Sign in to follow this  
Mitch Cronin

Sorry Albertans, stuff your fossil fuel

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, deicer said:

Immigrants are living the Canadian dream while you whine....

Russian propaganda....Even gas stations attendants and corner store jobs will run out eventually.

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jaydee said:

Russian propaganda....Even gas stations attendants and corner store jobs will run out eventually.

Nothing racist about that at all 🙄

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Marshall said:

you are right more jobs for immigrants TRUMPs Alberta's problems.

If you had read both articles completely, they are living the dream, becoming more educated, and creating their own economy.

Believe what you want though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, deicer said:

Nothing racist about that at all 🙄

 

You do understand that Leftist Buzzwords work both ways right ?  By calling me a racist for simply pointing out an obvious fact of everyday life in Canada literally makes you a Bigot . 😂😂  Congratulations !!

Edited by Jaydee
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jaydee said:

You do understand that Leftist Buzzwords work both ways right ?  By calling me a racist for simply pointing out an obvious fact of everyday life in Canada literally makes you a Bigot . 😂😂  Congratulations !!

I wasn't the one who emphasized the stereotype.  I only pointed it out.  You chose to be small minded about the immigration issue showing your prejudice.  Immigration reality isn't your stereotype.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Many people relate tales of struggling in their first few years in Canada, but the figures seem to indicate they eventually find work, though perhaps not in the field they prefer.

Newcomers are more likely to have low-paying jobs in the accommodation and food industries, but are also one third of the workforce in high-paying industries such as finance, insurance, real estate, rental and leasing services, as well as professional, scientific and technical services.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/immigrants-workforce-employment-1.4959798

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Marshall said:

What I should have qualified above is what I would call an immigrant in 2019....which are the ones Trudeau drags in unnecessarily for political purposes from Syria, Lebanon etc and the invasion he allows to waltz across the border unhindered at Roxham Rd. 
 

“ Statistics Canada recently took a close look at that first cohort of 25,000 Syrian refugees who had landed as of May 10, 2016. Employment is the most important metric by which to gauge the integration of refugees into Canadian society. And here the news seems rather disappointing. Only 24 per cent of adult male Syrian refugees were working, according to census data.“

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/how-syrian-refugees-to-canada-have-fared-since-2015/

 

Looked at another way, 4 years later, going on 5... Canadians are STILL supporting 76% of them, and their families and no doubt their sub families that have come since the initial invasion.

Canada’s resident idiot in charge makes a mockery of the entire legal legitimate immigration system that has worked successfully for eons. He gives 👆to the ones that had to apply, go through interviews and then wait for years, the ones who had to meet some mandatory monetary and education qualifications. 

I whole heartedly support the “normal” process. Canada needs immigration, in fact the more the better , except that we need people who will be the solutions to Canada’s problems .... not addIng to our problems
 

Canada needs employable workers with skills, not Freeloaders !!!

 

 

Edited by Jaydee
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Albertans are pondering the nuclear option of separation

Alberta is a boiling cauldron about to blow its lid off

Last weekend I participated in the “The Value of Alberta” conference in Calgary. While most of the focus was on options for Alberta’s autonomy, what was most striking were the off-session comments of the 700 attendees. Albertans are running out of patience after five bad economic years.

 

Many told me about hardships: a friend recently losing a job, farmers unable to get credit, or a relative about to lose a house. They are upset with federal parties and media willing to play up a GM factory closing down or job losses at Bombardier or a corrupt SNC-Lavalin while ignoring the plight of tens of thousands of unemployed Albertans.

Many are angry at unsupportive and obstructionist federal regulatory policies that have dried up investment. They sense the lack of support from other parts of Canada despite Alberta’s huge $650-billion financial contribution over 60 years while other parts of Canada are pandered to buy votes in an election.

They expressed anger at unrealistic “climate emergency” environmentalists who want to stop any new oil and gas development or pipelines, strangling the province, out of sync with the rest of the world. And they are disappointed that the industry’s strong environmental record in reducing GHG emissions by 30 per cent per barrel (now equal to the typical barrel consumed in North America) gets no recognition. They are mad at a prime minister who has been unwilling to push federal jurisdiction over inter-provincial transportation and was willing to use the “oil card” as a prop to gain votes in Quebec.

In other words, Alberta is a boiling cauldron about to blow its lid off. It will do so if the new Teck oilsands project is delayed or turned down by the federal government this spring.

Although not attending in person, Premier Jason Kenney was top of the mind. Much support was expressed for his willingness to fight for Alberta but many are not willing to wait for years of negotiation with the rest of Canada.

