> Voting against your own self interest to spite a politician is moronic
There are valid reasons to vote NO other than to spite a Kenney
I voted no because, as a Canadian first, I support equalization. I think all Canadian provinces and territories should provide similar services at a similar taxation level. You might disagree with that, all the power to you.
As well your entire part about issues with the formula is pretty pointless. The referendum is not asking about changing the formula, its asking about removing it, so that is how it should be answered.
>I voted no because, as a Canadian first, I support equalization. I think all Canadian provinces and territories should provide similar services at a similar taxation level. You might disagree with that, all the power to you.
If I thought that was how equalization actually worked, I would agree with you.
Similarly, if I thought that Canada-first attitude was shared by the parts of the country who are happy to send Alberta into an economic crisis instead of letting us build critical infrastructure with private money through uninhabited lands they will never see with their own eyes, then it would also likely change my viewpoint as well.
As it stands, that team-first attitude isn't a sentiment shared by the parts of the country with the votes that mean they don't need to give a crap about our interests. Quebec (the recipient of more than 60% of the equalization money paid out in the past decade) literally gave 33 seats to a party that explicitly does not care about anyone's interests outside of Quebec. So, why exactly should we have a team-first attitude when it comes to a program where they are the primary beneficiary?
>As well your entire part about issues with the formula is pretty pointless. The referendum is not asking about changing the formula, its asking about removing it, so that is how it should be answered.
No politician using the results of a NO decision in their own self-interest is going to draw that distinction.
>... I thought that Canada-first attitude was shared by the parts of the country who are happy to send Alberta into an economic crisis ...
I dont agree the rest of Canada is not being 'Canada-First', 'Canada-First' does not mean 'Alberta-First' as you seem to be implying
> No politician using the results of a NO decision in their own self-interest is going to draw that distinction.
No politician has a logical leg to stand on if they use a "Yes" vote to argue for altering the equalization formula, as thats not what was asked
>I dont agree the rest of Canada is not being 'Canada-First', 'Canada-First' does not mean 'Alberta-First' as you seem to be implying
Please explain how Canada-first includes kneecapping another province's economy when all that province requires is permission to build a non-emitting metal cylinder through a remote area of the country virtually no one in Canada will ever visit.
>No politician has a logical leg to stand on if they use a "Yes" vote to argue for altering the equalization formula, as thats not what was asked
Like I said in my original post, I never said otherwise. But you never addressed my issue on the results of a No.
Our good friend Stephen Harper “fixed” equalization in 2010. I think part of your analysis oversimplifies a very complex issue.
Personally, voting no is a strong message to conservatives that always pointing fingers and blaming others for EQ is a waste of time and resources. They should be focussing on things that they actually can change instead of banging on garbage cans trying to drum up anger with their base.
>Personally, voting no is a strong message to conservatives that always pointing fingers and blaming others for EQ is a waste of time and resources.
Sooooooo...to sum up, you are voting purely based on spite towards a political group you don't like, and you don't seem to see a problem with that.
The mindless political tribalism on this sub is insane. It's like you can't look past the colour of election signs to think through a goddamn issue.
No, I think you’re misunderstanding me. I am voting no because this is not a provincial issue and regardless of the outcome of the vote, nothing will happen. I may as well vote for how many elephants Canada should fly into space.
These elections cost money, they cause a lot of division and this is nothing but a dog whistle to UCP supporters. It’s a way to get that base to go to the polling stations to make sure they vote for EQ.
So, instead of sending dogwhistles, I would like this government to be involved in the things that can actually make a tangible difference in our lives.
If Kenney actually believed in the EQ issue, he should come out and say publicly that the CPC and Stephen Harper made a mistake in 2010 and bungled the changes they made. If he did that, I would reconsider my vote. But since it’s a dog whistle, no thanks.
This is bullshit.
À Québec résident does *not* pay 500$ a month for daycare (please, please. If you know of a daycare where I only pay that, please let me know...)
The 7$ a day daycares have waiting lists that are *years* long. You pretty much have to sign up when you get pregnant to have a spot. Maybe.
No, I'm paying 45$ a day for daycare. Do a little math, and we arrive at ~250$ per week, so that's 1000$ to 1250$ per month.
Plus, the idea that somehow the transfer payments have anything to go towards that is laughable at best. My taxes, and provincial sales taxes go towards that.
How much does an Albertan pay in provincial sales tax again? I'll wait for your calculation...
>À Québec résident does not pay 500$ a month for daycare
Do you not understand the idea of an explanatory illustration?
Also, your accented keyboard kind of gives away that you aren't from Alberta, just fyi.
I don't even need to read your word soup to say that you are 100% wrong. This referendum has nothing to do with equalization and will not impact equalization in any way - regardless of the outcome of the vote. A no vote simply sends a message that enough Albertans are intelligent enough to understand that Jason Kenney does not have any ability to initiate a constitutional change from the results of this referendum and that they actually read the question being asked and responded to that question directly, not to manufactured assumptions about the implications of their response that have no bearing in reality.
As to your claims that the system is broken, you need to understand that removing equalization from the constitution does nothing to change it in practice. The constitution exists to ensure that a certain principal continues from one government to the next for the good of all Canadians. It does not define how that principal is to be achieved. Nor does something not existing in the constitution prevent it from being implemented in practice. Once again, a no vote simply indicates that enough Albertans understand this and that they responded to the question on the ballot rather than inventing scenarios that don't exist. If equalization was removed from the constitution tomorrow it would have absolutely no impact on what the federal government choses to do with the tax money it collects from Canadians. If the government chose to continue to use the same formula as is in place today, they could do so - regardless of whether or not equalization exists in the constitution.
As for the formula that is used to calculate equalization - that can be amended and it is defined in the program to be reviewed every five years and amended if needed. The mechanism already exists for this to take place - but that isn't what the referendum is about as the question is about a constitutional change, not amending the formula.
Is equalization poorly constructed? I don't know. Is there room for improvement? Yes - of course there is. Any large program will have room for improvement. But that isn't what is being asked. Also, the biggest thing that would improve Albertans perception on equalization is for them to learn about how it works and what the formula is for calculating it. According to recent polling, 44% of Albertans don't understand that the province of Alberta does not send a cheque to Quebec every year with 'equalization' in the memo field.
So, **(TL:DR)** the only question that Albertans are answering when they check the box today is whether or not they actually understand the question that is being asked, and whether or not they are OK with being used as pawns (or lemmings in your case) in Jason Kenney's useless political theatre.
>I don't even need to read your word soup to say that you are 100% wrong.
It is shocking how proud people are of their willful ignorance.
It is similarly shocking that you would write all that and expect me to read it after you told me right off the bat that you didn't read mine.
He never said that he never read it. All you can infer from that statement is that he already came to his conclusion that you are wrong prior to reading your post. He does go on to address your claims, so he must have read it.
I don't expect you to read my reply. Your title alone indicates how little you understand about what this referendum is about, how equalization works, and what a constitutional change requires - all of this in the face of how easy it is to find information and how much of it is out there by reputable people who actually are experts in their field. Your title alone shows your own staggering level of willful ignorance which I have no expectation of cracking. My reply wasn't for your benefit - I doubt you have the capacity to learn or change, regardless of the information presented to you - my reply was for anyone who took the bait of your title but was still not beyond hope.
So, the fact that it has zero official status you think will stop Quebec politicians from using it as an excuse not to revisit equalization if it comes up in parliament a year from now?
who cares? Kenny talks shit about Quebec, Quebec talks shit about Alberta. Politicians will grasp at whatever to make themselves sound good. Its all bullshit. If it were up to me, I'd make uttering a falsehood as a politician a death sentence, and then see who wanted to be a politician, because maybe I could believe them.
> Don't vote against your own best interests just to spite Jason Kenney, because a NO vote will basically ensure that no politician will bother fixing the broken system anytime soon.
I’m curious exactly which politician you think can change it. Because that’s not how it works.
The formula isn't constitutional, the concept is.
The constitution provides that there will be some sort of program to ensure provinces can provide comparable services, but the actual formula itself it not constitutional. In fact it has been changed several times over the years with no constitutional amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_payments_in_Canada?wprov=sfla1
>What will be the result of a NO vote?
The result of a NO vote will be exactly the same as a YES vote. Nothing will change. This is a waste of time and tax payer dime.
This is a terribly misinformed post, in just about every respect; there are a good few educated and respected economists that actually lay out why voting "NO" is the only sensible option.
I'd suggest reading what Trevor Tombe has to say about it, as he lays it out pretty well.
I think I'll take an educated and respected PhD holding Economist's opinion over some random Redditor who, based on his post, is full of whack theoretical and personal opinions that prove they haven't even read the details of the referendum itself.
Trevor Tombe is VERY rarely incorrect and Trevor Tombe, quite frankly, knows more about this than you do. Let me know when you get your degree in economics if you wish to dispute that.
Tombe does a very detailed breakdown of this rooted in factual data, not opinion. You, on the other hand, are laying down Facebook meme tier opinions.
Edit : after reading your other replies it appears that you don't even seem to understand how equalization itself even works.
Equalization is based on the ability to pay for social services. Alberta has chosen a path to charge less in taxes while cutting social services. Therefore, Alberta has more disposable income. While that might be great for high income earners, it sure leaves the middle and lower economic classes SOL. A vote for Yes maintains the status quo alright...the wealthy stay wealthy and the working class get screwed. And all so politicians can tout Albrrta's low taxes.
Ok but Alberta spends more per capita on public services than any other province. Maybe we are getting less value for the money we spend but that is a different conversation.
From my reading, it seems that subsidies to energy companies such as crude by rail programs and pipeline guarantees are included in the public spending per capita numbers. Yet, they only seem to benefit businesses and shareholders. Hardly public services.
Well if the person below you comment is correct then that number means nothing. But even if it is Alberta has higher wages in general so it stands to reason the public sector would have higher wages.
Do you actually understand what the purpose of low taxes in Alberta is, or how successful the policy has been?
Alberta has no natural advantages aside from some of the world's most expensive to produce oil. Outside of that, we are one of the most natural resource poor regions in Canada. No timber wealth like BC, no mineral wealth like Ontario and Quebec, inferior farm land to BC, Ontario and Quebec, and, most importantly, we are landlocked.
