HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #9741  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2018, 2:10 PM
FrankieFlowerpot's Avatar
FrankieFlowerpot FrankieFlowerpot is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,855
Good job Ontario voters

https://www.nationalobserver.com/201...says-provinces

Quote:
Premier Doug Ford’s reversal of Ontario’s climate action policies will balloon the deficit by $3 billion, says the province's financial watchdog.

By losing the revenue the province could take in from charging polluters for greenhouse gas emissions, Ontario’s “budget balance is expected to deteriorate by $841 million” in the first fiscal year of cancellation alone, due in part to the incurred costs of shutting down programs and compensating allowance holders.

“This deterioration in the province’s budget balance occurs because the loss of cap and trade revenues will exceed the savings from cancelling the related spending programs,” said Peter Weltman in a press release.

Additionally, the province will incur significant costs in the wind-down of the cap and trade system, which it began to unwind immediately after forming government. That decision put Ontario at odds with the federal government's commitment to ensure that all provinces set a minimum price on heat-trapping pollution to ensure that businesses and citizens are no longer allowed to pollute for free.

The estimate is based on information that was released Tuesday morning. At present, not all spending programs have been cancelled, according to the FAO’s report, which also notes that it “cannot disclose the remaining cap and trade related spending programs as the Province has deemed this information to be a Cabinet record.”

The auditor’s report, which was commissioned on the request of Opposition Leader Andrea Horwath, projected that Ontario families will pay $264 in 2019 – $4 more than the premier said they’d save when the legislation was first announced in July.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9742  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2018, 2:14 PM
niwell's Avatar
niwell niwell is offline
sick transit, gloria
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Brockton Village, Toronto
Posts: 8,072
Get ready for massive cuts...

From what I've seen they are definitely trying to find "efficiencies" but after years of the Libs trying to do the same thing there aren't exactly many to find. Short of cutting stuff outright, of course.
__________________
Check out my pics of Johannesburg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9743  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2018, 2:47 PM
Jaws Jaws is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 634
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreambrother808 View Post
With recent climate change reports, I suspect many British Columbians will be even more opposed to pipelines.
Yet they don't seem to have problems jumping on trans-Atlantic/Pacific flights. And celebrating YVRs PAX growth and destination growth.

cog·ni·tive dis·so·nance
nounPsychology
noun: cognitive dissonance
the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9744  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2018, 3:13 PM
CityTech CityTech is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Westboro, Ottawa
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by niwell View Post
Get ready for massive cuts...

From what I've seen they are definitely trying to find "efficiencies" but after years of the Libs trying to do the same thing there aren't exactly many to find. Short of cutting stuff outright, of course.
There might be a tiny bit of efficiencies that the senior bureaucracy or cabinet might have proposed in the Wynne era but didn't go through because a certain cabinet minister didn't like it / it was politically unpalatable, but would be for a new government with new ideology. Such ideas are probably still sitting in drawers somewhere. I would be shocked if there's much in that though. Maybe a billion or two at most.

I do hope he abandons his campaign pledge to cut personal taxes and corporate income taxes. For both of those things Ontario already has some of the lowest rates in Canada, so cuts really aren't necessary and would just add to the deficit.

The winddown of cap and trade is an administrative failure. Regardless of one's political stance on carbon taxes, the process by which the Ford government wound down the program was massively bungled; if they were determined to get rid of it, so be it, but it should have been done with a 1 year advance notice (so surplus permits would have time to be used, avoiding lawsuits) and allowing for an orderly wind down of program spending tied to the revenues. If cutting gas prices by 4 cents was really that urgent that it couldn't wait 1 year the province could have simply gone ahead and cut the excise tax by 4 cents temporarily for that 1 year.

The worst part, the Government of Ontario violated its own legislation. The legislation that brought in the cap and trade system stipulated a consultation process that had to be followed before any substantial changes to the program could occur. Ford ignored this simply went ahead and neutered it by ministers orders, so the government violated its own legislation, and is now being sued (likely successfully) by environmental groups over this. This could have been avoided by literally waiting a few more weeks to repeal the bill first, but no, the government couldn't do that. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so ridiculous.

Sex ed is another example. The teachers unions are fighting back and have advised any teachers who want to continue teaching Wynne's curriculum to do so and that the union will use "every means at its disposal" to defend such teachers from disciplinary actions. Ford's response was to set up a "snitch line" for parents to call the Ministry, which won't even work as the Ministry has no power to intervene in these scenarios (it would be school boards and individual principals that would have the authority to sanction teachers for curricular violations), and moreover completely ignores the existing complaints process the provincial education system already has for these things.

