Lorne Gunter: Western separatist anger hangs on whether Scheer earns enough seats

“- What makes a province a “have” province is that the income transferred back to the government is greater than what it receives.
- Conversely, what makes a province a “have not” province is that the income transferred back to the federal government is less that what they received.”

“have” and “have not” are defined by what they call “fiscal capacity”, which is essentially a bastardized version of GDP, but with some critical differences. Quebec’s a recipient not because it’s actually poor – it isn’t, at least not like the Maritimes are, but rather, because they have large parts of their economy excluded from the calculations. Hydro revenue isn’t counted the same way non-renewable royalties are. One could argue that Quebec actually doesn’t need equalization, as its economy is strong and they’re running substantial budget surpluses.

Ontario, even when it was a “have not”, actually net-contributed. Incidentally, Ontario is a “have” again. It officially became “have” in 2016, and received its last equalization cheque in 2018 after a three year wind-down.

“I have heard this false argument before. It makes no difference what federal account Alberta’s 22 billion+ contribution goes into. When the money goes into the general revenues account the money is still there … from Alberta.”

ANd the other ~300 billion in Federal revenue came from where?

If you want to see what Taxation without representation leads to look at Cataloina.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1185161191041257474

DANIELLE SMITH HAS SOME VERY INTERESTING VIEWS ON HOW WESTERN SEPARATION COULD BE VERY SUCCESSFUL. EZRA’ I SUGGEST YOU CONTACT HER. SHE IS A RADIO PERSONALITY IN CALGARY – AM 770

Liz said, “They want the west to go take a hike, so maybe we will.”

I am all for that but only if Alberta can first solve the land locked problem. Not much point separating if it only makes it even harder than it is now to get a pipeline to tide water so we can sell our oil at the world market rate. I am one of those Albertans that is still fuming mad at how Pierre Idiot Trudeau stole multi-billons from Alberta back in the early 80’s. A billion meant a whole lot more then than it does today. Alberta has been bent over and … well you know … for so many decades that separation is a real option for me.

As for Andrew, you are right about him/her when you said, " … and nothing is more annoying than trying to explain logic to a spinner", especially to one who thinks they know everything and thinks we are so stupid we do not see his/her subtle lies.

Stephenson you urbanite you. You don’t want me as your neighbour, so don’t force me into the city. I need a vehicle that drives long distances on a route that trust me, has no recharging stations. I’m sure your tesla is fine for the drive from your apartment to your barista job. If its that close maybe you should do the really green thing and walk. And Andrew, where does electricity come from and is it the same right across the country?

Peter Netterville, I hear that insulting argument all the time from the snarling nasties who hate Alberta and nothing is more annoying than trying to explain logic to a spinner. They are married to that lie. Thank you for putting it on the record here and not letting Stephenson get away with it. Very well done. They want the west to go take a hike, so maybe we will.

Andrew Stephenson said, "It’s a misconception that it [provincial equalization] comes from Alberta. Equalization comes from general revenues, which is to say that pay-in is roughly comparable to the share of national GDP. The lion’s share, around 40%, is actually from Ontario. Only 16%, or 2.5 billion, is from Alberta. This is actually a smaller number than Quebec’s provincial budget surplus last year.

There are so many lies and half truths in this where so I begin.

I have heard this false argument before. It makes no difference what federal account Alberta’s 22 billion+ contribution goes into. When the money goes into the general revenues account the money is still there … from Alberta.

The whole purpose behind the “have” provinces contributing to a pool of wealth for the “have not” provinces is to equalize wealth so all the provinces can have an equal standard of living.

Andrew’s argument that because Alberta’s contribution goes into a general revenue account somehow negates Alberta’s contribution is a fallacious argument.

Andrew said, “The lion’s share, around 40%, is actually from Ontario.”

This is another “slight of words” lie. Ontario is a “have not” province so it takes from that pool of wealth greater than it contributes.

Let me clear up Andrew’s subtle lie.
- All provinces get money transferred from federal government for provincial cost, such as health care and more.
- All provinces ALSO transfer cash back to the federal government a percentage from a variety of provincial income sources. This is the called the Provincial equalization program.
- What makes a province a “have” province is that the income transferred back to the government is greater than what it receives.
- Conversely, what makes a province a “have not” province is that the income transferred back to the federal government is less that what they received.

Where Andrew is lying is that he/she points out that Ontario transfers more to the federal government than does Alberta, which true BECAUSE THEY HAVE GREATER POPULATION THAN ALBERTA and hence a greater tax & royalty revenue.

Ontario still receives money over and above that which it contributed. The greater amount that it contributed means nothing since Ontario still receives more money than it contributed.