As put during the conference by University of Calgary’s Ted Morton, the strategy that the “West Wants In” did not work. The Reform Party that pushed for an equal regionally representative elected Senate with real power found in other federations failed in its quest for better federal governance. Despite Peter Lougheed’s success in introducing Section 92A ensuring provincial control over resource development in the 1982 Constitutional negotiations, the federal government is now using unilateral environmental policy to limit development. Provincial autonomy becomes the only institutional means to defend the West’s interests.

Even the two First Nation leaders, Chief Jim Boucher and Grand Chief Billy Morin, spoke with disappointment over federal policies towards responsible resource development. They would welcome a fair deal providing economic opportunities so long as their treaty rights are honoured.

Some blurred focus was spent on elements for a new fair deal. These included an Alberta Pension Plan, opting out of federal cash grant programs in favour of tax point transfers, and provincially collected personal income tax (including federal income taxes that Quebec is also seeking).

Perhaps, the most intriguing panel was on the legalities of free trade. Alberta and Saskatchewan are landlocked even within Canada, a major concern as oil and gas pipelines fail to gain approval. As Marco Navarro-Genie of the newly created Haultain Research Institute outlined, the two provinces are examples of “enclave” jurisdictions — landlocked but also unable to directly secure agreements for export.

The world has a large number of landlocked jurisdictions — some quite rich such as Austria and Switzerland — that have developed transportation relationships throughout the world. Being landlocked is not an obstacle for independence. Forty-three countries, including the United States, agreed in 1967 to the United Nations Convention on Transit Trade of Landlocked States whereby coastal states (transit states) make arrangements with landlocked states, party to the treaty, to allow for the shipment of goods from a coastal port, subject to protection of the interests of the transit state. The 1982 Law of Sea Convention, which Canada signed, has incorporated these provisions.

As a separate country, Alberta and Saskatchewan would be landlocked states potentially able to work out treaty arrangements with the United States for the transportation of their goods. Of course, British Columbia would be willing to be a transit state to ensure its own goods could be shipped through Alberta and Saskatchewan to other parts of North America.

Albertans are far from the point of jumping on the separatist bandwagon (polls suggest only a quarter of the population, at most, would be willing to secede from Canada). They just want to understand what options are feasible. But if Alberta cannot get a fair deal from Canada and continues to find a federal government unresponsive to its needs, the “nuclear” option will get more attention.

The growing debate in Alberta on autonomy has gone past the point of one or two pipelines getting built. It is about Alberta’s future and Albertans are looking for the shackles to be taken off.

Jack M. Mintz is the President’s Fellow at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good video, thanks.

Opinion in the absence of experience is becoming  pervasive and increasingly dangerous in the process.

I will leave those in disagreement to research contributory forestry management practices in Canada for themselves. Or, simply find a forestry worker and ask him/her for an opinion on forest fire mitigation. It’s less complicated and more self induced than many think.

Have a gang problem in Toronto? Need a solution? 

Stop listening to Liberal politicians with an agenda. Find a couple of reformed gang members (preferably leaders) and pick their brain(s). Start by understanding the psychology and "culture"of the gang and its members... identify the problem, know your enemy and see how ineffective proposed solutions appear in the light of day. Opinion without experience serves us poorly, statistics and opinion pieces rarely provide the needed context.

My young granddaughter is of the opinion that it's simply a matter of making them go to Sunday-school. I submit that even that stands as a better idea than those currently on offer from city council.

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does no one ever mention H2O as a greenhouse gas.  Water vapor makes up a more significant part of the atmosphere and has a stronger influence.

I guess there is no way to tax it.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to Liberal policies...
“ Encana, whose history in Canada dates back to 1800s, says farewell to the TSX today as it heads south”

Shares of the oil and gas company will be removed Friday in what could be the biggest index event for Canadian markets

Shares of the oil and gas company will be removed Friday in what could be the biggest index event for Canadian markets

The time has come for Canadian index investors to say goodbye to Encana Corp., a stalwart of the nation’s energy sector with roots going back to the late 1800s.

On Friday, shares of the oil and gas company will be removed from the S&P/TSX Composite and S&P/TSX 60 indexes after it won investor approval to relocate to the U.S. and rebrand under the name Ovintiv. While Encana will leave a hole on the key stock gauge, Brookfield Property Partners LP will replace it on the large-cap index, according to a statement from S&P Dow Jones Indices.

