Laurentian Elites

Commodity Marketing

Tools

Laurentian Elites

Dec 7, 2019 | 09:49 1 Good article in the NP today basically arguing that eastern policies are a direct way to restrain rising western economic and population power. Of course we all know that. Climate change is just the cover.

Meet the Laurentian Elite, the mediocre masters of Canada

While 200 years ago, the periphery could be treated as a frontier to be managed, such an attitude today is fatal. The West now comprises almost a third of Canada’s population, compared with less than 23 per cent for Quebec, and the former is by far our most demographically dynamic region. Annual West-East fiscal transfers have run for decades and now total hundreds of billions of dollars. While Toronto finance is still formidable, and central Canada has more jobs in that sector (about 66 per cent) than its share of the population, corporate clout has shifted West, if slowed by the oil crash of 2014.

The Laurentian response to shifting population and money has been restrictive, envious and resentful, with ignorance and neglect replaced by targeted aggression. Under a cloak of green, the federal Liberals have written one generally supportive rulebook for economic development in the East, and a decidedly unfriendly one — including the West-Coast oil tanker ban and Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill — for the West.
Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Dec 7, 2019 | 10:03 2 How does that square with Trudeau buying the TMX to make sure it gets built? They are working on it now.

    And the US is still holding up Keystone XL and Enbridge Line 3 which have nothing to do with Canadian politicians!

    This east west divide has long been played for politics. Its a nice distraction in Alberta from having to explain how Alberta saved nothing from the last boom like Norway and Alaska have done.

    Alberta runs its core services on one time resource revenues and offers low royalty rates for oil companies, low taxes for citizens and corporations and then complains about how it can't make ends meet?

    Where are the true fiscal conservatives like Lougheed who knew enough to mange the boom and bust economy better and save something for the future? Reply With Quote
    Dec 7, 2019 | 10:48 3
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    How does that square with Trudeau buying the TMX to make sure it gets built? They are working on it now.

    And the US is still holding up Keystone XL and Enbridge Line 3 which have nothing to do with Canadian politicians!
    Do you have an evidence that the article is not true?

    TMX started in AB. The bottleneck is in BC when it starts crossing opposition lands and the terminal at Burnaby. Until that thing is flowing oil on to tankers, it is not built. Trudeau doesn't care about money, he knows it will get stalled there in BC and he hopes he will get a majority and then kill it. If you are willing to blow 100B for votes, whats another 7B between crooks.

    XL and L3 only proceeded because they cross the border in western provinces. Had those been lines that went into BC or Ont/Que they would be dead projects right now. Reply With Quote

  • Dec 7, 2019 | 10:59 4
    Quote Originally Posted by jazz View Post
    Do you have an evidence that the article is not true?

    TMX started in AB. The bottleneck is in BC when it starts crossing opposition lands and the terminal at Burnaby. Until that thing is flowing oil on to tankers, it is not built. Trudeau doesn't care about money, he knows it will get stalled there in BC and he hopes he will get a majority and then kill it. If you are willing to blow 100B for votes, whats another 7B between crooks.

    XL and L3 only proceeded because they cross the border in western provinces. Had those been lines that went into BC or Ont/Que they would be dead projects right now.
    If Trudeau wanted to kill it the easiest way would have been to not buy it. Why spend $4 billion on a project when he could have just walked away and let it die on its own?
    Their is resistance to pipelines in the US and Canada. Nebraska is largely a rural republican state. Yet they wanted a different route for Keystone because of concerns over a sensitive aquifer.
    You need to cut through the partisan political fog. Blaming Trudeau is easy. looking at the facts is hard and doesn’t tell the same story as some western premiers want to spin. Reply With Quote
    blackpowder's Avatar Dec 7, 2019 | 11:18 5 We are not treated as equals. Full stop. Reply With Quote
    Dec 7, 2019 | 11:41 6 Incomes are higher than average and GDP per capita is higher in Alberta than the rest of Canada. That doesn’t seem like a place that is being treated as second class.

