Should the western provinces seperate from the rest of the country?


china
#1
Just one question -- would it be better if the western provinces went their own way?
Your humble opinion?
Last edited by china; Apr 1st, 2007 at 03:54 AM..
 
snfu73
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by chinaView Post

Just one question -- would it be better if the western provinces went their own way?

Sure...what the heck. Ya, it would be easier. Working together is always hard. But it's worth it. However, the easy route is the west going their own way and doing their own thing. That's pretty much what Ralph was doing anyway, so, what the difference would be, I dunno.
 
china
#3
snfu73 ,
so, what the difference would be, I dunno._______________________

You dunno the difference ? can't blame you ,you 're from Thunder Bay ,let me give you a hint......$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$
and more.
Last edited by china; Apr 1st, 2007 at 04:15 AM..
 
tamarin
#4
Well, Harper, has made it clear: the chief function of the Canadian federation is to act as a conduit for funds to Quebec.
There's not much promise nor longevity in such recipes. I say - Go!
 
china
#5
tamarin
There's not much promise nor longevity in such recipes. I say - Go! _____________________________________________
LOve your spirit .
 
snfu73
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by chinaView Post

snfu73 ,
so, what the difference would be, I dunno._______________________

You dunno the difference ? can't blame you ,you 're from Thunder Bay ,let me give you a hint......$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$
and more.

You do realize that part of the reason that alberta's oil industry has been able to develop the way it has is because of federal government investment. There is talk of a nuclear power plant being built in the oilsands area....you realize that the government of canada...and therefore all canadians will be building that, no? You do realize that Ralph has made it so that a good majority of the money generated by oil in alberta goes out of the country...we should be getting far higher returns on each barrel of oil that goes out. If the west is going to seperate I assume you mean saskatchewan and manitoba will be going to. Well, alberta better start coughing up some money for them, because they ain't exactly rich provinces....and alberta does not have a good track record of working too well with anyone.
 
Toro
#7
Why would they take Manitoba?

There's oil, potash and all sorts of minerals in Saskatchewan, so they'd go to if they wanted.
 
Nikki
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by ToroView Post

Why would they take Manitoba?

There's oil, potash and all sorts of minerals in Saskatchewan, so they'd go to if they wanted.

Because the question was should the western provinces go. and the west is BC, AB, SASK, and MB.
 
china
#9
Ralph has made it so that a good majority of the money generated by oil in alberta goes out of the country...we should be getting far higher returns on each barrel of oil that goes out. If the west is going --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO .I never realized that money went outside the counry . Could you explain that please.
 
jimmoyer
#10
China has some western provinces wishing to go their own way as well.

Not just the Tibetans.

But the Uighers as well, especially since after the USSR dissolution provided their ethnic
groups their own country next door to this Sinkiang province the Uighers live in.

But with the railroad completed from central China to Tibet, the ethnic domination over
native Tibetans will win. As does the ethnic invasion over the native Uighers.
 
tamarin
#11
Jim, that's one thing China's good at. Swamping areas of interest with nationalists. It's a lesson not just for those in the country's immediate orb.
 
jimmoyer
#12
Jim, that's one thing China's good at. Swamping areas of interest with nationalists. It's a lesson not just for those in the country's immediate orb.
--------------------------------------------------------tamarin-----------------------------------------------

It's the only way to win a war and keep it won.

Ethnic invasion.
 
tamarin
#13
So, Jim, is it happening in Canada? I live close to Toronto. Certainly on the city's east side is an Asian invasion, fully proud of itself. Signs everywhere in Chinese and area-relative languages. It doesn't feel like Canada. Is this part of the Chinese master plan, if such exists? The slow, steady and sure colonizing of soft democracies?
 
china
#14
Let China be China . This is a CANADIAN forum and I AM A CANADIAN , andI am just asking a simple question , to see what is opinion of the other partisipants of the forum . I,m talking and asking abut the Canadian situation . Since when can't I ask questions about MY own country. Frankly who the hell are you yank , if you can't participate in a Canadian discussion,,,,bug out .
 
jimmoyer
#15
All the Western Democracies are complaining about it.

It's the headlines.

1 out of 5 French a muslim ?
Mexicans taking over the United States.
The biggest mosque in the world getting construction in Londonistan !
Palestine seeking right of return to Israel.
Railroad to Tibet from central China.
Montreal and Toronto have had significant Chinese populations for awhile.

