A newspaper located in a Liberal governed province in economic decline looks westward for ideas, licking its lips…
(screenshot)
A newspaper located in a Liberal governed province in economic decline looks westward for ideas, licking its lips…
(screenshot)
How thoughtful of them indeed… Deciding how to spend money that isn’t theirs… This country is doomed…
#2 – “A collective energy pool to spread the wealth”
Stephane could call it the Green Shift or the National Energy Plan.
I voted for “something else” else in that one too. I thought it was ridiculous that categories that improve the individual provinces were not on the list – like paying down provincial debt, improving infrastructure, tax reductions, diversifying the economy. Nope every option except the last was a new form of equalization. Definitely a troll poll by the G&M because even the densest socialist would assume that the provinces would want to help themselves first.
Isn’t that what Hawkeye chanted in the MASH mess hall that time? “We want something else! We want something else!”
Whew! I was worried it might be Ghiz showing his brilliance again!
Maybe the Globe is trying to provoke a backlash from poor Globe readers against the rich westerners! Its not fair that you have to actually MOVE to Calgary to make $16/hr. working at McDonald’s! Be Green. Send the money by wire!
The poll was set up by a “steering committee”, if you know what I mean.
why not share the wealth and keep your dirty “grin ‘ouse gizzes” filthy oil barons and creators of food.
Freeze. In. The. Dark.
Does that mean Quebec will have to kick in their hydro electric wealth ?
Fred,
You mean the “distinct and separate culture?” We all know the answer to that.
Im wondering when the collective genious of Buzz Hargrove, Jack Layton , Dalton &McGinty (the law firm) and Borat Dion will figure out that adding taxes to fuel and cutting “grin ‘ouse gizzes” are all directly related to shutting down a truck line in Oshawa. next will be a steel plant in Hamilton and then a smelter in Sudbury. take the wealth and spread it around boys till there is nothing left to distribute.
actually its kinda fun to see Buzz walking around so uptight it looks like he sat on and inserted a large collective agreement.
If something like this is attempted, Ontarions will end up buying their oil from the Republic of Alberta.
Does that mean Quebec will have to kick in their hydro electric wealth ?
Posted by: Fred at June 9, 2008 11:04 AM
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
What about Ontario’s Niagara Falls hydro electric wealth?
It’s been putting out “Energy Wealth” non-stop for over 100 years!
rabbit: **If something like this is attempted, Ontarions will end up buying their oil from the Republic of Alberta**
I guess then the poll would skew to “Foreign aid”.
Isn’t all of the billions that the feds are sucking out of Alberta in equalization payments sharing the wealth?
Last stats I read showed that the federal transfer payments for Alberta were pretty much equal to its oil royalties.
It’s not really sharing when they are taking 100%…
“A multiprovince university system”
Not a bad idea provided the western (conservative) benefactors finally get a chance to control the little darlins’ minds.
When manufacturing boomed in Eastern Canada in the past, I don’t ever recall a suggestion to share that wealth with western Canada during the hard times out here.
Eastern Canada can tighten it’s belt and cut it’s overly generous welfare programs and frivolous social spending and all the various special interest group funding that does nothing but make people lazy and stupid. Then they can send their more skilled workers out West were the jobs are.
Voila, everyone wins and the welfare bums get the tough-love they so desperately need.
I am sure that the Republic Of Alberta will offer fair and competetive prices with timely delivery
provided a letter of credit is supplied.
At the same time Albertans would see a huge price reduction as there would be no federal tax!
I am sure that the Republic Of Alberta will offer fair and competetive prices with timely delivery
provided a letter of credit is supplied.
At the same time Albertans would see a huge price reduction as there would be no federal tax!
Sorry for the double post…my bad!
I wish Easteners could understand the rage that will follow any attempt to repeat a NEP type of policy directed at Alberta….VERY BAD IDEA to go there. VERY VERY BAD!!!