    Alberta and Saskatchewan with smaller populations will never have the political power of Quebec and Ontario. That does not make you less than equal.

    The Liberals and Conservatives keep taking turns at governing.

    The Conservatives will return to power some day unless they spit the vote between moderate conservatives and the various factions on the right.

    If the world price of oil was still high none of this western alienation would be an issue.

    People are looking for someone to blame for the bust. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Dec 7, 2019 | 11:42 7
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    If Trudeau wanted to kill it the easiest way would have been to not buy it. Why spend $4 billion on a project when he could have just walked away and let it die on its own?
    And you know that would have happened because ...............

    Its equally if not more plausible that some other buyer would have eventually appeared - although not at the stupidly high price Skippy agreed to. That could have been another pipeline player or some native consortium. Either way the project would have at least had a chance of getting built. By throwing away more of our money to buy it Skippy & Co could guarantee it will never get built. Easy decision if you have no conscience. Reply With Quote

  • Dec 7, 2019 | 11:47 8
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    If Trudeau wanted to kill it the easiest way would have been to not buy it. Why spend $4 billion on a project when he could have just walked away and let it die on its own?
    Their is resistance to pipelines in the US and Canada. Nebraska is largely a rural republican state. Yet they wanted a different route for Keystone because of concerns over a sensitive aquifer.
    You need to cut through the partisan political fog. Blaming Trudeau is easy. looking at the facts is hard and doesn’t tell the same story as some western premiers want to spin.
    He bought both pipelines, so the feds nationalized infrastructure coopting private revenues and chasing other similar companies out, with the intent to kill the twinning by endless stalling using courts and useful idiots to advance the challenges.

    Now they can hold whoever ships on that line to some bogus carbon standard and then crow about climate change policy.

    All part of the fake drama virtue signalling neutering the west. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • blackpowder's Avatar Dec 7, 2019 | 11:58 9 Well of course, who better to run a business than a govt? $4B is chump change to what they're wasting elsewhere. He was buying Western votes. It backfired.
    JTs bills speak for themselves.
    The feds record with QC is for all to see. Much bigger than oil. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Dec 7, 2019 | 12:10 10
    Quote Originally Posted by jazz View Post
    He bought both pipelines, so the feds nationalized infrastructure coopting private revenues and chasing other similar companies out, with the intent to kill the twinning by endless stalling using courts and useful idiots to advance the challenges.

    Now they can hold whoever ships on that line to some bogus carbon standard and then crow about climate change policy.

    All part of the fake drama virtue signalling neutering the west.
    They are planning to sell it to the private sector. Or they could keep it as it will be a money maker. Reply With Quote
    Dec 7, 2019 | 12:18 11
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    They are planning to sell it to the private sector. Or they could keep it as it will be a money maker.
    Natives are not the private sector. Reply With Quote

  • blackpowder's Avatar Dec 7, 2019 | 12:40 12 Why did they have to step in and buy it in the first place?
    Why will it be the last pipe laid in Canada?
    Why are we the most expensive country to get anything done? Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Dec 7, 2019 | 13:37 13 Its a nice distraction in Alberta from having to explain how Alberta saved nothing from the last boom like Norway and Alaska have done.


    Norway and Alaska never had to transfer all their profits to other states or countries...........hence there is where Albertas savings went “equalization”. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Dec 7, 2019 | 13:45 14
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    How does that square with Trudeau buying the TMX to make sure it gets built? They are working on it now.

    And the US is still holding up Keystone XL and Enbridge Line 3 which have nothing to do with Canadian politicians!

    This east west divide has long been played for politics. Its a nice distraction in Alberta from having to explain how Alberta saved nothing from the last boom like Norway and Alaska have done.

    Alberta runs its core services on one time resource revenues and offers low royalty rates for oil companies, low taxes for citizens and corporations and then complains about how it can't make ends meet?

