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

[MacLac]

Originally Posted by lio45

"Random numbers"? lol.

I'll return your argument against you - Alberta is a leech, any numbers you may have seen that suggest otherwise are spin doctored random numbers.

"240B sent east from AB since 2007." as per the FP. Try to worm/weasel your way out of that one...

AB is a Leech? Haha! 240Billion is your definition of a "leech?" Hate to see what you call your friends.......too funny....

[Jammon]

Originally Posted by misher

Which is why I think we should be very careful about hindering our economy and should be reviewing why our global competitiveness ranking has fallen. Also people need to stop seeing it as “Albertan oil” “Manitoba’s crisis” and guilty of this myself “Quebec’s industry”. It’s Canadian Canadian Canadian. Provinces are just arbitrary lines we drew up to split administrative regions. It’s not like you drive from BC to Alberta and towns on one side are different than the other.

Exactly. Which is also why some provinces have more resources than others. It was arbitrary. Had the lines been drawn differently, SK or BC might have the oil instead of Alberta.

As a Winnipegger though, I really see the "us vs them" dialogue and we really have to change it. I find that Canadians can be pretty nasty to each other and I see it being from a smaller city that everyone across Canada seems to crap upon. I really get tired of the comments I get from other Canadians living in Winnipeg and I see that as a large factor in why we are so separated. We're all in this together as cliched as that may sound.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Jammon

Exactly. Which is also why some provinces have more resources than others. It was arbitrary. Had the lines been drawn differently, SK or BC might have the oil instead of Alberta.

Indeed. What if some other parameters had been used to divide up the Prairies into new provinces:



Fort MacMurray would have been in the Province of Athabaska, and Calgary probably would not have been the petro capital of Canada. In such a situation, I'm sure Calgary would be a mere shadow of it's current size, and would not be a crucible for the Wexiteers.

It's all lines on a map folks..........

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

For better or worse, that was definitively decided in the 1930s, no? Hence the national oil production/transportation debate that we badly need but cannot have.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Can you elaborate?

It is a question that comes to my mind when I read about all this 'wexit' stuff. Don't all resources extracted from Canada belong to Canada? Aren't we all one country with each province being basically a district within the country?

Every time I hear that a province wants to separate from Canada I wonder how is that even possible - isn't this equivalent to a group of people wanting to 'steal' a portion of the country from Canada?

The concept seems very strange to me and flies against my vision of what I always thought being Canadian was about. I mean, we are one country, not a number of small countries who happen to be connected by some sort of agreement, like the EU...

I will admit that I am not familiar with how this plays out legally or constitutionally, so I am open to learn if somebody cares to explain...

I posted this back on page 14 but never did get an answer. But it's refreshing to see that others understand the significance of us all being 'one Canada' vs a bunch of little nations fighting with each other.

[Corndogger]

Lots of Stats Canada figures in this article. One has to either be very stupid or extremely intellectually dishonest to dispute that Quebec is not a huge benefactor of equalization and that Alberta is the main contributor.

Read the full article for details on each chart.

How Alberta pays Quebec’s bills: Four charts that show Alberta picks up the tab









POSITIVE CONTRIBUTORS (2007–2018)

Alberta

Net federal fiscal transfer

$22.2 billion – 2007
$22.5 billion – 2008
$17.7 billion – 2009
$16.6 billion – 2010
$17.9 billion – 2011
$19.2 billion – 2012
$23.5 billion – 2013
$27.1 billion – 2014
$24.8 billion – 2015
$16.0 billion – 2016
$15.3 billion – 2017
$17.2 billion – 2018

Total: $239.847 billion

Equalization received

None

British Columbia

Net federal fiscal transfer

$6.6 billion – 2007
$4.4 billion – 2008
$935 million – 2009
-$1.8 billion – 2010
$1.4 billion – 2011
$3.2 billion – 2012
$3.2 billion – 2013
$4.7 billion – 2014
$6.1 billion – 2015
$7.2 billion – 2016
$8.5 billion – 2017
$10.2 billion – 2018

Total: $54.7 billion

Equalization received

$116 million – 2007
$187 million – 2009
$62 million – 2010

Total: $365 million

Ontario

Net federal fiscal transfer

$18.2 billion – 2007
$9.1 billion – 2008
-$2.5 billion – 2009
-$10.8 billion – 2010
-$991 million – 2011
$1.3 billion – 2012
$2.5 billion – 2013
$8.9 billion – 2014
$13.5 billion – 2015
$16.3 billion – 2016
$20.7 billion – 2017
$21.7 billion – 2018

Total: $97.914 billion

Equalization received

None in 2007 and 2008
$285 million – 2009
$851 million – 2010
$2.0 billion – 2011
$3.0 billion – 201
$3.2 billion – 2013
$2.3 billion – 2014
$2.3 billion – 2015
$2.3 billion – 2016
$1.4 billion – 2017
$968 million – 2018