A lot of migration dominating the natives these days.
Along with such migration you see argument over the official national language.
 
china
#16
Just another simple question ,why are you telling me all that ? Do you know the reasons why this is happening ? And if it bothers you , what are you doing abot it. Again , just simple realistic questions , do you know what life is , or do you need someone to "lead you?
 
tamarin
#17
Jim, it is one of the topics of the day in all countries under the gun of pc movements and the constant badgering of their acolytes. Special interests are constantly harassing our representatives. It's time a public debate was held so that the public can see exactly who is at the table of our parliaments.
 
jimmoyer
#18
Just another simple question ,why are you telling me all that ? Do you know the reasons why this is happening ? And if it bothers you , what are you doing abot it. Again , just simple realistic questions , do you know what life is , or do you need someone to "lead you?
---------------------------------------China----------------------------------------------------------------------

I brought it up simply through associating western Canadian provinces complaining
to changes in western Chinese provinces which have some independence aspirations.

Does it bother me ? Nope. Just interested in the world.

Do I need someone to lead me ?

LOL !!

We all got our bosses.
 
jjaycee98
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by chinaView Post

Just one question -- would it be better if the western provinces went their own way?
Your humble opinion?

What makes anyone think the 4 Provinces (and Yukon & NWT?) would be able to get along any better than the whole does now? The problem is that every Province expects to get the same handout each and everytime. Would it be any different? I think we would be totally at the mercy of the USA too. They want the Western Oil, Wood and Water and would just take it IMO. They get those things now but at least we do get paid for it.
 
hermanntrude
#20
why is everyone so keen on breaking canada into tiny little bits? It's a lovely place and diversity is no bad thing.
 
tamarin
#21
Problem is, Herman, is it diversity or servitude? A meeting of equals or a forum to exalt specail interest? The pandering to Quebec has got out of hand. I think Alberta should rethink what it wants from confederation and present some choices to its electorate.
 
talloola
#22
I have an opinion to give which isn't mine, but my husbands. He would like to see B.C. join the U.S. and have a nice continuous land wich would run right up to Alaska.

He has been very disgruntled for years, as Ottawa has not given one iota of interest in our softwood
lumber situation, and now, there is hundreds and hundreds of closed sawmills, and just the other day
another one on north vancouver island, is shutting down for 3 weeks because of, NO LOGS. American
companies have been buying out many of our sawmills, then they ship RAW LOGS into the U.S. to be
processed at their mills there.

The Canadian companies are logging enough logs, but there are not enough for our mills to process,
so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Our province is being raped of RAW LOGS.
and Ottawa is "just" letting it happen.

HE WANTS OUT, aside from the medical system in the U.S.which he agrees isn't good, he would like to be part of their
country, as our province would thrive much better than it does as part of Canada.

He said he is fed up and feels very disconnected.
So, there you are, very strong feelings, not sure where I stand on this one, have to give it more thought.
 
Northboy
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by chinaView Post

Just one question -- would it be better if the western provinces went their own way?
Your humble opinion?

It would be impractical in my opinion...

there's lots of talk about Alberta and what alberta says..

Since when did this country and its People put so much stock into the ramblings of big oil and those who are influenced by it..

I personally am a person of the Wood., protected by the Wood...so are most Canadians whether they know it or not.....Been that way since the start...Why would we get the notion to follow oil???
 
hermanntrude
#24
it seems to me to be more logical to sort out the problems of "pandering" rather than break up and weaken the country as a whole. The same is true of the problem talloola's husband speaks of. It's better to deal with some toughness now than to make an irreparable decision to separate.

Think of it in personal terms. the timescales are shorter but the results are similar:

If i were to buy a car and drive to las vegas and eatand drink and gamble my life would be better in the short term, but soon i'd run out of money and i'd end up stranded in a country I don't want to be in for the rest of my life. short term good long term bad. I think the same applies to separation of ANY of the provinces... although I admit to not knowing much about quebec
 
china
#25
SNFU 73
You do realize that Ralph has made it so that a good majority of the money generated by oil in alberta goes out of the country...we should be getting far higher returns on each barrel of oil that goes out.