    Where are the true fiscal conservatives like Lougheed who knew enough to mange the boom and bust economy better and save something for the future?
    There are some things we agree on, some we disagree. I agree it is a big mistake to spend all resource revenues on core services but I think lower royalties are justified due to the greater cost of getting our oil to market. Unfortunately the majority of Albertan's refuse to entertain increasing tax rates so that energy royalties can be put away to benefit future generations. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Dec 7, 2019 | 14:14 15 There has been a sense of jealousy ever since the oil sector became the engine of the Canadian economy. Petroleum and resources are beneath the Laurentian elites so something has to happen before Western Canada is too strong financially and politically.

    Equalization payments to Crybeck
    Bill C-48
    Bill C-69 No Pipelines Bill
    Carbon tax Reply With Quote
  • 3 Likes


  • blackpowder's Avatar Dec 7, 2019 | 14:22 16 Is that list just the symptoms?
    What's the disease?
    Insulated long term grip on power?
    Faulty confederation guidelines?
    Faulty govt structure? Reply With Quote
    Dec 7, 2019 | 14:55 17
    Quote Originally Posted by STR1 View Post
    Its a nice distraction in Alberta from having to explain how Alberta saved nothing from the last boom like Norway and Alaska have done.


    Norway and Alaska never had to transfer all their profits to other states or countries...........hence there is where Albertas savings went “equalization”.
    What?

    Alaskans like Albertans still pay federal taxes. Norwegians pay some of the highest taxes in the world and still put away over a trillion dollars in savings.

    Federal taxes paid on income in Alberta are the same rate as every other province. And they are paid on the profit. No one in Alberta or any other province is transferring all their profits to the federal government.

    That’s not an excuse not to collect sufficient provincial taxes or royalties on resources owned by the citizens of Alberta. Reply With Quote
    Dec 7, 2019 | 14:59 18
    Quote Originally Posted by jazz View Post
    Natives are not the private sector.
    Native run companies are the private sector. They will find finance and take ownership under what ever corporation they decide to set up.

    Are you opposed to native run corporations or what? Reply With Quote
    Dec 7, 2019 | 15:21 19
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Are you opposed to native run corporations or what?
    A group of people who are wards of the state getting preferential access to an investment opportunity funded by the govt at a subsidized rate IS NOT THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

    A 7B dollar gift. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Dec 7, 2019 | 16:05 20
    Quote Originally Posted by jazz View Post
    A group of people who are wards of the state getting preferential access to an investment opportunity funded by the govt at a subsidized rate IS NOT THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

    A 7B dollar gift.
    Have you seen the terms of any sale or the structure of any ownership? If not you are making up crap!

    First Nations run many businesses in the private sector. Are you suggesting that they all get preferential treatment?

    Sounds like you are opposed to First Nations ownership. For what reason? Reply With Quote
    Dec 7, 2019 | 16:16 21
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Have you seen the terms of any sale or the structure of any ownership? If not you are making up crap!

    First Nations run many businesses in the private sector. Are you suggesting that they all get preferential treatment?

    Sounds like you are opposed to First Nations ownership. For what reason?
    Sounds like you don't know how financing is done in this country. No native assets can be used as collateral as the Indian Act forbids it. So they have no path to financing it on their own. No bank will touch them without collateral. No Canadian corporation will partner with them without them putting up security.

    Basically another deal with the govt as subsidizer and guarantor. Bought for twice the price, sold for half and backed with pixie dust by Trudeau. Reply With Quote

  • Dec 7, 2019 | 16:22 22 Chuck I find your view of the world disturbing! You seem to think sending all wealth to the State and that the State should own everything and we just work for the State?
    You think that's the way way for a country to be Happy and prosperous? I guess that's your dream.
    We will all be equal Comrade! Reply With Quote
  • 3 Likes


  • Dec 7, 2019 | 18:35 23 If you’ve ever watched “Frontier and The Fur Trade”, you would see that “Eastern Superiority” was alive and well in 17 and 1800’s. Back then Eastern Canada saw the West as a source of valuable furs destined for Europe. In the early 1900’s, the western provinces became “ Western only” grain suppliers that could be controlled by The Canadian Wheat Board. Western farmers would be subservient to The East for decades. Then the equalization formula carefully eliminated Eastern resources in the calculation and subsequently extracts billions from the West annually.

