HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

Keystone XL vs. Trudeau's NEP?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-18-2013, 01:07 AM
  #26
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 9,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandV View Post
This is the first I heard about it but I'd imagine in the auto industry this sort of price fixing with the cost being picked up by the Ontario government also goes a long way to protecting Ontario jobs, doesn't it?
I'd file that one under 'Too big to fail' interventionist analogies rather than price-fixing analogies.

In that bygone era, Nixon (a Republican) introduced wage and price controls. In Canada there was the anti-inflation board. I guess it was more culturally acceptable then (ideologically on both sides) to try to control inflationary spirals? (An idea that later got included in the NEP?). There are many good counter-arguments as to why governments shouldn't have followed some interventionist strategies. With hindsight, leaders today might not have followed that course.

Maybe they might. In the modern era we even saw Bush 'intervene' in the bank bailout before he left. The US government also used it's national security oil reserves to soften price pressures this decade. On the wage side in Canada, governments legislate wage restraint programs and intervene quickly in the bargaining process.

Governments are interventionist. This current government also intervened (CMHC rules, car bailout, Keynesian fiscal policy). Whatever they do in specific cases, there's always a camp that agrees and another that doesn't, given their own specific interests; even govts are following their own electoral interests contrary to their own partisan ideology...

p.s. Although in hindsight I might not have understood your post RandV, that was kind of a short Johnny LaRue one-liner


Last edited by Puck: 03-18-2013 at 01:28 AM.
Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 07:31 AM
  #27
Roughneck
Registered User
 
Roughneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Calgary
Country: Ireland
Posts: 8,840
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Roughneck
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
How come Alberta has no problem sending oil to Texas but sending it to Eastern Canada (Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia) has created nearly 40 years of resentment?
Keystone XL isn't about sending it to Texas, it is about sending it to a new market at Brent prices which see higher than WTI and much higher than what we can currently sell it at. Northern Gateway is all about the same goal as well.

So the NEP was being forced to sell oil below market price to one place while XL is about being able to sell it at the highest market price to different places. The more money it sells for, the more royalties Alberta gets, the more money Alberta based companies make etc.

What will it do to Canadian prices? **** all really because it is about getting oil to Asia at the prices they're willing to pay rather than doing anything to prices here. Why send it to Texas? Because they have the refining capacity to do it and would just buy the raw product from somewhere else if we tried to ship the finished product down to them to ship off to Asia. Plus refineries are extremely expensive. There's already funding ready for a Canadian refinery out in Kitimat but those BCers just don't seem to keen on doing much of that so the options are limited to going South.

Roughneck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 08:11 AM
  #28
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughneck View Post
Keystone XL isn't about sending it to Texas, it is about sending it to a new market at Brent prices which see higher than WTI and much higher than what we can currently sell it at. Northern Gateway is all about the same goal as well.

So the NEP was being forced to sell oil below market price to one place while XL is about being able to sell it at the highest market price to different places. The more money it sells for, the more royalties Alberta gets, the more money Alberta based companies make etc.

What will it do to Canadian prices? **** all really because it is about getting oil to Asia at the prices they're willing to pay rather than doing anything to prices here. Why send it to Texas? Because they have the refining capacity to do it and would just buy the raw product from somewhere else if we tried to ship the finished product down to them to ship off to Asia. Plus refineries are extremely expensive. There's already funding ready for a Canadian refinery out in Kitimat but those BCers just don't seem to keen on doing much of that so the options are limited to going South.
Thanks for the explanation.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 06:17 PM
  #29
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,106
vCash: 500
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...s-mulcair.html

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 07:50 PM
  #30
jgravessimcoe
Registered User
 
jgravessimcoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: niagara
Posts: 473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Oh give me a break Redford! How many times did Harper whine to America about Chretien not joining our allies wholesale in the war on terror? To this day I shudder at the thought of what fiscal state we'd be in right now had Stephen been in charge of Canada then.


Can someone explain something to me RE: federal tax revenue from Alberta's oil?
From the constitution act:
Quote:
Section 92a (4) In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation in respect of
(a) non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province and the primary production therefrom...
This section gives taxation rights of non-renewable resources to the provinces. I know taxation is never simple, but does this mean that the federal government makes no direct revenue from the oil that leaves our borders via pipeline? This is a genuinely inquiry, not open-ended rhetoric.

jgravessimcoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 08:00 PM
  #31
Roughneck
Registered User
 
Roughneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Calgary
Country: Ireland
Posts: 8,840
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Roughneck
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgravessimcoe View Post
Oh give me a break Redford! How many times did Harper whine to America about Chretien not joining our allies wholesale in the war on terror? To this day I shudder at the thought of what fiscal state we'd be in right now had Stephen been in charge of Canada then.



