What could Andrew scheer have done different?

[Integrity_Farmer]

RESIGN
Your question Forum What could Andrew scheer have done different? RESIGN HE IS NOT A CANADIAN Sheers only real job is an MP.

[bucket]

RESIGN
Your question Forum What could Andrew scheer have done different? RESIGN HE IS NOT A CANADIAN Sheers only real job is an MP.

like times 8

[jazz]

I assume chuck is referred to the heritage fund. Good news its up to over $600B now. Quebec and the maritimes are just holding it for us. That was sure nice of them. Maybe we could tap into it now.

[chuckChuck]

I assume chuck is referred to the heritage fund. Good news its up to over $600B now. Quebec and the maritimes are just holding it for us. That was sure nice of them. Maybe we could tap into it now.

You must be confused.

Give up the mythology that Alberta was prevented from putting lots of resource revenues into the heritage fund because of the equalization program.

Equalization is paid out of federal taxes that are applied equally across Canada. Alberta pays more federal taxes because their incomes are higher than average along with their per capita GDP.

The heritage fund is up to Alberta alone. Or Alaska alone. Or Norway. Alberta chose to keep royalties low rather than collect sufficient royalties to build a sizable heritage fund.

It has nothing to do with the Federal Government management of provincial resources revenues.

[jazz]

Equalization is paid out of federal taxes that are applied equally across Canada. Alberta pays more federal taxes because their incomes are higher than average along with their per capita GDP.

F that BS. That's a cop out. Ab pays higher fed tax because we are developing our resources which are unshielded from the formula like hydro revenues. F even MB got a payment under that formula because hydro. So its a disincentive welfare payment to the east to not try to improve their economy.

Stop with your obtuse rewriting of the plain facts.

[chuckChuck]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-votes-2019-equalization-payments-provinces-kenney-1.5281736

Bringing clarity to the sometimes murky world of equalization payments

Federal government transfers funds to provinces so every Canadian receives comparable services
CBC News · Posted: Sep 12, 2019 7:08 PM ET | Last Updated: September 12

There is confusion around Canada's equalization payment program. But it is designed so that every Canadian, no matter where he or she lives, would receive comparable services at comparable rates of taxation. (Graeme Roy/The Canadian Press)

It seems like every time a federal election rolls around, there are complaints about equalization payments. Sometimes, it doesn't even take a federal election. Some premiers try to use it as leverage in their fights with Ottawa.

But there is confusion about what equalization payments actually are, who pays them, and why.
A brief history

Canada's equalization program has existed since 1957. It was brought in as a way for the federal government to transfer funds to provinces so that every Canadian, no matter where he or she lived, would receive comparable services at comparable rates of taxation.

So a Canadian living in a smaller province with a weaker economy would have access to the same public services as one living in a fiscally stronger province, without their tax rates having to go through the roof.

Equalization was enshrined in the Constitution in 1982.

There is a separate program for the territories.
Who actually pays?

Not the provinces. Not provincial governments. According to the Library of Parliament, "Equalization is financed entirely from government of Canada general revenues" raised through federal taxes on all Canadians.

In plainer terms: equalization is funded by the federal government from its general revenue, raised through federal taxes, paid for by all Canadians.

Here is how economist Trevor Tombe, of the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy, describes it in an article he wrote in 2018:

Equalization is a federal program that transfers federal funds to provinces with below-average capacities to raise revenues. Provinces with stronger economies, and with high income households and businesses, raise more revenue for any given tax rate than provinces with lower incomes.
What is the 'equalization formula'?

As Tombe alludes to, a province's fiscal capacity is determined by how much revenue a province could generate if all provinces had identical tax rates — not how much it does raise.

"This captures a province's "ability" to raise revenue, and is almost entirely due to a province's underlying economic strength," Tombe explained in an email to CBC News. "Provinces with strong economies (like Alberta, B.C. and Ontario) can more easily raise revenues than provinces with weaker economies (like [the] Maritimes or Quebec)."

According to Tombe, almost all provincial revenue sources are included in the calculation.

But again, no provincial government is paying equalization to another province.
Have some provinces always received payments?

Every province has received a payment under equalization since the program started in 1957, says Tombe. "Alberta last received a payment in 1964. Ontario never received any payment until the financial crisis… [and] it received payments from 2009 to 2018."

Tombe notes that the 1957-1966 version of equalization bears little resemblance to what we consider equalization today. So, in that sense, Alberta has never received a payment in the history of equalization as we know it today.
Who receives equalization today?

For 2019-2020, the following provinces will receive equalization:

Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Quebec
Manitoba

These provinces will not:

Newfoundland and Labrador
Ontario
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia

[chuckChuck]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/fiscal-stabilization-program-reform-proposal-bev-dahlby-1.5190829

Why this economist says equalization reform isn't the answer if Alberta wants help during its busts

Revised fiscal stabilization program would hold most promise for the province, Bev Dahlby argues
Robson Fletcher · CBC News · Posted: Jun 26, 2019 12:57 PM MT | Last Updated: June 26

University of Calgary economist Bev Dahlby speaks to reporters about his proposal for reforming Canada's fiscal stabilization program. (School of Public Policy)

Many Albertans have long complained that Canada's equalization system isn't there for them when their province goes through an economic bust.