Awww, come on you westerners. Don’t you want to hand over all of your wealth to idiots like chimpy mcliar, so he can spend it on transgenderfreakofnature type surgeries?
Where is your sense of generosity?
Are we not all Canadians?
Ontario has some big-time pension liabilities in the near future, and the latte sipping idiots are going to demand that you westerners fund it.
Man, living in Ontario is wonderful!
I’m a Saskatchewanian and I don’t see why we as Westerners are so upset about the fact that now we have to support Canada rather than be fed by it. I’ve disliked Ontario and Quebec for the duration of my short life for their political clout, and total ignorance of Western issues, etc., however, Saskatchewan itself has relied on federal transfer payments for decades to support itself.
When it’s finally our turn to give back, and the economy has swung in our favor and against the Easts, why is it that we have to be such pricks about it?
STOPIGGY & Muslim Al-Gebra’s & Aunt-American’s “public policy”.
Al-Gebra say, “We need a national energy strategy.””
What/who is our enemy? The State and the minds of Egghead Iggy and the Muslim theocracy of Al-Gebra, et al.
…-
““This,” he said, “is one of the emerging imperatives of public policy – to get a really visionary commitment to strengthening the east-west energy linkages instead of shipping it all south.””
…-
“Ignatieff has a vision: a trans-Canada energy highway”
“Omar Alghabra, the Liberal energy critic, says his colleague is on the right track. It’s too gigantic an issue for Canada to just leave to the market, he says. “We have to reduce barriers that prevent Canadian oil from being used by Canadians. We need a national energy strategy.””
http://tinyurl.com/4mxrs3 (g-m)
In the world of “Jebus” (whatever that is supposed to mean, some puerile stab at Judeo-Christian civilization….oooooh were scared!) there are only hosts and parasites. We just take turns sucking or being sucked.
Jebus:
Actually Albertans don’t make too much fuss over transfer of payments. They do make a fuss over Ottawa mucking about with the oil industry. There’s a couple of reasons for this…
First, according to the Canadian Constitution, natural resources are a provincial jurisdiction. Second, when Ottawa implemented a national oil strategy in the early 1980’s, the results were an unmitigated disaster. Albertans – and indeed all Canadians – paid the price for that bone-headed idea.
That’s why Albertans are a might sensitive.
Doug,
Actually it was the name of Jerusalem before the Israelites captured it. Or you can take it as a quote from the Simpsons when Homer asks Jebus to save him.
So sadly, your assumption that anyone who doesn’t share Judeo-Christian values is a leftard are woefully incorrect.
As to parasites and hosts, I agree, that is what the current system is. However, it is also how a successful family, community, or group of individuals survive successfully; namely that it supports those who are in unfortunate positions. I agree the equalization payment plan isn’t perfect, but I sure as hell am glad it was there in 1980’s so that I could get a decent education, paid for by the Ontario manufacturing sector.
I’m just not sure what problem you have with the communal idea of helping those less fortunate. This obviously doesn’t have anything to do with one province being more industrious or hardworking than the other. The sole factor playing a role here is the luck of the draw, i.e. where the oil got deposited, where the natural resources were placed, etc.
Another perfect example of the mindset that pervades the MSM … Globe& Mail should be thanked for clarifying that!
BTW – under “something else” …. I’d say building better roads would be a heck of an idea.
Jebus:
The problem is not the way you describe it.
On the one hand citizens can act like you and your fellow Saskatchewanians and be proud and pleased you have finally toughed it out and can now be identified as a “contributor” rather than a “Taker”. On the other hand you can act like Newfoundland. The oil revenues start coming in and the coffers are full but they want to keep all of their revenue and they also want to remain on the Canadian dole. People who support and agree with Danny Williams are ingrates and shysters. The people who support your Premier are just the opposite. Think about it. Westerners are not being pricks just because they want to exercise caution and prudence with the revenues from THEIR natural resources.
As Fred implied …… I don’t ever recall Quebec suggesting they should share the wealth from the hydro they stole from Churchill Falls.
