Does Western Alienation exist, and how can we fix it?

[SaskScraper]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

So as I predicted, the whole wexit thing is losing steam and will soon fizzle out. at least on this website. I think only Corndogger and Misher are the two advocating for separation? The majority of the posters on this thread seem to be making fun of the wexit idea, which is actually not helpful.

I'm very late to seeing this thread & quickly skimming through, but even before opening up just now, I knew it would be mostly focused on the Oil & Gas industry and it would be 99% from Canadian's outside of Alberta & Saskatchewan telling what these provinces should do.

Even with the slump in the petroleum industry, Alberta's economy is still doing better per capita than most Canadian provinces, it's population is still growing faster than the national average and it's unemployment rate is still less than what the national average was during last decade, and far less than some eastern provinces that perpetually have double digit unemployment rates.

I think the elephant in the room is that less than a month ago the liberals turned into a regional party having lost their majority government and having no representation between Winnipeg and Vancouver, and the rest of the country has sat up & taken notice.

Just in the last couple of days Trudeau said to Andrew Scheer and Scott Moe he doesn't intend to do anything differently even though Saskatchewan has completely lost it's Canola & agricultural markets to China simply because of appeasing the USA with Huawei executive arrested in Canada, yet yesterday Trudeau told the Bloc Quebeqois leader (i'm not sure what his name is) he will do everything he can to help with Quebec's Dairy monopoly & it's dispute with the USA.

Saskatchewan's 2019 Autumn harvest being one of the worst in decades and agriculture producers having to spend extra energy inputs & $$ investments to get harvest off the fields and ready for market. Yet Trudeau still intends to disproportionally over tax the Saskatchewan Agricultural producers even though it's one of the biggest carbon sequestering industries on the planet (especially with certain farming practices like no till and crop rotation etc). In North America, particularly Saskatchewan, it's estimated to sequester several gigatons of carbon per decade, yet $billion concrete plants in Quebec get Federal Liberal green light even though cement companies are second to only petroleum industry for world's worst carbon output contributers.

The pipelines issue with Trudeau's over regulation and sending any private investment out of Canada and provinces like BC and Quebec no pipeline Bills just looks bad on a international stage, doesn't look good for national unity and just shows how Canadians pit one region against another possibly past a point not being reconcilable. Canada is stronger together united but not if one region(s) is holding another one hostage.

I have never seen Canada so fractured in the short 4 years Trudeau has been PM of Canada. No one has a crystal ball and knows how much longer Canada will stay together as a country, will it remain intact for all of our life times, how about our next generation?

People probably thought Quebec would be the first to leave but that may not be the case anymore. Alberta has started the process of pulling out of Ottawa's hands what use to be federal jurisdiction of CPP, policing and opening up the equalization program that takes more per capita from Alberta tax payers and gives to Quebec provincial government disproportionately more than any other citizens in Canada. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just from the ground here, that I think Albertans and Saskatchewan people don't see western alienation as simply a single 'Oil & Gas' problem that the rest of Canadians thinks it is, just my opinion.

The rest of Canada outside of Alberta and Saskatchewan may continue your wexit discussion amongst yourselves now...

Bless

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

I'm very late to seeing this thread & quickly skimming through, but even before opening up just now, I knew it would be mostly focused on the Oil & Gas industry and it would be 99% from Canadian's outside of Alberta & Saskatchewan telling what these provinces should do.
Bless

Let's not forget the CONS made this entire election about the Oil and Gas Industry and relaxing environmental restrictions. So one should not be surprised that it's still the main point of discussion.

Conservative's economic plan based on oil and the tar sands

Andrew Scheer: Big Oil's secret weapon
By Bruce Livesey in Analysis, Politics | October 17th 2019

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/10/17/analysis/andrew-scheer-big-oils-secret-weapon

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

I have never seen Canada so fractured in the short 4 years Trudeau has been PM of Canada. No one has a crystal ball and knows how much longer Canada will stay together as a country, will it remain intact for all of our life times, how about our next generation?


Bless

Wow, it's funny you place all of the blame on Trudeau and none of it on the B.S spewing out of the conservative party. They ran on a platform of divisiveness and greed and for a few provinces it seems to have paid off for them. And here we ahve another whiner throwing out the break up of Canada because of an election result. How weak and pathetic of some to use such an empty threat. Typical fear mongering conservative tactic though. keep it up.

Bless.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

Even with the slump in the petroleum industry, Alberta's economy is still doing better per capita than most Canadian provinces, it's population is still growing faster than the national average and it's unemployment rate is still less than what the national average was during last decade, and far less than some eastern provinces that perpetually have double digit unemployment rates.

If that's all true then what's the problem?

[Denscity]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If that's all true then what's the problem?