Quote:
This section gives taxation rights of non-renewable resources to the provinces. I know taxation is never simple, but does this mean that the federal government makes no direct revenue from the oil that leaves our borders via pipeline? This is a genuinely inquiry, not open-ended rhetoric.
In a word, yes.

Roughneck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 09:04 PM
  #32
jgravessimcoe
Registered User
 
jgravessimcoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: niagara
Posts: 473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughneck View Post
In a word, yes.
So all this rhetoric about keystone being great for all of Canada then is straight from the ass of some Alberta AAA? Or am I missing something?

As in when Redford says, from the aforequoted article,
Quote:
"We’re very proud of the fact that as Canadians we have a strong record with respect to economic growth, how we work together as provinces to make sure that we’re growing our economy and investing in our future.
I guess "we" refers to all the provinces while "our" refers only to Alberta?
How exactly does keystone benefit this country? Again, genuine question, not rhetorical.

To those who might say equalization: Higher EQ payments from Alberta indicate greater economic disparity. Its laughable to suggest more EQ payments are a good thing for this country, something Albertans and non-Albertans alike will I'm sure agree with.

jgravessimcoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 10:49 PM
  #33
Silver
Registered User
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgravessimcoe View Post
To those who might say equalization: Higher EQ payments from Alberta indicate greater economic disparity. Its laughable to suggest more EQ payments are a good thing for this country, something Albertans and non-Albertans alike will I'm sure agree with.
Higher equalization payments will just lead to more *****ing from Alberta.

Silver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 01:49 AM
  #34
rebel diamond
Registered User
 
rebel diamond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Trinidad and Tobago
Posts: 5,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgravessimcoe View Post
So all this rhetoric about keystone being great for all of Canada then is straight from the ass of some Alberta AAA? Or am I missing something?

As in when Redford says, from the aforequoted article,


I guess "we" refers to all the provinces while "our" refers only to Alberta?
How exactly does keystone benefit this country? Again, genuine question, not rhetorical.

To those who might say equalization: Higher EQ payments from Alberta indicate greater economic disparity. Its laughable to suggest more EQ payments are a good thing for this country, something Albertans and non-Albertans alike will I'm sure agree with.
All the individuals and corporations that benefit from any new exports pay federal taxes.

rebel diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 08:50 AM
  #35
Roughneck
Registered User
 
Roughneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Calgary
Country: Ireland
Posts: 8,840
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Roughneck
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgravessimcoe View Post
So all this rhetoric about keystone being great for all of Canada then is straight from the ass of some Alberta AAA? Or am I missing something?
I think you're missing that it is a politician speaking.

However it being described as a Canadian environmental problem but just an Albertan economic benefit seems a bit of a dishonest double-standard, no?

Quote:
I guess "we" refers to all the provinces while "our" refers only to Alberta?
How exactly does keystone benefit this country? Again, genuine question, not rhetorical.
An extra $10M+ a day comes back to Canada for a product that is heading down south anyways. A few extra tax dollars for the country are then produced.

Quote:
To those who might say equalization: Higher EQ payments from Alberta indicate greater economic disparity. Its laughable to suggest more EQ payments are a good thing for this country, something Albertans and non-Albertans alike will I'm sure agree with.
While Albertans do hate EQ payments, to suggest the country would be better off with a province making less money to keep the disparity lower is also pretty laughable.

Roughneck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 10:36 AM
  #36
Free Kassian
Registered User
 
Free Kassian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver View Post
Higher equalization payments will just lead to more *****ing from Alberta.
They're quickly becoming Quebec in this regard. It's like white noise.

Free Kassian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 11:33 AM
  #37
Silver
Registered User
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KirkP View Post
They're quickly becoming Quebec in this regard. It's like white noise.
Alberta is the other side of the jerk coin from Quebec, but they don't have the benefit of culture and history.

Silver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 03:00 PM
  #38
Johnny LaRue
Registered User
 
Johnny LaRue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Kudamatsu-shi, Japan
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,001
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgravessimcoe View Post
Regarding the difference between keystone and the NEP I generally agree with you, but do you really think the trickle down economics of the federal transfer system are anywhere near the same ballpark as real jobs and investment on the ground?

Don't forget, ALL provinces pay into equalization, and its what they get back that determines if they are 'have' or 'have not'. Given how much Albertans ***** and complain about equalization, or 'handouts', you'd think they'd relish the opportunity to help other provinces contribute more to the program and require less back, becoming more financially sustainable.

It just seems somewhat ironic to (for once) emphasize the 'team player' aspect of equalization, in order to justify making a killing outside the country.