Now since Alberta contributes most of the excess money, when Ontario takes some of that money it is still coming from Alberta’s wealth.

Andrew’s reasoning is “slight of hand” or rather “slight of words”.

“You are not going very far in the winter, so you had better hope you can find a place to recharge between the long expanses of highway we have in Canada.”

If you’re just driving to work, then the “long expanses of highway” are irrelevant.

THe numbero chargers increases daily. We’ll see how long they last before the “gasholes” vandalize them in Sask or Alberta.

“Our markets would be wide open,”

And, what if the markets realize they prefer shale oil, which is lighter and more valuable, if they’re buying oil at all?

You do realize, that the current ten dollar discount on WCS over WTI s pretty much in line with historical averages, right? It’s not 45/bbl because of pipeline constraints, that’s just what it’s worth now.

Buffalo –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Buffalo

Hyacinth thanks for the links, especially the Jack Mintz article in the N.P.

Tesla is not a hybrid, it is fully electric of course.
To trolls next comment I say bullcrap in advance.

Quebec still gets some of its oil from OPEC. More of it is from the U.S., and yes with the pipeline reversal that all of the left wingnuts protested against, because… something, comes from Sask. If half of BC joined Alberta and Sask the east would be getting all their oil from the U.S and OPEC. The west would be selling theirs worldwide no problemo, some of which would be to parts of the US. Our markets would be wide open, free from the over regulated stifling constriction of father Ottawa.
The fear mongering from the east that China would absorb us is misnomer in my opinion. Who thinks the U.S. is going to put up with that, with or without Trump. We don’t have to join the U.S. to be protected, and they wouldn’t ‘take’ us against our will.
In any case succeeding is not out of the question. I’m in the central interior of BC and I would be right there with them.
“I see Teslas all over the place in Winnipeg. Clearly the cold isn’t a problem.”
Even Greta and her banana eating father know the cold is a problem for those hybrids.
Once the temperature hits the freezing mark or below, the demands on the battery increase. You are not going very far in the winter, so you had better hope you can find a place to recharge between the long expanses of highway we have in Canada.

“I think Alberta would suffer more for cutting itself off from the rest of the world, than it would hurt Canada. Have you heard of Montana? "

Leftards suffer from HUTAS.

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/jack-mintz-alberta-has-better-reasons-to-albexit-than-britain-did-for-brexit
https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-if-alberta-turns-separatist-the-rest-of-canada-is-in-big-trouble
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/why-leaving-canada-makes-sense-for-alberta-and-u-s-would-likely-welcome-a-new-state

I’m a separatist and I’m from BC. I know most of my fellow British Columbians probably don’t support Western Canada’s separation, at least not on the coast, but there would be a considerable separatist vote in the southern interior. If it ever came to a vote, I’d vote for it. I’m not about to go out and lobby for it. I’m more of a “You leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone” kind of guy, so I’m not about to go around knocking on doors to try to convince anyone of anything. But I sincerely don’t see any advantage for Western Canada remaining in confederation. So to that extent, despite what Andrew Stephenson thinks, There’s at least one separatist vote in this apartment.

“In addition, the fuel refined from the oil will likely be sold cheaper to Canadians than the OPEC oil that is currently imported by Quebec, so they would also save money.”

Oops, forgot this one. You should check up on where Quebec gets its oil now. It’s not OPEC.

“Duke of Paducah commented 2019-10-17 21:48:55 -0400 · Flag
So tit for tat , let Alberta block the CPR, CNR and The TCH. What does it matter to Alberta if the ROC can’t get across the country?”

I think Alberta would suffer more for cutting itself off from the rest of the world, than it would hurt Canada. Have you heard of Montana?

“Quebec would rather get oil form the western US than Alberta just to spite Alberta. Quebec has a case of financial penis envy.”

Quebec buys it from where its’ cheapest. If Quebec bought less US oil, the US would buy less Alberta oil, so it would be a wash anyway. The market is continental, not national.

“That is a pipe dream. What is the “rate”? How will electricity be generated if 50% of Canadians go electric?- which they won’t. Electric cars are an expensive virtue signalling toys for summer days in the city. Have fun driving from Winnipeg to Calgary in one. Especially in the winter with no heat. If you used the batteries to heat the interior it wouldn’t have a 2 mile range.”

The rate is about 5% of total vehicle sales in Quebec, and 14% of car sales (3800/27,000 in Q1 2019). Of course, since there are no electric pickups – yet – the car market is more representative of demand. Further, this number is up 50% year over year. At current rates, they’re about 4 years from achieving that “pipe dream” among cars, and probably sooner with the federal incentive.