Total: $18.527 billion

NEGATIVE CONTRIBUTORS

Quebec

Net federal fiscal transfer

-$7.0 billion – 2007
-$13.0 billion – 2008
-$16.3 billion – 2009
-$18.5 billion – 2010
-$15.8 billion – 2011
-$14.8 billion – 2012
-$14.7 billion – 2013
-$15.0 billion – 2014
-$14.0 billion – 2015
-$14.3 billion – 2016
-$15.1 billion – 2017
-$12.9 billion – 2018

Total: -$171.3 billion

Equalization received

$6.8 billion – 2007
$8.1 billion – 2008
$8.4 billion – 2009
$8.8 billion – 2010
$8.7 billion – 2011
$7.8 billion – 2012
$7.8 billion – 2013
$9.0 billion – 2014
$9.6 billion – 2015
$9.8 billion – 2016
$11.0 billion – 2017
$11.8 billion – 2018

Total: $107.6 billion

Nova Scotia

Net federal fiscal transfer

-$5.1 billion – 2007
-$6.0 billion – 2008
-$6.2 billion – 2009
-$6.5 billion – 2010
-$6.5 billion – 2011
-$6.8 billion – 2012
-$6.6 billion – 2013
-$6.3 billion – 2014
-$6.5 billion – 2015
-$6.4 billion – 2016
-$6.7 billion – 2017
-$7.1 billion – 2018

Total: -$76.7 billion

Equalization received

$1.4 billion – 2007
$1.5 billion – 2008
$1.5 billion – 2009
$1.4 billion – 2010
$1.5 billion – 2011
$1.6 billion – 2012
$1.8 billion – 2013
$1.8 billion – 2014
$1.8 billion – 2015
$1.8 billion – 2016
$1.8 billion – 2017
$1.9 billion – 2018

Total: $19.9 billion

New Brunswick

Net federal fiscal transfer

-$3.7 billion – 2007
-$3.9 billion – 2008
-$4.4 billion – 2009
-$4.8 billion – 2010
-$4.7 billion – 2011
-$4.5 billion – 2012
-$4.4 billion – 2013
-$4.3 billion – 2014
-$4.5 billion – 2015
-$4.6 billion – 2016
-$4.8 billion – 2017
-$4.9 billion – 2018

Total: -$53.6 billion.

Equalization received

$1.5 billion – 2007
$1.6 billion – 2008
$1.7 billion – 2009
$1.7 billion – 2010
$1.7 billion – 2011
$1.6 billion – 2012
$1.6 billion – 2013
$1.6 billion – 2014
$1.7 billion – 2015
$1.7 billion – 2016
$1.7 billion – 2017
$1.9 billion – 2018

Total: $20.0 billion

Manitoba

Net federal fiscal transfer

-$4.0 billion – 2007
-$4.6 billion – 2008
-$4.9 billion – 2009
-$5.3 billion – 2010
-$4.9 billion – 2011
-$4.5 billion – 2012
-$4.0 billion – 2013
-$3.6 billion – 2014
-$3.6 billion – 2015
-$4.0 billion – 2016
-$4.4 billion – 2017
-$4.6 billion – 2018

Total: -$52.6 billion

Equalization received

$1.8 billion – 2007
$2.1 billion – 2008
$2.1 billion – 2009
$2.1 billion – 2010
$2.0 billion – 2011
$1.9 billion – 2012
$1.8 billion – 2013
$1.8 billion – 2014
$1.7 billion – 2015
$1.7 billion – 2016
$1.8 billion – 2017
$2.0 billion – 2018

Total: $22.9 billion

Newfoundland and Labrador

Net federal fiscal transfer

-$2.3billion – 2007
-$1.7 billion – 2008
-$2.6 billion – 2009
-$2.6 billion – 2010
-$1.9 billion – 2011
-$1.7 billion – 2012
-$1.2 billion – 2013
-$1.1 billion – 2014
-$1.2 billion – 2015
-$1.4 billion – 2016
-$1.5. billion – 2017
-$1.1 billion – 2018

Total: -$20.3 billion

Equalization received
$533 million – 2007
$124 million – 2008
$32 million – 2016

Total: $689 million

Prince Edward Island

Net federal fiscal transfer

-$919 million – 2007
-$1.1 billion – 2008
-$1.2 billion – 2009
-$1.3 billion – 2010
-$1.2 billion – 2011
-$1.1 billion – 2012
-$1.2 billion – 2013
-$1.1 billion – 2014
-$1.1 billion – 2015
-$1.1 billion – 2016
-$1.3 billion – 2017
-$1.4 billion – 2018

