Accountability Now

From your source: “I spoke yesterday with the Alberta minister of finance to see how we could work together and I’m pleased to say that he understands that there’s a stabilization fund that Alberta can apply for,” Morneau said. “The potential is up to $250 million. Should they apply, we would work expeditiously to move forward on that request.” A few key points here: a) The Feds suggested it to Alberta...not the other way around The Fiscal Stabilization Program has been around since 1967 and is available for ALL provinces not just Alberta. Am I too understand that you also call other Federal government programs bailouts? Equalization? Canada Health transfer There is nothing special about this $250M that other provinces couldn't have under similar circumstances. Perhaps that is why your so precious fisheries may not have got a bail out.....it didn't qualify for the federal program designed for serious provincial issues. Of course, I can also re-post the graph showing the federal revenue collected in Alberta versus the expenditures spent in Alberta. Perhaps we would see where a lot of Alberta's wealth has gone.

Over and above? Again...you are mistaken. This money was already allocated to Alberta and was NEVER given. Here...some reading: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-to-get-700-million-in-infrastructure-cash-within-weeks-to-months-1.3431203 So I guess your idea of a bail out is actually paying money that was supposed to be given to Alberta in the first place....especially when other provinces already got theirs. Wow....you're really on to something here.

Misconception? You entered the conversation will a very telling and biased question that in no way had any bearing on what was being discussed. I asked you very politely to provide a citation of said bail out but the only response you gave was more ramblings about the ROC and entitlements but yet still not providing any proof any of this. And then you say you were only asking a question???? Please spare me from your delusional posts.

Ya ya...I've seen this style before. Put a question mark on the end and now your baseless claim is a question.

No...you said Alberta was asking for a bailout. Please show me the details of this 'bailout' or retract your claim.

You mean the money that goes back into the economy when actually spent? Quebec gets more from the Canada then it contributes. I have shown that with factual numbers. Therefore when a project like Energy East that benefits many provinces and not just Alberta comes along, then I think its more than fair to ask them to contribute back. And please....show me how their industries have been hurt by Alberta oil? I'm always fascinated when this one comes up Ya...ya....and in the mean time they import oil from Saudi Arabia, the US and other international locations all of which threaten the same environment with one pipeline going under the St. Lawrence. Those ones are ok though.

And yet you have private companies still pouring billions into investing into the oil sands....yet I should take your word on this? Its not slashing...its readjusting. Before 2008 (the big spike), people were happy to make 50-60k and someone who made $100k in Alberta was rich. Now $100k is starting salary for most low end managers. The simple fact is that people here have been compensated based on high oil and now need to be readjusted to low oil. Riiiight.....or maybe there is a lot of other activity that keeps people employed. The exports were listed in your sourced link. Is it possible there is more to Alberta than what your narrow view would have seen? The numbers don't lie so I don't know what to tell you. Again...the Petrochemicals industry is almost 10B in export all on its own but maybe you haven't been out to Fort Sask or Joffre? The cod certainly weren't renewing in the 90s...hence the issue. Thats great for BC. BC also has warmer weather, a coast line to export, large lumber sources....all things which no matter how hard Alberta tried, it could not have. Every province must deal with what it has. What do you suggest that Alberta do in lieu of oil? What should Saskatchewan do? Should we all be like BC? So it has no carbon footprint? Not according to this: https://dogwoodinitiative.org/publications/reports/coalreport I mean...the reason we're getting rid of oil is global warming...right? Its a good example especially since you don't want to look at the numbers.

Which bailout are you referring to?

Blown wealth? No...the wealth is in the hands of Albertans. No sales tax, low corporate tax, low personal income tax, etc. Up until recently we had no debt and a 12B trust fund but Redford decided she wanted to maintain her seat as Premier so she bought the unions and put us on an unsustainable budget. No...the discussion about Energy East or should I say 'pipelines' is not TODAY's problem at all. The idea of Pipelines (Keystone, NG, etc) has been in discussion for a while now however it seem to be a bit more emotional now that the oil industry is hurting and we now have a Mayor from a province that is a continual taker from a national program but doesn't seem to want to contribute to this national item. That's weird. Suncor just spent BILLIONS on the takeover of Canadian Oil Sands. Man....they must be stupid hey? They even paid 12% more than the original offer. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-18/suncor-and-canadian-oil-sands-to-combine-in-4-6-billion-deal