    Feel like a milk cow?

    So it goes, Eastern Power conniving to suck us dry! No more buying anything made in Quebec or Maritimes. nada! Reply With Quote
  • 3 Likes


  • blackpowder's Avatar Dec 7, 2019 | 18:59 24 By all means have First Nations run the pipelines etc. Give them purpose. Make them accountable. Stop the guilty welfare. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Dec 7, 2019 | 19:37 25
    Quote Originally Posted by blackpowder View Post
    By all means have First Nations run the pipelines etc. Give them purpose. Make them accountable. Stop the guilty welfare.
    I don't think that's a good idea. While they should have business opportunities to develop, owning and operating critical pieces of national infrastructure shouldn't be one of them.

    Look to their own reserves on how that would turn out.

    Kinder Morgan is a public traded company. Natives could have bought their stock decades ago. They wont do anything unless the govt holds their hands with dollar bills stuffed between.
    Last edited by jazz; Dec 7, 2019 at 19:40.
    Reply With Quote

  • Dec 7, 2019 | 20:44 26 Chuck . . . .When you say Norwegians are some of the highest taxed citizens in the world but are still able to put away over a trillion in savings, its a bit of a circular argument. Because of high taxes from it's citizens, the government can use that revenue to finance their day to day expenses without dipping into the oil revenue ( taxes and licensing from oil companies ) which fuels their Oil Fund.

    So in a indirect way Norwegians are taking money out of their wallets and filling the Oil Fund.

    That didn't happen in Alberta.

    Secondly, Norway doesn't have pay some of their tax revenue to Ottawa.

    That happens in Alberta. Reply With Quote

  • Dec 8, 2019 | 06:33 27 Some examples of fist nation owned and run businesses in the oil patch.

    Despite oil's collapse, First Nations businesses thrive

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ticle37775102/

    https://bouchier.ca/who-we-are/

    DRIVING TO BE CANADA’S LEADING INDIGENOUS BUSINESS

    Launched in 1998 with nothing more than a used Caterpillar bulldozer and a passionate entrepreneurial spirit, Bouchier has grown and expanded its workforce and service offerings to become one of the largest and most respected Indigenous-owned and operated service companies. Reply With Quote
    Dec 8, 2019 | 07:10 28
    Quote Originally Posted by rumrocks View Post
    Chuck . . . .When you say Norwegians are some of the highest taxed citizens in the world but are still able to put away over a trillion in savings, its a bit of a circular argument. Because of high taxes from it's citizens, the government can use that revenue to finance their day to day expenses without dipping into the oil revenue ( taxes and licensing from oil companies ) which fuels their Oil Fund.

    So in a indirect way Norwegians are taking money out of their wallets and filling the Oil Fund.

    That didn't happen in Alberta.

    Secondly, Norway doesn't have pay some of their tax revenue to Ottawa.

    That happens in Alberta.
    The reason Norway has a large savings fund is because they decided to put away 100% of the royalty revenues from their oil resource so that future generations could benefit from one time finite resource revenues. Norway treated the oil as owned by Norwegians.

    Alberta chose to let most of the revenues go to the private sector and corporate shareholders with low royalties.

    They used resource revenues to fund core services and keep provincial taxes low and increased government spending.

    Read this from the Fraser Insititute about how Albert saved only 4.5% of its resource revenues from what likely was the biggest boom in the provinces history.