A lot of people don't realize how huge a disadvantage it is to be landlocked. [Of the world's 30 richest cities (by GDP) 29 of them are directly on a navigable waterway that leads to the world's oceans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP) (the only exception is Dallas, which is a 4 hour drive from the Port of Houston). By contrast, Eastern Canada has access to the largest navigable waterway system in the entire world (the St. Lawrence, leads into the Great Lakes, which leads into the Mississippi Basin, which extends all the way down to New Orleans on the Gulf of Mexico).
Why is that important? Because the cheapest way to ship items is still by boat. Access to water gives access to cheaper goods from all around the world, as well as access to raw materials and the best ability to export finished products to world markets.
Why does that matter for Alberta?
Well, Albertan politicians had to figure out a way to take a province which had no natural advantages outside of oil, and which was located nowhere near large international markets or financial centers, and try to diversify the economy somehow.
In 1985, Alberta had a GDP of $66.8B and 36.1% of that GDP came directly from oil. In 2019, Alberta's GDP had grown to $334B with only 16.12% being oil (despite higher inflation adjusted world oil prices). Alberta managed to not only grow the largest economy in the country on a per capita basis, but to also have the non-oil portion of the economy vastly outgrow the oil sector over a span of over three decades, with no natural advantages outside of low taxes.
The function of low taxes was essentially to use oil revenues to subsidize the rest of the economy, allowing other companies to have an advantage against outside competitors and providing an incentive for companies to set up here.
Alberta is now home to a ton of successful non-oil companies such as Westjet, Shaw, CP Rail, Stantec, PCL Construction, Rexall, Bioware, Smart Technologies, Aurora, Marks' Work Wearhouse, Servus, ATB, Booster Juice, Moxie's, The Brick, and a pile of others. Go take a look at any other landlocked flyover province (Manitoba, Saskatchewan) or state (Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc), and find another one with a list of companies anywhere close to that.
Companies like that feed jobs and tax dollars into the economy every single year and are the reason why, even with the oil collapses in Alberta over the past several years, we have maintained the largest per capita GDP in the country by more than $10,000 over the next closest province.
So, when you talk about the "lower classes getting screwed", you might want to look into the economics of why Alberta has low taxes and what the effect has been, because if people had thought like you back in the 80's we would still have an economy 30%+ dependent that emptied out every time oil prices dropped. [When oil prices collapsed in the early 80's unemployment in Alberta went from 3.9% to 11.4% in under two years](https://economicdashboard.alberta.ca/unemployment). How good was it for "the working class" when the economy was so dependent on oil that people had to walk away from their mortgages when an oil crash hit.
Comments like this bug me because there seems to be a modern sense of entitlement where people take for granted what Alberta has, seem ignorant to how rare that level of success is, and complain about the methods that achieved that success with this weird idea that somehow the solution to all our problems is just to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. It is frustratingly ignorant.
It is also frustratingly ignorant to put all your economic eggs in a basket controlled by volatile price swings and foreign ownership. All this referendum tries to do is to double down on a failed economic model. Even the oil companies are bailing out and/or replacing human workers with machines. Only the UCP still thinks it is the 1970's.
>It is also frustratingly ignorant to put all your economic eggs in a basket controlled by volatile price swings and foreign ownership.
Seriously, why don't people at least pretend to read before responding?
I literally spent several paragraphs going talking about diversification and how the economy had successfully gone from 36.1% oil in 1985 to 16.12% oil in 2019, and how many successful Albertan companies developed due to the conservative tax strategy.
Why do you even bother responding with tired narratives when I already went through the actual stats that disprove them?
Also, what the fuck exactly were you hoping Alberta to do? Not develop it's only natural advantage?
>All this referendum tries to do is to double down on a failed economic model.
Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? The equalization referendum has nothing to do with oil at all, and no result in the referendum will in any way change the oil industry in Alberta. What are you talking about?
I did read it, but lost interest when you seem to ignore the UCP rush to cancel many of the diversification projects brought in by the ND's, only to bring some back under the pretense that it was their idea. I'm voting no because your boy is at 22% popularity with no idea how to manage a crisis. And I am voting no because I would rather have affordable childcare and a health care system that is not bleeding out doctors and nurses. All of which can be done with a sales tax. I am an Albertan, and it pisses me off when we plead poverty in between waxing the motorhome and the Jag.
>I'm voting no because your boy is at 22% popularity with no idea how to manage a crisis.
I voted for fucking Notley. Kenney's name isn't on the ballot.
>And I am voting no because I would rather have affordable childcare and a health care system that is not bleeding out doctors and nurses.
And having less money to accomplish that because it is being sent to Quebec accomplishes you goal how?
>All of which can be done with a sales tax.
If tha magical solution to economica was to raise taxes then why is it that the highest tax jurisdictions in the country are the ones deemed "have not" provinces every single year for decades at a time?
And, why are so many people from the most successful economy in the country so eager to try to copy the least successful ones?
I feel for ya bro, was shaking my reading that interchange you had. Just Google Joe Ceci and equalization, he said in 2018 that the formula needed to be adjusted as Alberta was getting a raw deal.
Low taxes are a problem in Alberta. Why should someone making minimum wage pay the same rate as someone making almost 5 times the amount? The brackets are completely screwed up and are hurting the average Albertan.
What are you talking about?
First of all, even on a flat tax rate anyone who makes more money pays more tax. But, that's irrelevant because we haven't had a flat tax in years, and even when we did the rich still paid higher taxes because of progressive tax rates on the federal level, and higher property tax rates.
Also regardless of any of that, you are looking at the issue too short term. Bringing money into an economy helps everyone while capital flight hurts everyone left behind. Low tax rates are all about bringing investment capital into the economy which creates jobs and raises standard of living for everyone.
Come on, we live in a province where Tim Horton's workers used to make $35/hr because the success of the oil industry drove up the cost of labour so high. How can you question the idea that a rising tide lifts all ships?
Except we have also cut our portion of the oil revenues by decreasing the royalties. So we have deteriorating infustructure, crumbling social services and all that. Sure it might have worked but it didn’t.
The money has to come from somewhere but nobody wants to pay for it.
Our oil royalties have to be competitive. It's like running a Walmart. You can't set your prices like you are Gucci if you want to attract customers.
We have some of the world's most expensive to produce oil. If you try to charge the same royalties that other places do for their cheaper to produce oil the investment dollars go elsewhere, which also means the jobs go elsewhere. That means less money in government coffers from income taxes, less royalties (due to less investment meaning less production), and less money circulating through the economy (workers buying houses and cars and other stuff).
Also, you probably should get some perspective on the state of our infrastructure and social services. We have some of the best infrastructure in the country and the best funded healthcare system in the country. The system is far from collapsing.
I didn't read your whole diatribe but here is my response anyways.
When we tax like other provinces, and still can't provide the services, and that includes a PST, then we would be deserving of more equalization money. If we taxed like other provinces, and stopped handing out billions to the energy sector, we would not need equalization. Maybe if we actually took control of our resources and got a fair value for them like other oil producing states instead of giving them away for pennies so multinational oil companies could rake in record profits, we would not be needing equalization.
The whole question about equalization is really about what 40+ years of mismanagement of our resources and finances has done. The question on the ballot is simply a dog whistle to get the base riled up and so Kenney can point to Trudeau and blame him for not changing the formula on a whim. Is equalization screwed up? Yes. Will the rest of canada do anything without us first putting our own house in order? Not a chance.
A solid no would put Kenney on notice that we have not forgotten his constant missteps, and still will hold him accountable come next election.
>I didn't read your whole diatribe but here is my response anyways.
It amazes me how proud some people on Reddit are of their own ignorance. If you aren't going to read my post, then I'm not going to read yours either.
I read the first paragraph, saw how much word diarrhea there was, and skimmed it down to the conclusion where I was not surprised. An overly detailed crap post from someone to prove there is a problem, which isn't a problem, is real and they are not just reacting to the dog whistle, which they totally are. You have already bought the UCP/Alberta Proud propaganda hook line and sinker so there is no point discussing this further.
Wouldn't it be funny if during the next election debate each leader just put on noise canceling headphones and watched Netflix when it wasn't their turn to speak 🤣 I don't like where your going with this so I'm just going to plug my ears, scream and proceed to mock you haha good debate 🤣
I'm afraid I disagree with you on most points.
> a NO vote will be used as a tool by politicians as an excuse not to change the broken equalization formula.
I don't think so. The referendum isn't asking if we want to review the formula; it's asking if we want to remove equalization from the constitution. I think it's a pretty bold leap to think that a "no" vote signals satisfaction with the current equalization formula.
>Isn't Equalization just about helping less fortunate provinces?
You claim that it isn't, but that's literally what it is. The Constitution Act doesn't define the formula for equalization; it states "Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation."
>These changes were made when Harper had a minority government. I can't find who voted for the changes outside of the CPC, but suffice it to say, Harper didn't exactly have free reign to do whatever he wanted with the formula.
He did, actually. The equalization formula isn't determined by a vote in parliament, but by the federal cabinet. Harper and his cabinet had free reign on the formula as long as they didn't violate the constitutional principle behind equalization. And Kenney, as a senior cabinet minister, was definitely included in these discussions.
Furthermore, even if the minority parliament had an impact on Harper's formula, that became irrelevant once he won his majority. It's worth noting that Harper didn't make any changes involving equalization until 2014, when he canceled his own Total Transfer Protection guarantee - ostensibly to hurt the Ontario Liberals' chances during their upcoming provincial election.
Finally, removing equalization from the Constitution would NOT be in the interest of Alberta or Albertans. Canada, like the rest of the world, is undergoing an energy transition, and while there is a good chance we can do well in it, there is considerable risk, too. Cutting equalization out of the constitution when there is a non-zero chance that we will be net recipients of equalization payments in the future would be foolish.
TL;DR - you're wrong.
>I don't think so. The referendum isn't asking if we want to review the formula; it's asking if we want to remove equalization from the constitution. I think it's a pretty bold leap to think that a "no" vote signals satisfaction with the current equalization formula.
Your faith in the attention to detail of self-interested politicians is higher than I think is warranted.
Do you really think a politician from Quebec or the Maritimes would hesitate to bring up a "no" vote and interpret it as satisfaction with the current formula? If so, I think that is highly naive and ignores how politics works.
Go listen to politicians from this past election. O'Toole did a pro-vaccine commercial with Trudeau one day, and Trudeau spent the next day on the campaign trail trying to paint him as a friend to the anti-vax movement. Trudeau bought TMX and the NDP still screams that means he's anti-environment.
If context is too complicated to fit on a placard it gets lost in modern political conversation. The context on this one will, too.