No , I sill don,t know anything about any money going outside of the country and I,m still waiting for an explanation to the statement you made .Is it that hard?
 
MHz
#26
Wasn't one of the argument behind the west seperating based on trainloads of goods could come west but sending them back full was not something encouraged. Even shipping wheat was more difficult than it should have been. Cash only was what was preferred.

Even though ever Province and Territory can iniate a reforendum by the people to vote if Canada should exist at any time there are advantages to being as large as we are. Some services can blanket all the land much more ecenomically that 12 seperate agencies. What would change is that each of the 12 different areas should have the same say, not based on who has the most people in one area. Ontario shouldn't be able to influence policy in a Province that have a lesser population simply by that little detail. If the Fed was made up of 12 equal sized parties that answered to the Provincial and Territorial powers the salaries and such that are in place today should be able to be almost elininated completely. The Provinces would have to deal with inter-provincal issues.

Any idea how fast the US would pay off our polititions so we would be assimilated, or at least our resourses. In typical fashion they would take 75% off the top and still make us pay for the infrastructure they use to steal those resourses. Then sell it to the East at a huge mark-up.

How would we ever decide who won on the Plains of Abraham?
 
snfu73
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by chinaView Post

SNFU 73
You do realize that Ralph has made it so that a good majority of the money generated by oil in alberta goes out of the country...we should be getting far higher returns on each barrel of oil that goes out.

No , I sill don,t know anything about any money going outside of the country and I,m still waiting for an explanation to the statement you made .Is it that hard?

Nope, not hard at all....
Has the Klein government been "giving away" Alberta's oil wealth?

Citizens living in other petroleum-rich jurisdictions enjoy a much bigger share of the pie, says report



EDMONTON - The Alberta government - and by extension all Albertans - has forgone billions of dollars in potential resource revenue over the past decade - revenue that could have been used to finance important public services like health care and education, says a report released by the Parkland Institute today.
The study, entitled Giving Away the Alberta Advantage, shows that the Alberta government now takes in less than half of the revenue per unit of oil and gas produced in the province than the Lougheed government did 15 years ago. Albertans also enjoy a much smaller share of their province's resource wealth than citizens living in other major oil and gas producing regions. For example, the Alaska government collects about 1.6 times as much in royalties and other fees from each barrel of oil and gas produced and the Norwegian government collects 2.7 times as much.
The Parkland study estimates that if the current Alberta government had collected revenue from oil and gas companies at the same rate as the Lougheed government, resource revenue would have been about $3.78 billion higher per year between 1992 and 1997. If royalties and other fees had been assessed at the same rate as Alaska, the Alberta government would have brought in an extra $2.0 billion per year and if they followed the lead of Norway, they would have brought in $5.7 billion more per year.
"If this extra revenue had been collected, the debate over cuts to public services like health care and education would probably been radically different," says Gord Laxer, Executive Director of the Parkland Institute and a professor of political economy at the University of Alberta. "It would appear that the current Alberta government has not been a particularly effective steward of our collectively-owned oil and gas resources."
The report shows that the disparity between resource revenue earned by the government during the Lougheed era and today can be explained by policy decisions made by the government of former premier Don Getty and perpetuated by the current government. During the oil bust of the mid-to-late 80s, the Getty government deliberately reduced royalty rates, taxes and related fees for companies in the oil patch in an effort to encourage investment and job creation.
But even after the market for oil and gas improved in the mid-90s, the Klein government did not return royalties and other fees to the Lougheed-era levels. Instead, the public share of Alberta's oil wealth has continued to decline - even while prices and industry profits soared. The result is that Albertans are now enjoying a much smaller share of their collectively-owned oil and gas wealth than they did 15 years ago - and a much smaller share than citizens living in other oil-rich jurisdictions.
One of the study's most disturbing findings is that the trend towards lower oil and gas revenue in Alberta is expected to continue into the future. In fact, the public share of the province's oil and gas wealth is expected to fall to historic lows - despite the fact that oil prices are strong and production costs are falling.
The biggest threat to future petroleum revenues comes from the current government's approach to collecting royalties from the oilsands - which are fast becoming the engine of Alberta's oil industry. The Parkland study shows that under the recently introduced Generic Royalty Regime, oil sands companies are being allowed to write-off 100 per cent of their capital costs and they won't have to pay any royalties to the government until they have achieved a guaranteed rate of return on their investment. This means that the government and the people of Alberta are assuming most of the risk (in the form of forgone revenues) when it come to the development and operation of oil sands projects while the companies involved reap a healthy guaranteed profit.
As a result of the generic royalty regime, the Parkland study shows that government revenue from the oil sands has already plummeted - from $512 million in 1996 to $63 million in 1998 - and it's expected to fall even further by 2001. In fact, the amount of government revenue generated by the oil sands is expected to drop to $22 million in 2001, despite vast increases in production. To put it another way, the study shows that the public earned an average of $2.93 for every barrel of oil produced from the oil sands in 1996/97 - before the introduction of the new royalty regime. But by 2001 - as a result of the Generic Royalty Regime - government revenue generated by the oil sands is projected to plummet to a meager 8 cents per barrel.
The Parkland study concludes with a call for more transparency and public debate in the setting of royalty rates, taxes and other fees in the oil and gas sector.
"Just as investors receive annual reports from corporations that provide information on their return-on-investment, so should Albertans, as shareholders in natural resource assets, receive an annual account of the returns received from their development," says the report