What’s more interesting, though, is that at that point they’ll be selling close to 80k of the things a year, and Quebec’s vehicle fleet growth has averaged about 80k a year over the last decade. Which is to say… by 2024, the entire growth of the fleet will be electric, meaning the number of internal combustion vehicles on the road will have peaked in Quebec. This has profound impications for oil demand.

Electrical requirements aren’t as great as some people seem to think. Going back to the 60km/day driver, he needs about 10kWh/day to keep his car fueled. That’s the same as running an electric drier for 3 hours. Ten million cars at 10kWh/day is 100GWh/day, or 36TWh/year. This is less than 5% of the 650 TWh we generated in 2017 (82% of that from non-emitting sources).

I see Teslas all over the place in Winnipeg. Clearly the cold isn’t a problem.

- “Equalization comes from general revenues, which is to say that pay-in is roughly comparable to the share of national GDP. The lion’s share, around 40%, is actually from Ontario.”

Lol the leftard troll sure likes to ignore reality preferring its fabrications for talking points.

Reality:
https://munkschool.utoronto.ca/mowatcentre/alberta-and-equalization/
Per capita, Albertans contribute the most to the federal treasury and, in turn, to Equalization. Recently, their contributions have been 55 per cent above the national average and about 35 per cent greater than the per capita amount from Ontario

http://fairequalization.ca/the-facts/
Alberta is the largest per capita contributor to equalization

“Not true. Pipelines that must cross provincial borders is federal jurisdiction. The federal government does have the authority to order the province/territory to allow the construction of the pipeline.”

It’s a solution to a provincial problem, not a national one. Alberta’s the biggest beneficiary to pipelines, by far.

Andrew also said, “What benefit does Quebec gain from letting pipelines through?”

Where do you think the $14 billion in provincial equalization that comes from Alberta and goes to Quebec each year is generated?"

It’s a misconception that it comes from Alberta. Equalization comes from general revenues, which is to say that pay-in is roughly comparable to the share of national GDP. The lion’s share, around 40%, is actually from Ontario. Only 16%, or 2.5 billion, is from Alberta. This is actually a smaller number than Quebec’s provincial budget surplus last year.

In fact, the 14b is a gross, not a net number. Quebec actually contributes more to its own equalization, than Alberta does.

“It is from the royalties on the oil the province charges the oil companies. So for Quebec to allow the pipeline to go through to the New Brunswick refinery, the royalty taxed on the oil extracted funds the Provincial Equalization program. In addition, the fuel refined from the oil will likely be sold cheaper to Canadians than the OPEC oil that is currently imported by Quebec, so they would also save money.”

Royalties are about a dollar a barrel at $60 for WTI. let’s say a pipeline carries 500kbpd to the East. That’s an added 180m to Alberta. Let’s say a full sixth of that goes to Quebec (about the current rate, more or less). That’s a whopping 30m a year, or four dollars per person. You can see why they might be skeptical. "

“Andrew then concludes with, “If you want to matter on the national stage, stop always voting for the same party.”

The implication of that statement is pure conjecture. You draw a conclusion for which you do not provide support."

Yes, it is, but one based in several media articles (e.g. the Globe a few days ago) decrying the absence of Federal leaders in Alberta (as in, you could just about count their visits, combined, on one hand). One reason for this is that if you’re expecting a Conservative sweep of the province, the CPC takes it for granted, the Libs write it off, and everyone goes campaigning in Vancouver, where the races are closer. They all need to win seats there, so the platforms get tailored to what Burnaby might want, not what Fort Mac might – as we know they’re diametrically opposed.

So tit for tat , let Alberta block the CPR, CNR and The TCH. What does it matter to Alberta if the ROC can’t get across the country?

Andrew Stephenson

Quebec uses almost entirely North American oil at present, produced from shale resources that were basically just getting started in 2013.
-———
Which is exactly what the article said. Quebec would rather get oil form the western US than Alberta just to spite Alberta. Quebec has a case of financial penis envy.

Further yet, if vehicle electrification continues at its current rate, it’ll free up some space in the existing lines.
-—————————-
That is a pipe dream. What is the “rate”? How will electricity be generated if 50% of Canadians go electric?- which they won’t. Electric cars are an expensive virtue signalling toys for summer days in the city. Have fun driving from Winnipeg to Calgary in one. Especially in the winter with no heat. If you used the batteries to heat the interior it wouldn’t have a 2 mile range.

Andrew Stephenson said, “you’re one of ten provinces”

What difference does that make to the issue of separation?

Andrew went on to say, “pipelines are a regional problem, not a national one”

Not true. Pipelines that must cross provincial borders is federal jurisdiction. The federal government does have the authority to order the province/territory to allow the construction of the pipeline.

