain in the future.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Canadianman

What would be the alternative? Cutting spending, pushing us into more unemployment?

the cut in spending is going to have to happen at some point, unless we're all ok with debt servicing as a huge spend in our budget.


The government shouldn't have bloated the public service just so they can say "Hey look unemployment isn't as bad" Its an illusion and a costly one.


In lock step with wage freezes, the government should have implemented at the very least a hiring freeze of non front end essential personal.


The money that was spent on a expensive boost of the operating budget could have been spent on infrastructure for example.


There was no need to super spend on the operational budget, its ridiculously stupid.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

the cut in spending is going to have to happen at some point, unless we're all ok with debt servicing as a huge spend in our budget.


The government shouldn't have bloated the public service just so they can say "Hey look unemployment isn't as bad" Its an illusion and a costly one.


In lock step with wage freezes, the government should have implemented at the very least a hiring freeze of non front end essential personal.


The money that was spent on a expensive boost of the operating budget could have been spent on infrastructure for example.


There was no need to super spend on the operational budget, its ridiculously stupid.

I dont think people really understand the long-term consequences of this.

The thing is, it isnt just fudging the employment numbers. As we saw with the consolidation of AHS a major sticking point with Government jobs is that they are fantastic, their benefits are amazing and they are almost impossible to eliminate.

And when you do eliminate them, the people holding those jobs are very, very expensive to get rid of.

So by creating a bunch of additional positions you've employed a large segment of these people for the foreseeable future which effectively drops a 'Milan Lucic-esque' boat anchor on your budget and balance sheet for numerous administrations moving forward.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont think people really understand the long-term consequences of this.

The thing is, it isnt just fudging the employment numbers. As we saw with the consolidation of AHS a major sticking point with Government jobs is that they are fantastic, their benefits are amazing and they are almost impossible to eliminate.

And when you do eliminate them, the people holding those jobs are very, very expensive to get rid of.

So by creating a bunch of additional positions you've employed a large segment of these people for the foreseeable future which effectively drops a 'Milan Lucic-esque' boat anchor on your budget and balance sheet for numerous administrations moving forward.

How expensive are they to get rid of Locke?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

How expensive are they to get rid of Locke?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ahs+superboard+payouts

David Megran, the chief medical officer of clinical operations, left with $730,000 in severance and a $1 million lump sum pension payment.

Bill Trafford, the former acting chief transformation officer, left with $391,000 in severance and pension payments of more than $11,000 per month for 10 years.

Former AHS financial officer Duncan Campbell was paid his annual salary of $425,000 even though he took a five-month leave of absence. He has since left the organization for British Columbia, but is being paid $500,000 to conduct a study on types of health funding models

https://globalnews.ca/news/1433174/b...alth-minister/

How far down that rabbit-hole you want to go is up to you I guess.

[transplant99]

I laughed.


Spoilered for size

Spoiler!

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ahs+superboard+payouts

https://globalnews.ca/news/1433174/b...alth-minister/

How far down that rabbit-hole you want to go is up to you I guess.

From your article:

EDMONTON – Alberta Health Minister Fred Horne says while he, too, isn’t happy with large salary payouts to former executives, they were necessary to “right-size” the system.


“Those types of contracts do not exist in AHS today,” Horne told reporters Friday.

There have been a number of changes made since 2014, including caps on executive pay, so my question to you remains the same: How expensive are they to get rid of Locke?

It’s ok if you don’t really know or are basing your argument on examples that are no longer applicable, it gives credibility the first sentence in your OP:

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont think people really understand the long-term consequences of this.

[FireGilbert]

I find it interesting the PCs essentially screwed over the current NDP government from their years of wasting the boom times failing to diversify the economy and save for a rainy day, and now the NDP have been screwing over a future UCP government by expanding the public service which will need to be reduced increasing unemployment and hurting the economy.

Not sure what my point is but I do feel sorry for you guys. It would be nice if our representatives actually looked long term though, not just at the latest poll or election.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

I find it interesting the PCs essentially screwed over the current NDP government from their years of wasting the boom times failing to diversify the economy and save for a rainy day, and now the NDP have been screwing over a future UCP government by expanding the public service which will need to be reduced increasing unemployment and hurting the economy.

Not sure what my point is but I do feel sorry for you guys. It would be nice if our representatives actually looked long term though, not just at the latest poll or election.

I don't think its so much the PCs wasted the boom times as many had noted, AB had no debt, had two savings funds, was slowly diversifying, had some of the highest paid nurses/teachers in Canada, and was chipping away at infrastructure debts. I think the issue is (as many Albertans were and some still are to this day), they were naïve and complacent and economically centrist (they wanted it all and didn't want anyone to pay for it).

To be fair to both the PCs and the NDP no one except the biggest cynics ever thought the federal government would NEP Alberta again, and that their neighbors would be so openly hostile to O&G.

As for stacking debt to the extent the NDP have, I don't think its poison pilling on purpose either, I think its ideologically driven, and something that NDP governments will always do. The sad thing is by acting this way, the no debt advantage Alberta had is likely gone forever.

[holden]

When Kenney gets back from Saudi after telling MBS to pump the brakes, what are we going to do with all the money?