Ya that's what I was wondering. It's like they're "only" making $80 an hour instead of $100.
I've got family there and they're doing just fine.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Denscity

Ya that's what I was wondering. It's like they're "only" making $80 an hour instead of $100.
I've got family there and they're doing just fine.

Same with me. Both family and friends.

Most tellingly, I haven't had anyone move back east as a result of this slowdown, whereas in the early 80s for example there was an obvious flow of people eastwards. I remember as a kid the Ottawa area and also the Golden Horseshoe were full of cars with Alberta plates.

[lio45]

As a citizen of this planet, I have the right to oppose extracting and burning Alberta's tarsands for one-use energy, just like I have the right to oppose deforestation in the Amazon rainforest and child labor in Bangladesh and terrorism in the Middle East even though in all those cases I'm a "stranger telling the locals how to run their business".

The argument that only Albertans are allowed to have an opinion on burning fossil fuels doesn't hold water.

[lio45]

lol @ SaskScraper's claim that not moving ahead to blanket the land with new tarsands pipelines like there's no tomorrow is something that "looks bad on the international stage".

[misher]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

I'm very late to seeing this thread & quickly skimming through, but even before opening up just now, I knew it would be mostly focused on the Oil & Gas industry and it would be 99% from Canadian's outside of Alberta & Saskatchewan telling what these provinces should do.

Yep I've brought up Canada's weakening competitiveness and over-regulation along with sources that have studied global competitiveness and found Canada falling and suddenly it became all Alberta bad because of oil oil oil again. And btw half or more of BC and Manitoba is annoyed too! Its much more than just a conversation about Albertan oil. Canada has so much potential but it seems like we squander it pursuing social agendas while ignoring actual economic problems.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

lol @ SaskScraper's claim that not moving ahead to blanket the land with new tarsands pipelines like there's no tomorrow is something that "looks bad on the international stage".

If you look at a provincial breakdown of greenhouse gas emissions, AB + SK have gone up significantly during the past two decades while the rest of Canada has gone down by a similar amount and our overall emissions are roughly flat. Obviously, there is international pressure these days to lower GHG emissions.

This is going to cause more and more tension because there's less and less than provinces like BC can do as their GHG emissions approach 0 and Alberta's emissions grow.

[Denscity]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Same with me. Both family and friends.

Most tellingly, I haven't had anyone move back east as a result of this slowdown, whereas in the early 80s for example there was an obvious flow of people eastwards. I remember as a kid the Ottawa area and also the Golden Horseshoe were full of cars with Alberta plates.

Well and it's an easy day trip to come home here from Alberta but they're staying and happy there.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

If you look at a provincial breakdown of greenhouse gas emissions, AB + SK have gone up significantly during the past two decades while the rest of Canada has gone down by a similar amount and our overall emissions are roughly flat. Obviously, there is international pressure these days to lower GHG emissions.

This is going to cause more and more tension because there's less and less than provinces like BC can do as their GHG emissions approach 0 and Alberta's emissions grow.

I'm surprised we both resisted (till now) expressing shock at the news that Maple Creek's reliably tropical climate apparently didn't produce the usual bountiful harvest this year...?!?

[ssiguy]

Saskscraper..........I can appreciate that it must be annoying feeling that the rest of the country is telling Ab/Sk what they should be doing. I imagine it must feel like Mom & Dad {aka Montreal and Toronto} pat you on the head and saying" there there dear, you'll understand when you grow up".

You have to remember thou that these are suggestions of what Alberta could do post-oil. In 40 years oil will be a niche commodity and nothing is going to change that reality. Alberta must reinvent it's economy if it is to thrive in the future and doubling down on oil is the last thing the province should be doing.

[misher]

Originally Posted by someone123

If you look at a provincial breakdown of greenhouse gas emissions, AB + SK have gone up significantly during the past two decades while the rest of Canada has gone down by a similar amount and our overall emissions are roughly flat. Obviously, there is international pressure these days to lower GHG emissions.

This is going to cause more and more tension because there's less and less than provinces like BC can do as their GHG emissions approach 0 and Alberta's emissions grow.

Technically BC's emissions will soon skyrocket due to our LNG development. We may be up there with AB and SK soon.

https://www.pembina.org/op-ed/carbon-footprint-of-b-c-lng-boom-could-rival-alberta-s-oilsands

Carbon footprint of B.C. LNG boom could rival Alberta’s oilsands

This month, provincial MLAs are preparing for the upcoming legislative session, in which they will debate rules for carbon pollution and taxes for liquefied natural gas (LNG) development.

The connection between LNG development and carbon pollution is significant. And just how the government chooses to manage both issues will have serious long-term implications for the province, and the country.

Last year, Minister of Natural Gas Development Rich Coleman was asked on CBC’s Early Edition what B.C.’s LNG plans could mean for the province’s climate targets. His response: “Meeting our goals will be a challenge.”