Fair enough....but again the price of oil has many times been below $40 for long periods of time and guess what...Alberta didn't vanish. As I said before, if oil stays low for long enough then salaries and other costs will have to restructure. Just last month, all public servants had their wages frozen. That's a first step but a better step will be a claw back in wages like most oil companies are doing. I guess you missed or chose to gloss over the part where Alberta's participation rate and employment rates are the highest in the country....not just above BC. So what excuse do you want to provide for each of the other provinces? Yes...the pendulum should also bring the costs inline with numbers that are more conducive to a sustainable industry. Of course the largest difference here is that the Cod literally went away....oil will not. I always love it when the people I debate post links that prove what I am talking about. Look at the numbers in Chart 2. Out of $121.4B in exports, Crude and Gas is 90.1B which means the remaining industries are 31.3B. Take away the 1.6B for reminded petroleum products if you want and we're still just below $30B. Do you know what the complete export numbers are for BC....35B. Of course, if we are removing fossil fuels from the picture then I guess we would get rid of BC's coal and NG exports which is 17% (~6B)....so the correct total would be around 29B. HMMMMM....the same as Alberta. http://www.bcbc.com/content/1602/A%20Primer%20on%20BC%20Exports.pdf The way I view it is like the Oilers of the old days....sure we had Gretzky who was a legendary all star however we also had a team full of other really good players who were able to carry the team when Gretzky left. Of course oil will never get upright and leave the way Gretzky did. I gave up the ENTIRE oil industry in that calculation. You don't think that's far fetched enough so now you're coming after a few extra percentage points. Fine take 30-40%. Still not horrible. The fact is there is life here other than oil. Again...oil has been at $30 for long periods of time before. Its possible if prices start to adjust to reflect the new price reality. Everyone was still charging 'oilfield' rates up until recently. I have seen prices and wages started to drop but it will take more time. If oil goes back up....well then that will restart the whole thing all over. Just because one of our commodities provides an export value almost three times as much as all of BC's export value, that does not mean that we have no other commodities. Again...please look at the numbers before you make such statements.

So your point is useless as it in no way speaks for even a large percentage of the people in Alberta. The vast majority of people blame the current predicament on thr price of oil, the NDP or the past PC governments...but not Obama. That's just ridiculous.

Reefer's comments were also generalizations about Alberta and you used a single, anecdotal and embellished story to enforce a different generalization. So no...it doesn't help but I do like how you're now adding 'some' as I trust you probably are starting to realize it's not wise to characterize a province of 4 million people based on a few people you may or may not have met

Your point is either useless as your telling an anecdotal story about a few people when we are discussing a province or perhaps the western mentality. Or it's is implying that your few friends are representative of Alberta and my previous claim stands. Which is it?

Oh...the denial runs deep in Alberta part certainly implies it. That's why showing you that I know many who dont agree with what you said should show you that your argument is highly anecdotal. I know a few people in BC that are unemployed right now. Laziness runs deep out there. See how that doesn't work?

Interesting....I live in Alberta, have almost all my family in Alberta, many friends and colleagues in Alberta and I don't know ANY that blame Obama for this predicament. But I'm sure the couple you know speak for all of Alberta! With that said, everyone I know looks at this predicament as a temporary thing as we all know that fossil fuels will be around for a long time still

No. I understood what you meant and I don't agree. The article I posted talks about the Keystone XL specifically with Trump going into depth talking about how he wants to get more money out of it. The Canadian side of it is front and center since Cruz was born in Calgary. You might be right in the long run since they can fill their capacities within or from Venezuela however the 'political' position at this point is Canadian oil.

