2023 UCP Alberta election

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I may irritate some here, G2G, but I have never liked using the word "citizen" for the provinces or territory - any province or territory including Quebec. We are all citizens of Canada, but we are residents of a given province or territory, especially given the freedom to move we enjoy in living in one place then another in this great country of ours. Using citizen in relation to province makes it sound like you remain such citizen of the province wherever you may move for a living, until you somehow acquire the other province's citizenship (which would also entail you could have double or multiple citizenships)

 

[Good2Golf]

OGBD, fair point. To be honest, it was a quickly thrown word, to capture a physical tie with the region, when resident would be more accurate. There probably isn’t a multifunction word that captures both legalese residency and aspirational regional belonging.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

OGBD,

If you think this has anything (directly) to do with Quebec or pensions, you (and a whole bunch of other smart people) are entirely missing the point.

What this really is about is a physical manifestation that issues involving Alberta (or the Prairie Provinces more broadly) are given short shrift in Ottawa.

Thought experiment time: A distinguished panel of scientists declares that, at some point in the future, unless all hydro-electric dams are decommissioned, the planet will face extinction. Please discuss the implications of the imposition of a “hydro-electric“ users tax on the Electoral fortunes of a Federal Government….

 

[Good2Golf]

SKT, unfortunately NEP2+ will continue until the King of Kings (who lives here) sees fit to adjust his influence over how his minions in the LPC carry out his will.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I did miss the point SKT. In view of most posts above dealing with fair/unfair split of CPP assets to APP and wether Alberta should/could or shouldn't/couldn't carry out such a split, I assumed that your concluding your post with that "it is about proving there is one set of rules for certain provinces and another set for other provinces…" related to creating an APP, not to the deep underlying malaise of Albert'a government about a single industry (OK, a big one but just one, which is NOT the whole of Alberta and doesn't represent the majority of Albertans' views if polls are to be believed).

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I did miss the point SKT. In view of most posts above dealing with fair/unfair split of CPP assets to APP and wether Alberta should/could or shouldn't/couldn't carry out such a split, I assumed that your concluding your post with that "it is about proving there is one set of rules for certain provinces and another set for other provinces…" related to creating an APP, not to the deep underlying malaise of Albert'a government about a single industry (OK, a big one but just one, which is NOT the whole of Alberta and doesn't represent the majority of Albertans' views if polls are to be believed).

Again, my read of this is that this not directly about pensions and is not about Quebec in the way you might think.

Successive Quebec and Alberta governments are actually (policy wise) closer on many issues than the casual observer might suppose.

 

[Halifax Tar]

OGBD,

If you think this has anything (directly) to do with Quebec or pensions, you (and a whole bunch of other smart people) are entirely missing the point.

What this really is about is a physical manifestation that issues involving Alberta (or the Prairie Provinces more broadly) are given short shrift in Ottawa.

Thought experiment time: A distinguished panel of scientists declares that, at some point in the future, unless all hydro-electric dams are decommissioned, the planet will face extinction. Please discuss the implications of the imposition of a “hydro-electric“ users tax on the Electoral fortunes of a Federal Government….

Bingo.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Successive Quebec and Alberta governments are actually (policy wise) closer on many issues than the casual observer might suppose.

Oh! definitely! Alberta and Quebec share the closest view of all provinces on how the Federal government should keep its nose out of provincial affairs. It's a little known fact that at all inter-provincial conferences, the Alberta and Quebec Premiers - of about all modern times - get along splendidly and do a lot of bi-provincial dealing that is aimed at a common view of where those conferences should be getting. The failures to get there are usually the result of Ontario breaking ranks with the two of us on any given issue.

There's a loud but small extreme left part of Quebec that likes to blame Alberta for everything, and a similarly noisy extreme right wing of Albertans that blame everything on Quebec, but by large, the majority of the population of both provinces share the same view of federalism in Canada and as a result has no problem living with whatever the other does with it's own powers and freedom to decide.

For instance, while that vocal Quebec minority always wants Alberta punished for not reducing it's carbon footprint enough, the vast majority of Quebecers I know all understand that until new technology emerges, Alberta as the major oil producing province willl always have a higher carbon footprint than us in Quebec, as we are the Hydro-power producing champion of North America. And if that means that we have the fastest de-carbonization rate and compensate for Alberta, then so be it because it's the overall Canadian picture that matters, and we are still all oil consumers anyway.

 

[QV]

Supreme Court rules against federal environmental impact assessment law

Canada's top court has ruled the federal Impact Assessment Act, also known as Bill C-69, is on balance unconstitutional.

www.ctvnews.ca

This decision is important for other constitutional reasons also. It re-enforces the importance of the Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act.

Ignoring federal oversteps until resolved by higher court = way better than abiding by unconstitutional oversteps and then going to court hoping to resume many years and court delays later.

 

[QV]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-letter-cpp-daniel-smith-1.6999984

PM Trudeau: "Alberta's withdrawal would weaken the pensions of millions of seniors and hardworking people in Alberta and right across the country. The harm it would cause is undeniable."

Surprisingly for a CBC article the comments are heavily weighted against Trudeau.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-letter-cpp-daniel-smith-1.6999984

PM Trudeau: "Alberta's withdrawal would weaken the pensions of millions of seniors and hardworking people in Alberta and right across the country. The harm it would cause is undeniable."

Surprisingly for a CBC article the comments are heavily weighted against Trudeau.

Perhaps people are starting to realize what many have known all along. This guy is a pathological, disingenuous and shameless liar, seldom speaking the truth. Nobody believes what he says anymore. The more desperate, the bigger the lie.

 

[brihard]

Perhaps people are starting to realize what many have known all along. This guy is a pathological, disingenuous and shameless liar, seldom speaking the truth. Nobody believes what he says anymore. The more desperate, the bigger the lie.