If you’re wondering how big that challenge may be, there are two things you should know. The first is that carbon pollution from this industry could be extremely large, nearly as much as the oilsands in Alberta produce. The other is that B.C. can choose to make the impact much smaller.

The B.C. government is investing time and resources in promoting extensive LNG development. In order to meet their annual revenue hopes of more than $4 billion, the province will need to export four to six trillion cubic feet of shale gas per year by 2020. Producing that much gas would require five to seven LNG facilities and over 10,000 wells with the accompanying network of roads, pipelines, compressors and gas processing plants.

The Pembina Institute estimates that even the lower end of that development scenario would produce a staggering 73 million tonnes of carbon pollution per year by 2020. For comparison, the oilsands are currently Canada’s fastest-growing source of climate pollution — but by 2020, B.C.’s LNG plans would produce three-quarters as much carbon pollution if development proceeds as hoped.

he carbon pollution considered here refers to LNG development in B.C. This includes pollution from extracting and processing the natural gas, likely from shale gas fields in northeastern B.C., transporting the gas to the LNG facilities on the coast, then liquefying and storing the LNG until it is loaded onto LNG carriers (tankers). This doesn’t include carbon pollution generated from burning this gas in Asia, which could produce more than 200 million additional tonnes of carbon pollution per year.

Producing 73 million tonnes or more of carbon pollution from a single industry in B.C. means the province will miss its legally binding target for carbon reductions. The law requires the annual carbon pollution from all activities (transportation, buildings, agriculture, forestry and other industry) to be below 43 million tonnes by 2020, and below 13 million tonnes by 2050.

The B.C. government could choose to alter or ignore the carbon reduction targets, as other governments have done, or add in special accounting for LNG. But these targets represent B.C.’s commitment to contribute to global climate solutions. And the evidence is mounting of the real-world impacts that repeatedly missing reduction targets can have. For B.C., the impacts of climate change include declining fisheries, flooded coastal communities and increasingly vulnerable forests.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/b...ll-be-impossible-to-reach-if-lng-canada/

B.C.’s climate targets will be impossible to reach if LNG Canada project goes ahead, critics say

Environmentalists are warning that it will be impossible for British Columbia to reach its climate targets if a Shell-led liquefied natural gas project forges ahead along the northern coast.

The BC NDP government has suggested that other industries would need to sharply reduce their greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions should the LNG Canada project in Kitimat get built.

Hannah Askew, executive director of Sierra Club BC, said in a letter this week to Premier John Horgan that the NDP’s support for LNG Canada means the government believes “every other industry, business, community and individual in B.C. should be required to drive GHG reductions at a significantly accelerated rate.”

Last week, Mr. Horgan said it will take sacrifices from other sectors to secure LNG projects for B.C. and still decrease the province’s carbon footprint. “If we have an increase in emissions from the advent of LNG, then we are going to have to see concurrent reductions in other sectors," he said.

Ms. Askew sent her letter as Shell and four co-owners of LNG Canada assess whether to proceed with the project. The consortium is expected to make a final investment decision by the end of 2018.

“We will have a hard enough time meeting our existing targets without the addition of LNG Canada. B.C. is not yet even close to meeting the weak target set by the previous government, reducing emissions by 33 per cent by 2020, compared to 2007,” she said. B.C. emitted more than 65 million tonnes of GHGs in 2007, and environmentalists say the level of annual emissions has barely budged since then.

While there are discussions to use electric power instead of fossil fuels at the LNG facility its unknown how we'd actually do so since Site C would not be enough to cover their requirements. I know we usually associate Alberta with oil but they do have a significant LNG industry as well that is a bit contributor to their footprint.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

Even with the slump in the petroleum industry, Alberta's economy is still doing better per capita than most Canadian provinces, it's population is still growing faster than the national average and it's unemployment rate is still less than what the national average was during last decade, and far less than some eastern provinces that perpetually have double digit unemployment rates.

I too am perplexed by this statement. It kinda blows apart the concept that Alberta is being "persecuted" by the federal government... sounds more like they just have to adjust to the ebb and flow of the marketplace like everybody else.

I think the elephant in the room is that less than a month ago the liberals turned into a regional party having lost their majority government and having no representation between Winnipeg and Vancouver, and the rest of the country has sat up & taken notice.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Trudeau supporter, but how can you say the Liberals turned into a regional party? They are the same party that they were before the election, except that they received less votes this time, largely concentrated in Sask and AB. However, by your logic, one should also be saying that the Conservatives are likewise a regional party, focused on Alberta and Saskatchewan's interests - and if that's the case why should the ROC consider voting for them?

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just from the ground here, that I think Albertans and Saskatchewan people don't see western alienation as simply a single 'Oil & Gas' problem that the rest of Canadians thinks it is, just my opinion.

