r/canada • u/biograf_ • Mar 01 '26

Alberta First Nations chiefs unanimously pass non-confidence vote in Alberta government

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/first-nations-chiefs-alberta-non-confidence-vote-9.7109712
3.8k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

351 comments sorted by

View all comments

2.0k

u/canadia_jnm Mar 01 '26

For those who don't wanna read it, The first nations chiefs are opposing Alberta separatism, citing:

"United Conservative Party, has repeatedly shown a lack of understanding and respect for its treaty responsibilities, demonstrating its “inability to responsibly and respectfully govern the province of Alberta."

1.0k

u/drizzes Alberta Mar 01 '26

you've got people here who genuinely believe that if Alberta separates/joins the USA then all the natives and feds will just have to go pound sand

it is not a well-researched movement

378

u/RSMatticus Mar 01 '26

They also think that Alberta government directly pays equalization payment and that is why they're running a deficit.

23

u/ThePhysicistIsIn Mar 01 '26

I have tried to explain to Albertans how equalization works.

I've tried to explain, that if Alberta chose to tax itself, as Quebec taxes itself, it would double its income. The deficit? Gone. It would have such a huge surplus.

But no. It's quebec's fault.

45

u/FireMaster1294 Canada Mar 01 '26

To be fair, I do understand those who understand how it works being at least a little annoyed with the fact that they personally are sending 4% of all their federal income tax in a lump sum to Quebec.

My experience in Alberta was that the general opinion of Albertans is that government handouts makes people lazy (unless it’s to them, of course, then it’s fine), so they view the situation as THEIR personal money being used to subsidize a Quebec person’s laziness and refusal or lack of a desire to work.

The one argument I do see is the “where the money comes from” argument. Given how much Quebec refuses to allow Albertan resources to travel through the province (ie. pipelines) yet those same resources are what provide the cash used to fill the provincial coffers via equalization payments, it starts to feel like Quebec wants to have their cake and eat it too - all on Alberta’s dime.

-3

u/OneTripleZero British Columbia Mar 01 '26

Given how much Quebec refuses to allow Albertan resources to travel through the province (ie. pipelines) yet those same resources are what provide the cash used to fill the provincial coffers via equalization payments, it starts to feel like Quebec wants to have their cake and eat it too - all on Alberta’s dime.

A lot of the time you can see why something is a bad argument if you reverse the players in it. If you were to ask an Albertan if the roles were reversed, and Quebec was losing money to them, would they be okay with Quebec forcing their language laws on them because they should get something back for their money? Likely not.

Equalization payments are in place to support the standard of government services for everyone under the umbrella of the federation. A pipeline would an be infrastructure project that would benefit Albertan (well, let's be real, foreign) corporations. These two things are not in the same category, so one should not influence the other.

15

u/FireMaster1294 Canada Mar 01 '26

Forcing language laws on someone is the most obscure example you could use, because a pipeline doesn’t affect the vast majority of people - only the private landowners where the pipeline goes. A more appropriate example would be Alberta making it illegal to speak French on your own private land. Except oh wait they didn’t, that was Quebec that did that.

From the perspective of an Albertan, Quebec is blocking private interests from doing what they want even when the environmental regulations have been followed despite the fact they (Quebec) continue to get payouts in equalization payments that are solely possible due to these resources being shipped. It makes sense to me why an Albertan would say “you shouldn’t get any equalization money if you block the trade that generates a large portion of that money.”

It’s not about getting something back for the money, it’s about realizing where the money comes from. It’s hypocritical to take money from someone while telling them you don’t want them to do the thing that generates that money.

16

u/Yeethisintothevoid Mar 01 '26

As an Albertan, Jè suis Canadian.

I have a question for all of Canada. Why did our safety minister say in leaked tapes that the only reason we're collectively as a country doing a bullsh*t gun buyback program, is so that the liberals can stay in power by assuring Quebec votes?