While someone was reading “Heather Has Two Mommies” at bedtime (and in school) he apparently never heard of the Aesop (who? some dead white guy?) fable of the Ant and the Grasshopper.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ant_and_the_Grasshopper
There is being generous and then there is being taken advantage of.
Saskatchewan has some real challenges – the roads are falling apart, the medical system is straining, there is some real demographic problems to do with seniors and aboriginals, high taxes and we have a substantial prov debt to just name a few. Now is time to give back to the long suffering locals that have paid the price during the hard times.
The ROC is welcome to share by moving here,working and becoming a provincial taxpayer. But to repair your neighbors house when your own is falling apart does not make sense. Especially the obnoxious busy-body neighbor to the left.
Besides, wouldn’t it be wrong for the Central Canadian greens to take proceeds from dirty resource money. Kinda like buying blood diamonds.
ONCE AND FOR ALL………
ONTARIO AND QUEBEC ARE NOT IN THE EAST!
THEY ARE OUT WEST!
I understand about the NEP, and agree, that was just a money grab by Trudeau. To BCer, isn’t it the same thing as Newfoundland? As you said, why repair your neighbors house while your own is falling apart…well Newfoundland has been falling apart for decades, and now they’ve finally got some extra cash and want to spend it on their people, to finally give those hardworking people what they deserve.
I’m not saying Newfoundland should keep their oil revenue, I’m just saying that it would be the same thing for Saskatchewan to attempt to hold onto it’s oil revenue.
I agree that it’s nice for us to finally have some wealth to use for our own provinces advancement, and I think the federal government needs adjust the plan such that it does give incentives for provinces to be successful, etc., however, I don’t see why we as Saskatchewanians or Albertans should be better off than the rest of Canada just because we happen to have a resource that has skyrocketed in demand in recent years.
We’re Canadians, no? What makes someone in Saskatchewan deserve oil money more than someone in the Northwest Territories? Or B.C.? Or Ontario? I think that we need to let capitalism take it’s course in some ways, in the sense that if New Brunswick is tanking economically, we shouldn’t prop up a dying whale by telling it’s people that they don’t have to move, or find a new career or line of work.
As to the Quebec Hydro thing, that’s an excellent point. Was their Hydro considered a natural resource and kept exempt from the Equalization plan?
Because to take anything from Quebec wouldn’t be the Canadian Way, we give to the East never take from.
Funny how all the choices in the pool involved “sharing” the money (or more precisely, giving the money away).
I was looking for the option “return revenues to taxpayers with reduced taxes”. Couldn’t find it. It seems to me that should be the first consideration when the provinces have excess money and they are trying to invent new ways to spend it. Maybe they should not spend it at all.
If the western provinces reduce taxes, then that will put more pressure on the east to do the same, lest they lose all their good workers and corporations to the west.
One of my PoliSci text books has a reprint of a cartoon that appeared in a Sask newspaper circa early 1900’s. It was a generaliztion of the state of affairs of Canada at the time. On a map of the country representing ON/QC were 4 men in tails playing cards and laughing heartily while a farmer in the West carried two urns of milk and a fishermen in the East carried his catch towards the center. The caption was something about the periphery feeding the center. That perception in ON/QC hasn’t changed in 100 years!
Umm, yes, brilliant strategy. Tell Canadians. who have seem pump prices double in the last five years, they should feel guilty, and pay more than $1.40 a litre, that they haven’t been deterred enough. Then tell Western Canadians they are very bad for making so much oil, that we’ll have to take a bunch of $billions to make everybody rich in the new green scarf economy.
Then blame Harper for truck plan closing, because he hasn’t done enough for climate change …. when people change their behaviour they way you want them to.
Finally, force Summer or Fall election. Now there’s a winning strategy.
No, but evidence Grits can’t find any other way to get rid of their leader.