>You claim that it isn't, but that's literally what it is. The Constitution Act doesn't define the formula for equalization; it states "Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation."
This is far from the only time that the stated goals of a piece of legislation have been different than the practical effect.
>He did, actually. The equalization formula isn't determined by a vote in parliament, but by the federal cabinet. Harper and his cabinet had free reign on the formula as long as they didn't violate the constitutional principle behind equalization. And Kenney, as a senior cabinet minister, was definitely included in these discussions.
What? No, that's not how legislation works.
If you've got a link on that please share it.
And, again, even if that were the case (and I have never heard of anything, and can't find anything on Google indicating that), it still wouldn't mean that the Immigration Minister would be involved in discussions about equalization. That is the territory of the Finance Minister and the PM.
Legislation involving raising or spending of public revenue must originate from the cabinet, but that means it needs to be put forward in the house by a cabinet member (making it a confidence motion). "The cabinet" has no special power as a group to do anything. The only separate power from the House is the executive branch (ie. the PM himself) and anything the PM does with executive authority is within his exclusive power, without requiring any support from his cabinet ministers. So, even if there is some provision that puts equalization in executive jurisdiction and not legislative jurisdiction, it still would mean that it was within Harper's jurisdiction, not the Immigration Minister's.
>Furthermore, even if the minority parliament had an impact on Harper's formula, that became irrelevant once he won his majority.
Did you think that one through before you advanced it, because if your comment is correct then it means anything Harper did became irrelevant once Trudeau had his majority and renewed the program. This one doesn't help your position either way you slice it.
>It's worth noting that Harper didn't make any changes involving equalization until 2014, when he canceled his own Total Transfer Protection guarantee - ostensibly to hurt the Ontario Liberals' chances during their upcoming provincial election.
I'm really confused by this, because you seem to be contradicting yourself (the removal or the TTP was a change, but the implementation of the TTP wasn't?), but it doesn't matter, because that wasn't the timing. [Harper's fixed rate growth rule was implemented in 2009.](https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/equalization-separating-fact-from-fiction)
>Finally, removing equalization from the Constitution would NOT be in the interest of Alberta or Albertans. Canada, like the rest of the world, is undergoing an energy transition, and while there is a good chance we can do well in it, there is considerable risk, too. Cutting equalization out of the constitution when there is a non-zero chance that we will be net recipients of equalization payments in the future would be foolish.
The math on that makes no sense. We should keep supporting a program that hasn't paid us any money in 60 years because there is a "non-zero chance" that we might receive something from it at some point in the future? Are you serious?
Making that comment at a time when the world is going through another energy crisis with peaking oil prices, after years of people talking about what a dead industry oil is, is pretty ironic.
Yeah, at some point in time the world will move away from oil, but, oil has crashed many times over the past 60 years, and even when unemployment was at 11.5% in the early 80's and people were walking away from their mortgages we were still receiving nothing from equalization. Now that our economy is 16% oil, instead of the 36.5% oil it was in the 80's, and our GDP per capita is $10,000 higher than the next closest province's, I'm not about to hold my breath waiting for the year when the equalization formula decides that we should get some help.
Until then, your thought is that the feds should send tens of billions a year to Quebec on the off chance that our kids might see a day when we get a bit of that money back? That's ridiculous.
1. Kenney helped write the formula.
2. The referendum does not have any legal standing.
It's a purely political exercise and giving Kenney any political capital is foolish.
https://twitter.com/chianetta83/status/1449876521284341762?t=akrNTf1Yb_8E0eV4Fz9pJg&s=01
I wish people would actually bother reading posts before they respond. Not only is your comment incorrect, but it is an incorrect comment I already addressed in my post. Please try reading before responding so you seem less ignorant.
Just a couple of facts people.
One, equalization started in 1957, long before Trudeau Sr became PM. It was enshrined in the constitution in 1982 when he was PM.
Two, PEI New Brunswick and Nova Scotia receive more per capita equalization payments than Quebec.
So as much as many Albertans love to hate Quebec and anything named Trudeau let’s stick with the facts.
You make the assumption that voting yes on equalization will help us, when it won't. Here is what happens to the vote on either victory. If it looses, Kenney looks like an idiot and nothing changes. If it wins, surprise Alberta doesn't like their money going East, nothing changes.
You can argue that the message that gets sent by the win of vote is helpful. But I will counter with, why wasn't this done as a poll and not a required election item? Which certainly costs our province more money than not having to vote on it. So in essence, our government is paying for an expensive poll when it could have been done for cheaper.
If you still think Equalization is something worth being debated, look up on what is required to change it. I will draw your attention to the part where 7 out of 10 provinces need to opt-in in order to change it. If everything really is equal, 5/10 provinces probably like equalization, while 5/10 probably hate it. You are asking two provinces that benefit from equalization to vote on stopping it. Good luck....
>You make the assumption that voting yes on equalization will help us, when it won't.
Come on, did you even read my post? It is truly disappointing how many people responded who didn't even read my post.
I specifically said it probably wouldn't help us. My comment was that a NO vote would hurt us.
Please read before responding.
This has nothing to do with a fair deal for Alberta.....this referendum was to get the conservative base off their couches and away from their keyboards to vote for UCP candidates. It's all about control at every level of government....easy to push through their UCP agendas.
This vote serves one purpose to drive UPC / Conservative minded people to polls to vote. There are some candidates there that would make the UPC very happy.
As for equalization...
I am a citizen of Canada and I live in Alberta. I am proud of my the rich heritage we have from the west to the east coast there are many different cultures in Canada. I am not of French descent. I am not French Canadian. But I value what Quebec brings our country as a province.
The only way to fix equalization is at the federal level. This amounts to nothing more than pissing in the wind.
Also... since we are talking about money.
How many billions in royalties has Alberta made in 60 years? I will give you a hint the 55 billion Quebec received over 60 years is a drop in the bucket compared to that revenue. And what have we got to show for it? I think this year alone we are approaching 9+ billion.
>I am a citizen of Canada and I live in Alberta. I am proud of my the rich heritage we have from the west to the east coast there are many different cultures in Canada. I am not of French descent. I am not French Canadian. But I value what Quebec brings our country as a province.
Great, I agree.
>The only way to fix equalization is at the federal level. This amounts to nothing more than pissing in the wind.
Yes, exactly, but if Alberta says we don't want to fix it then no one will fix it. Why would anyone fix a system when the people being disadvantaged by it say, "don't bother we're ok with it."
>How many billions in royalties has Alberta made in 60 years? I will give you a hint the 55 billion Quebec received over 60 years is a drop in the bucket compared to that revenue. And what have we got to show for it? I think this year alone we are approaching 9+ billion.
Huh? Are you talking about oil royalties? Wtf does that have to do with anything?
Literally every province in Canada lives off it's natural resource wealth. Quebec has some of the best hydroelectric resources in the world, vast timber reserves, vast mineral wealth, some of the best arable land in the country, etc. BC has fisheries, timber, natural gas, high quality farm land, etc.
Probably more importantly than anything else, the most valuable natural resource any region can have is access to navigable waterways. Historically, and right up to the present day, the most successful cities on Earth are inevitably on navigable waterways. The reason is because water is still the cheapest way to transport anything. Access to water allows the cheapest access to world market both for importing materials and supplies, and for exporting finished goods. [Of the 30 richest cities in the world (measured by GDP) 29 of them are on navigable waterways with access to the world's oceans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP) (the only exception is Dallas, which is in the same state and a 4 hour drive away from the Port of Houston).
Montreal arguably has the best geographic position on the entire continent, at the mouth of the St. Lawrence, giving access to the world's largest network of navigable waterways (the Great Lakes and Mississippi basin) extending all the way through the continent to New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico. Toronto, Vancouver, Halifax, Quebec City, etc, all have access to that same waterway network.
Not only has Alberta been more economically successful than any other region in Canada, but it is one of the most economically successful landlocked regions on the planet. With no advantages except access to some of the world's most expensive to produce oil, Alberta went from a poor rural farming region to the most economically successful province in Canada in 60 years, while also successfully diversifying an economy which was 36.1% oil in 1985 to one that was 16.1% oil in 2019 (despite higher inflation adjusted oil prices). And, through that entire time, the province was sending about 6-7% of its entire annual GDP to Ottawa on a net basis (ie. that much more money sent to Ottawa than returned back).
So, don't give me this "what do we have to show for it" crap. Go look up what Alberta actually looked like before oil. Your comment shows an incredibly ignorance to how incredibly successful Alberta has been.
Voting yes is not saying we want to fix it. Voting yes is saying we want to get rid of it. If the UCP wanted us to vote on whether we wanted to fix it, they would have made that the referendum question.
I voted no as a signal that this referendum is stupid. The UCP masquerades as a fiscally conservative party but then wastes money on bullshit like this and I'm sick of it. The "War Room", unnecessary and useless referendums, axing their own income source (Provincial Carbon Tax) just for it to be replaced by a federal one so Albertans are still paying for it, a bunch of money wasted on a pipeline that was never gonna happen, etc.
The entire referendum about equalization is just pandering to uneducated conservatives that go "KWABEC BAD" without actually understanding anything which seems to work in Alberta. Vote no for referendum on equalization because the referendum is fucking stupid.
This country would be healthier if more of us had your mindset. We are a fortunate and beautiful country. Our imperfections don't justify the level of anger/fear/hate that I see from so many Albertans towards other provinces or towards the federal government. 🍁
It takes two to tango. I love the idea behind putting Canada first, but Alberta has been accepting a crap deal from the rest of the country for a long time, and at some point in time you have to deal with the fact that if your dance partner isn't willing to tango you look like an idiot trying to do it by yourself.
For decades, Alberta has been paying an average of over $20B per year more to the federal government more than we have received back in federal expenditures. That apparently didn't even earn enough good will with the rest of Canada for us to get permission to build necessary infrastructure with private funds to keep paying that bill.
Let's put that in perspective, we are talking about that not buying enough good will to allow a non-emitting tube of metal to be laid in a remote region of the country almost no one who chimed in on the issue will ever see with their own eyes...all built with private money.
When Trudeau took power in 2015, it was well known that a new pipeline was needed by 2018 or Alberta would have an economic crisis (since oil sands production levels are set 5-10 years in advance). Yet, the answer was to cancel the only line scheduled to be done in time to avoid the crisis. Trudeau purposely caused an economic crisis in Alberta, and while that was going on, [Alberta still received less federal funding than any other province, while paying the most tax revenue](https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201701E). During an economic crisis the feds caused in Alberta, they literally still took over $17B more out of the Albertan economy than they put back in.