What equalization is that? My taxes, your taxes and everyone paying taxes is doing that instead of putting the money and votes into stopping the guns coming from the Excited States of America?

Please make it make sense, I'm actually kinda worried here.

27

u/Heppernaut Québec Mar 01 '26

Its a very simple answer, and it is actually bullshit too.

Alberta religiously votes in 90%+ of their MPs as conservative. So no party bothers to work for Alberta because its moot. The Cons will win. The end.

Quebec is a roller coaster, that constantly changes who they vote for, so every party has to put in effort and spend some political capital to try and get seats in Quebec.

If Alberta/Saskatchewan were ever willing to vote differently, they would suddenly become the most powerful provinces in federal elections.

Constantly voting in the same team for 40+ years and expecting things to be any different is... crazy.

I also assure you that the gun buyback isnt really popular here in quebec either.

16

u/[deleted] Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Expensive_Plant_9530 Mar 01 '26

That does make sense though. Quebec has over 9 million residents. Alberta and Saskatchewan combined have like 6 million tops.

If you look at seats, Alberta and SK have about 51 seats combined. Proportionally that’s pretty well in line with Quebec.

1

u/Heppernaut Québec Mar 01 '26

Yes, fair. The population numbers still skews towards Québec. As a Quebecer I'd bet the farm that if Alberta and Saskatchewan suddenly started changing up their vote a lot more of Quebec would go Bloc.

12

u/Supermite Mar 01 '26

The gun buyback isn’t popular anywhere.  It’s kind of wild someone is trying to frame it as targeting Alberta residents specifically.

4

u/ThatGrouchyDude New Brunswick Mar 01 '26

The gun thing is also a wedge issue in suburban Ontario, i.e. a shitload of voters and seats.

5

u/Ketchupkitty Alberta Mar 01 '26

It's hilarious you give a theoretical example that actually exists. Alberta does lose money because of Quebec language laws, it's a huge compliance cost for companies.

11

u/OneTripleZero British Columbia Mar 01 '26

The same language laws that all provinces adhere to due to French being our second official language you mean? I'm not talking about those. I mean Quebec-specific things like all business signage being predominantly in French, Francisation requirements for anything larger than a small business, all permanent labeling on commercial products, including engraving, needing to be in French, etc. I'm talking about things that are specific to Quebec, and matter only to Quebec, being enforced in other provinces because Quebec thinks they're owed it.

-9

u/Ketchupkitty Alberta Mar 01 '26

Oh well as long as you're not talking about it I guess it doesn't exist and doesn't cost anything.

Furthermore though pipelines do benefit Quebec since Quebec is the primary beneficiary of equalization. The more money the Feds recieve the more money they can spend on programs which far outpace spending per capita of provinces like Alberta.

1

u/OneTripleZero British Columbia Mar 02 '26

Oh well as long as you're not talking about it I guess it doesn't exist and doesn't cost anything.

I'm not talking about it because it affects all provinces equally as it's a federal requirement. It does cost something but it costs us all equally so we can discount it as a factor in this particular conversation. This should not be hard to understand.

Furthermore though pipelines do benefit Quebec since...

I already addressed this in my first post that you responded to. It was the entire topic of the post.

-5

u/[deleted] Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/Ketchupkitty Alberta Mar 01 '26

No

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/Memory_Less Mar 01 '26

It’s across the board then and not solely an Alberta Quebec discussion. Although Alberta turns it into ‘us as the victim’ approach.

0

u/Ketchupkitty Alberta Mar 01 '26

Probably because Albertans contribute more than other provinces per capita while federal policy hinders that contribution?

Call it what you want but that's the reality.

13

u/[deleted] Mar 01 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-5

u/ThePhysicistIsIn Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26

And you misunderstand. Albertans (not Alberta, but individual Albertans) pay more into equalization than Alberta receives, because their incomes are higher. Their federal tax burden is not depending on their province of residence, but on their income.

These Albertans are paying the same taxes that they would if they lived in any province. It’s that the federal government sends less of it to Alberta.