But a University of Calgary economist says calls for reform should be focused, instead, on a lesser known federal program of wealth distribution.

"What Albertans should really complain about is the fiscal stabilization program, which is meant to be a form of insurance for provinces whose economies experience economic shocks," School of Public Policy research director Bev Dahlby writes in a policy paper released Wednesday.

"In reality, it is an insurance policy that has been designed so that it barely pays anything to Alberta."

Alberta received about $250 million from the program in 2016, but Dahlby is calling for the system to be changed in a manner that would have seen the province receive roughly 10 times that amount.
How the stabilization program works now

Under the current rules, a province can apply for financial assistance if its non-resource revenues decline by more than five per cent from one year to the next.

Payments are also capped based on population, with a maximum of $60 per person.

And assistance is not automatic; it must be approved on a case-by-case basis by the federal government.

Alberta gets $250M in federal cash to help ailing economy

This also prevents abuse of the system, which Ottawa says is meant to apply only in what it deems to be "extraordinary" economic situations.

"The program compensates for year-over-year revenue declines due to economic downturns, not for declines due to provincial decisions to reduce taxes," the Department of Finance specifically states.

In other words, provinces can't sabotage their own finances — say, by slashing taxes one year to sink their revenues enough to qualify for assistance — and then simply expect the federal program to make up the difference.

Dahlby is calling for major reforms to the eligibility criteria and a different way of avoiding abuse.
Preventing 'fiscal arson'

For starters, he wants to see the $60-per-person cap removed and resource revenues included in the eligibility criteria.

Instead of making year-to-year financial comparisons, he also suggests contrasting a given fiscal year against the previous, five-year average.

He also wants a funding formula to be established so that assistance is automatic, rather than based on an application process. This would "streamline" the process, speed up payments and avoid political controversy, he says.

The fiscal stabilization program should be reformed to ensure that it actually provides adequate levels of insurance to the resource-dependent provinces.

- Bev Dahlby

Automatic assistance would also create the need for different safeguards against "fiscal arson," he admits. But he says this could be accomplished by effectively setting "deductibles" and limiting coverage in such a way that would dissuade a province from "burning down its home to collect insurance."

He proposes three possible methods to do this.

Method A (the least generous of his proposals) would include a five-per-cent "deductible" and a 50-per-cent coverage rate for losses beyond that deductible.

"In other words," Dahlby writes, "only reductions in annual own-source revenues in excess of five per cent of the average own-source revenue over the previous five years would be eligible for a payment and only 50 per cent of that would be covered."

Method B would also include a five-per-cent deductible, but with a 75-per-cent coverage rate.

And Method C would have a lower deductible — just three per cent — along with a lower coverage rate of 66 per cent.
How would these changes affect Alberta?

Dahlby calculates these methods would have resulted in much more financial support for Alberta during its recent economic downturn.

Remember: the province received roughly $250 million under the current fiscal stabilization program in 2016.

Under Dahlby's proposals, Alberta would have received $2.1 billion under Method A, $3.1 billion under Method B or $3.2 billion under Method C.

The following year, it would have received even more: between $2.8 billion and $4.2 billion, depending on the calculation method.

Provinces like Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador, which also experience booms and busts related to the prices of oil and gas, would also receive more federal funds during downturns under this approach, Dahlby notes.

He suggests such a system would be a more effective "insurance policy" for provinces that rely heavily on volatile natural-resource markets and, as such, their lobbying efforts would be better directed at reforming the stabilization program than Canada's system of equalization payments.

"While it is true that the equalization program needs reform, that program was never meant to help a province such as Alberta, where GDP per capita and household incomes are above the national average, even in times when its economy shrinks," he writes.

"Alberta and the other resource-rich provinces should also pressure the federal government to reform the fiscal stabilization program in order to address their concerns about the lack of federal support in the wake of the downturn in the oil and gas sector."

Dahlby also sits on the expert panel appointed by Premier Jason Kenney that is tasked with offering advice to the Alberta government on how to balance its budget without raising taxes.

[furrowtickler]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/fiscal-stabilization-program-reform-proposal-bev-dahlby-1.5190829

Why this economist says equalization reform isn't the answer if Alberta wants help during its busts

Revised fiscal stabilization program would hold most promise for the province, Bev Dahlby argues
Robson Fletcher · CBC News · Posted: Jun 26, 2019 12:57 PM MT | Last Updated: June 26

University of Calgary economist Bev Dahlby speaks to reporters about his proposal for reforming Canada's fiscal stabilization program. (School of Public Policy)

Many Albertans have long complained that Canada's equalization system isn't there for them when their province goes through an economic bust.

But a University of Calgary economist says calls for reform should be focused, instead, on a lesser known federal program of wealth distribution.

"What Albertans should really complain about is the fiscal stabilization program, which is meant to be a form of insurance for provinces whose economies experience economic shocks," School of Public Policy research director Bev Dahlby writes in a policy paper released Wednesday.