Are you suggesting that if Alberta withdrew from CPP, then CPP would not be weakened? Because if a fraction of what Danielle Smith claims is true, then it can’t also be true that CPP wouldn’t be weakened. She’s either badly mistaken about what Alberta could withdraw from CPP and it would be left at current strength, or she’s at least partially correct about the assets Alberta could withdraw, and CPP would be weaker. Both can’t be true at once.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Are you suggesting that if Alberta withdrew from CPP, then CPP would not be weakened? Because if a fraction of what Danielle Smith claims is true, then it can’t also be true that CPP wouldn’t be weakened. She’s either badly mistaken about what Alberta could withdraw from CPP and it would be left at current strength, or she’s at least partially correct about the assets Alberta could withdraw, and CPP would be weaker. Both can’t be true at once.

How can CPP be weakened if Alberta were to (hypothetically) withdraw and take it’s share.

I thought the CPP was supposed to be funded properly for that eventuality. Or is that a lie, too? To take the argument to its extreme, if there was only $1.00 of actual assets in the CPP, are you saying Alberta would only be entitled to 15-18 cents?

Many people have not read the CPP Act. I have. Provinces have the right to withdraw from CPP, given proper notice. It is not then divided up at that moment, based on the share of Provincial Population: it is divided up based on what should have been Alberta’s share has they not joined in 1965. Read the Act. If there is not enough money to cover Alberta’s share, well- sucks to be the taxpayers in the rest of Canada. Guess they should have held their MPs to account, huh?

I don’t think Alberta should withdraw, but it is highly instructive watching various politicians and pundits gnash teeth and wail over this and try to mis-represent what the CPP Act says.

 

[brihard]

How can CPP be weakened if Alberta were to (hypothetically) withdraw and take it’s share.

I thought the CPP was supposed to be funded properly for that eventuality. Or is that a lie, too? To take the argument to its extreme, if there was only $1.00 of actual assets in the CPP, are you saying Alberta would only be entitled to 15-18 cents?

Many people have not read the CPP Act. I have. Provinces have the right to withdraw from CPP, given proper notice. It is not then divided up at that moment, based on the share of Provincial Population: it is divided up based on what should have been Alberta’s share has they not joined in 1965. Read the Act. If there is not enough money to cover Alberta’s share, well- sucks to be the taxpayers in the rest of Canada. Guess they should have held their MPs to account, huh?

I don’t think Alberta should withdraw, but it is highly instructive watching various politicians and pundits gnash teeth and wail over this and try to mis-represent what the CPP Act says.

None of that contradicts what I said. It can remain solvent but still be weaker, inasmuch as premiums need to increase. As for this fantastical notion that somehow Alberta could be entitled to more than 100% of the current assets? Someone’s smoking something strong to even come up with that as a concept.

Smith seems to enjoy a hypothetical where Alberta is able to withdraw an absolute mathematical maximum that completely fails to take into account a similarly proportionate disbursement of the returns on those investments to recipients. That’s ludicrous on its face. Everyone who contributed to CPP while in Alberta and later retired also received benefits.

 

[Good2Golf]

What is “weaker?”

Do you mean “has less assets?” Then yes. But then without Alberta, it has less obligations to pay out, so the buy-out formula should capture that.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

None of that contradicts what I said. It can remain solvent but still be weaker, inasmuch as premiums need to increase. As for this fantastical notion that somehow Alberta could be entitled to more than 100% of the current assets? Someone’s smoking something strong to even come up with that as a concept.

Smith seems to enjoy a hypothetical where Alberta is able to withdraw an absolute mathematical maximum that completely fails to take into account a similarly proportionate disbursement of the returns on those investments to recipients. That’s ludicrous on its face. Everyone who contributed to CPP while in Alberta and later retired also received benefits.

Incorrect. That is not what the CPP Act says. The Act does not care how much is in the fund at the moment a province withdraws. The Province is entitled to however much money they would have earned had they not joined in 1965.

Hypothetically, that percentage of the CPP could be much less than its share of the Population (Fund was really well invested and did well) or it could be much more than the fund holds (contemplate Ontario deciding to withdraw and being entitled to more then the fund currently holds.

Are you starting to get a sense of how Alberta feels in Confederation?

 

[brihard]

Incorrect. That is not what the CPP Act says. The Act does not care how much is in the fund at the moment a province withdraws. The Province is entitled to however much money they would have earned had they not joined in 1965.

Hypothetically, that percentage of the CPP could be much less than its share of the Population (Fund was really well invested and did well) or it could be much more than the fund holds (contemplate Ontario deciding to withdraw and being entitled to more then the fund currently holds.

Are you starting to get a sense of how Alberta feels in Confederation?

If you want to think that’s how this will all play out once it’s actually litigated, have at ‘er.

 

[FSTO]

This whole idea is bloody stupid. Alberta is turning into the whiney little Karen of the Prairies. Correction...a certain political class of people who happen to live within designated parallels of latitude and meridians of longitude that encompass a jurisdictional entity called Alberta are selfish twits.

 

[QV]

This whole idea is bloody stupid. Alberta is turning into the whiney little Karen of the Prairies. Correction...a certain political class of people who happen to live within designated parallels of latitude and meridians of longitude that encompass a jurisdictional entity called Alberta are selfish twits.

If the Federal Gov doesn't want to respect Federalism, then expect those who voluntarily play to play less.

 

[FSTO]

If the Federal Gov doesn't want to respect Federalism, then expect those who voluntarily play to play less.

I'm questioning the reason why the UCP wants to reduce the ROI by withdrawing a huge amount of the equity from the CPP? I'm no financial guru but the more people contributing to the current kitty is a lot better than one taking a chunk out and investing the smaller share with a smaller group of contributors.