News
Thoughts On Alberta’s Upcoming Budget? Here’s Your Chance To Share Them
The Provincial Government is holding a pair of Telephone Town Hall Meetings this week in a lead up to the release of the 2017 Budget in March. It’s a chance for Albertans to ask questions, offer comments and take part in a conversation with Premier Rachel Notley and Finance Minister Joe Ceci about the upcoming Budget.
Officials say people with a publicly listed land line will automatically get a call. Mobile users can sign up for a call or dial in right before the telephone town halls begin. People can also listen and participate online.
In a release, Premier Rachel Notley says “Your government wants to hear from you. As we work on Budget 2017, we need to know what we can do better to help make your life better. More jobs, more training opportunities, protecting funding for hospitals and schools, and new initiatives to make life more affordable for regular families – these are just some of the areas where we want your honest advice.”
Minister of Finance and Treasury Board President Joe Ceci says “Alberta continues to deal with significant economic and fiscal challenges and we are working to address them. I’ve spoken with hundreds of Albertans from all walks of life and areas of the province during the last couple of months about the upcoming budget and our long-term fiscal plans. These telephone town halls help me reach even more Albertans as our government prepares for the next budget.”
The telephone town halls run from 7:00-8:30 pm on Monday, January 30th and 6:30 to 8 p.m on Tuesday, January 31st. Monday’s Town Hall Meeting is for residents in northern Alberta, Tuesday’s is for those in Red Deer and south.
Those who want may register online in advance.
Cellphone users and other interested participants may dial into the call toll free at 1-855-269-4484 at least 10 minutes before the start of the town hall, or they can register online to be called. Albertans may also listen, submit questions, and answer poll questions online. The 90-minute call will be moderated. A question-and-answer period will follow after opening remarks.
No personal information will be saved or used by the Government of Alberta. Albertans can continue to provide their comments for the budget online until February 3rd.
Business
Broken ‘equalization’ program bad for all provinces
From the Fraser Institute
By Alex Whalen and Tegan Hill
Back in the summer at a meeting in Halifax, several provincial premiers discussed a lawsuit meant to force the federal government to make changes to Canada’s equalization program. The suit—filed by Newfoundland and Labrador and backed by British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta—effectively argues that the current formula isn’t fair. But while the question of “fairness” can be subjective, its clear the equalization program is broken.
In theory, the program equalizes the ability of provinces to deliver reasonably comparable services at a reasonably comparable level of taxation. Any province’s ability to pay is based on its “fiscal capacity”—that is, its ability to raise revenue.
This year, equalization payments will total a projected $25.3 billion with all provinces except B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan to receive some money. Whether due to higher incomes, higher employment or other factors, these three provinces have a greater ability to collect government revenue so they will not receive equalization.
However, contrary to the intent of the program, as recently as 2021, equalization program costs increased despite a decline in the fiscal capacity of oil-producing provinces such as Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador. In other words, the fiscal capacity gap among provinces was shrinking, yet recipient provinces still received a larger equalization payment.
Why? Because a “fixed-growth rule,” introduced by the Harper government in 2009, ensures that payments grow roughly in line with the economy—even if the gap between richer and poorer provinces shrinks. The result? Total equalization payments (before adjusting for inflation) increased by 19 per cent between 2015/16 and 2020/21 despite the gap in fiscal capacities between provinces shrinking during this time.
Moreover, the structure of the equalization program is also causing problems, even for recipient provinces, because it generates strong disincentives to natural resource development and the resulting economic growth because the program “claws back” equalization dollars when provinces raise revenue from natural resource development. Despite some changes to reduce this problem, one study estimated that a recipient province wishing to increase its natural resource revenues by a modest 10 per cent could face up to a 97 per cent claw back in equalization payments.
Put simply, provinces that generally do not receive equalization such as Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan have been punished for developing their resources, whereas recipient provinces such as Quebec and in the Maritimes have been rewarded for not developing theirs.
Finally, the current program design also encourages recipient provinces to maintain high personal and business income tax rates. While higher tax rates can reduce the incentive to work, invest and be productive, they also raise the national standard average tax rate, which is used in the equalization allocation formula. Therefore, provinces are incentivized to maintain high and economically damaging tax rates to maximize equalization payments.