    Fumbling the Alberta Advantage: How Alberta Squandered a Decade of High Energy Prices
    — Published on February 19, 2015

    https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/fumbling-the-alberta-advantage-how-alberta-squandered-a-decade-of-high-energy-prices

    It is well-known that Alberta’s provincial budget is highly dependent on resource revenues. Over the last decade, as a proportion of total revenues, resource revenues have accounted for as much as 40% (2005/06) and as low as 19% (2009/10). In the most recent year (2013/14), resource revenues accounted for 21% of all revenues. What is often less remarked is how program expenses have grown much quicker than the combined effect of population growth and inflation would require. In 1993/94, per-person program spending (in real dollars) was $8,978. The Ralph Klein government cut real program spending back to $6,828 per person by 1996/97. By 2004/05, per-person real program spending had risen again to $8,965; in essence, back to where per-person program spending was before the mid-1990s expenditure reductions. By the mid-2000s, even though the province was again spending at a level that contributed to deficits in the early 1990s, after 2004/05 the province allowed program spending to escalate even further and beyond inflation and population growth. The result was that by 2013/14, the province spent $10,967 per person on government programs. That was $2,002 higher per person than in 2004/05.

    Had the province increased program spending after 2004/05 but within population growth plus inflation, by 2013/14 the province would have spent $35.9 billion on programs. Instead, the province spent $43.9 billion, an $8 billion difference in that year alone. That $8 billion difference is significant. In recent interviews, Alberta Premier Jim Prentice has warned that the drop in oil prices has drained $7 billion from expected provincial government revenues. Thus, past decisions to ramp up program spending mean that provincial spending beyond inflation and population growth is at least as responsible for current budget gap as the decline in revenues.

    The Lost Opportunity

    While discussion over the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund is temporarily muted due to concerns over the pro-vincial budget deficit, some have advocated higher taxes on the basis that the Alberta government should make regular and significant deposits into the Heritage Fund. But, the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund could have seen significant deposits over the past decade had spending been more carefully controlled: between 2005/06 and 2013/14, and adjusted for inflation, the province of Alberta garnered $101.3 billion in resource revenues. Had Al-berta imitated the state of Alaska in requiring 25% of all resource revenues to be deposited into the Alaska Perma-nent Fund, from 2005/06 to 2013/14 inclusive, instead of just $4.5 billion in actual deposits, the deposits would have amounted to $25.3 billion. Given what is now known about the spending patterns of the last decade, a deposit of 25% of resource revenues, or $25.3 billion, into the Heritage Fund would not have been unreasonable. Instead, the province deposited just $4.5 billion, or 4.5% of all resource revenues between 2005/06 and 2013/14.
    Authors: Reply With Quote
    Dec 8, 2019 | 07:16 29 https://thewalrus.ca/give-alberta-oil-back-to-the-people/


    "In another interesting difference, Norway had created a state-owned oil company, Statoil (recently renamed Equinor), which is the eleventh-largest oil company in the world. With assets of more than $100 billion, Equinor is majority-owned by the Norwegian people, adding yet more to their collective wealth. In the 1970s, Alberta created the Alberta Energy Company, which was half-owned by the province. Today, the Alberta Energy Company is the second-largest oil-and-gas producer in Canada, but the province privatized it in 1993, ( Now called Encana and Cenovus after a split) leaving Albertans with no ownership stake in their oil industry or the corresponding wealth that goes with that."

    "The newly elected Progressive Conservative premier, Peter Lougheed, was a businessman and lawyer who came from a very prominent Alberta family. Following the family tradition, Peter Lougheed was a conservative and was certainly pro-business. But that didn’t prevent him from recognizing that Albertans were not getting a good deal from the oil companies. And, unlike the earlier Alberta premiers the companies had faced, Lougheed did not see his role as simply one of keeping the industry happy.