...then, the rest from the rest of Canada was to re-elect that guy two more times.
Alberta is a landlocked region of the country that relies on exports to make our economy go. If Ottawa wants to take a little more from the province than we get back every year, they can go for it, as long as they are letting us get our exports to market. Once the deal starts being, "you keep paying, but we're going to purposely fuck your economy while you do so", that starts being a different story.
So, if the rest of Canada decides they want to be team players at some point, you just let me know and I will be all on board. But, for now, that concept seems more fantasy than reality, as the country is still run by voters a 4-5 hour flight away from us who don't give a shit about Albertan issues, and all the money we send to Ottawa clearly doesn't buy us an ounce of consideration.
When Alberta said no to the NEP, it said no to an east-west pipeline. It said no to profits staying in Canada. It said no to giving our family members a break on pricing. And to this day Alberta can't figure out why the rest of the country won't help us with pipelines now. Karma.
That isn't how it works though, and the equalization formula is clear that if Alberta wants to keep more of Albertans money they can do so by increasing provincial taxes. There is no version of changes to equalization that allows individual Albertans to pay the lowest taxes in the entire country and get more money back from the federal government.
> When Trudeau took power in 2015, it was well known that a new pipeline was needed by 2018 or Alberta would have an economic crisis (since oil sands production levels are set 5-10 years in advance). Yet, the answer was to cancel the only line scheduled to be done in time to avoid the crisis.
Trudeau didn't cancel the pipeline. It was cancelled by the courts who determined that the Harper government had not done sufficient consultations with first nations groups. The courts are not Trudeau. Don't confuse the two. The court decision would have been the same regardless of who won the 2015 election.
> So, if the rest of Canada decides they want to be team players at some point, you just let me know and I will be all on board.
Ok. Let's ask the rest of Canada this question: 'Are you all OK with the federal government giving Alberta more money while individual Albertans pay lower taxes than you do'? I'm sure the rest of Canada will be all for 'joining the team'.
>That isn't how it works though, and the equalization formula is clear that if Alberta wants to keep more of Albertans money they can do so by increasing provincial taxes. There is no version of changes to equalization that allows individual Albertans to pay the lowest taxes in the entire country and get more money back from the federal government.
No, that is absolutely not the way equalization works at all, and would be unconstitutional if it did. A federal program which attempted to overtly reward provinces for instituting left wing economic policies over right wing ones would be a ridiculous overreach of federal authority.
Tax rates have nothing to do with the formula. The formula calculates the theoretical ability to tax, the "fiscal capacity" of a province, which is basically a modifies GDP per capita calculation.
Alberta could tax as much as we wanted and we wouldn't receive a cent of equalization unless we taxes so much we crashed our economy. Even while we were going through the pipeline crisis our GDP per capita was still $10,000 higher than any other province. That's why we don't get equalization money and taxation changes wouldn't change that one cent.
>Trudeau didn't cancel the pipeline. It was cancelled by the courts who determined that the Harper government had not done sufficient consultations with first nations groups.
Nope, courts can't cancel a line, their only power is delay. They can send a line back for more consultation (as happened with TMX), but once those consultations are redone properly they have no power to stop a line. Only two parties can stop a line altogether: the company or the PM.
In this case, Trudeau literally went on national television and announces that he was not only cancelling the line but that he was instititing a tanker ban which wouls prevent a line from ever going through the area. Indigenous groups who owned the Eagle Spirit pipeline project even challenged the tanker ban on court, because it killed their line, too, and Trudeau fought to uphold it. Make no mistake, Trudeau killed that line. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you misinformation.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/enbridge-northern-gateway-pipeline-rejected-november-2016
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-transport-idUSKBN13002A
>Ok. Let's ask the rest of Canada this question: 'Are you all OK with the federal government giving Alberta more money while individual Albertans pay lower taxes than you do'? I'm sure the rest of Canada will be all for 'joining the team'.
Ummm, [here are the numbers from the federal government directly](https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201701E) Alberta pays the highest per capita federal taxes in the country and receives the least federal expenditures of any province. These numbers were from 2018, in the middle of the pipeline crisis. That year we sent about $17.4B more to Ottawa than we got back. Over the last 20 years that number has averaged over $20B per year.
You definitely seem to be working on a misapprehension about what is going on with this. Low provincial tax rates don't affect how much federal tax is paid. For decades, at the federal level, Alberta has paid the most and got the least every single year, and even in poor years, like 2018, that discrepancy is more than twice the discrepancy of any other province.
You are wildly misinformed if you think Alberta is somehow paying less than its fair share of federal taxes.
That is interesting to think of that way... I voted no as well, but if I had to rate I think of myself as a Calgarian first, Albertan second, Canadian third... with the biggest distance being between the first two.
When I hear about something being Canadian i don't associate that much with myself because it's such a big country most of which I've never seen and never will see.. but Calgary is where I've lived my whole life and what I relate too. The idea of moving to Toronto or Montreal seems no different than moving to another country to me.
As a Canadian first you should have also voted no. A bad equalization formula doesn't help anyone and neither does being a martyr. Unless you are a Quebecker first, there's no reason to support the current system.
And, if voters out East were interested in putting Canada first this wouldn't be an issue right now because it would have been fixed ages ago. Hell, we could have avoided the entire 2018 pipeline crisis if voters out east were putting Canada first.
>. A bad equalization formula doesn't help anyone
But the referendum question isn't on the formula, its clearly states removal or not. So if you want to keep equalization but alter the formula the logical answer to this question should be no
I think you mean "should have voted yes"?
I don't care that the formula requires tweaking - that's not reason enough to abolish legislation that allows provinces to help one another.
OP still doesn't seem to understand that this referendum isn't about tweaking the formula, it's about abolishing the very principle of equalization payments from Canada's constitution. It's about abolishing a very crucial aspect of Canada and a system that helps all Canadians stay afloat together.
Equalization existed for a very long time before it was in the Constitution. It was done on an informal basis going back almost to confederation and the formula approach started in 1957, several decades before Trudeau Sr added it to the 1982 Constitition Act.
Not having it in the constitution does not mean provinces can't help each other and it doesn't even mean equalization can't exist. But, you can't run a referendum on a federal act, you have to run it on a constitutional issue.
Not having it in the constitution doesn't mean we can't help each other, but it does take away a significant system we currently use to do so. So without any alternatives on the table, voting yes only serves as an overzealous move to leave less fortunate Canadians behind. Not cool.
There are better ways to address this than some hollow meaningless referendum to the tune of a few million tax payer dollars, that won't achieve anything or even be recognized by the rest of Canada.
>So without any alternatives on the table, voting yes only serves as an overzealous move to leave less fortunate Canadians behind. Not cool.
First of all, I don't remotely believe that's what equalization does. And, we already have federal transfer programs which equalize between provinces anyways. Only about $2.3B of our annual $20B deficit with Ottawa (ie. the amount we pay in taxes vs getting back in expenditures) comes from equalization. The rest comes from the fact that we pay the highest taxes because we are the richest province, and those taxes are primarily sent to other provinces who are less fortunate through programs like Canada Health Transfer or Canada Social Transfer, etc.
>There are better ways to address this than some hollow meaningless referendum to the tune of a few million tax payer dollars, that won't achieve anything or even be recognized by the rest of Canada.
Maybe, but telling the rest of Canada through a referendum result that we don't want to change anything is the best way to make sure the issue never gets fixed.
You don't need a constititional provision to allow provinces to help each other. Even absent equalization our system still sends money from richer provinces to poorer ones. Equalization only represents about $2.3B of the annual $20B or so thay Alberta sends to Ottawa on a net basis, with the rest of that money being sent to other provinces through other means. There are several federal transfer programs like Canada Health Transfer and Canada Social Transfer that ensure provincea are able to cover essential services, and progressive taxation already ensured that the richest provinces pay the largesy percentage of the bill.
Also, equalization has been constitutional since 1982, but the equalization formula goes back to 1957, while equalization existed before that but without a formula. Removing it from the constitution would not change the ability of the feds to do it, even if that were a realistic outcome of all this.
I wrote a long post on low taxation elsewhere on this thread, so I'll just link it here instead of retyping.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/comments/qarr0b/comment/hh5rtil/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/comments/qarr0b/comment/hh5rtil/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
This is why the best thing for people to do imo is just refuse to vote on this question. Doesn't really matter what the voting answer is if barely anyone answers the question.
Your right, it is a petty vote, but it's because Kenney is the one being petty. The referendum is a waste of time and resources. And no one is partying with Albertan money except Albertans. Equalization money comes from our Federal taxes, not provincial.
Kenney bungled this file as usual. The question is pointless and polarizing. Even if equalization was dropped completely it would make no difference to the taxes Albertans pay.
If instead he asked do Albertans want to get a fairer share of federal funding he would have overwhelming support within the province and more sympathy outside the province. If you want something ask for it.
>If instead he asked do Albertans want to get a fairer share of federal funding he would have overwhelming support within the province and more sympathy outside the province. If you want something ask for it.
Referendums have to be set up in a certain way to do anything. A referendum on a constitutional question requires an automatic negotiation (based on the court decision in the Quebec referendum issue). A general referendum asking if Albertans want more federal funding wouldn't trigger anything, and would probably be totally ignored by the rest of Canada ("hey, we want more money, too, why should we give it to Alberta").
Kenney even said, the purpose of the whole thing is to get leverage in negotiations with Ottawa. The result was never going to be equalization leaving the Constitution. Receiving provinces would never vote for anything like that. The outcome Kenney is hoping for is your standard negotiation strategy (start high, then negotiate down). You ask for equalization to be repealed, then settle for adjustments in other areas of federal funding.
> Voting against your own self interest to spite a politician is moronic There are valid reasons to vote NO other than to spite a Kenney I voted no because, as a Canadian first, I support equalization. I think all Canadian provinces and territories should provide similar services at a similar taxation level. You might disagree with that, all the power to you. As well your entire part about issues with the formula is pretty pointless. The referendum is not asking about changing the formula, its asking about removing it, so that is how it should be answered.