Unless premiers push for reforms that will improve economic incentives and contain program costs, all provinces—recipient and non-recipient—will suffer the consequences.
Authors:
National
Liberals, NDP admit closed-door meetings took place in attempt to delay Canada’s next election
From LifeSiteNews
Pushing back the date would preserve the pensions of some of the MPs who could be voted out of office in October 2025.
Aides to the cabinet of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirmed that MPs from the Liberal and New Democratic Party (NDP) did indeed hold closed-door “briefings” to rewrite Canada’s elections laws so that they could push back the date of the next election.
The closed-door talks between the NDP and Liberals confirmed the aides included a revision that would guarantee some of its 28 MPs, including three of Trudeau’s cabinet members, would get a pension.
Allen Sutherland, who serves as the assistant cabinet secretary, testified before the House of Commons affairs committee that the changes to the Elections Act were discussed in the meetings.
“We attended a meeting where the substance of that proposal was discussed,” he said, adding that his “understanding is the briefing was primarily oral.”
According to Sutherland, as reported by Blacklock’s Reporter, it was only NDP and Liberal MPs who attended the secret meetings regarding changes to Canada’s Elections Act via Bill C-65, An Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act before the bill was introduced in March.
As reported by LifeSiteNews before, the Liberals were hoping to delay the 2025 federal election by a few days in what many see as a stunt to secure pensions for MPs who are projected to lose their seats. Approximately 80 MPs would qualify for pensions should they sit as MPs until at least October 27, 2025, which is the newly proposed election date. The election date is currently set for October 20, 2025.
Sutherland noted when asked by Conservative MP Luc Berthold that he recalled little from the meetings, but he did confirm he attended “two meetings of that kind.”
“Didn’t you find it unusual that a discussion about amending the Elections Act included only two political parties and excluded the others?” Berthold asked.
Sutherland responded, “It’s important to understand what my role was in those meetings which was simply to provide background information.”
Berthold then asked, “You nevertheless suggested amendments to the legislation including a change of dates?”
“My role was to provide information,” replied Sutherland, who added he could not provide the exact dates of the meetings.
MPs must serve at least six years to qualify for a pension that pays $77,900 a year. Should an election be called today, many MPs would fall short of reaching the six years, hence Bill C-65 was introduced by the Liberals and NDP.
The Liberals have claimed that pushing back the next election date is not over pensions but due to “trying to observe religious holidays,” as noted by Liberal MP Mark Gerretsen.
“Conservatives voted against this bill,” Berthold said, as they are “confident of winning re-election. We don’t need this change.”
Trudeau’s popularity is at a all-time low, but he has refused to step down as PM, call an early election, or even step aside as Liberal Party leader.
As for the amendments to elections laws, they come after months of polling in favour of the Conservative Party under the leadership of Pierre Poilievre.
A recent poll found that 70 percent of Canadians believe the country is “broken” as Trudeau focuses on less critical issues. Similarly, in January, most Canadians reported that they are worse off financially since Trudeau took office.
Additionally, a January poll showed that 46 percent of Canadians expressed a desire for the federal election to take place sooner rather than the latest mandated date in the fall of 2025.
-
Aristotle Foundation2 days ago
Toronto cancels history, again: The irony and injustice of renaming Yonge-Dundas Square to Sankofa Square
-
Business1 day ago
CBC’s business model is trapped in a very dark place
-
armed forces2 days ago
Judge dismisses Canadian military personnel’s lawsuit against COVID shot mandate
-
conflict2 days ago
US and UK authorize missile strikes into Russia, but are we really in danger of World War III?
-
International1 day ago
Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy Outline Sweeping Plan to Cut Federal Regulations And Staffing
-
Energy2 days ago
What does a Trump presidency means for Canadian energy?
-
Censorship Industrial Complex23 hours ago
Congressional investigation into authors of ‘Disinformation Dozen’ intensifies
-
Alberta20 hours ago
Alberta fiscal update: second quarter is outstanding, challenges ahead