“This could possibly be the largest index event for the Canadian market,” Bryan Chuah, an analyst at Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, said in a report. About 195 million Encana shares will need to be sold by Canadian indexers — valued at about $1.1. billion, he said, as its new U.S. domicile makes it ineligible for inclusion up north. Encana has about 1.3 billion shares outstanding, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/farewell-encana-hello-brookfield-property-in-canadian-index-rejig?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1579798861

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ALBERTA REJECTS ‘CHARITY’

UCP wants $20.6B Teck plant, not a consolation package

  • Calgary Herald
  • 8 Feb 2020
  • SAMMY HUDES
img?regionKey=88N66fDMNZ01EguVt4QSKA%3d%3dJIM WELLS Provincial Environment and Parks Minister Jason Nixon says the $20.6-billion Teck oilsands mine is not a bartering chip with Ottawa. On Friday, he would not say how the UCP government would respond if the federal government withheld approval for the project.

The Alberta government won’t accept a “charity handout” from Ottawa in lieu of approval of the Teck Frontier mine, Environment and Parks Minister Jason Nixon said Friday.

Responding to reports that the federal government was planning an aid package for Alberta if the former opts to block the oilsands project, Nixon said the decision on Frontier is not “something to be traded away.”

“Teck is not a political gift,” he said. “It deserves to be approved on its own merits.”

The federal government has until the end of February to decide whether Teck Resources Ltd. can build the $20.6-billion Frontier mine in northern Alberta despite climate and wildlife concerns.

The looming decision is seen as a test of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s 2019 election pledge to put Canada on the path to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. But after getting shut out of Alberta in the October election, Trudeau’s Liberals have pledged to listen to the province’s concerns surrounding economic troubles in the oil and gas sector.

Ottawa is reportedly considering a provincial aid package, to be featured in the upcoming budget, which would include a cash injection to help Alberta clean up thousands of inactive oil and gas wells abandoned by bankrupt companies.

Federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau called the characterization of the aid package inaccurate.

“We’re working on how we can create opportunity in parts of the country that have the need for increased job opportunities,” he said Friday in Ottawa.

“The issues around Teck Frontier are separate and distinct … It’s unrelated to the work that I’m doing on thinking about how we can make sure that Alberta continues to have a robust economy.”

The Teck project is considered essential for employment and growth in the province, with Teck estimating it would eventually create 7,000 jobs. If approved, the Frontier mine would produce up to 260,000 barrels of oil per day by 2037 and would generate about 4.1 megatonnes of carbon dioxide annually.

But the proposed project has faced opposition from climate activists and some Indigenous peoples.

Nixon said the Trudeau government’s decision would demonstrate whether the prime minister is serious about working with Alberta to achieve national unity. He added that the project shouldn’t be tied to “unrelated requests,” such as Alberta’s ask for a stabilization rebate.

“Albertans are not going to tolerate this anymore,” he said. “We have been clear with the federal government that we do have a unity crisis brewing inside this country.

“Albertans are not going to accept the federal government blocking a project like this that has went through 10 years of regulatory process, that has been approved by both the federal and provincial regulators and has overcome every hurdle.

“For Ottawa to change the rules at the 11th hour would be a devastating signal to the investors looking to invest in Canada and Alberta.”

Premier Jason Kenney echoed Nixon’s words as he addressed a business audience in Washington, D.C., on Friday.

“Why would anyone invest in Canada? It’s a very dangerous path to go down,” he said in comments streamed on Facebook.

Don Lindsay, Teck president and

CEO, recently questioned whether the mine would ever be built, in part because oil prices were not high enough.

Nixon added that the federal cabinet has no excuse to reject the project from an environmental standpoint because Teck has committed to reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

He said Friday he was responding to media “speculation” that raised doubt about Ottawa holding a favourable view toward the Frontier mine. He said he hasn’t received any further information from his federal counterparts directly.

Nixon said formal discussions with the Trudeau government have been “positive.”

But he declined to say how Alberta would respond if the project doesn’t receive approval.

“We’re not going to show all our cards in the middle of the card game,” Nixon said.

“Albertans are not looking for a Justin Trudeau handout. We’re not interested in that. We want Justin Trudeau and the federal government to get out of Alberta’s way.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little surprise years of delay push TMX tab to $12B.

 

  • Calgary Herald
  • 8 Feb 2020
  • CHRIS VARCOE Chris Varcoe is a Calgary Herald columnist. cvarcoe@postmedia.com
img?regionKey=JxFogTMwBUnoL%2fGfHAtTug%3d%3dED KAISER Given the years of delays with political and legal machinations around the expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline to transport Alberta bitumen to tidewater for export in Richmond, B.C., it’s little wonder costs have soared, writes Chris Varcoe.