I can tell you are not a conservative, Jebus. Your entire assumption is that all money and profit rightfully belong to the government to be dispersed fairly and equitably. No, It is the company and workers that take risk and add value to the resource. Therefore the bulk of the rewards should go to them. The province gets a cut for being the owner (BNA act?) and the prov/feds get business and income taxes. That is the money that should be shared amongst Canadians. If individual Canadians citizens want more then they have the right to move here and share directly by working in the field.
BCer said,
“People who support and agree with Danny Williams are ingrates and shysters.”
38th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 022
CONTENTS
Thursday, November 4, 2004
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) moved:
That this House deplore the attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada at and following the First Ministers’ Conference of October 26, 2004, and that it call on the federal government to immediately implement its pledges of June 5 and 27, 2004, to allow the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia to keep 100% of their provincial offshore oil and gas revenues.
He said: Mr. Speaker,I will be splitting my time with our deputy leader from Central Nova.
On June 5 of this year the Prime Minister arrived in St. John’s, the capital of Newfoundland and Labrador. The context was the following. Obviously it was an election campaign when the Prime Minister was asked to respond to a longstanding Conservative commitment to ensure that the Atlantic provinces would enjoy 100% of their non-renewable resource royalties.
This is a commitment that was made by me in my capacity as leader of the Canadian Alliance when I first arrived here and has its origins in the intentions of the Atlantic accord signed by former Prime Minister Mulroney in the mid-1980s. These are longstanding commitments, our commitment to 100% of non-renewable resource royalties. It was our commitment during the election, before the election, and it remains our commitment today.
For the Prime Minister, this was something that he had opposed for 11 years and for most of his political career. But suddenly in the midst of an election campaign on June 5, he met with Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams. He came out of that meeting and said the following:
“I believe that Newfoundland and Labrador ought to be the primary beneficiary of the offshore resources, and what I have said to the premier is that I believe the proposal that he has put forth certainly provides the basis of an agreement between the two of us.”
Premier Williams specified in a letter dated June 10 that:
‘The proposal my government made to you and your Minister of Natural Resources provides for 100% of direct provincial revenues generated by the petroleum resources in the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area, to accrue to the government of Newfoundland and Labrador and be sheltered from the clawback provisions of the equalization formula–‘
The Prime Minister said he agreed with the Premier’s proposal and he gave his word as Prime Minister of Canada. Premier Williams was asked at the press conference announcing the deal how he could be sure the Prime Minister would keep his word after the election. He replied that as a man of honour, that the solemn word of the Prime Minister was sufficient. Premier Williams said: “It’s by word of mouth, and I’m taking him at his word, and that’s good enough for me”.
Unfortunately, the solemn word of this Prime Minister turned out to be not good enough. The Prime Minister ignored letters from Premier Williams on June 10, August 5 and August 24 urging him to confirm his promise. Suddenly, the Prime Minister and his Minister of Natural Resources fell silent.
Finally, on October 24, two days before the first ministers’ conference, the Minister of Finance finally replied offering:
–additional annual payments that will ensure the province effectively retains 100 per cent of its offshore revenues–
Then the minister added two big exceptions limiting the offer:
–for an eight-year period covering 2004-05 through 2011-12, subject to the provision that no such additional payments result in the fiscal capacity of the province exceeding that of the province of Ontario in any given year.
The eight year time limit and the Ontario clause effectively gutted the commitment made to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador during the election campaign.
Why should Newfoundland’s possibility of achieving levels of prosperity comparable to the rest of Canada be limited to an artificial eight year period? Remember in particular that these are in any case non-renewable resources that will run out. Why is the government so eager to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador always remain below the economic level of Ontario?
The Ontario clause is unfair and insulting to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and its message to that province, to Nova Scotia and to all of Atlantic Canada is absolutely clear. They can only get what they were promised if they agree to remain have not provinces forever. That is absolutely unacceptable.
Hon. Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, CPC): Everyone in Canada would be happy if one day our Atlantic provinces could fully benefit from their natural resources, everyone except the federal Liberals.
