$1.4b per year in Cdn. taxpayer subsidies to Alberta oil sands

[jacee]

At his news conference, Mr. Kent announced an nvestment of $600.8-million over five years to renew the Clean Air Regulatory Agenda to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality in Canada. The money will be used to align greenhouse gas regulations with the United States where appropriate, finalize and implement a national air quality management system, strengthen commitments to reduce trans-boundary air pollution, and improve indoor air quality. But Clayton Thomas-Muller, a campaigner with the Indigenous Environmental Network who took part n the news conference with Mr. Saul, dismissed that announcement.“Is $600-plus million over five years enough? No, t’s not,” said Mr. Thomas-Muller. “Canada is currently giving $1.4-billion in subsidies to the tar sands patch alone every single year.”

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/climate-groups-to-canada-commit-to-kyoto-or-stay-home/article2252151/?service=mobile

You know, I wouldn't have a problem with corporate subsidies in general if we taxpayers were treated like investors and got a payback once companies are profitable ... but we don't. Corporations treat government as a source of income, without respecting the origin of the money - ie, us.

I am opposed to the destruction and emissions of the oil sands, and I would consider public subsidies to clean up the emissions issues, if the resulting technologies are government patents and income for us, not for corporations.

I guess what I'm saying is that corporate subsidies should not be giveaways, WITH NO ACCOUNTABILITY TO TAXPAYERS, but investments with potential for return for governments/taxpayers.

Corporate lobbyists working for the 1% wealthy and powerful, and the politicians they lobby, need a wakeup call to remind them that 'government' isn't just a bureaucracy, not just a potential source of 'charity', but democracy entrusted with tax money to use for the benefit of ALL Canadians.

As it exists now, taxpayer subsidies to wealthy corporations are a scam ... a sham ... a pretense that there's something in it for us ... a blatant fraud committed against the Canadian public by corporations and the politicians they own.

Edited November 28, 2011 by jacee

[Shwa]

As it exists now, taxpayer subsidies to wealthy corporations are a scam ... a sham ... a pretense that there's something in it for us ... a blatant fraud committed against the Canadian public by corporations and the politicians they own.

And in a great twist of irony, guess which political type is the first to scream 'nanny state.'

[Wild Bill]

At his news conference, Mr. Kent announced an nvestment of $600.8-million over five years to renew the Clean Air Regulatory Agenda to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality in Canada. The money will be used to align greenhouse gas regulations with the United States where appropriate, finalize and implement a national air quality management system, strengthen commitments to reduce trans-boundary air pollution, and improve indoor air quality. But Clayton Thomas-Muller, a campaigner with the Indigenous Environmental Network who took part n the news conference with Mr. Saul, dismissed that announcement.“Is $600-plus million over five years enough? No, t’s not,” said Mr. Thomas-Muller. “Canada is currently giving $1.4-billion in subsidies to the tar sands patch alone every single year.”

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/climate-groups-to-canada-commit-to-kyoto-or-stay-home/article2252151/?service=mobile

You know, I wouldn't have a problem with corporate subsidies in general if we taxpayers were treated like investors and got a payback once companies are profitable ... but we don't. Corporations treat government as a source of income, without respecting the origin of the money - ie, us.

I am opposed to the destruction and emissions of the oil sands, and I would consider public subsidies to clean up the emissions issues, if the resulting technologies are government patents and income for us, not for corporations.

I guess what I'm saying is that corporate subsidies should not be giveaways, WITH NO ACCOUNTABILITY TO TAXPAYERS, but investments with potential for return for governments/taxpayers.

Corporate lobbyists working for the 1% wealthy and powerful, and the politicians they lobby, need a wakeup call to remind them that 'government' isn't just a bureaucracy, not just a potential source of 'charity', but democracy entrusted with tax money to use for the benefit of ALL Canadians.

As it exists now, taxpayer subsidies to wealthy corporations are a scam ... a sham ... a pretense that there's something in it for us ... a blatant fraud committed against the Canadian public by corporations and the politicians they own.

Back in the late 90's I was working for an American electronics parts distributor, selling to the Celesticas and other big manufacturers and a whole passle of smaller ones. I was on my own here in Ontario, working from my home and answering to a branch office in Montreal, which was the only physical presence for the company in Canada.

One early spring I was on the phone with my boss and he started talking about taxes. "I just wrote a cheque to Ottawa for $6 million dollars!" he said. "Don't let anyone out there tell you we are NOT a Canadian company! We are giving 14 Canadians an income they pay taxes on and just paid all those millions in tax on our profits!"