Well, who’d a thunk it?

The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, opposed by the B.C. government, dragged into court by opponents and mishandled by its federal owners, is facing a massive cost overrun.

The Trans Mountain project is now slated to cost $12.6 billion, up from the last published price tag of $7.4 billion.

This isn’t some murder mystery plot twist. There were plenty of signs the costs were climbing, although not to this level.

It represents a 70 per cent hike since the project was approved by Ottawa less than four years ago. And if you really want to see some ugly math, it’s 133 per cent higher than the figure of $5.4 billion floated seven years ago. Blech.

“This has gone through multiyear delays, delays because of political interference ... and legal warfare,” Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage said in an interview.

“Had it been built as scheduled and in service many years ago, we wouldn’t have seen the price escalations.”

If there’s any good news for Alberta in the latest development, it’s that this escalation won’t leave provincial taxpayers on the hook for a $2-billion chunk of the higher tab.

That idea was originally discussed in 2018 when the Trudeau government bought the pipeline and the province apparently agreed to help pay for budget overruns. The deal involving Alberta was non-binding and never formalized, according to Savage.

Regardless, the project is now, finally, being built.

On Friday, Trans Mountain Corp. CEO Ian Anderson confirmed the expansion project will begin operations in December 2022, well behind initial estimates of 2017 when the project was owned by Kinder Morgan.

Once finished, it will nearly triple the amount of oil and refined products that can be shipped from the Edmonton area to Burnaby, B.C.

It’s a critical step to unclogging the pipeline congestion squeezing the province.

The expansion’s price escalation was entirely predictable, given the track record of other major energy projects that have seen budgets soar over the years.

But the frequent delays are another story, and some were preventable.

After an initial application was filed with federal regulators in 2013, the Trudeau government approved the project three years later.

Despite being deemed in the national interest, it faced staunch opposition from John Horgan’s government in British Columbia, and a relentless campaign to block the Trans Mountain expansion prompted Kinder Morgan to bail.

It sold the pipeline to the federal government for $4.5 billion in 2018.

At the time, the Notley government said it would also commit up to $2 billion to cover costs that arise from “unforeseen circumstances.”

In return, it would end up with a small equity stake.

Apparently, that was a non-binding letter that created no contractual requirements and “we haven’t been asked for financial support,” Savage said.

Officials in Ottawa confirm the federal government is the sole owner of the project, although it’s unclear why this deal was never turned into a formal agreement.

Regardless, a stunning court ruling in 2018 quashed federal approval for the project, in part, because the federal government bungled consultation with affected Indigenous communities in B.C.

That led to delays of nearly a year. Ottawa re-approved the project last summer, a process that withstood a critical court challenge this week.

“Delays are money and we’ve had to manage through delays as we’ve gone through the last several years,” Anderson told reporters.

Trans Mountain, now a Crown corporation, has spent $2.5 billion to date getting the expansion project to this point, with construction underway in parts of Alberta and British Columbia.

It will cost an extra $8.4 billion to finish the pipeline and another $1.7 billion in financial carrying costs.

The price has been driven up by a number of factors, including the on-again, off-again construction, and changes to some of the design and safety features, such as improved leak detection monitoring.

It’s not the same project as it was three years ago, Anderson said.

He remains convinced it’s commercially viable, has committed shippers and will generate at least $1.5 billion in EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) in its first full year of operation.

“The economics remains strong,” he said

But this hasn’t been a cost-free exercise in pipeline paralysis.

Jobs and investment have already been lost due to a deeper discount that’s hammered Western Canadian heavy oil, prompting the province to curtail output.

A higher price tag will cost shippers through higher tolls.

“Paying more for the same piece of pipe doesn’t get you more value. What it means is lower netbacks for producers in Alberta, and that means lower taxable income, lower royalties and less profit, and therefore less investment,” said Richard Masson, former CEO of Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission.

“There’s a lot of blame to go around for how long this has taken and therefore how much it’s going to cost.”

It could also affect the sale price when Ottawa sells it back to the private sector once the project has been derisked.

Several Indigenous-led groups, such as Project Reconciliation, have indicated they want to buy a majority stake in the pipeline once it’s available.

“I think this number is still do-able,” said Steve Mason, managing director of Project Reconciliation.

“We are prepared to pay, to a limit.”

Anderson is confident the current timeline and capital cost estimates are attainable.