Its always tough to say what the Republicans will do especially since they may not actually get into the White House again this term. However, every Republican candidate has gone on record as saying they will immediately support the build which is reflective of the past votes in Congress and the Sentate. Trump is the only guy showing hesitancy as he is using this issue as a 'Canadian' issue as it works well into his battle with Cruz. http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/01/24/donald-trump-demands-big-chunk-of-keystone-xl-profits-for-the-us.html

It certainly seems like a mess when you've been riding high for so long. However are we really? As of January 2016 Alberta's unemployment is at 7.4% which is 0.2% above the national average. We're still below every Atlantic province and Quebec. Of course, just wait until the remaining migrant workers return from Alberta to their home provinces and drive their numbers even more. Things are certainly bad in Alberta....in relation to how GOOD they have been. Of course looking only at the unemployment metric may be misleading. In these same January 2016 numbers, Alberta leads the country in both Participation % and Employment Rate at 72.7 and 67.3 respectively. The national average for these two metrics are 65.9 and 61.2 which shows we are well above the average. Now...you live in BC...right? The unemployment rate there is below the national average however so are your participation and employment rates. The fact is that things will probably get worse for Alberta but at this point I still think its bringing Alberta back to normal....back to national standards which isn't a bad thing. If that is what you consider a mess....then I guess Canada is a mess! Guys coming out of high school were being paid $40-50 per hour to push a broom on some drilling sites. If you wanted to live away from home and work on these sites you could make great money. Even if you didn't, Tim Hortons was still paying ~$16 per hour to start compared to ~$10 per hour elsewhere. The middle class guys....they were making great money when the boom was happening and if they didn't save for the bust, well....that's on them. The rich....yes.....they will probably be fine however a lot of the cuts made so far have been the top cheese guys so not sure how they're doing right now per se. Yes...lets talk money. Like the 70-80% of the AFCN that live 'downstream' from the oil sands who are employed by said oil sands. I particularly liked their last big stand where they brought Neil Young in to fight their cause based on 'environmental' concerns when in the end, all they wanted was more money. I think you're right....hardly anyone cares about the environment when money is involved. Good point. I agree that other sectors benefit from the energy sector but exactly how much. I would certainly be interested in seeing that. Unlike you, I don't see oil going away all together nor do I see the oil sands withering away to nothing and I think its also a good point to note that the manufacturing industries that were brought into service the oil industry are also bringing in work from outside that sector and outside our province. But for fun....lets look at GDP. Assuming the % by sector have not changed from 2013 to 2014, we can look at the following link for easy info (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_gross_domestic_product). Alberta's GDP in 2014 was about $375B...if you got rid of the 24.6% (92.25B) in the energy sector and say 10% of the remaining GDP due to oil related losses then you'd have a resulting GDP of $254B which is still higher than BC. Even if you got rid of 25% of the related GDP (instead of 10%) you would still be at a GDP per capita of ~$51,000 which is similar to BC and Ontario. Of course, these numbers are very speculative as the percentage could go higher but one fact for sure is the GDP from the energy sector will never be zero. Here are some tidbits that help show this: Bottom line is that Albert is an anomaly which is why for the longest time it wasn't included in the equalization formula. The boom bust cycles certainly exist but that doesn't mean that Alberta becomes a wasteland when the busts happen. It just goes through a period of reorganization back to 'normal'. That depends on what you consider smart. Based on your past posts I would assume that complete socialism would be the only method, so by that standard I would say no...Alberta will not be smart enough. But by the current standard I would like to think that common sense would come into play. We have to start using national averages or payscales of similar provinces when dealing with our public sector with the understanding of a sliding scale bonus to compensate for booms. No government in this country would turn its back on the huge economic resource that oil will bring but it would be nice to have some sore of long range plan knowing that it will be boom and bust. I would like to see one change and that's investment into a high speed train between Edmonton and Calgary. This would allow the two cities to possibly compete as one with the likes of Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal as locations not just for oil related headquarters but also other sectors. The fact is alone, the two cities will always be fighting for scraps due to location and sheer size. Money from future booms could be directed towards this. Just a thought....