The oil sands may not be entitled to any subsidies. I don't agree with corporate welfare either. Still, if you are implying that they don't contribute ANYTHING to the taxpayer then I respectfully suggest you are conveniently ignoring a few factors.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Wild Bill

[Newfoundlander]

Are there subsidies for offshore oil? There should be.

[Tilter]

Are there subsidies for offshore oil? There should be.

Yeah, so we could find another way to kill off more fish as did BP

[fellowtraveller]

Do we get a reduction at the pumps? No?

Are you in favour of the cheapest possible gasoline?

[Newfoundlander]

Yeah, so we could find another way to kill off more fish as did BP

No different then the oil sands, just different species.

[Topaz]

I wonder where they are getting the 1.4 Bil from? Are they printing like the US? Nothing this CRAParty does surprises me and all that voted CRAP will be seeing what kinda crap they get!

[Argus]

I see nothing to support the statement the government subsidies the oil sands by the amount stated. I'd like a citation other than from the mouth of some environmental activist weasel.

[grogy]

I wonder where they are getting the 1.4 Bil from? Are they printing like the US? Nothing this CRAParty does surprises me and all that voted CRAP will be seeing what kinda crap they get!

How intellectual of you.

[CPCFTW]

Damn 1.4B and we get nothing back? I mean other than hundreds of thousands of jobs, and billions in corporate and personal tax revenue.

[Shakeyhands]

Damn 1.4B and we get nothing back? I mean other than hundreds of thousands of jobs, and billions in corporate and personal tax revenue.

It would be interesting to see what the end result is, salaries and taxes paid vs subsidies.

[Shwa]

Damn 1.4B and we get nothing back? I mean other than hundreds of thousands of jobs, and billions in corporate and personal tax revenue.

Damn, are you talking hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions in corporate and personal tax revenue per year, or did you simply skip over the OP for the cherry pick?

[jacee]

It would be interesting to see what the end result is, salaries and taxes paid vs subsidies.

Good luck finding that info. The gov doesn't want us to know much about corporate subsidies. However some time ago I slogged through budget documents and followed one oil sands corp subsidy for $250m. At the end of that fiscal year, the company posted profits of ... $250m: IE, we taxpayers paid the shareholders.

I sure don't appreciate my tax money showing up as their profits, especially if it's a political payoff.

Much more work needs to be done to expose corporate 'subsidies'.

Edited November 29, 2011 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

Good luck finding that info. The gov doesn't want us to know much about corporate subsidies. However some time ago I slogged through budget documents and followed one oil sands corp subsidy for $250m. At the end of that fiscal year, the company posted profits of ... $250m: IE, we taxpayers paid the shareholders.

I think such subsidies need to be properly documented beforehand, throughout and after the funding closes as a 'project'. There is too much potential for conflict of interest here.

[jacee]

@smallc

By "conflict of interest" I assume you mean corruption?

There are other avenues for 'subsidizing' the oil sands indirectly too, like (disgraced) Bruce Carson's use of federal funds allocated for development of 'clean energy technology' to put on a multimillion dollar road show to promote the oil sands,

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/11/pol-vp-weston-carson.html

an indirect and fraudulent 'subsidy'.

Carson left in disgrace over another scandal, but he and the government (PMO) that funded the project haven't answered for this.

I suspect I'm only skirting the tip of the iceberg on corruption associated with the PMO and the oil sands industry.

To those of you who may say "butbutbut ... the Liberals did it too " (sponsorship scandal), I say ... Do you want that cabal back in power? Do you want another corrupt government in power?

In my opinion, both the Liberals and Conservatives have become too comfortable operating via corruption of political power, being supported by corporate interests and in turn doling out perks to them.

Frankly, I don't think either party is fit to govern our democracy and it's our fault for not being diligent about corruption of politicians such that they serve the business interests of their backers instead of the needs and interests of ALL Canadians.

How many of us 'assume' there are government 'payoffs' to corporate backers, and dismiss it with a "What-can-ya-do" rhetorical shrug? It's almost the epitome of being Canadian, that statement and that shrug, as much a part of us as saying "eh?".

It's no secret that I don't trust Harper, but the real issue isn't just now or just him or just oil sands corps, but the entire political culture that we have allowed to develop and to persist in Canada, undermining democracy and contributing to the extreme wealth inequality that now threatens to bring civil strife to our streets. And it is our responsibility.

I think we need to expose the whole system of corruption that results in governments paying off corporations through contracts, subsidies, tax breaks, indirect support programs, etc. etc.