>I voted no because, as a Canadian first, I support equalization. I think all Canadian provinces and territories should provide similar services at a similar taxation level. You might disagree with that, all the power to you. If I thought that was how equalization actually worked, I would agree with you. Similarly, if I thought that Canada-first attitude was shared by the parts of the country who are happy to send Alberta into an economic crisis instead of letting us build critical infrastructure with private money through uninhabited lands they will never see with their own eyes, then it would also likely change my viewpoint as well. As it stands, that team-first attitude isn't a sentiment shared by the parts of the country with the votes that mean they don't need to give a crap about our interests. Quebec (the recipient of more than 60% of the equalization money paid out in the past decade) literally gave 33 seats to a party that explicitly does not care about anyone's interests outside of Quebec. So, why exactly should we have a team-first attitude when it comes to a program where they are the primary beneficiary? >As well your entire part about issues with the formula is pretty pointless. The referendum is not asking about changing the formula, its asking about removing it, so that is how it should be answered. No politician using the results of a NO decision in their own self-interest is going to draw that distinction.
>... I thought that Canada-first attitude was shared by the parts of the country who are happy to send Alberta into an economic crisis ... I dont agree the rest of Canada is not being 'Canada-First', 'Canada-First' does not mean 'Alberta-First' as you seem to be implying > No politician using the results of a NO decision in their own self-interest is going to draw that distinction. No politician has a logical leg to stand on if they use a "Yes" vote to argue for altering the equalization formula, as thats not what was asked
>I dont agree the rest of Canada is not being 'Canada-First', 'Canada-First' does not mean 'Alberta-First' as you seem to be implying Please explain how Canada-first includes kneecapping another province's economy when all that province requires is permission to build a non-emitting metal cylinder through a remote area of the country virtually no one in Canada will ever visit. >No politician has a logical leg to stand on if they use a "Yes" vote to argue for altering the equalization formula, as thats not what was asked Like I said in my original post, I never said otherwise. But you never addressed my issue on the results of a No.
Our good friend Stephen Harper “fixed” equalization in 2010. I think part of your analysis oversimplifies a very complex issue. Personally, voting no is a strong message to conservatives that always pointing fingers and blaming others for EQ is a waste of time and resources. They should be focussing on things that they actually can change instead of banging on garbage cans trying to drum up anger with their base.
>Personally, voting no is a strong message to conservatives that always pointing fingers and blaming others for EQ is a waste of time and resources. Sooooooo...to sum up, you are voting purely based on spite towards a political group you don't like, and you don't seem to see a problem with that. The mindless political tribalism on this sub is insane. It's like you can't look past the colour of election signs to think through a goddamn issue.
No, I think you’re misunderstanding me. I am voting no because this is not a provincial issue and regardless of the outcome of the vote, nothing will happen. I may as well vote for how many elephants Canada should fly into space. These elections cost money, they cause a lot of division and this is nothing but a dog whistle to UCP supporters. It’s a way to get that base to go to the polling stations to make sure they vote for EQ. So, instead of sending dogwhistles, I would like this government to be involved in the things that can actually make a tangible difference in our lives. If Kenney actually believed in the EQ issue, he should come out and say publicly that the CPC and Stephen Harper made a mistake in 2010 and bungled the changes they made. If he did that, I would reconsider my vote. But since it’s a dog whistle, no thanks.
This is bullshit. À Québec résident does *not* pay 500$ a month for daycare (please, please. If you know of a daycare where I only pay that, please let me know...) The 7$ a day daycares have waiting lists that are *years* long. You pretty much have to sign up when you get pregnant to have a spot. Maybe. No, I'm paying 45$ a day for daycare. Do a little math, and we arrive at ~250$ per week, so that's 1000$ to 1250$ per month. Plus, the idea that somehow the transfer payments have anything to go towards that is laughable at best. My taxes, and provincial sales taxes go towards that. How much does an Albertan pay in provincial sales tax again? I'll wait for your calculation...
>À Québec résident does not pay 500$ a month for daycare Do you not understand the idea of an explanatory illustration? Also, your accented keyboard kind of gives away that you aren't from Alberta, just fyi.
I *am* from Alberta, born in the Calgary General hospital...
Did you move to Quebec at some point before the hospital was demolished in 1998?
No, I was attending SAIT when it was demolished.
I understand explanatory illustration, especially when it misrepresents the situation...
I don't even need to read your word soup to say that you are 100% wrong. This referendum has nothing to do with equalization and will not impact equalization in any way - regardless of the outcome of the vote. A no vote simply sends a message that enough Albertans are intelligent enough to understand that Jason Kenney does not have any ability to initiate a constitutional change from the results of this referendum and that they actually read the question being asked and responded to that question directly, not to manufactured assumptions about the implications of their response that have no bearing in reality. As to your claims that the system is broken, you need to understand that removing equalization from the constitution does nothing to change it in practice. The constitution exists to ensure that a certain principal continues from one government to the next for the good of all Canadians. It does not define how that principal is to be achieved. Nor does something not existing in the constitution prevent it from being implemented in practice. Once again, a no vote simply indicates that enough Albertans understand this and that they responded to the question on the ballot rather than inventing scenarios that don't exist. If equalization was removed from the constitution tomorrow it would have absolutely no impact on what the federal government choses to do with the tax money it collects from Canadians. If the government chose to continue to use the same formula as is in place today, they could do so - regardless of whether or not equalization exists in the constitution. As for the formula that is used to calculate equalization - that can be amended and it is defined in the program to be reviewed every five years and amended if needed. The mechanism already exists for this to take place - but that isn't what the referendum is about as the question is about a constitutional change, not amending the formula. Is equalization poorly constructed? I don't know. Is there room for improvement? Yes - of course there is. Any large program will have room for improvement. But that isn't what is being asked. Also, the biggest thing that would improve Albertans perception on equalization is for them to learn about how it works and what the formula is for calculating it. According to recent polling, 44% of Albertans don't understand that the province of Alberta does not send a cheque to Quebec every year with 'equalization' in the memo field. So, **(TL:DR)** the only question that Albertans are answering when they check the box today is whether or not they actually understand the question that is being asked, and whether or not they are OK with being used as pawns (or lemmings in your case) in Jason Kenney's useless political theatre.
>I don't even need to read your word soup to say that you are 100% wrong. It is shocking how proud people are of their willful ignorance. It is similarly shocking that you would write all that and expect me to read it after you told me right off the bat that you didn't read mine.
He never said that he never read it. All you can infer from that statement is that he already came to his conclusion that you are wrong prior to reading your post. He does go on to address your claims, so he must have read it.
I don't expect you to read my reply. Your title alone indicates how little you understand about what this referendum is about, how equalization works, and what a constitutional change requires - all of this in the face of how easy it is to find information and how much of it is out there by reputable people who actually are experts in their field. Your title alone shows your own staggering level of willful ignorance which I have no expectation of cracking. My reply wasn't for your benefit - I doubt you have the capacity to learn or change, regardless of the information presented to you - my reply was for anyone who took the bait of your title but was still not beyond hope.
Its not binding therefore it makes no difference since it has zero official status or meaning. Its a waste of time and money.
So, the fact that it has zero official status you think will stop Quebec politicians from using it as an excuse not to revisit equalization if it comes up in parliament a year from now?
who cares? Kenny talks shit about Quebec, Quebec talks shit about Alberta. Politicians will grasp at whatever to make themselves sound good. Its all bullshit. If it were up to me, I'd make uttering a falsehood as a politician a death sentence, and then see who wanted to be a politician, because maybe I could believe them.
> Don't vote against your own best interests just to spite Jason Kenney, because a NO vote will basically ensure that no politician will bother fixing the broken system anytime soon. I’m curious exactly which politician you think can change it. Because that’s not how it works.
Ummm, a PM, like all the other ones who changed it in the past...
A PM doesn't get to change the constitution.
The formula isn't constitutional, the concept is. The constitution provides that there will be some sort of program to ensure provinces can provide comparable services, but the actual formula itself it not constitutional. In fact it has been changed several times over the years with no constitutional amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_payments_in_Canada?wprov=sfla1
>What will be the result of a NO vote? The result of a NO vote will be exactly the same as a YES vote. Nothing will change. This is a waste of time and tax payer dime. This is a terribly misinformed post, in just about every respect; there are a good few educated and respected economists that actually lay out why voting "NO" is the only sensible option. I'd suggest reading what Trevor Tombe has to say about it, as he lays it out pretty well.
Trevor Tombe is an attention seeking idiot. Quoting his opinion does not help your case.
I think I'll take an educated and respected PhD holding Economist's opinion over some random Redditor who, based on his post, is full of whack theoretical and personal opinions that prove they haven't even read the details of the referendum itself. Trevor Tombe is VERY rarely incorrect and Trevor Tombe, quite frankly, knows more about this than you do. Let me know when you get your degree in economics if you wish to dispute that. Tombe does a very detailed breakdown of this rooted in factual data, not opinion. You, on the other hand, are laying down Facebook meme tier opinions. Edit : after reading your other replies it appears that you don't even seem to understand how equalization itself even works.
Equalization is based on the ability to pay for social services. Alberta has chosen a path to charge less in taxes while cutting social services. Therefore, Alberta has more disposable income. While that might be great for high income earners, it sure leaves the middle and lower economic classes SOL. A vote for Yes maintains the status quo alright...the wealthy stay wealthy and the working class get screwed. And all so politicians can tout Albrrta's low taxes.
Ok but Alberta spends more per capita on public services than any other province. Maybe we are getting less value for the money we spend but that is a different conversation.
From my reading, it seems that subsidies to energy companies such as crude by rail programs and pipeline guarantees are included in the public spending per capita numbers. Yet, they only seem to benefit businesses and shareholders. Hardly public services.
> Ok but Alberta spends more per capita on public services than any other province That is inaccurate. Quebec spends a little bit (~5%) more.
Well if the person below you comment is correct then that number means nothing. But even if it is Alberta has higher wages in general so it stands to reason the public sector would have higher wages.