"In reality, it is an insurance policy that has been designed so that it barely pays anything to Alberta."

Alberta received about $250 million from the program in 2016, but Dahlby is calling for the system to be changed in a manner that would have seen the province receive roughly 10 times that amount.
How the stabilization program works now

Under the current rules, a province can apply for financial assistance if its non-resource revenues decline by more than five per cent from one year to the next.

Payments are also capped based on population, with a maximum of $60 per person.

And assistance is not automatic; it must be approved on a case-by-case basis by the federal government.

Alberta gets $250M in federal cash to help ailing economy

This also prevents abuse of the system, which Ottawa says is meant to apply only in what it deems to be "extraordinary" economic situations.

"The program compensates for year-over-year revenue declines due to economic downturns, not for declines due to provincial decisions to reduce taxes," the Department of Finance specifically states.

In other words, provinces can't sabotage their own finances — say, by slashing taxes one year to sink their revenues enough to qualify for assistance — and then simply expect the federal program to make up the difference.

Dahlby is calling for major reforms to the eligibility criteria and a different way of avoiding abuse.
Preventing 'fiscal arson'

For starters, he wants to see the $60-per-person cap removed and resource revenues included in the eligibility criteria.

Instead of making year-to-year financial comparisons, he also suggests contrasting a given fiscal year against the previous, five-year average.

He also wants a funding formula to be established so that assistance is automatic, rather than based on an application process. This would "streamline" the process, speed up payments and avoid political controversy, he says.

The fiscal stabilization program should be reformed to ensure that it actually provides adequate levels of insurance to the resource-dependent provinces.

- Bev Dahlby

Automatic assistance would also create the need for different safeguards against "fiscal arson," he admits. But he says this could be accomplished by effectively setting "deductibles" and limiting coverage in such a way that would dissuade a province from "burning down its home to collect insurance."

He proposes three possible methods to do this.

Method A (the least generous of his proposals) would include a five-per-cent "deductible" and a 50-per-cent coverage rate for losses beyond that deductible.

"In other words," Dahlby writes, "only reductions in annual own-source revenues in excess of five per cent of the average own-source revenue over the previous five years would be eligible for a payment and only 50 per cent of that would be covered."

Method B would also include a five-per-cent deductible, but with a 75-per-cent coverage rate.

And Method C would have a lower deductible — just three per cent — along with a lower coverage rate of 66 per cent.
How would these changes affect Alberta?

Dahlby calculates these methods would have resulted in much more financial support for Alberta during its recent economic downturn.

Remember: the province received roughly $250 million under the current fiscal stabilization program in 2016.

Under Dahlby's proposals, Alberta would have received $2.1 billion under Method A, $3.1 billion under Method B or $3.2 billion under Method C.

The following year, it would have received even more: between $2.8 billion and $4.2 billion, depending on the calculation method.

Provinces like Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador, which also experience booms and busts related to the prices of oil and gas, would also receive more federal funds during downturns under this approach, Dahlby notes.

He suggests such a system would be a more effective "insurance policy" for provinces that rely heavily on volatile natural-resource markets and, as such, their lobbying efforts would be better directed at reforming the stabilization program than Canada's system of equalization payments.

"While it is true that the equalization program needs reform, that program was never meant to help a province such as Alberta, where GDP per capita and household incomes are above the national average, even in times when its economy shrinks," he writes.

"Alberta and the other resource-rich provinces should also pressure the federal government to reform the fiscal stabilization program in order to address their concerns about the lack of federal support in the wake of the downturn in the oil and gas sector."

Dahlby also sits on the expert panel appointed by Premier Jason Kenney that is tasked with offering advice to the Alberta government on how to balance its budget without raising taxes.

Where do you find time to dig this shit up ?

[tweety]

Was at a Press Gallery Dinner and was satire for the Press.

[chuckChuck]

Where do you find time to dig this shit up ?

Lots of information on equalization and some on the federal stabilization program on the internet. The article posted comes from the CBC but is based on work by

University of Calgary economist Bev Dahlby speaks to reporters about his proposal for reforming Canada's fiscal stabilization program. (School of Public Policy)

Dahlby also sits on the expert panel appointed by Premier Jason Kenney that is tasked with offering advice to the Alberta government on how to balance its budget without raising taxes.

[jazz]

The next paper or study chuck reports should be proof that he is an actual grain farmer on the Canadian prairies.

[chuckChuck]

Jazz why are you worrying about me? Why not focus on the issue? I am a farmer but it doesn't matter if I am not.

The article from the U of C economist Bev Dahlby is all about how to help Alberta by reforming the fiscal stabilization program that could help offset the declines in the price of oil and gas which are not in the control of any politician.

World benchmark prices for crude have fallen around 20% in the last 10 months or so. Do you think Trudeau has any influence over world crude prices?

Alberta has seen numerous booms and busts in the energy industry during the tenure of many federal Liberal and Conservative governments.

Also, Jason Kenney has Bev Dahlby offering advice to the Alberta government on how to balance its budget without raising taxes.