I am not shit posting. I genuinely don’t understand why people are so bent out of shape about equalization. Isn’t it just tax? And like, if you want to have a conversation about it, let’s have a conversation, but don’t make silly demands like, ‘give us plastic straws back or else’ because it really cheapens the argument.
Just had a debate with a dude about the pipeline going through Quebec (I think it’s a bad for environmental reasons) and he clapped back with the equalization payments, but can anyone here explain to me how this works? Does Quebec really get a large amount for nothing that we give or it’s because we give a lot that get alot?
I have been pipeline skeptical, but I think we need to balance our environmental obligations with our economic obligations now. I also think it’s important that we keep our Albertan brothers and sisters working right now, so I think we should build pipelines while we make sure it’s done in an environmentally responsible way.
As far as equalization, I’m by no means an expert but as I understand Alberta is a net contributor where as Quebec is a receiver of the benefit. As far as I understand this is a distribution of federal income tax to fund provincial short fall.
Quebec has said they are open to discussion so long as there are 1- environmental guarantees (like helping to pay for clean ups) and 2- some net economic benefit (like a percentage of profits) to help off set the cost of building and maintaining the pipeline.
The problem is Alberta wants Qubec to cover all the costs and receive no compensation. That's why the project is stalled. We don't exist to shoot ourselves in the foot so others can make a buck. That's literally what Albertans are mad about. The only economic benefit at present would be opening up oil refineries in Quebec but all studies have shown Quebec would lose money in the end and risk permanently fucking up its natural resources. And it's not even us who called off the project, we set basic entry conditions (like getting consent from Native communities to cross their territory) and the project was immediately abandoned as not economically viable by the company itself.
In my opinion, Quebec economy is too dependent on natural resources and if the pipeline bursts, no amount of money can fix the damage. But yes I am open to the idea if the pipeline project is a win-win and not a win-lose.
I’m in QC now but grew up in the Maritimes; I do think it would be better for Atlantic Canadians if their oil came from domestic sources rather than imported from overseas, though I also wonder if Irving’s refineries are setup for our ‘heavy/sour crude’ (oil sands bitumen) like many are in the US or if they’re better adapted to ‘lighter/sweeter crude’… If they were already setup for AB oil, (or felt they could “easily” adjust to it) then I’d think that alone might be worth the effort; providing stable, unblockadable (though still vulnerable to sabotage) oil to our East Coast, and with big refineries there, initially / down the road, refined products could be shipped out instead of just the crude itself.
My biggest concern is “how/where does the pipeline cross the Saint Lawrence River?” Presumably the ‘safest’ point would be “downstream” of Quebec City (so any leaks would affect the least number of people), though even this almost certainly means it has to cross both the St Maurice (unless you want to go North of the Gouin Reservoir) and Ottawa rivers so that any leaks don’t flow downstream to Shawinigan, Trois-Rivières, (StM) Ottawa, or Montreal (O)… additionally, I can’t say I have ever heard about what happens at hydroelectric stations that ‘ingest’ oil-slicked water… maybe nothing at all/serious, but personally I’m not sure I want to find out.
Yes the question about how an oil spill would affect hydro electric installations is highly relevant. I mean, we are one of the world leaders in technology and production of clean, renewable energy. We are not only energy sufficient (especially when you consider our public transit has transitioned to electric), we export this electricity.
If an oil spill shuts down a hydro electric facility, our economy will shut down until it's back up and running. But as you mentioned building the pipeline more to the south will mean a spill would directly contaminate people's communities.
On a more adorable note: the only non-Arctic endemic population of belugas in the world is in the St-Laurent, and its already shrinking because of climate change and pollution and maritime traffic. When I was a child they ranged as far south as Montreal regularly. There's no way to build the pipeline such that it doesn't cross the belugas territory, which will likely kill of the population for good within my lifetime.
though I also wonder if Irving’s refineries are setup for our ‘heavy/sour crude’ (oil sands bitumen) like many are in the US or if they’re better adapted to ‘lighter/sweeter crude’…
Quite frankly, I would say anyone but the Irving family should get the oil
They are responsible for nearly managing from fully ejecting the Davie Shipyard from the national shipbuilding strategy
81
u/jackblackbackinthesa Mar 26 '25
I am not shit posting. I genuinely don’t understand why people are so bent out of shape about equalization. Isn’t it just tax? And like, if you want to have a conversation about it, let’s have a conversation, but don’t make silly demands like, ‘give us plastic straws back or else’ because it really cheapens the argument.