Andrew also said, “What benefit does Quebec gain from letting pipelines through?”

Where do you think the $14 billion in provincial equalization that comes from Alberta and goes to Quebec each year is generated?

It is from the royalties on the oil the province charges the oil companies. So for Quebec to allow the pipeline to go through to the New Brunswick refinery, the royalty taxed on the oil extracted funds the Provincial Equalization program. In addition, the fuel refined from the oil will likely be sold cheaper to Canadians than the OPEC oil that is currently imported by Quebec, so they would also save money.

Andrew then concludes with, “If you want to matter on the national stage, stop always voting for the same party.”

The implication of that statement is pure conjecture. You draw a conclusion for which you do not provide support.

Duke of Paducah commented 2019-10-17 14:14:54 -0400
Andrew Stephenson commented
c) If you want to matter on the national stage, stop always voting for the same party.
-————————————
Say the Eastern urbo-weenies who always vote Liberal."

I typically vote NDP, but voted Liberally strategically in this one as it’s supposed to be close.

Also the Duke: “Eastern refineries outside Ontario traditionally take Atlantic Basin crude oil, including offshore Canadian production. However, they have recently been sourcing more and more barrels by rail from Texas, North Dakota and Wyoming, Statistics Canada data shows.”

The market’s changed substantially since 2013, Duke. The problem with that is, that the LIne 9 reversal opened at the end of 2015, and basically took up that market. The case for Energy East or equivalent basically no longer exists – Quebec uses almost entirely North American oil at present, produced from shale resources that were basically just getting started in 2013.

The only holdout now is really the refineries in the Maritimes, notably Irving. There isn’t upgrader capacity to use it anyway, and the cost of building them is greater than the couple dollar premium on just buying better feedstock on the global market anyway. (nor does supplyng Irving provide that benefit to Quebec). Nor is the added capacity going to save Alberta – it’s a few percent of their daily production, nothing more. Further yet, if vehicle electrification continues at its current rate, it’ll free up some space in the existing lines.

Have you noticed that the whole while Leftists are decrying regionalism and division that they are the biggest cause of it?

Andrew Stephenson
What benefit does Quebec gain from letting pipelines through?
-———————————————
The same benefit Alberta gets from letting the two transcontinental railroads and Trans Canada highway through.

Separate and set up toll booths for all trains and highway vehicles crossing the province.

beef eater commented 2019-10-17 18:41:36 -0400

dang. accidently double posted. is there no way to edit or erase posts?

No, none that I know of. This site isn’t best and doesn’t work very well.

dang. accidently double posted. is there no way to edit or erase posts?

this sentiment is so true. many are waiting to see what traspires in the election. and trudeau winning would be nitrous oxide to the separatists: not just albertas, but quebecs as well. alberta separation news aggregate site sums up the problem with commentary on msn article … trudeau is clueless.

https://alberta-now.blogspot.com/2019/10/bloc-on-rise-along-with-calls-for.html

alberta separation news aggregate site sums up the problem with commentary on msn article … trudeau is clueless.

https://alberta-now.blogspot.com/2019/10/bloc-on-rise-along-with-calls-for.html

I used to drive a black car with a white roof and white doors and sit on the Manitoba border welcoming Westerners to Ontario. Well sometimes it wasn’t actually welcoming ..to them.
My point! From experience.
Alberta has to have it’s very own police force just like Ontario . And you can start tomorrow .
First step in gaining independence from Ottawa and the PMO controlled Mounties.

Once again, all knowing andrew has posted idiocies on issues the troll knows little to nothing.
This fool reacts with out engaging the brain (what little there may be) before putting fingers to the key board.
Then lectures others on things this idiot defends at other times. Oh the hypocrisy of the leftist regressives.

Well,I see that Andrew ( “Mr .Dilutional” )Stephenson is busy speaking in his diluted intellectual manner …..once again.The Present Perpetrator of The Pretzel Principle found and drank from the tainted Koolade once again.
For the history of dilutional…..reference the Jagmeet Singh/Likeability thread on Rebel News.
Stephenson not only resembles that remark…..when you look it up in the Leftist Fantasy dictionary…..there is his photo.

Andrew Stephenson commented 2019-10-17 13:26:49 -0400 It also shows Alberta’s pretty much on its own with separatism, with Sask maybe onside and both BC and MB opposed

Solid support for Alberta independence is running somewhere between 25 and 30%, with another 20% leaning that way. The more BC tries to screw Alberta, the more solid support for Alberta independence grows, and when the east votes to put Trudeau back in, or a minority Trudeau government propped up by the NDP, the support that’s leaning towards Alberta independence will come to the solid side. As far as Saskatchewan, Manitoba or BC goes, who cares. That up to them.