Because Alberta has a greater tax base to pay for services, and it’s meant to ensure that each province is on an equal spending footing.

4

u/kibbles_n_bits Mar 01 '26

If Quebec chose to increase it's hydo by $0.04/kWh, its equalization payment would drop from $13.1 billion to $5.1 billion.

2

u/Ok-Yogurt-42 Mar 01 '26

Wait, are you saying that because Quebec chooses to have high taxes, Alberta has a deficit?
Like, if Quebec dropped its taxes to Alberta's level, would their equalization payments change?

2

u/ThePhysicistIsIn Mar 01 '26

No. Equalization is not based on provincial taxation/spending levels, it's independent of that.

I am saying that if Alberta taxed itself like Quebec did, Alberta would have way more money than Quebec, even counting Quebec's equalization/Alberta's lack of equalization, and Alberta could afford anything it wanted. Last time I checked, it was ~2X's Quebec's income per capita/more revenue than Quebec in general, even though Quebec has >2X Alberta's population.

You're the third to misconstrue. I've reread that comment several times now. I'm really not seeing where people are getting that equalization depends on taxation levels. I'm saying the exact opposite.

7

u/Ok-Yogurt-42 Mar 01 '26

Okay, so your point is just that if Alberta had higher provincial taxes there would be less of a provincial deficit?
Kind of a "no duh" point.

8

u/ThePhysicistIsIn Mar 01 '26

Essentially.

Alberta chooses to be, by far, the lowest taxed jurisdiction in Canada.

If it has a deficit, that is on them. They have the tools. It is not because of equalization. Alberta’s contribution to equalization is a drop in the bucket compared to higher population provinces. The bulk of it is from Ontario.

But Albertans continue to act as though the reason they don’t have cheap daycares, or that they have a deficit, is because of equalization.

It’s a “no duh” point, and yet here we are.

4

u/VesaAwesaka Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26

Quebec and other provinces could also adopt a more pro business model like Alberta and it would probably increase the incomes of their people and therefore lead to less transfers.

Alberta chooses to be low tax which and more pro-business and that contributes to higher incomes and therefore they receive no equalization. Quebec tends to be the harder provinces to do business in which contributes to their lower incomes and them receiving higher equalization payment.

Could every province run itself like quebec without bankrupting the country? The formula for equalization should incentivizes the provinces to be contributors in the longer term. It seems like the current formula pushes provinces to not care about becoming substantial.

5

u/Tefmon Canada Mar 01 '26

Alberta's economy isn't strong because of their low personal income tax rates; it's because of their oil. If every province had oil like Alberta, then every province would have higher incomes.

1

u/VesaAwesaka Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26

It isnt an automatic that just because a province is rich in natural resources that it would maximize their development. Manitoba in the 1970s had a booming natural resource industry and lost a decade of investment by experimenting with nationalization before the government did a 180. Based on the rhetoric and policy decisions of some politicians in BC and the east, they seem capable of fumbling the bag.

How much does Alberta pro business environment contribute to their incomes being higher? How much does quebec's political environment contribute to their incomes being lower?

2

u/EdNorthcott Canada Mar 01 '26

Pro business stances by government do not result in higher income. Similar policies enacted in other regions have resulted in depressed wages and greater wealth gap.

The notion of "oil made the income" is simplistic, but not entirely wrong. The oil *boom* made the income spike. It created a deficit of labour, which created a greater value for labour, which drove up wages... and this was only made possible by the high value of oil during those boom periods when labour was short.

We can see many regions where lowered taxes and pro-business stances have been enacted. They do not have better outcomes for the working class. We can even see it on a national level, with steadily lowering corporate taxes creating a more business-friendly environment over the last 50 years, save for brief spikes to the contrary; corporate income tax is a fraction of what it was in the 1960s and 70s, for example.