The rest of Canada outside of Alberta and Saskatchewan may continue your wexit discussion amongst yourselves now...

Bless

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but in all of the 'wexit' bluster I've read and heard from the media, including comments from (Alberta) citizens, not once have I heard any reference to Saskatchewan's agricultural situation. IMHO that's far more crucial than Alberta's perceived oil and gas "crisis", yet no word in the media, no word from the provincial politicians (though all I've seen in the news are Alberta politicians complaining about oil, etc). Nothing.

In fact, as a ROC inhabitant, I thought Saskatchewan didn't really have a concern about agriculture (at least regarding 'wexit'), only concerns about its petroleum industry. Yet you are amazed that all we are talking about is oil and gas - that's because all anybody is talking about is oil and gas.

IMHO... there's a chance Saskatchewan is in danger of getting screwed over by Alberta, by focusing on their petroleum industry, unless there's a huge portion of the news that I've missed (and that's entirely possible too... )

[misher]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

IMHO... there's a chance Saskatchewan is in danger of getting screwed over by Alberta, by focusing on their petroleum industry, unless there's a huge portion of the news that I've missed (and that's entirely possible too... )

The problem with Wexit is that the "We" gets ignored and instead people see it as "Abexit". There are things across the West that are going or went bad which puts pressure on the Feds and builds resentment across the West. From BC lumber and minerals to AB oil to SK+MB farming+canola oil to MB's storms and crisis response. Even many in Ontario is upset possibly due to how manufacturing has been steadily decreasing there. Honestly I'm not involved in any of those, I'm just annoyed that Canada's competitiveness seems to get ignored and that the country is being divided while shooting itself in the foot. And its clear to most Canadians that the only industries that seem to matter to the feds are those in Quebec. It definitely feels as if there is a double standard where a company in Quebec gets better treatment.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

So if Alberta doesn’t provide any money to the equalization payment, safe to say every other province doesn’t provide any money? Question is then, where does the money come from?

F-E-D-E-R-A-L
I-N-C-O-M-E
T-A-X

You know that form you fill out telling the government how much you make and how much taxes you should pay, and whether or not you owe? It comes from that.

So, no, not a single province pays a dime of equalization payments.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

F-E-D-E-R-A-L
I-N-C-O-M-E
T-A-X

You know that form you fill out telling the government how much you make and how much taxes you should pay, and whether or not you owe? It comes from that.

So, no, not a single province pays a dime of equalization payments.

Great, nice condescending response...

Income is generated from jobs in each respective province though. So well paying jobs from one province generates more federal income from said province. So if there are more jobs, and more well paying jobs in one province, more federal tax will come from those people in that province.

I know what you mean of course, but the federal income generated is a function of how well any one province is doing economically.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Conservatives when they don't win or get their way never offer suggestions or compromises. I know, lets bitch and say we want to separate. That's a great idea for an economy that will be based solely on a dwindling resource if they did vote to leave.

Images from : https://giphy.com/

Alberta


Saskatchewan


Quebec at Alberta and Sask


And The ROC




Every Albertan who cares more about Oil Sands then other Industries needs to read this.

Here’s How Canada’s Oil Sands Could Collapse by 2030

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/paabxk/heres-how-canadas-oil-sands-could-collapse-by-2030


Though I doubt any con or anybody in denial about the future will read the whole article.

Yet VICE spoke with two prominent economists—one in the US and one in Canada—who think we should take the prospect of an oil sands collapse very seriously. They think it could happen within the next decade. And there is little that anyone in Alberta, or Canada for that matter, can do to stop it.

They think the collapse could be set in motion by electric cars, self-driving technology, new business models for transportation and the international fight against climate change. They believe global oil demand will peak within the next few years. Oil prices will crash. High-cost sectors like the oil sands will shrivel while companies like Suncor and Exxon struggle to survive.

This will be financially devastating to the province of Alberta—as well as any other place on the planet that relies heavily on oil revenues. Alberta will lose a key source of income at the same time that it becomes liable for billions of dollars in ecological cleanup costs. Yet overall the Canadian economy will be fine. Oil is a small enough part of Canada's GDP that the country as a whole won't suffer catastrophic losses.

The oil industry makes up for ~10% of Canada's GDP, I believe (but would need to confirm) is the largest among all industries, which I wouldn't consider small, but I agree it is not considered large either.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

The oil industry makes up for ~10% of Canada's GDP, I believe (but would need to confirm) is the largest among all industries, which I wouldn't consider small, but I agree it is not considered large either.

Real Estate is bigger. Oil is a significant industry though. Especially if you go for Oil & Gas as we have a significant and quickly growing Gas industry. Also we do have a few plastic and other product manufacturers that rely on our oil plus refineries.
Given that our GDP isn't growing per a person these days (only growing through population growth) it would be difficult to justify cutting 10% from it when we're currently stuck in an economic rut.