Business
Planet Fitness says ‘discomfort’ not a reason to ban ‘transgender’ men from women’s locker rooms
From LifeSiteNews
The company’s stock plummeted after it terminated a member who exposed a man shaving in a woman’s locker room in front of a girl estimated to be around 12 years old.
Popular exercise chain Planet Fitness is doubling down on its prioritization of “gender identity” over female customers’ welfare, putting in writing that “discomfort” over sharing intimate facilities with the opposite sex should not be accommodated.
Planet Fitness, which for years has allowed gender-confused men in women’s locker rooms, came back in the news this month when an Alaskan Planet Fitness member named Patricia Silva shared online a video she took of a man who “identifies” as a woman shaving in a women’s locker room. She said that at the time of the incident, a girl estimated to be 12 years old was sitting in a corner, wrapped in a towel, and “freaked out” by having an adult male in her changing area.
In accordance with the company’s woke priorities, however, instead of removing the man, Planet Fitness revoked Silva’s membership, citing her violation of a policy against photographing other gym members.
“So, I would like for you women to stand up and have a voice and stop these shenanigans,” Silva said. “You have authority! Use your authority.”
Since the story broke, Planet Fitness’s stock price has dropped from $66.92 on March 7 to $56.46 on March 19. “The chain saw a $400 million dive in valuation from $5.3 billion to $4.9 billion,” Fox Business reported Thursday.
But the company is digging in its heels.
Chief corporate affairs officer McCall Gosselin told the Christian Post that the policy is part of the company’s vision of an “inclusive environment,” and that its “gender identity non-discrimination policy states that members and guests may use the gym facilities that best align with their sincere, self-reported gender identity.” The company also said that members claiming trans status may only be asked to leave “if it is confirmed that a member is acting in bad faith” and is not sincerely gender confused.
Libs of TikTok also shared a page from Planet Fitness’s operations manual, which states that “Some members may feel uncomfortable with a transgender member using the same locker room facilities, bathrooms, showers, or other facilities/programs separated by sex,” but “this discomfort is not a reason to deny access to the transgender members.” It calls on staff to resolve such situations by attempting to “foster a climate of understanding,” i.e., transgender accommodation.
The company “reserves the right to terminate a person’s membership immediately for any violation of this policy,” which also requires staff (but not explicitly members) to honor preferred names and gender pronouns.
WOW. Planet Fitness is standing by their decision to allow men in women's locker rooms.
Their policies actually allow males in female spaces. They instruct women to just deal with their discomfort and make sure not to misgender the trans person in their locker room.… https://t.co/1fA52PY21Q pic.twitter.com/wl5ZCxMtVs
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 15, 2024
Conservatives have long argued that forcing girls to share intimate facilities such as bathrooms, showers, or changing areas with members of the opposite sex violates their privacy rights, subjects them to needless emotional stress, and gives potential male predators a viable pretext to enter female bathrooms or lockers by simply claiming transgender status. (Planet Fitness ostensibly accounts for the last danger by reserving the right to eject men who are only faking gender confusion, but in practice such a policy is unlikely to be enforced for fear of being branded “intolerant” and the difficulty of proving what may be going on in someone’s mind.)
The harm has been highlighted by University of Pennsylvania swimmer William “Lia” Thomas, who reportedly retains male genitalia and is still attracted to women yet “identifies” as female and lesbian, causing his female teammates unrest due to sharing lockers with them; and by Loudoun County Public Schools in Virginia, where a female student was raped by a “transgender” classmate in a girls bathroom.
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:
Alberta
Alberta’s fiscal update projects budget surplus, but fiscal fortunes could quickly turn
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
According to the recent mid-year update tabled Thursday, the Smith government projects a $4.6 billion surplus in 2024/25, up from the $2.9 billion surplus projected just a few months ago. Despite the good news, Premier Smith must reduce spending to avoid budget deficits.
The fiscal update projects resource revenue of $20.3 billion in 2024/25. Today’s relatively high—but very volatile—resource revenue (including oil and gas royalties) is helping finance today’s spending and maintain a balanced budget. But it will not last forever.
For perspective, in just the last decade the Alberta government’s annual resource revenue has been as low as $2.8 billion (2015/16) and as high as $25.2 billion (2022/23).
And while the resource revenue rollercoaster is currently in Alberta’s favor, Finance Minister Nate Horner acknowledges that “risks are on the rise” as oil prices have dropped considerably and forecasters are projecting downward pressure on prices—all of which impacts resource revenue.
In fact, the government’s own estimates show a $1 change in oil prices results in an estimated $630 million revenue swing. So while the Smith government plans to maintain a surplus in 2024/25, a small change in oil prices could quickly plunge Alberta back into deficit. Premier Smith has warned that her government may fall into a budget deficit this fiscal year.
This should come as no surprise. Alberta’s been on the resource revenue rollercoaster for decades. Successive governments have increased spending during the good times of high resource revenue, but failed to rein in spending when resource revenues fell.
Previous research has shown that, in Alberta, a $1 increase in resource revenue is associated with an estimated 56-cent increase in program spending the following fiscal year (on a per-person, inflation-adjusted basis). However, a decline in resource revenue is not similarly associated with a reduction in program spending. This pattern has led to historically high levels of government spending—and budget deficits—even in more recent years.
Consider this: If this fiscal year the Smith government received an average level of resource revenue (based on levels over the last 10 years), it would receive approximately $13,000 per Albertan. Yet the government plans to spend nearly $15,000 per Albertan this fiscal year (after adjusting for inflation). That’s a huge gap of roughly $2,000—and it means the government is continuing to take big risks with the provincial budget.
Of course, if the government falls back into deficit there are implications for everyday Albertans.
When the government runs a deficit, it accumulates debt, which Albertans must pay to service. In 2024/25, the government’s debt interest payments will cost each Albertan nearly $650. That’s largely because, despite running surpluses over the last few years, Albertans are still paying for debt accumulated during the most recent string of deficits from 2008/09 to 2020/21 (excluding 2014/15), which only ended when the government enjoyed an unexpected windfall in resource revenue in 2021/22.
According to Thursday’s mid-year fiscal update, Alberta’s finances continue to be at risk. To avoid deficits, the Smith government should meaningfully reduce spending so that it’s aligned with more reliable, stable levels of revenue.
Author:
-
ESG2 days ago
Can’t afford Rent? Groceries for your kids? Trudeau says suck it up and pay the tax!
-
Aristotle Foundation1 day ago
Toronto cancels history, again: The irony and injustice of renaming Yonge-Dundas Square to Sankofa Square
-
International1 day ago
Euthanasia advocates use deception to affect public’s perception of assisted suicide
-
armed forces1 day ago
Judge dismisses Canadian military personnel’s lawsuit against COVID shot mandate
-
Alberta12 hours ago
Alberta government announces review of Trudeau’s euthanasia regime
-
Business9 hours ago
Trump’s government efficiency department plans to cut $500 Billion in unauthorized expenditures, including funding for Planned Parenthood
-
Addictions2 days ago
BC Addictions Expert Questions Ties Between Safer Supply Advocates and For-Profit Companies
-
Business16 hours ago
CBC’s business model is trapped in a very dark place