 
snfu73
#28
Here ya go...more for you, China...

n Depth

Robert Sheppard

Reality Check

Is Alberta going broke?

CBC News Online | July 5, 2006

Yes, I know, no one is going to organize a penny drive for a province that just rang up an $8.7-billion surplus, is debt free and is contemplating a second batch of $400 prosperity cheques for every eligible citizen. By most forecasts, Alberta will still lead the country in economic growth this year. Calgary is bulging at the seams, and phenomenal growth in the oilsands and service industries is luring the young and the mobile to Wild Rose Country by the tens of thousands every few months.
Still, there is a problem in the oil patch — in the heavy-oil patch to be precise — and it is big enough that the Alberta government is starting to wonder, when it's not electioneering or trying to choose a new leader, how it's going to pay its bills in the future.
In a nutshell, 2005 was a freak year for government revenues in Alberta. A series of Gulf Coast hurricanes and a hot muggy summer pushed gas and especially oil prices unusually high ($71 US a barrel). But this was, in all likelihood, a last gasp.
Prices are moderating and should continue that downward trend, most analysts say. But that's the least of Alberta's worries. What's more important is that production from so-called conventional oil and gas reserves is dwindling noticeably, and has been for a few years — and with that comes a similar reduction in the up to 40 per cent take the province pockets from royalties on these conventional resources. Resource revenue alone totalled a record $14.3 billion last year, slightly more than half of all government spending.
Alberta Premier Ralph Klein walks by a rear tire of a Caterpillar 777F Off Highway Truck on The National Mall in Washington on June 30, 2006. The truck was part of the Alberta section of the Smithsonian Folklife Festival.(Nick Wass/ Associated Press)
Stepping into the gap, and buoying the current boom, are the many oilsands projects finally kicking into gear, which now account for about a quarter of Alberta's energy production. But from a government revenue perspective, these resources are substantially less valuable. To spur the massive amount of investment needed to dredge tar-like bitumen out of the often frozen earth and transform it into usable fuel, the Ralph Klein government negotiated a new royalty regime in 1996 with the heavy-oil industry, or any producer of unconventional energy resources, requiring only a one per cent royalty on revenues until their capital costs (which tend to continue) are accounted for.
The bottom line: Of the big bundle of resource money that landed in the Klein government's lap last year, only $905 million came from the oilsands and is, as Alberta Liberal Leader Kevin Taft had the temerity to observe, less than the province took in from lotteries.
A structural hitch
Alberta, of course, has stashed some rainy-day money in its Heritage Trust Fund and other accounts, so it is not in immediate danger of running out of cash. (Over the last dozen years it's put away a whopping $26 billion, though looked at another way, that's not quite one year's spending.)
But down the road, the province's revenue picture becomes murkier, because there are three structural components to the box it finds itself in, none of which is easy to change.
The first of these is the oilsands royalty regime, which the province entered into in good faith and doesn't want to be seen as changing in midstream, now that it's lured all this investment (in excess of $45 billion in the oilsands sector alone since 1996).
Under the royalty scheme negotiated in 1996, oilsands operators pay one per cent on any revenue they earn until profits exceed their capital costs. After that, the royalty is supposed to rise to 25 per cent of net revenues, which is more in keeping with traditional royalties, but there is a hitch: Operators can choose, within limits, to pay royalties on either the raw bitumen — which most do because it sells for substantially less — or the upgraded synthetic crude.
A barrel of $50 bitumen earns the province only about a quarter, the Globe and Mail calculated recently. And this looks to be a real concern over the next several years, because as the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers points out, the oilsands are expected to account for 90 per cent of Alberta's oil production within the next 10 years. (Similar royalty breaks were also extended in the 1990s to what's called unconventional oil and gas production, which is now quickly becoming the norm.)
The oilsands are clearly the engine of economic growth in the province. But (structural obstacle No. 2), Alberta prides itself on not having a provincial sales tax — indeed it's almost an article of faith — so it's only the feds who are collecting GST revenue from those 41,000 new houses being built (and probably distributing it to all those have-not provinces).
Alberta also has (No. 3) the lowest tax regime by far of any province — a flat 10 per cent — something it calls "the Alberta advantage." This is great for luring people to the province and turning them into instant Albertans. But total income tax revenue is expected to rise by only a modest 1.7 per cent this year, despite the huge number of arrivals. Little wonder the province has been trying all these years to keep the lid on health-care and education spending.
What to do?
Klein has ruled out any major revamping of oilsands royalties, a position he seemed to underline when he went to the U.S. capital last week, where a gargantuan oilsands dump truck was parked at the Washington Mall for good measure. But Klein will be leaving by the end of the year and his energy minister, Greg Melchin, has been hinting about trying to do something on the bitumen front, to firm up markets and royalties.
So far, the question of Alberta's revenue future and how to sustain services in an era of declining resource royalties does not seem to have grabbed the spotlight among those running for the Conservative leadership. They have some fiscal breathing room, of course, and they can always pray for another big spike in prices. But for the foreseeable future, the province's share of the resource pie is shrinking.
In the past, Alberta has expected to reap roughly 25 per cent as the province's share of oil and gas revenues. But according to the Calgary Herald, even Alberta Energy has acknowledged that rate has slipped to 19 per cent as of 2004, while other analysts have put it closer to 15 per cent.
With all that's going on, someone is getting rich in the Alberta oil patch these days. Contrary to popular opinion, and last year possibly excepted, it ain't really the provincial treasury.
 