The Liberal attitude is as typical as it is senseless. There is no point pulling back non-renewable resource revenues from a have not province. This is an opportunity and it is a one time opportunity. It is a short term opportunity to allow these provinces to kick-start their economic development, to get out of have not status, to grow this short run opportunity into long run growth and revenue that will be paid back to Ottawa over and over again and that will benefit the people of those regions of Canada for a very long time.
This is what happened in the case of my province of Alberta. Alberta discovered oil and gas in the 1940s and 1950s, Alberta was a have not province. From 1957 until 1965, Alberta received transfers from the equalization program. Alberta was allowed to keep 100% of its oil royalties and there was no federal clawback. This is what allowed Alberta to kick-start its economy, to expand and diversify, to build universities, to advance social services and to become one of the powerhouses of the 21st century Canadian economy.
Of course the Liberals expended endless effort to limit the growth of Alberta’s revenues, culminating in the experience of the national energy program. Now we see already, with this opportunity in Atlantic Canada, the same attempts to limit the opportunity. The Prime Minister’s Ontario cap effectively limits the maximum benefit of the offshore resource to $452 per person in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. After that, every dollar will be clawed back by Ottawa, no matter how many billions the offshore resource turns out to be worth.
The Prime Minister, before he was here, was president of a company that largely depended on offshore activity. Does he not understand that energy resources are finite, temporary and a short term opportunity? The provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia should be allowed, indeed should be encouraged, to improve the living conditions of their citizens and to use this to attract new long term businesses to replace the temporary opportunities provided by the offshore resources.
Instead, when the Atlantic provinces rejected the latest federal offers, the caps, the limits and the exclusions, the government engaged in a clumsy divide and conquer tactic, a tactic which gave away its obvious objective of holding back the development of the Atlantic provinces. It has tried to negotiate with one province and not the other, but both Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia have made clear that their positions are the same and that they want to be dealt with fairly and at the same time.
Whether we live in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Alberta or anywhere else, we are all Canadians. We all have a right to a better future. That future is not for the Liberal Party to decide to speed up or to slow down, to start or to stop. It is not to negotiate. The Prime Minister gave his word. The terms of his proposal were clear. Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia requested and were promised 100% of their offshore revenues without equalization clawback, period. There is nothing to negotiate.
What is at stake is the future of Atlantic Canada, an unprecedented and historic opportunity for those provinces to get out of the have not status that has bedevilled them for decades. What is at issue is very simple. It is the honour of the Prime Minister, and all he has to do is keep his word.
So BCer, still stand behind your initial statement?
We’re Canadians, no? What makes someone in Saskatchewan deserve oil money more than someone in the Northwest Territories? Or B.C.? Or Ontario? I think that we need to let capitalism take it’s course in some ways, in the sense that if New Brunswick is tanking economically, we shouldn’t prop up a dying whale by telling it’s people that they don’t have to move, or find a new career or line of work.
According to your plan we would prop up a dying whale. By shifting money to underperforming or badly mismanaged provinces, we encourage the actions that created it in the first place. We have a less mobile work force because there is no reason for people to look for work elsewhere.
Keep in mind that the wealth created by these resources are already taxed in the incomes of the workers and the companies. Not to mention the GST on all the products consumed by these people. In effect you are confiscating what you deem to be excess profits.
How about just leaving well enough alone?*
Western prosperity is good for all of Canada just as it is based on income tax, GST receipts and other existing Federal revenue streams.
* Silly me, how un-Canadian not to tinker with success until it turns to failure!
Lynnh,
I’m not trying to say that the government should be the distributor of all wealth in the nation. What I am questioning is why natural resources are exempt from the equalization plan.
Now that the West is becoming an economic force to be reckoned with, we have to share the burden’s of Canada as well. Just because we make our money from oil doesn’t mean we should be exempt.
How about just leaving well enough alone?*
Western prosperity is good for all of Canada just as it is based on income tax, GST receipts and other existing Federal revenue streams.