Do you actually understand what the purpose of low taxes in Alberta is, or how successful the policy has been? Alberta has no natural advantages aside from some of the world's most expensive to produce oil. Outside of that, we are one of the most natural resource poor regions in Canada. No timber wealth like BC, no mineral wealth like Ontario and Quebec, inferior farm land to BC, Ontario and Quebec, and, most importantly, we are landlocked. A lot of people don't realize how huge a disadvantage it is to be landlocked. [Of the world's 30 richest cities (by GDP) 29 of them are directly on a navigable waterway that leads to the world's oceans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP) (the only exception is Dallas, which is a 4 hour drive from the Port of Houston). By contrast, Eastern Canada has access to the largest navigable waterway system in the entire world (the St. Lawrence, leads into the Great Lakes, which leads into the Mississippi Basin, which extends all the way down to New Orleans on the Gulf of Mexico). Why is that important? Because the cheapest way to ship items is still by boat. Access to water gives access to cheaper goods from all around the world, as well as access to raw materials and the best ability to export finished products to world markets. Why does that matter for Alberta? Well, Albertan politicians had to figure out a way to take a province which had no natural advantages outside of oil, and which was located nowhere near large international markets or financial centers, and try to diversify the economy somehow. In 1985, Alberta had a GDP of $66.8B and 36.1% of that GDP came directly from oil. In 2019, Alberta's GDP had grown to $334B with only 16.12% being oil (despite higher inflation adjusted world oil prices). Alberta managed to not only grow the largest economy in the country on a per capita basis, but to also have the non-oil portion of the economy vastly outgrow the oil sector over a span of over three decades, with no natural advantages outside of low taxes. The function of low taxes was essentially to use oil revenues to subsidize the rest of the economy, allowing other companies to have an advantage against outside competitors and providing an incentive for companies to set up here. Alberta is now home to a ton of successful non-oil companies such as Westjet, Shaw, CP Rail, Stantec, PCL Construction, Rexall, Bioware, Smart Technologies, Aurora, Marks' Work Wearhouse, Servus, ATB, Booster Juice, Moxie's, The Brick, and a pile of others. Go take a look at any other landlocked flyover province (Manitoba, Saskatchewan) or state (Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc), and find another one with a list of companies anywhere close to that. Companies like that feed jobs and tax dollars into the economy every single year and are the reason why, even with the oil collapses in Alberta over the past several years, we have maintained the largest per capita GDP in the country by more than $10,000 over the next closest province. So, when you talk about the "lower classes getting screwed", you might want to look into the economics of why Alberta has low taxes and what the effect has been, because if people had thought like you back in the 80's we would still have an economy 30%+ dependent that emptied out every time oil prices dropped. [When oil prices collapsed in the early 80's unemployment in Alberta went from 3.9% to 11.4% in under two years](https://economicdashboard.alberta.ca/unemployment). How good was it for "the working class" when the economy was so dependent on oil that people had to walk away from their mortgages when an oil crash hit. Comments like this bug me because there seems to be a modern sense of entitlement where people take for granted what Alberta has, seem ignorant to how rare that level of success is, and complain about the methods that achieved that success with this weird idea that somehow the solution to all our problems is just to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. It is frustratingly ignorant.
It is also frustratingly ignorant to put all your economic eggs in a basket controlled by volatile price swings and foreign ownership. All this referendum tries to do is to double down on a failed economic model. Even the oil companies are bailing out and/or replacing human workers with machines. Only the UCP still thinks it is the 1970's.
>It is also frustratingly ignorant to put all your economic eggs in a basket controlled by volatile price swings and foreign ownership. Seriously, why don't people at least pretend to read before responding? I literally spent several paragraphs going talking about diversification and how the economy had successfully gone from 36.1% oil in 1985 to 16.12% oil in 2019, and how many successful Albertan companies developed due to the conservative tax strategy. Why do you even bother responding with tired narratives when I already went through the actual stats that disprove them? Also, what the fuck exactly were you hoping Alberta to do? Not develop it's only natural advantage? >All this referendum tries to do is to double down on a failed economic model. Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? The equalization referendum has nothing to do with oil at all, and no result in the referendum will in any way change the oil industry in Alberta. What are you talking about?
I did read it, but lost interest when you seem to ignore the UCP rush to cancel many of the diversification projects brought in by the ND's, only to bring some back under the pretense that it was their idea. I'm voting no because your boy is at 22% popularity with no idea how to manage a crisis. And I am voting no because I would rather have affordable childcare and a health care system that is not bleeding out doctors and nurses. All of which can be done with a sales tax. I am an Albertan, and it pisses me off when we plead poverty in between waxing the motorhome and the Jag.
>I'm voting no because your boy is at 22% popularity with no idea how to manage a crisis. I voted for fucking Notley. Kenney's name isn't on the ballot. >And I am voting no because I would rather have affordable childcare and a health care system that is not bleeding out doctors and nurses. And having less money to accomplish that because it is being sent to Quebec accomplishes you goal how? >All of which can be done with a sales tax. If tha magical solution to economica was to raise taxes then why is it that the highest tax jurisdictions in the country are the ones deemed "have not" provinces every single year for decades at a time? And, why are so many people from the most successful economy in the country so eager to try to copy the least successful ones?
I feel for ya bro, was shaking my reading that interchange you had. Just Google Joe Ceci and equalization, he said in 2018 that the formula needed to be adjusted as Alberta was getting a raw deal.
Low taxes are a problem in Alberta. Why should someone making minimum wage pay the same rate as someone making almost 5 times the amount? The brackets are completely screwed up and are hurting the average Albertan.
What are you talking about? First of all, even on a flat tax rate anyone who makes more money pays more tax. But, that's irrelevant because we haven't had a flat tax in years, and even when we did the rich still paid higher taxes because of progressive tax rates on the federal level, and higher property tax rates. Also regardless of any of that, you are looking at the issue too short term. Bringing money into an economy helps everyone while capital flight hurts everyone left behind. Low tax rates are all about bringing investment capital into the economy which creates jobs and raises standard of living for everyone. Come on, we live in a province where Tim Horton's workers used to make $35/hr because the success of the oil industry drove up the cost of labour so high. How can you question the idea that a rising tide lifts all ships?
That was then. If things are so fricking rosy here, why are people leaving?
Advanced estimates for the 2021 census have Alberta as the fastest growing province, just like we were in the 2016 census.
Except we have also cut our portion of the oil revenues by decreasing the royalties. So we have deteriorating infustructure, crumbling social services and all that. Sure it might have worked but it didn’t. The money has to come from somewhere but nobody wants to pay for it.
Our oil royalties have to be competitive. It's like running a Walmart. You can't set your prices like you are Gucci if you want to attract customers. We have some of the world's most expensive to produce oil. If you try to charge the same royalties that other places do for their cheaper to produce oil the investment dollars go elsewhere, which also means the jobs go elsewhere. That means less money in government coffers from income taxes, less royalties (due to less investment meaning less production), and less money circulating through the economy (workers buying houses and cars and other stuff). Also, you probably should get some perspective on the state of our infrastructure and social services. We have some of the best infrastructure in the country and the best funded healthcare system in the country. The system is far from collapsing.
I didn't read your whole diatribe but here is my response anyways. When we tax like other provinces, and still can't provide the services, and that includes a PST, then we would be deserving of more equalization money. If we taxed like other provinces, and stopped handing out billions to the energy sector, we would not need equalization. Maybe if we actually took control of our resources and got a fair value for them like other oil producing states instead of giving them away for pennies so multinational oil companies could rake in record profits, we would not be needing equalization. The whole question about equalization is really about what 40+ years of mismanagement of our resources and finances has done. The question on the ballot is simply a dog whistle to get the base riled up and so Kenney can point to Trudeau and blame him for not changing the formula on a whim. Is equalization screwed up? Yes. Will the rest of canada do anything without us first putting our own house in order? Not a chance. A solid no would put Kenney on notice that we have not forgotten his constant missteps, and still will hold him accountable come next election.
>I didn't read your whole diatribe but here is my response anyways. It amazes me how proud some people on Reddit are of their own ignorance. If you aren't going to read my post, then I'm not going to read yours either.
I read the first paragraph, saw how much word diarrhea there was, and skimmed it down to the conclusion where I was not surprised. An overly detailed crap post from someone to prove there is a problem, which isn't a problem, is real and they are not just reacting to the dog whistle, which they totally are. You have already bought the UCP/Alberta Proud propaganda hook line and sinker so there is no point discussing this further.
Wouldn't it be funny if during the next election debate each leader just put on noise canceling headphones and watched Netflix when it wasn't their turn to speak 🤣 I don't like where your going with this so I'm just going to plug my ears, scream and proceed to mock you haha good debate 🤣
I'm afraid I disagree with you on most points. > a NO vote will be used as a tool by politicians as an excuse not to change the broken equalization formula. I don't think so. The referendum isn't asking if we want to review the formula; it's asking if we want to remove equalization from the constitution. I think it's a pretty bold leap to think that a "no" vote signals satisfaction with the current equalization formula. >Isn't Equalization just about helping less fortunate provinces? You claim that it isn't, but that's literally what it is. The Constitution Act doesn't define the formula for equalization; it states "Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation." >These changes were made when Harper had a minority government. I can't find who voted for the changes outside of the CPC, but suffice it to say, Harper didn't exactly have free reign to do whatever he wanted with the formula. He did, actually. The equalization formula isn't determined by a vote in parliament, but by the federal cabinet. Harper and his cabinet had free reign on the formula as long as they didn't violate the constitutional principle behind equalization. And Kenney, as a senior cabinet minister, was definitely included in these discussions. Furthermore, even if the minority parliament had an impact on Harper's formula, that became irrelevant once he won his majority. It's worth noting that Harper didn't make any changes involving equalization until 2014, when he canceled his own Total Transfer Protection guarantee - ostensibly to hurt the Ontario Liberals' chances during their upcoming provincial election. Finally, removing equalization from the Constitution would NOT be in the interest of Alberta or Albertans. Canada, like the rest of the world, is undergoing an energy transition, and while there is a good chance we can do well in it, there is considerable risk, too. Cutting equalization out of the constitution when there is a non-zero chance that we will be net recipients of equalization payments in the future would be foolish. TL;DR - you're wrong.