Total: -$13.9 billion

Equalization received

$295 million – 2007
$328 million – 2008
$338 million – 2009
$344 million – 2010
$346 million – 2011
$331 million – 2012
$337 million – 2013
$355 million – 2014
$363 million – 2015
$371 million – 2016
$389 million – 2017
$421 million – 2018

Total: $4.2 billion

Saskatchewan

Net federal fiscal transfer

-$1.2 billion – 2007
-$821 million – 2008
-$519 million – 2009
-$867 million – 2010
-$266 million – 2011
$46 million – 2012
$780 million – 2013
$1.3 billion – 2014
$1.1 billion – 2015
$126 million – 2016
-$369 million – 2017
-$315 million – 2018

Total: -$1.1 billion

Equalization received

$173 million – 2007
$59 million – 2008

Total: $232 million

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by CityTech

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/...kMembers%5B0%5D=1.6&pickMembers%5B1%5D=2.

2018 data.

Total federal revenue: $332.546B

Federal revenue from Alberta: $46.728B (14.05% of total)
Federal revenue from Quebec: $60.101B (18.07% of total)

Federal spending in Quebec: $72.957B

(72.957B - 60.101B) X 14.05% = $1.806B.

A lot less than both Quebec's surplus and Alberta's deficit.

This narrative that Alberta is being sucked dry to pay for Quebec is completely untrue.

That's not the right way to calculate Alberta's contribution. Otherwise, it could be claimed that Quebec contributed $2.323B to excess Federal spending in Quebec.

To calculate the contribution, we need to consider the surplus the Federal Government gained form the three positive provinces, AB, BC and ON, which was $49.156B in 2018. Effectively the Federal Government can only overspend in Have Not provinces using this surplus (and new debt). And Alberta's contribution of that surplus was 34.93%.

(72.957B - 60.101B) X 34.93% = $4.491B.

A much more substantial sum.

And when Alberta was booming, like 2014 Alberta contributed 64.5% of the surplus. In that year, Quebec had excess Federal spending of $14.911B, meaning that Alberta contributed $9.618B to Quebec coffers.

[OldDartmouthMark]

But, again, these are all provinces of a country called Canada. Income tax is collected from all Canadians and is directed to where it's needed. That's how countries work.

The oil is located in Canada, just like all the other assets within our borders that we all benefit from in one way or another. The people who live near the oil reserves get to have high-paying jobs to extract the oil, and they have to pay income taxes like everybody else in Canada who works for a living. They then get to spend what's left over on food, lodgings, entertainment, or whatever else they want, just like other Canadians who live in other parts of the country.

To read what some of the people are posting here, you would think they are cashing their paycheque, sticking it in an envelope and mailing it directly to Quebec.

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by Jammon

Exactly. Which is also why some provinces have more resources than others. It was arbitrary. Had the lines been drawn differently, SK or BC might have the oil instead of Alberta.

As a Winnipegger though, I really see the "us vs them" dialogue and we really have to change it. I find that Canadians can be pretty nasty to each other and I see it being from a smaller city that everyone across Canada seems to crap upon. I really get tired of the comments I get from other Canadians living in Winnipeg and I see that as a large factor in why we are so separated. We're all in this together as cliched as that may sound.

Remember when these lines were drawn, the recourses being exploited were Buffalo and beavers. Oil was not even a thing yet.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

To read what some of the people are posting here, you would think they are cashing their paycheque, sticking it in an envelope and mailing it directly to Quebec.

How much is that is merely in response to claims that Alberta wasted its resource riches and the Rest of Canada never benefited from it, while taking on so much risk?

[someone123]

I doubt that this will ever register but those "net fiscal contribution" numbers include both transfers and federal spending on goods and services. They are not the same thing and the conclusions most commonly drawn from those figures are wrong.

For example if the federal government buys office chairs and the low bid is a company in Ontario that money is not a subsidy and does not reflect a "net negative" contribution from Ontario.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by accord1999

How much is that is merely in response to claims that Alberta wasted its resource riches and the Rest of Canada never benefited from it, while taking on so much risk?

I don't think anybody is saying that. As well-put earlier, Alberta decided on a low taxation regime and funded their social programs with oil revenues.

Using "one-time" revenue to fund ongoing operations has never worked.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

But, again, these are all provinces of a country called Canada. Income tax is collected from all Canadians and is directed to where it's needed. That's how countries work.

The oil is located in Canada, just like all the other assets within our borders that we all benefit from in one way or another. The people who live near the oil reserves get to have high-paying jobs to extract the oil, and they have to pay income taxes like everybody else in Canada who works for a living. They then get to spend what's left over on food, lodgings, entertainment, or whatever else they want, just like other Canadians who live in other parts of the country.

To read what some of the people are posting here, you would think they are cashing their paycheque, sticking it in an envelope and mailing it directly to Quebec.