It stinks. It's our fault, our responsibility, and I think we need to address it.

Edited November 29, 2011 by jacee

[sharkman]

I see nothing to support the statement the government subsidies the oil sands by the amount stated. I'd like a citation other than from the mouth of some environmental activist weasel.

Yeah, I'm waiting too, but not not exactly expecting factual documentation. Where the religion(yes that's right MH) of environmentalism is concerned, it's enough for a true believer to cook up some numbers.

[Smallc]

@smallc

huh?

[jacee]

I think such subsidies need to be properly documented beforehand, throughout and after the funding closes as a 'project'. There is too much potential for conflict of interest here.

Oops sorry smallc ... my comment was in relation to Michael H's post.

'Conflict of interest' is a euphemism for corruption, imo.

This link - "Oil isn't subsidized"- defends tax breaks/deductions, calling them "subsidies", because oil companies bring in a lot of government tax revenues.

However

1) the article never addresses DIRECT government subsidies to oil industries. Conflating 'tax deduction' with 'subsidies' obscures the issues.

2) I suspect the differences in tax rates may simply reflect differences in profit margins, again obscuring reality.

Since Canada first agreed to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the federal government has spent more than $2 in tax subsidies to the industry for each $1 spent on action to implement the accord.

"This government prides itself on accountability and a change from past practices," said Bea Olivastri, CEO of Friends of the Earth Canada."It is unclear how big tax breaks to an industry that is making massive profits fits with those policies."

http://www.pembina.org/media-release/1242

Source of 'tax break' subsidy data: FOI requests to government.

The government confirmed the tax break figures in its responses to a formal petition filed with the Auditor General of Canada by KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives, a church-based social justice organization. KAIROS' analysis of likely GHG emission reductions is based on the federal government's own figures The petition was filed last November and the government was legally required to respond within 120 days. 2008

The concern of these groups is polution. While that concerns me too, especially since 'Canada' is likely to walk out of the Durban conference on Dec 23, having rejected the Kyoto Accord. However, in starting this thread my interest is in raising the issue of oil sands subsidies as an example of politicians possibly blatantly paying off their financial backers through taxpayer subsidies to corporations that are absolutely unnecessary in a highly profitable industry.

As in the company I tracked and reported earlier, subsidies that are unnecessary to the operation of a profitable business will, of course, and up as profits distributed to shareholders, and my common sense tells me that some of them may be. contributers to political campaigns and are receiving, thus, a payback of their political contribution (or more) at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer.

If so, it is blatant government corruption.

Prove me wrong, anyone?

Why else would hugely profitable companies, oil or otherwise, get ANY public subsidies?

Edited November 29, 2011 by jacee

[tducey82]

I have no problem with this. The oil sands are a major employer for many people in this country and it's good to see the government involved.

[Shwa]

I have no problem with this. The oil sands are a major employer for many people in this country and it's good to see the government involved.

How many people are employed by the oil sands?

[be real]

I have no problem with this. The oil sands are a major employer for many people in this country and it's good to see the government involved.

You have no problem with paying for the profits of private companies with taxpayers money!!!? I employ ten people, so I won't need much just a few hundred thousand a year would do. Surly this is reasonble to you.

[be real]

I see nothing to support the statement the government subsidies the oil sands by the amount stated. I'd like a citation other than from the mouth of some environmental activist weasel.

Which amount would you like to make up? Wouldn't it depend on how much is being pumped into the harper Conservative Government? Environmentaly active yes, weasel that seems to be your disposition.

[jacee]

Which amount would you like to make up? Wouldn't it depend on how much is being pumped into the harper Conservative Government?

Likely right.

Link for the data...

http://www.ecojustice.ca/media-centre/press-releases/kairos-study-reveals-billions-in-canadian-tax-subsidies-to-big-oil-come-at-the-expense-of-conservation-and-climate?searchterm=oil+sands+subsidies

$1.5b this year, confirmed by the govt.

[fellowtraveller]

I am starting to agree that all Canadians outside Alberta are tainted by the countless billions in oil/energy money they have received and continue to receive. It is dirty and ugly money, all of it, stained with the blood of noble dinosaurs

The corrupt support paid back to the monstwers in AB is a crime against humanity, a stain on our dignity. Let us end this fiasco for both sides, now.

Let the govt of Canada send nothing at all, not a single penny, to the horror show in AB. And in turn, let not Alberta taint the nation with another penny of resource revenue in any form leaving the province. There is plenty of oil in America and the Middle East for the people of Central Canada, they don't need to put up with this nonsense any more.

Everybody is happy now.