snfu73
#29
More reading for China...

HORUS OF VOICES CALLING ROYALTIES REGIME A RIP-OFF GROW LOUDER

Shannon Phillips / shannon@vueweekly.com (external - login to view)
Eighty-four per cent of Albertans think the province isn’t collecting enough royalties from our non-renewable resources, according to a May 2006 poll. But the government says their review of the system—which they won’t release to the public—concluded that we’re getting “our fair share” from multinational corporations reaping unprecedented profits.
.
Alberta energy minister Greg Melchin says his department finished a review of the province’s oil royalties last week, but controversy erupted when Conservative leadership candidates Ted Morton and Ed Stelmach told reporters the review was discussed at neither caucus nor cabinet. Morton told the Canadian Press that the exercise had not even begun, saying his understanding was that the review had been shelved pending the expected election.

The energy ministry did not return repeated requests from Vue for information on the review.

NDP leader Brian Mason has since written to the energy minister requesting the parameters of the review, its timeline and its participants.

“Basically, the government is saying that their dog ate the royalty review,” quipped Mason.

“During the last election, the NDP was out on its own, asking for changes to the royalty system. None of the other parties would touch it, as both the Liberals and the Tories depend so heavily on money from the oil and gas sector.

“But now, there seems to be a growing awareness that we’re not getting a fair return on our resources—that’s why the province agreed to this phantom review. Given all the fog around it, we’re simply renewing our call for a public, transparent process.” Alberta’s last royalty review was in 1992, but no significant changes were made. 1997 saw some changes for oil sands producers, but conventional oil and natural gas calculations were designed in the mid-1980s, when oil prices dipped to $10/barrel and the undiversified Alberta economy suffered, with thousands of job losses and a mini-recession.

Oil and gas royalties are not just another form of corporate tax—they’re less like tax deductions on a paycheque and more like the cash paid to a landlord. Policy wonks call the concept economic rent: by law, non-renewable resources belong to Albertans, not to the companies that exploit them. Economic rent is the difference between the value of the resource and the cost of producing the resource, including an allowance for a normal rate of return on investment (profit).