As the crow flies, Edmonton to St Johns is just about the same as Edmonton to Mexico city. Should wealth be shared with them too? borders are arbitrary right?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by someone123

For example if the federal government buys office chairs and the low bid is a company in Ontario that money is not a subsidy and does not reflect a "net negative" contribution from Ontario.

It's not a handout, but it's still a benefit to that local economy.

And these things can't completely explain the significant outlier that is Alberta, which in a boom year (like 2014) gets 46c back for every $1 in Federal revenue, and in a poor year like 2017 still only gets 66c back for every $1.

Mean, booming Ontario has done no worse than 84c while BC is at 78c in recent years.

[thurmas]

Canada was basically setup to counteract American expansionism and manifest destiny. To get Quebec, Ontario and the Maritimes onboard we ended up having this very decentralized weak central government with very strong provinces. It has led to Canada being a Frankenstein patchwork of regional fiefdoms that are always bickering with each other. It will never change the best that can be done is let the regional fiefdoms do as they please internally and stay to themselves to prevent the disruptions and almost disintegration of the country we saw in the 70's 80's and 90's

[Pinus]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

As the crow flies, Edmonton to St Johns is just about the same as Edmonton to Mexico city. Should wealth be shared with them too? borders are arbitrary right?

Nice, but weak, red herring. We are one country and we support each other so that we all have the same standard of living. That is how a prosperous and united country stands the test of time.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I don't think anybody is saying that. As well-put earlier, Alberta decided on a low taxation regime and funded their social programs with oil revenues.

Using "one-time" revenue to fund ongoing operations has never worked.

For Alberta, the issue of whether it saved enough during the boom years are a separate matter with anger over the Rest of Canada for lack of progress in pipelines and the lack of respect it gets for its financial contribution. Even if it had a huge rainy day fund, it would still be angry about it.

And if you thought Alberta was whiny now, imagine how impetuous Alberta would be with $200B in the bank.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by accord1999

For Alberta, the issue of whether it saved enough during the boom years are a separate matter with anger over the Rest of Canada for lack of progress in pipelines and the lack of respect it gets for its financial contribution. Even if it had a huge rainy day fund, it would still be angry about it.

And if you thought Alberta was whiny now, imagine how impetuous Alberta would be with $200B in the bank.

The TMX pipeline is proceeding as fast as possible under the rule of law.

Alberta needs to face the reality of the end of fossil fuels, and their own role in their current economic situation.

Canada is here to help. But the RoC is really tired of Alberta shit talking everyone else.

[bobi]

Originally Posted by CityTech

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/...kMembers%5B0%5D=1.6&pickMembers%5B1%5D=2.

2018 data.

Total federal revenue: $332.546B

Federal revenue from Alberta: $46.728B (14.05% of total)
Federal revenue from Quebec: $60.101B (18.07% of total)

Federal spending in Quebec: $72.957B

(72.957B - 60.101B) X 14.05% = $1.806B.

A lot less than both Quebec's surplus and Alberta's deficit.

This narrative that Alberta is being sucked dry to pay for Quebec is completely untrue.

I'm no fiscal expert, but wouldn't this number be accurate only in the context of a balanced budget? Given the huge and repetitive deficits accumulated over the past 4 years (like buying a rusty pipeline) how can we determine who's income taxes pay for what federal program exactly?

On a side note, more than 50% of Québec's oil imports now come from Alberta; for the year 2018, we're talking about $3 billion worth of Albertan oil. And since $3 billion from Québec minus $1.806 billion from Alberta = $1.194 billion in Alberta's pockets, me thinks that Jason Kenney should rethink his after-sales policy...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MacLac

"240B sent east from AB since 2007." as per the FP. Try to worm/weasel your way out of that one...

Easy. $240B sent to the federal capital over a decade from the exploitation of resource wealth that happened to be found within the boundaries of the country in question. Perfectly normal.

"OMG!!! ~$1 trillion sent to coffers in Oslo over the past X years from exploiting North Sea oilfields within Norwegian waters!!!!!!" also triggers you, I imagine? You believe the money should stay on the oil rigs...?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

As the crow flies, Edmonton to St Johns is just about the same as Edmonton to Mexico city. Should wealth be shared with them too? borders are arbitrary right?

Some borders are arbitrary, others aren't. City limits are a good example of arbitrary borders; lines that separate one ethnolinguistic bloc from another different ethnolinguistic bloc are not arbitrary (or at least, not anymore, even if they originally were).

The Warsaw City Limit is an arbitrary line, with Poles on both sides. It could be moved anytime with little consequence on anybody.
The Germany-Poland border is not an arbitrary line; the people living on one side are Germans and the people living on the other side are Poles. The sides of that line exhibit marked differences.

Similarly, Edmonton and St. John's are in the same country, while Edmonton and Mexico City are in different countries.

(Can't believe I had to explain this, BTW.)