However, history has taught us there could still be more roadblocks or uncertainties, such as civil disobedience and future legal actions.

There’s been a steep price to pay for the delays that have sideswiped this project over the years — and $12.6 billion only tells part of the story.

Had it been built as scheduled and in service many years ago, we wouldn’t have seen the price escalations.

ALBERTA ENERGY MINISTER SONYA SAVAGE

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Costs of the carbon tax to Canadians are much higher than Ottawa is letting on

If you count the loss of jobs and income growth, the costs swamp the reported net gains to households

carbon-tax2.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=7

The PBO says most Canadian households will receive more in rebates than they are paying in carbon taxes. But that’s not really the case, argues Matthew Lau.
 

 

Last week, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) furnished the Liberal government with the confirmation bias it was looking for in order to be able to claim its carbon tax system would enrich most Canadians. According to the report the PBO released, “most households will receive higher transfers than amounts paid in fuel charges. They will therefore be better off on a net basis because the rebate exceeds the household carbon cost.”

One of the charts in the report purports to show that almost all households in Alberta are enriched by the carbon tax — and that the higher the tax rate, the higher the net benefits. Most readers will find that hard to believe. And with good reason: the PBO report arrives at its conclusion that the federal rebate exceeds the cost of the carbon tax only by excluding much of the cost.

The cost to the private economy of raising an additional $1 in government revenues ranges from $1.77 in Alberta to $6.76 in Ontario

 

The cost of any tax is much higher than simply the flow of dollars it produces for the government levying it. For example, in the case of provincial personal income taxes, a recent study by tax economists Bev Dahlby and Ergete Ferede found that the marginal cost of public funds — that is, the cost to the private economy, including lost economic activity, from raising an additional $1 in government revenues — ranged from $1.77 in Alberta to $6.76 in Ontario

 

The cost to households of raising $1 in carbon tax revenues is also much higher than $1. A carbon tax functions like a tax on labour and capital but is actually more distortionary since it is applied to the narrower base of carbon-intensive activities. As with taxes on personal and corporate income, the effect of a carbon tax is to cut capital investment, eliminate productive jobs, and reduce income growth — costs that, if they had been included in the PBO report, would have swamped the reported net gains to households.
By excluding these costs, the PBO report naturally describes an outcome in which most households benefit from the carbon tax-and-rebate system. Using the PBO’s methodology the most harmful and absurd taxes could be justified as creating net benefits for most households.

Imagine, in an example adapted from economist Robert P. Murphy, that in order to discourage caffeine addiction the federal government imposes a $350,000 tax on each cup of coffee consumed. To make the policy revenue-neutral, every dollar collected in coffee taxes is distributed back to households in rebates. The result is that almost nobody in the country would buy coffee. But suppose one rich individual, perhaps as a marketing stunt, does purchase one cup of coffee and pays the $350,000 tax. If so, the revenues would be distributed back to the rest of the population at a rate of — dividing $350,000 by the 35 million of us — $0.01 per person (though no doubt the government would eat up a good part of the $350K collecting and redistributing the revenue).

If you look only at cash flows, you might well conclude such a tax enriches almost all Canadians. After all, every household in the country but one receives more from the coffee tax rebate than it pays in coffee taxes. But, of course, by depriving Canadians of coffee, the tax makes coffee-drinkers — of whom there are many! — worse off, some much worse off.

So it is with the carbon tax, except that instead of depriving Canadians of coffee, it deprives many of them of jobs and income growth.

Carbon-taxers would argue that, even if the tax is not financially beneficial to Canadians, the financial losses are at least offset by the environmental benefits of reducing carbon emissions. Yet even this much weaker claim is questionable. In a study published last month in the journal Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Kevin Dayaratna, Ross McKitrick and Patrick J. Michaels produced estimates of the social cost of carbon (the present value of damages caused by future climate change due to emissions today) by updating the FUND climate model, which is co-developed by academics David Anthoff and Richard Tol, with the latest  — mainstream — estimates of the effects of greenhouse gases on plant growth and climate.

This latest evidence suggests the climate is less sensitive, and plant growth (which is a good thing) more sensitive, to the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than originally thought. As a result, the marginal damages of carbon emissions are, as McKitrick puts it, “basically zero through the mid-21st century. In other words even if you accept mainstream climate science it still doesn’t justify costly policy measures.”

Indeed, the study found that by improving plant growth and crop harvests, carbon emissions might actually yield net benefits — over the next 30 years, at least. The federal carbon tax, on the other hand, does no such thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this