Again, this isn't really about the pipeline as much as that second nugget of rhetoric.
I hear what you're saying. People out West often complain about the equalization programme. All I am saying is that Alberta does help even if it is compelled to do so. I think Equalization is a far better way to help other provinces too because it doesn't harm the Albertan economy. At least not nearly to the same degree as something like the NEP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
In fairness, it was until 4 years ago that Ontario was a have province. Quebec I will accept but Ontario has pulled its weight. I agree Alberta should not be destroyed.
I know Ontario was a have province and as a result didn't need any assistance. That is great! I hope Ontario becomes a have province in the hear future. What I don't get is why Alberta should have been helping a province with a healthy economy.

Johnny LaRue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 09:41 AM
  #39
jgravessimcoe
Registered User
 
jgravessimcoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: niagara
Posts: 473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny LaRue View Post
I know Ontario was a have province and as a result didn't need any assistance. That is great! I hope Ontario becomes a have province in the hear future. What I don't get is why Alberta should have been helping a province with a healthy economy.
Keep in mind that while Ontario is a 'have not' province, it is still a net contributor to the equalization program. In other words, Ontario paid more to it than they got back. The terminology can be very misleading. EVERYONE pays into equalilzation, according to their GDP. The difference is some provinces get cash back.

What I don't know, is if you pay into equalization based on your GDP or your GDP per capita. Either way ontario is still a net contributor, but in the former case they'd be the largest contributor while Alberta would be third, behind Quebec + ON. Anyone know if this is the case?

Given that Ontario was paying more than it was getting back, and possibly(?) paying the most of all provinces, why is it not Ontario helping Ontario but Alberta helping Ontario as you've suggested?

Just some food for thought.

And as to why the payments exist in the first place, healthcare is a provincial responsibility but the financial levers rest with the feds. As Canadians, we are entitled to healthcare in any province we choose to live in, and thus the federal government mandates minimum national standards each provinces social services must meet.

EQ payments are a way of making sure as a Canadian, the social services you enjoy ANYWHERE in the country are reflective of the nation's wealth, and not subjected to provincial disparities.

Where the system falls off the rails for me, is that they money has no strings attached to it, and the provinces aren't mandated to spend the money in any certain way, although Im still in favour of the program. Anyone know when this change came about? Was it always that way? Wetcoaster?

jgravessimcoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 07:01 PM
  #40
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 9,141
vCash: 500
Equalization payments are in the constitution and I'm not aware that the provinces are legally mandated by law to spend that money on just healthcare. It's meant to help poorer provinces maintain the same level of public services, that doesn't absolutely have to be all about health services (never was). You might be thinking specifically about the Canada Health Transfers.


Last edited by Puck: 03-23-2013 at 09:42 PM.
Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-24-2013, 02:18 AM
  #41
Johnny LaRue
Registered User
 
Johnny LaRue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Kudamatsu-shi, Japan
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,001
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgravessimcoe View Post
Keep in mind that while Ontario is a 'have not' province, it is still a net contributor to the equalization program. In other words, Ontario paid more to it than they got back. The terminology can be very misleading. EVERYONE pays into equalilzation, according to their GDP. The difference is some provinces get cash back.

What I don't know, is if you pay into equalization based on your GDP or your GDP per capita. Either way ontario is still a net contributor, but in the former case they'd be the largest contributor while Alberta would be third, behind Quebec + ON. Anyone know if this is the case?

Given that Ontario was paying more than it was getting back, and possibly(?) paying the most of all provinces, why is it not Ontario helping Ontario but Alberta helping Ontario as you've suggested?

Just some food for thought.

And as to why the payments exist in the first place, healthcare is a provincial responsibility but the financial levers rest with the feds. As Canadians, we are entitled to healthcare in any province we choose to live in, and thus the federal government mandates minimum national standards each provinces social services must meet.

EQ payments are a way of making sure as a Canadian, the social services you enjoy ANYWHERE in the country are reflective of the nation's wealth, and not subjected to provincial disparities.

Where the system falls off the rails for me, is that they money has no strings attached to it, and the provinces aren't mandated to spend the money in any certain way, although Im still in favour of the program. Anyone know when this change came about? Was it always that way? Wetcoaster?
Interesting. I did not know that Ontario was still a net contributor. I always assumed that the "haves" give money and the "have-nots" receive money. Thanks for the info. I'll have to look for some info on how equalization payments are meted out.

Johnny LaRue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-24-2013, 07:14 AM
  #42
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 9,141
vCash: 500
Yes but knowing how the system actually works takes the fun out of b*tching.

Everybody pays federal taxes, the equalization formula figures out how much money, if any, the federal government will return to provincial governments under that scheme.

If Ontario contributes say $100 billion to the federal government and gets $500 million back in equalization, it's still a net contributor to the federal coffers. The money isn't coming out of Alberta's pocket. However three provinces can complain they aren't getting any money returned to them under that scheme. There are other many other federal programs schemes and expenditures to redistribute funds. Tax breaks to specific industries prevalent in one province (i.e. oil) can also be an indirect way of redistributing money. In the US, they use Defense Dept. contracts to spread the wealth around.

Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:34 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.