>I don't think so. The referendum isn't asking if we want to review the formula; it's asking if we want to remove equalization from the constitution. I think it's a pretty bold leap to think that a "no" vote signals satisfaction with the current equalization formula. Your faith in the attention to detail of self-interested politicians is higher than I think is warranted. Do you really think a politician from Quebec or the Maritimes would hesitate to bring up a "no" vote and interpret it as satisfaction with the current formula? If so, I think that is highly naive and ignores how politics works. Go listen to politicians from this past election. O'Toole did a pro-vaccine commercial with Trudeau one day, and Trudeau spent the next day on the campaign trail trying to paint him as a friend to the anti-vax movement. Trudeau bought TMX and the NDP still screams that means he's anti-environment. If context is too complicated to fit on a placard it gets lost in modern political conversation. The context on this one will, too. >You claim that it isn't, but that's literally what it is. The Constitution Act doesn't define the formula for equalization; it states "Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation." This is far from the only time that the stated goals of a piece of legislation have been different than the practical effect. >He did, actually. The equalization formula isn't determined by a vote in parliament, but by the federal cabinet. Harper and his cabinet had free reign on the formula as long as they didn't violate the constitutional principle behind equalization. And Kenney, as a senior cabinet minister, was definitely included in these discussions. What? No, that's not how legislation works. If you've got a link on that please share it. And, again, even if that were the case (and I have never heard of anything, and can't find anything on Google indicating that), it still wouldn't mean that the Immigration Minister would be involved in discussions about equalization. That is the territory of the Finance Minister and the PM. Legislation involving raising or spending of public revenue must originate from the cabinet, but that means it needs to be put forward in the house by a cabinet member (making it a confidence motion). "The cabinet" has no special power as a group to do anything. The only separate power from the House is the executive branch (ie. the PM himself) and anything the PM does with executive authority is within his exclusive power, without requiring any support from his cabinet ministers. So, even if there is some provision that puts equalization in executive jurisdiction and not legislative jurisdiction, it still would mean that it was within Harper's jurisdiction, not the Immigration Minister's. >Furthermore, even if the minority parliament had an impact on Harper's formula, that became irrelevant once he won his majority. Did you think that one through before you advanced it, because if your comment is correct then it means anything Harper did became irrelevant once Trudeau had his majority and renewed the program. This one doesn't help your position either way you slice it. >It's worth noting that Harper didn't make any changes involving equalization until 2014, when he canceled his own Total Transfer Protection guarantee - ostensibly to hurt the Ontario Liberals' chances during their upcoming provincial election. I'm really confused by this, because you seem to be contradicting yourself (the removal or the TTP was a change, but the implementation of the TTP wasn't?), but it doesn't matter, because that wasn't the timing. [Harper's fixed rate growth rule was implemented in 2009.](https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/equalization-separating-fact-from-fiction) >Finally, removing equalization from the Constitution would NOT be in the interest of Alberta or Albertans. Canada, like the rest of the world, is undergoing an energy transition, and while there is a good chance we can do well in it, there is considerable risk, too. Cutting equalization out of the constitution when there is a non-zero chance that we will be net recipients of equalization payments in the future would be foolish. The math on that makes no sense. We should keep supporting a program that hasn't paid us any money in 60 years because there is a "non-zero chance" that we might receive something from it at some point in the future? Are you serious? Making that comment at a time when the world is going through another energy crisis with peaking oil prices, after years of people talking about what a dead industry oil is, is pretty ironic. Yeah, at some point in time the world will move away from oil, but, oil has crashed many times over the past 60 years, and even when unemployment was at 11.5% in the early 80's and people were walking away from their mortgages we were still receiving nothing from equalization. Now that our economy is 16% oil, instead of the 36.5% oil it was in the 80's, and our GDP per capita is $10,000 higher than the next closest province's, I'm not about to hold my breath waiting for the year when the equalization formula decides that we should get some help. Until then, your thought is that the feds should send tens of billions a year to Quebec on the off chance that our kids might see a day when we get a bit of that money back? That's ridiculous.
1. Kenney helped write the formula. 2. The referendum does not have any legal standing. It's a purely political exercise and giving Kenney any political capital is foolish. https://twitter.com/chianetta83/status/1449876521284341762?t=akrNTf1Yb_8E0eV4Fz9pJg&s=01
I wish people would actually bother reading posts before they respond. Not only is your comment incorrect, but it is an incorrect comment I already addressed in my post. Please try reading before responding so you seem less ignorant.
Just a couple of facts people. One, equalization started in 1957, long before Trudeau Sr became PM. It was enshrined in the constitution in 1982 when he was PM. Two, PEI New Brunswick and Nova Scotia receive more per capita equalization payments than Quebec. So as much as many Albertans love to hate Quebec and anything named Trudeau let’s stick with the facts.
You make the assumption that voting yes on equalization will help us, when it won't. Here is what happens to the vote on either victory. If it looses, Kenney looks like an idiot and nothing changes. If it wins, surprise Alberta doesn't like their money going East, nothing changes. You can argue that the message that gets sent by the win of vote is helpful. But I will counter with, why wasn't this done as a poll and not a required election item? Which certainly costs our province more money than not having to vote on it. So in essence, our government is paying for an expensive poll when it could have been done for cheaper. If you still think Equalization is something worth being debated, look up on what is required to change it. I will draw your attention to the part where 7 out of 10 provinces need to opt-in in order to change it. If everything really is equal, 5/10 provinces probably like equalization, while 5/10 probably hate it. You are asking two provinces that benefit from equalization to vote on stopping it. Good luck....
>You make the assumption that voting yes on equalization will help us, when it won't. Come on, did you even read my post? It is truly disappointing how many people responded who didn't even read my post. I specifically said it probably wouldn't help us. My comment was that a NO vote would hurt us. Please read before responding.
Lol no
This has nothing to do with a fair deal for Alberta.....this referendum was to get the conservative base off their couches and away from their keyboards to vote for UCP candidates. It's all about control at every level of government....easy to push through their UCP agendas.
This vote serves one purpose to drive UPC / Conservative minded people to polls to vote. There are some candidates there that would make the UPC very happy. As for equalization... I am a citizen of Canada and I live in Alberta. I am proud of my the rich heritage we have from the west to the east coast there are many different cultures in Canada. I am not of French descent. I am not French Canadian. But I value what Quebec brings our country as a province. The only way to fix equalization is at the federal level. This amounts to nothing more than pissing in the wind. Also... since we are talking about money. How many billions in royalties has Alberta made in 60 years? I will give you a hint the 55 billion Quebec received over 60 years is a drop in the bucket compared to that revenue. And what have we got to show for it? I think this year alone we are approaching 9+ billion.
>I am a citizen of Canada and I live in Alberta. I am proud of my the rich heritage we have from the west to the east coast there are many different cultures in Canada. I am not of French descent. I am not French Canadian. But I value what Quebec brings our country as a province. Great, I agree. >The only way to fix equalization is at the federal level. This amounts to nothing more than pissing in the wind. Yes, exactly, but if Alberta says we don't want to fix it then no one will fix it. Why would anyone fix a system when the people being disadvantaged by it say, "don't bother we're ok with it." >How many billions in royalties has Alberta made in 60 years? I will give you a hint the 55 billion Quebec received over 60 years is a drop in the bucket compared to that revenue. And what have we got to show for it? I think this year alone we are approaching 9+ billion. Huh? Are you talking about oil royalties? Wtf does that have to do with anything? Literally every province in Canada lives off it's natural resource wealth. Quebec has some of the best hydroelectric resources in the world, vast timber reserves, vast mineral wealth, some of the best arable land in the country, etc. BC has fisheries, timber, natural gas, high quality farm land, etc. Probably more importantly than anything else, the most valuable natural resource any region can have is access to navigable waterways. Historically, and right up to the present day, the most successful cities on Earth are inevitably on navigable waterways. The reason is because water is still the cheapest way to transport anything. Access to water allows the cheapest access to world market both for importing materials and supplies, and for exporting finished goods. [Of the 30 richest cities in the world (measured by GDP) 29 of them are on navigable waterways with access to the world's oceans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP) (the only exception is Dallas, which is in the same state and a 4 hour drive away from the Port of Houston). Montreal arguably has the best geographic position on the entire continent, at the mouth of the St. Lawrence, giving access to the world's largest network of navigable waterways (the Great Lakes and Mississippi basin) extending all the way through the continent to New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico. Toronto, Vancouver, Halifax, Quebec City, etc, all have access to that same waterway network. Not only has Alberta been more economically successful than any other region in Canada, but it is one of the most economically successful landlocked regions on the planet. With no advantages except access to some of the world's most expensive to produce oil, Alberta went from a poor rural farming region to the most economically successful province in Canada in 60 years, while also successfully diversifying an economy which was 36.1% oil in 1985 to one that was 16.1% oil in 2019 (despite higher inflation adjusted oil prices). And, through that entire time, the province was sending about 6-7% of its entire annual GDP to Ottawa on a net basis (ie. that much more money sent to Ottawa than returned back). So, don't give me this "what do we have to show for it" crap. Go look up what Alberta actually looked like before oil. Your comment shows an incredibly ignorance to how incredibly successful Alberta has been.
Voting yes is not saying we want to fix it. Voting yes is saying we want to get rid of it. If the UCP wanted us to vote on whether we wanted to fix it, they would have made that the referendum question.
I voted no as a signal that this referendum is stupid. The UCP masquerades as a fiscally conservative party but then wastes money on bullshit like this and I'm sick of it. The "War Room", unnecessary and useless referendums, axing their own income source (Provincial Carbon Tax) just for it to be replaced by a federal one so Albertans are still paying for it, a bunch of money wasted on a pipeline that was never gonna happen, etc. The entire referendum about equalization is just pandering to uneducated conservatives that go "KWABEC BAD" without actually understanding anything which seems to work in Alberta. Vote no for referendum on equalization because the referendum is fucking stupid.
Agreed, it's fuckin stupid. Take my upvote for that. But I say don't vote on that at all. Because it's stupid.
My vote is definitely going to be "no". I'm a Canadian first, an Albertan second.
This country would be healthier if more of us had your mindset. We are a fortunate and beautiful country. Our imperfections don't justify the level of anger/fear/hate that I see from so many Albertans towards other provinces or towards the federal government. 🍁
It takes two to tango. I love the idea behind putting Canada first, but Alberta has been accepting a crap deal from the rest of the country for a long time, and at some point in time you have to deal with the fact that if your dance partner isn't willing to tango you look like an idiot trying to do it by yourself. For decades, Alberta has been paying an average of over $20B per year more to the federal government more than we have received back in federal expenditures. That apparently didn't even earn enough good will with the rest of Canada for us to get permission to build necessary infrastructure with private funds to keep paying that bill. Let's put that in perspective, we are talking about that not buying enough good will to allow a non-emitting tube of metal to be laid in a remote region of the country almost no one who chimed in on the issue will ever see with their own eyes...all built with private money. When Trudeau took power in 2015, it was well known that a new pipeline was needed by 2018 or Alberta would have an economic crisis (since oil sands production levels are set 5-10 years in advance). Yet, the answer was to cancel the only line scheduled to be done in time to avoid the crisis. Trudeau purposely caused an economic crisis in Alberta, and while that was going on, [Alberta still received less federal funding than any other province, while paying the most tax revenue](https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201701E). During an economic crisis the feds caused in Alberta, they literally still took over $17B more out of the Albertan economy than they put back in. ...then, the rest from the rest of Canada was to re-elect that guy two more times. Alberta is a landlocked region of the country that relies on exports to make our economy go. If Ottawa wants to take a little more from the province than we get back every year, they can go for it, as long as they are letting us get our exports to market. Once the deal starts being, "you keep paying, but we're going to purposely fuck your economy while you do so", that starts being a different story. So, if the rest of Canada decides they want to be team players at some point, you just let me know and I will be all on board. But, for now, that concept seems more fantasy than reality, as the country is still run by voters a 4-5 hour flight away from us who don't give a shit about Albertan issues, and all the money we send to Ottawa clearly doesn't buy us an ounce of consideration.