Royalties are calculated in many different ways, so comparisons between different countries, states and provinces are difficult. But the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based environmental economics think-tank, has demonstrated that Albertans are being grossly shortchanged compared to other jurisdictions.

In 2004, Pembina found that Alaska charged $11.60 per barrel oil royalty, and Norway charged $14.10 per barrel. Alberta charged $4.30 per barrel.

Between 1995 and 2002, Alaska captured almost 100 per cent of the economic rent of the resource, and Norway captured almost 90 per cent. Alberta captured just 50 per cent.

Calgary-based EnCana—one of Canada’s most prolific natural gas producers—is one of the few companies that disclose their average royalty rates. In 2003, EnCana paid an average of 12.9 per cent on the Canadian (mostly Alberta) natural gas they produced. They paid 20 per cent on their US-produced gas.

Low royalties means that Alberta collects the same amount of money from gambling as we do from conventional crude oil ($1.4 billion). Liquor and tobacco taxes significantly outpace oil sands royalty revenue ($1.3 billion on booze and smokes last year compared to $950 million from the tar sands). Add low royalties to the lowest corporate taxes in Canada (reduced this year by another $365 million) and Alberta is by far the most lucrative place in the hemisphere for American oil and gas companies to do business.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers says increasing royalties discourages investment. But that’s not what has happened in countries that have made recent changes to their royalties. Venezuela’s leftist President Hugo Chavez boosted royalties from one per cent to a whopping 30 per cent over the past two years, even charging back-royalties to make up for years of uncollected rent. Foreign investments from Asia—particularly China—have increased. Only Texas-based Exxon-Mobil has refused to play ball.
Mason says a thorough public review of royalties would take the oil and gas industry’s disinvestment claims into careful consideration.

“If the oil and gas industry is saying we’re not going to invest if you raise royalties, and if you look back and see that they were making investments with a third of the profits they are making now, then we need to scrutinize those claims very closely and decide what’s in the public interest,” says Mason.

Tar sands royalties are an entirely different Pandora’s box of complicated calculations. But the basic concept is simple: oil sands developers pay only one per cent royalty until they recover their capital costs—a scheme developed in the early 1980s and reworked in 1997.

The one per cent rule was meant to give oil sands producers a helping hand with big-ticket technology and equipment required to strip mine and refine viscous, sandy tar into a usable final product.

As production costs have declined and profits gone skyward, many observers are saying it’s time for a change—including former Premier Peter Lougheed. The man who first negotiated what the Pembina Institute calls a “sweet deal for companies” called for a moratorium on tar sands development and a renegotiation of royalty rates in early July.

“[Albertans got] $2.85 from a barrel of oil from the oil sands in 1997. They got $1.74 in 2005,” says Amy Taylor, director of ecological fiscal reform at the Pembina Institute.

“Keeping the decade-old royalty regime, designed to jumpstart oil sands production, when [the economy] is overheated, is irresponsible,” says Taylor.

“At the end of the day,” concludes Mason, “the most important thing to remember is that Albertans own these resources, not the oil and gas companies. The smartest thing to do would be to capture an appropriate return on our non-renewable resources so that we can build an economy based on renewables.” V
 
snfu73
#30
From the Alberta Federation of Labour...

Quote:

Admittedly revenue lost from premiums would need to be made up somewhere else. One area to examine is the area of oil royalties. Alberta royalty rates are one-half what they were under Peter Lougheed. They are 60% less than Alaska. There is no economic evidence showing that low royalties increase oil exploration, and that a moderate increase in royalty rates would cause a slowing of oil activity.
To the contrary, evidence from Alaska and Norway demonstrate that higher royalties enhance the overall economy, as more revenue is directed efficiently to government, allowing for lowering of taxes in other, less efficient and less fair areas.
If Alberta raised our royalties to the level of Alaska, we would bring in $2.0 billion more per year. This would more than erase any loss from the elimination of health premiums.

 

Similar Threads

27
Too much power to the provinces
by JonB2004 | Apr 25th, 2006
6
IF PROVINCES WERE PEOPLE
by Roy | Nov 28th, 2005
no new posts