* Silly me, how un-Canadian not to tinker with success until it turns to failure!
Hibernia’s total net revenues to the end of 2006 were $14.8 billion. Of that, the oil companies claimed $8.8 billion, the government of Newfoundland $1.2 billion, and the government of Canada $4.8 billion. Counting production from the smaller fields at White Rose and Terra Nova, the total figure is $18 billion, and the respective shares of the companies, the feds and the province, $10 billion, $6 billion and $2 billion.
Williams even borrows the famous Quiet Revolution slogan of “Masters in our own house,” although there’s an unhappy resonance here. Hydroelectric power was the current of Quebec nationalism, but a lot of that power would come at Newfoundland’s expense. For Newfoundland, an already poor province, the cost has been billions of dollars.
It all goes back to the construction of the mammoth Churchill Falls hydroelectric project in Labrador during the 1960s. Newfoundland wanted permission to “wheel” power through Quebec to markets in the northern United States and Ontario. Instead, Quebec insisted on buying the power outright. The federal government could have stepped in and legislated transmission of power through Quebec, (like it did with Trans Vanada Pipelines sending AB natural gas to markets in ON & QUE without SK and MB charging a “fee”) but it was afraid of stirring up nationalist unrest. So in the end, as Williams explains it, Newfoundlanders took it on the chin for Canada.
When Prime Minister Harper was in St. John’s last November, Williams presented him with a handful of brightly coloured pie charts. Perhaps most dramatic was the chart showing the net revenue from the Churchill Falls project. Newfoundland’s project it may have been, but Newfoundland’s revenue was the tiny blue slice representing $1 billion; Quebec, which just let the electricity flow through its transmission lines, has almost the whole pie, a large red hunk representing $19 billion. (And for the next 34 years of the contract, the Newfoundland calculation is that Quebec will get close to another $50 billion.)
(Glenn says…The lower Churchil currently lets flow enough hydro electricity to power 1.5 million homes, remove 1.6 megatonnes of CO2 the equivalent of removing 3.2 million cars off the road. Once again Quebec is annexed from the Canadian marketplace but Quebec, and nobody does sh!t about it.)
At the August press conference announcing the settlement, Williams predicted that the Hebron project, whose initial cost will be $6 billion, would contribute $16 billion to Newfoundland’s coffers over its 25-year life. The federal government, meanwhile, would get $7 billion. Three weeks later, Williams released a new provincial energy plan that calls for a 10% ownership stake in future offshore oil fields.
How much does Hydro Quebec contribute to Ottawa and the federation….$0.00.
Soryy for the typo should be…
Glenn says…The lower Churchil currently lets flow enough hydro electricity to power 1.5 million homes, remove 1.6 megatonnes of CO2 the equivalent of removing 3.2 million cars off the road. Once again NL is annexed from the Canadian marketplace by Quebec, and nobody does sh!t about it.)
Soryy for the typo should be…
Glenn says…The lower Churchil currently lets flow enough hydro electricity to power 1.5 million homes, remove 1.6 megatonnes of CO2 the equivalent of removing 3.2 million cars off the road. Once again NL is annexed from the Canadian marketplace by Quebec, and nobody does sh!t about it.)
Natural Resources are exempt because of the BNA Act gives the provinces domain over non renewable resources. But they are included in equalization calculations. All of Canada is already sharing in the resource boom through income/business taxation and support industries. The problem is that many want more than that. Which is really just greed and envy disguised in nice words like sharing and social justice.
WTF with the double post and bad spelling?
I msut hvae taht raednig dsiease todya!
“How much does Hydro Quebec contribute to Ottawa and the federation….$0.00.”
Well, as a Crown corporation, no corporate taxes are involved (this is true of any publicly-owned corporation in Canada).
But with 20,000 employees and just under four million customer accounts (in Québec alone) as well as big US customers, it’s difficult to believe that Ottawa receives no tax revenues from Hydro-Québec.
get rid of all socialists.