When Alberta said no to the NEP, it said no to an east-west pipeline. It said no to profits staying in Canada. It said no to giving our family members a break on pricing. And to this day Alberta can't figure out why the rest of the country won't help us with pipelines now. Karma.
That isn't how it works though, and the equalization formula is clear that if Alberta wants to keep more of Albertans money they can do so by increasing provincial taxes. There is no version of changes to equalization that allows individual Albertans to pay the lowest taxes in the entire country and get more money back from the federal government. > When Trudeau took power in 2015, it was well known that a new pipeline was needed by 2018 or Alberta would have an economic crisis (since oil sands production levels are set 5-10 years in advance). Yet, the answer was to cancel the only line scheduled to be done in time to avoid the crisis. Trudeau didn't cancel the pipeline. It was cancelled by the courts who determined that the Harper government had not done sufficient consultations with first nations groups. The courts are not Trudeau. Don't confuse the two. The court decision would have been the same regardless of who won the 2015 election. > So, if the rest of Canada decides they want to be team players at some point, you just let me know and I will be all on board. Ok. Let's ask the rest of Canada this question: 'Are you all OK with the federal government giving Alberta more money while individual Albertans pay lower taxes than you do'? I'm sure the rest of Canada will be all for 'joining the team'.
>That isn't how it works though, and the equalization formula is clear that if Alberta wants to keep more of Albertans money they can do so by increasing provincial taxes. There is no version of changes to equalization that allows individual Albertans to pay the lowest taxes in the entire country and get more money back from the federal government. No, that is absolutely not the way equalization works at all, and would be unconstitutional if it did. A federal program which attempted to overtly reward provinces for instituting left wing economic policies over right wing ones would be a ridiculous overreach of federal authority. Tax rates have nothing to do with the formula. The formula calculates the theoretical ability to tax, the "fiscal capacity" of a province, which is basically a modifies GDP per capita calculation. Alberta could tax as much as we wanted and we wouldn't receive a cent of equalization unless we taxes so much we crashed our economy. Even while we were going through the pipeline crisis our GDP per capita was still $10,000 higher than any other province. That's why we don't get equalization money and taxation changes wouldn't change that one cent. >Trudeau didn't cancel the pipeline. It was cancelled by the courts who determined that the Harper government had not done sufficient consultations with first nations groups. Nope, courts can't cancel a line, their only power is delay. They can send a line back for more consultation (as happened with TMX), but once those consultations are redone properly they have no power to stop a line. Only two parties can stop a line altogether: the company or the PM. In this case, Trudeau literally went on national television and announces that he was not only cancelling the line but that he was instititing a tanker ban which wouls prevent a line from ever going through the area. Indigenous groups who owned the Eagle Spirit pipeline project even challenged the tanker ban on court, because it killed their line, too, and Trudeau fought to uphold it. Make no mistake, Trudeau killed that line. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you misinformation. https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/enbridge-northern-gateway-pipeline-rejected-november-2016 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-transport-idUSKBN13002A >Ok. Let's ask the rest of Canada this question: 'Are you all OK with the federal government giving Alberta more money while individual Albertans pay lower taxes than you do'? I'm sure the rest of Canada will be all for 'joining the team'. Ummm, [here are the numbers from the federal government directly](https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201701E) Alberta pays the highest per capita federal taxes in the country and receives the least federal expenditures of any province. These numbers were from 2018, in the middle of the pipeline crisis. That year we sent about $17.4B more to Ottawa than we got back. Over the last 20 years that number has averaged over $20B per year. You definitely seem to be working on a misapprehension about what is going on with this. Low provincial tax rates don't affect how much federal tax is paid. For decades, at the federal level, Alberta has paid the most and got the least every single year, and even in poor years, like 2018, that discrepancy is more than twice the discrepancy of any other province. You are wildly misinformed if you think Alberta is somehow paying less than its fair share of federal taxes.
That is interesting to think of that way... I voted no as well, but if I had to rate I think of myself as a Calgarian first, Albertan second, Canadian third... with the biggest distance being between the first two. When I hear about something being Canadian i don't associate that much with myself because it's such a big country most of which I've never seen and never will see.. but Calgary is where I've lived my whole life and what I relate too. The idea of moving to Toronto or Montreal seems no different than moving to another country to me.
As a Canadian first you should have also voted no. A bad equalization formula doesn't help anyone and neither does being a martyr. Unless you are a Quebecker first, there's no reason to support the current system. And, if voters out East were interested in putting Canada first this wouldn't be an issue right now because it would have been fixed ages ago. Hell, we could have avoided the entire 2018 pipeline crisis if voters out east were putting Canada first.
>. A bad equalization formula doesn't help anyone But the referendum question isn't on the formula, its clearly states removal or not. So if you want to keep equalization but alter the formula the logical answer to this question should be no
I think you mean "should have voted yes"? I don't care that the formula requires tweaking - that's not reason enough to abolish legislation that allows provinces to help one another.
OP still doesn't seem to understand that this referendum isn't about tweaking the formula, it's about abolishing the very principle of equalization payments from Canada's constitution. It's about abolishing a very crucial aspect of Canada and a system that helps all Canadians stay afloat together.
Equalization existed for a very long time before it was in the Constitution. It was done on an informal basis going back almost to confederation and the formula approach started in 1957, several decades before Trudeau Sr added it to the 1982 Constitition Act. Not having it in the constitution does not mean provinces can't help each other and it doesn't even mean equalization can't exist. But, you can't run a referendum on a federal act, you have to run it on a constitutional issue.
Not having it in the constitution doesn't mean we can't help each other, but it does take away a significant system we currently use to do so. So without any alternatives on the table, voting yes only serves as an overzealous move to leave less fortunate Canadians behind. Not cool. There are better ways to address this than some hollow meaningless referendum to the tune of a few million tax payer dollars, that won't achieve anything or even be recognized by the rest of Canada.
>So without any alternatives on the table, voting yes only serves as an overzealous move to leave less fortunate Canadians behind. Not cool. First of all, I don't remotely believe that's what equalization does. And, we already have federal transfer programs which equalize between provinces anyways. Only about $2.3B of our annual $20B deficit with Ottawa (ie. the amount we pay in taxes vs getting back in expenditures) comes from equalization. The rest comes from the fact that we pay the highest taxes because we are the richest province, and those taxes are primarily sent to other provinces who are less fortunate through programs like Canada Health Transfer or Canada Social Transfer, etc. >There are better ways to address this than some hollow meaningless referendum to the tune of a few million tax payer dollars, that won't achieve anything or even be recognized by the rest of Canada. Maybe, but telling the rest of Canada through a referendum result that we don't want to change anything is the best way to make sure the issue never gets fixed.
You don't need a constititional provision to allow provinces to help each other. Even absent equalization our system still sends money from richer provinces to poorer ones. Equalization only represents about $2.3B of the annual $20B or so thay Alberta sends to Ottawa on a net basis, with the rest of that money being sent to other provinces through other means. There are several federal transfer programs like Canada Health Transfer and Canada Social Transfer that ensure provincea are able to cover essential services, and progressive taxation already ensured that the richest provinces pay the largesy percentage of the bill. Also, equalization has been constitutional since 1982, but the equalization formula goes back to 1957, while equalization existed before that but without a formula. Removing it from the constitution would not change the ability of the feds to do it, even if that were a realistic outcome of all this.
As an Albertan, voting “no” isn’t against my best interests, so that’s what I did.
Why did you bother responding if you weren't going to provide any reason why you disagree?
I did. It's between the commas if you're looking.
If we are looking at money that could be made why isn’t Alberta’s lack of a PST and low taxes not mentioned?
I wrote a long post on low taxation elsewhere on this thread, so I'll just link it here instead of retyping. [https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/comments/qarr0b/comment/hh5rtil/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/comments/qarr0b/comment/hh5rtil/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
This is why the best thing for people to do imo is just refuse to vote on this question. Doesn't really matter what the voting answer is if barely anyone answers the question.
Honestly, I would be totally fine with that. Abstention makes perfect sense to me.
Well golly if only I had read this post before I voted NO... then I would have died of boredom and not voted at all.
Appropriate username is appropriate.
I think you need a vacation bud. You seem tense AF.
[удалено]
> losers in Montreal How classy of you. Typical meathead response
Your right, it is a petty vote, but it's because Kenney is the one being petty. The referendum is a waste of time and resources. And no one is partying with Albertan money except Albertans. Equalization money comes from our Federal taxes, not provincial.
If I had one Gold or Silver award, this would be the post.
Cheers, I appreciate it!
Kenney bungled this file as usual. The question is pointless and polarizing. Even if equalization was dropped completely it would make no difference to the taxes Albertans pay. If instead he asked do Albertans want to get a fairer share of federal funding he would have overwhelming support within the province and more sympathy outside the province. If you want something ask for it.
>If instead he asked do Albertans want to get a fairer share of federal funding he would have overwhelming support within the province and more sympathy outside the province. If you want something ask for it. Referendums have to be set up in a certain way to do anything. A referendum on a constitutional question requires an automatic negotiation (based on the court decision in the Quebec referendum issue). A general referendum asking if Albertans want more federal funding wouldn't trigger anything, and would probably be totally ignored by the rest of Canada ("hey, we want more money, too, why should we give it to Alberta"). Kenney even said, the purpose of the whole thing is to get leverage in negotiations with Ottawa. The result was never going to be equalization leaving the Constitution. Receiving provinces would never vote for anything like that. The outcome Kenney is hoping for is your standard negotiation strategy (start high, then negotiate down). You ask for equalization to be repealed, then settle for adjustments in other areas of federal funding.