One of the main problems that Alberta has is they pay 'oilfield' rates. Basically when the first and second boom happened in the late 2000s, it drove up the costs for EVERYTHING by stupid amounts. Houses doubled in price, wages went up astronomically, materials and services became ridiculous. Because every 'rig pig' was making big bucks, it forced the public sector to be paid the highest in Canada which again is not sustainable if oil is not economical. The reality is that everything right now is still artificially inflated and I would believe that if the oil from tar sands remains uneconomical that a price reduction will happen until it becomes economical. The price of oil right now is hovering around $30. Keep in mind that the price in the 90s was around $20. Even with inflation considered, the oil sands was making money. Unfortunately for a price correction to take place, it will need to hit rock bottom before people agree to taking pay cuts that significant. I know a few guys that are unemployed from this situation and they're not willing to get any job because they feel they are 'worth' so much. I'm sure their idea of what they're worth will change when the bank comes calling for their house or cars. Energy currently makes up 24.6% of the Alberta Economy compared to 36.1% in 1985. (http://www.albertacanada.com/business/overview/economic-results.aspx) I hardly believe it will be the Armageddon that you are suggesting. There would be some hardships and some major readjustments as I stated above however it wouldn't be the end.

Phase 3 is split into A and B. They are titled Phase 1, 2, and 3 withe XL being 4.

Yes...its clear that your only care when it comes to 'profile' is whether or not it makes the news and how this said news is seen by your buddies Di Caprio and Suzuki. Of course, the reality is that Keystone Phase 1 was a significant pipeline all done on Harper's time. The truth is Obama was never going to pass this bill as he ran his 2008 campaign largely on climate change. Like I said....and something that you don't seem to get, once the next Republican government gets in, this pipeline will be approved. That is of course, if the US government doesn't cave under the TransCanada NAFTA lawsuit. Ultimately I don't care why the US didn't accept the KXL as it has NOTHING to do with your failed 10 years to 'get er done' scam. No matter who was in office, Obama wasn't letting this one through especially after his predecessor allowed three phases of Keystone did get done....all of which under Harper. Of course what's even more telling is that the final rejection of the pipeline came on November 6, 2015 after Harper was out of office. Its as if he was just waiting for some sort of naive, push over to take office....perhaps someone that was going to back out of allied responsibilities creating new strains on the US-CAN relationship! You still seem to be struggling with numbers which doesn't surprise me. The real work for the PM doesn't start until the pipeline application is ACTUALLY made. As shown, in Energy East and TransMountain those applications were only made OFFICIAL one to two years before Harper was done....NOT TEN. Now...you aren't actually suggesting that the PM would be out soliciting on behalf of said projects when these projects haven't even been announced or official applications submitted. You do know the separation between government and private business.....do you not? Do you see ol' JT helping TransCanada with this NAFTA violation lawsuit? Last time I checked it was TransCanada vs the US government. Of course the best part of all of this is that the longest part to this process is the review which according to your numbers Harper should have been able to take projects submitted in 2013 and 2014 and turn them around just like that. Yet...its you belly aching and moaning that the NEB doesn't do a good enough job in their review. So which is it?

Yes...I saw you trot out this lame duck in your status update but of course it is another waldo failed fact. Not withstanding the fact that the Keystone Pipeline was approved and built in Harper's term but perhaps that one isn't high profile enough for you? I can only assume that your 'high profile' pipelines are: - Keystone XL - Energy East - TransMountain - Northern Gateway Of course the no go on Keystone XL had nothing to do with Harper or any Canadian PM for that matter. Mr Obama decided to stop it and there really wasn't much we can do but wait for the next Republican president. But...lets focus on the others which are within our borders. Lets also focus on your use of the word 'decade' which as you know means 10 years. Energy East submitted its formal application in October 2014 and TransMountain did its in Dec 2013. I know math/numbers plague you but this one is fairly simple as Harper's term ended in Oct 2015 which means he only had ONE to TWO years for these ones.....NOT 10. As for Northern Gateway that project...that one project that was the full 10 years however it should also be noted that after tremendous legal battles, it was also approved in his term and the fate was virtually squashed in a single Trudeau-esque move.

Since I've had no honest replies, I will answer this question myself. Catherine McKenna of the Liberal Party authorized this dump. While I'm at it I will also answer the other question that nobody will honestly answer. Did two similar prior events occur under Harper. The answer....no...not even close. Lots of dumping by the Liberals!

Who signed off?

When the Mayor of Montreal raises environmental concerns about the said pipeline but has no problem with the sewage dump then the credibility of said mayor needs to be questioned. Similar to questioning the credibility of people who erroneously claim previous dumps were under the Harper watch.