    The new premier broke sharply with his predecessors in vigorously asserting that Albertans owned the oil and gas in their ground and that they had to start “thinking like owners.” He showed what he meant by that when, in one of his first acts as premier, he announced plans to significantly increase the share of oil wealth going to the province by raising the royalties the companies had to pay. Accustomed to a sweetheart deal that limited royalties to 17 percent, the companies fought back when Lougheed pushed the rate up to 25 percent on newly drilled wells. The industry didn’t hesitate to revive memories of Depression-era Alberta, attempting to stoke fears that the royalty hike risked “killing the goose that laid the golden egg.” Oilweek, the Calgary-based magazine that functioned as a mouthpiece for the industry, featured a desolate abandoned farmhouse with the caption “What Would Alberta Be Like without the Oil Industry?” Another Oilweek cover hinted that the premier had lost his mind, running a photo of Lougheed beneath the heading “This Man Needs Help.”

    But Lougheed persisted and prevailed. The oil companies, apparently concluding (correctly) that there was still profit to be made in Alberta, simply adjusted to the new royalty regime. More broadly, they found themselves obliged to adjust to a new regulatory framework in which provincial civil servants were actively involved in planning and overseeing the exploitation of the province’s resources.

    In an effort to counter the dominance of the multinational oil companies, Lougheed established the above-mentioned Alberta Energy Company, half-owned by the provincial government with the other half owned by members of the public purchasing shares at affordable prices. The notion of Albertans investing in the province’s resources—privately and through public ownership—proved wildly popular. The Alberta Energy Company was given some attractive oil properties to develop and was touted as a vehicle for diversifying the province’s economy beyond oil, including establishing a spinoff petrochemical industry. Lougheed was keen to push Alberta out of its past pattern of exporting raw resources for processing elsewhere.

    Lougheed’s determination to secure a better deal for Albertans was helped by the quadrupling of world oil prices, in the early 1970s, due to the rise of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. With Alberta awash in oil revenues beyond anyone’s wildest dreams, there was plenty to go around, easing the way for Lougheed as he pushed royalties up to 40 percent, providing the province with an annual $10 billion boost in revenues. Realizing that the heady oil prices wouldn’t last forever, he also established the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, with an initial investment of $1.5 billion in 1976, to hold a portion of the province’s resource revenues as a nest egg for the future.

    It was Lougheed who launched the development of Alberta’s massive tar sands (or oil sands, as they’ve been renamed to soften their image). He saw the gigantic oil-sands deposit as pivotal to the long-term prosperity of the province, as well as offering a chance to break the dominance of foreign corporations. From its early days, the Lougheed government invested heavily in advancing the oil sands, funding government agencies that developed key technologies to extract bitumen from the gooey, tar-like sands, as well as creating a regulatory framework to supervise the development.

    Lougheed’s time as premier, from 1971 to 1985, represented the high-water mark for assertive public control and management of the province’s oil reserves. In the later years of Lougheed’s premiership,"
    Last edited by chuckChuck; Dec 8, 2019 at 07:38.
    Reply With Quote
    Dec 8, 2019 | 07:33 30 Alberta Keeps Low Oil and Gas Royalties, Committing ‘Profound Political Mistake,’ Critics Say

    https://thenarwhal.ca/alberta-keeps-low-oil-and-gas-royalties-committing-profound-political-mistake-critics-say/

    "In another submission, the economist Mark Anielski reported how the province would have benefited if it had kept Lougheed’s approach to a robust and healthy royalty regime.

    “Had Alberta maintained a 30 per cent royalty rate on the share of the value of the oil and gas produced between 1971 to 2014, Albertans would have generated $471.4 billion in oil and gas royalties. Had 50 per cent of these royalties been invested in the Alberta Heritage Savings and Trust Fund with annual average return of five per cent per annum we would now have an investment account worth over $481 billion.”

    "The current savings fund holds less than $20 billion."

    "In Alberta, the share has plummeted from a 40 per cent high during the Peter Lougheed years to less than four per cent today." Reply With Quote