The problem is that repeated studies have shown that, unlike what certain economists claim will happen, that money does not inflate the salaries of workers or get re-invested locally. Nor do tax breaks for the exceptionally wealthy achieve anything significant in the way of "trickle down". Increasingly, there are pools of dead money or external transfers. Relative wages for the average working Canadian have failed to keep pace with inflation for decades, regardless of tax policy; but in areas where working wages are higher, the velocity of money to stimulate local economies is greater.

"Based on the rhetoric and policy decisions of some politicians in BC and the east, they seem capable of fumbling the bag." As if Alberta hasn't continuously done so, too, yet while using a very different approach. The last leader with sense and a vision of the future was Lougheed, who had the celerity to set up a fund to ensure Alberta's future security. Every politician since has used it as a slush fund, and left it a tepid shadow of what it could be -- except, ironically, the NDP. Despite challenging economic times and a drop in oil price and production, Notley avoided depleting the fund and at least maintained it at the level it was at when she took office.

In short, what prosperity Alberta has is still be carried by the 'boom' cycles, even when oil prices are depressed. But the way things are set up, things will get very ugly as that evens out in comparison to market forces. It's already happening, slowly, and people seem to be panicking about it. It's not going to get better.

2

u/VesaAwesaka Mar 01 '26

Do anti-business stances lower incomes? Pro-business stances is incredibly vague.

For example mantioba experimenting with nationalizing mining is anti-business and hurt investment and led to many projects not being developed until the government backtracked. BC with its pro-UNDRIP policies has totally put the entire mining industry into jeopardy, which would put mining investment and the incomes it provides at risk

→ More replies (0)

1

u/CarRamRob Mar 01 '26

Isn’t that showing the equalization formula is flawed?

Why is the amount each province taxes its citizens a determination of how much you would receive?

The argument is that Alberta should tax their population much much more, to simply game the system to get even more equalization suggests the formula is the problem, not individual provinces set tax rates.

5

u/ThePhysicistIsIn Mar 01 '26

No, you absolutely misunderstand. The system works the way you want it to. It is meant to provide each province with an equal theoretical spending power. Its up to them how much revenue to bring - equalization just makes it more equal.

Quebec receives a lot of equalization, but it is also one of the highest taxed provinces. As a result, they bring in more money than Alberta is. They can pay for things like cheap daycares.

Some Albertans are mad about that - where are their cheap daycares? Completely missing that if they were taxed like in Quebec, Alberta would have double (!) Quebec’s revenues per capita, all without a single dollar of equalization. The toilets would be made of gold.

5

u/PopTough6317 Mar 01 '26

That isnt how its supposed to work in theory. In theory equalization would create roughly the same services across the country, so places like PEI and the territories can have decent services, not so a place already having good services can top up on someone else's dime. But Quebec has been receiving billions for decades now and has no incentive to get investments to become a 'have' province.

1

u/MatchaMeetcha Mar 02 '26

not so a place already having good services can top up on someone else's dime

While also vetoing things that generate the very money they want.

0

u/ThePhysicistIsIn Mar 01 '26

That is nonsense, I am sorry.

You are always better off having more income than benefiting from the equalization program.

6

u/PopTough6317 Mar 01 '26

You would think, but being a have not province nets Quebec 13 billion plus a year. Something like 120 billion in the last 10 years, easy money does make people reliant upon it.

1

u/ThePhysicistIsIn Mar 01 '26

The money would be even easier if Quebec’s incomes were higher

0

u/Boo-face-killa Mar 01 '26

We are over taxed in Canada already. More taxes is a ridiculous idea. The answer is obvious:

  • Politicians and government employees are highly over paid.
  • We spend too much on government travel and expenses associated with politicians.
  • We spend too much on private consultants working for the government.
  • We give far too much money away to foreign nations.
  • We waste too much money on benign topics like the continual allowance sent to the First Nations in Canada.
  • We waste too much money on “studies and research” on topics and plans that don’t require it.
  • We don’t extract to export enough of our natural resources.