I'm not a conservative, but most of my friends are, and all of them are disgusted by the first few months of the Ford government. And here's the thing: they largely agree with what Ford is trying to achieve. Their disgust comes from how he's going about doing things, which is completely disastrous and incompetent. It shows a Premier who has no idea how government works.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9745  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2018, 3:23 PM
niwell's Avatar
niwell niwell is offline
sick transit, gloria
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Brockton Village, Toronto
Posts: 8,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityTech View Post
There might be a tiny bit of efficiencies that the senior bureaucracy or cabinet might have proposed in the Wynne era but didn't go through because a certain cabinet minister didn't like it / it was politically unpalatable, but would be for a new government with new ideology. Such ideas are probably still sitting in drawers somewhere. I would be shocked if there's much in that though. Maybe a billion or two at most.

Yeah there are certainly examples that could end up being revived. Although from what I've seen much of what didn't end up going through involved a revenue generating component as opposed to pure "efficiencies". Wynne's government was oddly against that and publicly the Ford government even moreso. It'll be interesting to see how they play that. Guessing they'll champion a few things that will be played up more than the drop in the bucket they represent.

Fully agreed with the rest of the post - it's been a bit of a shitshow even if one is fine with the end outcome.
__________________
Check out my pics of Johannesburg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9746  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2018, 4:40 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 5,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoffeeBreak View Post

By the way, that BNS study figured a 15.6 billion hit to the economy when the discount on Canadian oil was $24/barrel.
The discount is now around $50/barrel, so I imagine the hit to the economy is closer to $30 - $40 billion per year.

It's kind of difficult to swallow that kind of a hit when smug British Columbians think that they don't cost this country a cent!
Pardon my ignorance but I don/t understand how this discount works. Why does Alberta get so much less for it's oil than the standard international price?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9747  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2018, 4:44 PM
misher misher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
Pardon my ignorance but I don/t understand how this discount works. Why does Alberta get so much less for it's oil than the standard international price?
Many other reasons but the main one is because there stuck shipping it either to America or nowhere so they can lowball us. We also send them much more supply than they need so they're forced to incur costs shipping it somewhere.

America has us by the balls because it can't be shipped anywhere else as there's no pipeline to send it to.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9748  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2018, 4:46 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,219
And unless you have shipping capacity, stuck selling it to someone that does, or stuck storing it, and paying someone to do so.



It is almost like a bakery that has baked too much bread. Except it is 20 bakeries that each cost $10 billion to build, and there is only so much market for bread, so the bakeries discount their prices to sell the bread they make, because it is more expensive to shut down (you still have to pay the mortgage on your bakery, and maintain it so it can start up again) than to produce at a loss.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9749  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2018, 4:49 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 5,929
Well thanks for the answers and it helps a bit but why doesn't the US have to pay the going rate? If Shell Canada, for example, sends it's oil to the US to be exported then why doesn't Shell USA get the full price? It's all the same company so why would they discount it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9750  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2018, 4:54 PM
whatnext whatnext is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
And unless you have shipping capacity, stuck selling it to someone that does, or stuck storing it, and paying someone to do so.



It is almost like a bakery that has baked too much bread. Except it is 20 bakeries that each cost $10 billion to build, and there is only so much market for bread, so the bakeries discount their prices to sell the bread they make, because it is more expensive to shut down (you still have to pay the mortgage on your bakery, and maintain it so it can start up again) than to produce at a loss.
Even more reason to refine it yourself.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9751  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2018, 5:03 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
Even more reason to refine it yourself.
Still need to ship it out once it is refined, and product goes bad fast, and large consumers don't like to buy product, they like to buy inputs. And all of a sudden you've spent an extra $100 billion in an industry that is over supplied in capacity so rarely makes money.



I find it funny when people (not saying you) are against pipelines, and argue for the accelerated sunsetting of the industry (which will happen on its own with carbon pricing over time), but are for a big spend on refineries.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9752  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2018, 5:04 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
Well thanks for the answers and it helps a bit but why doesn't the US have to pay the going rate? If Shell Canada, for example, sends it's oil to the US to be exported then why doesn't Shell USA get the full price? It's all the same company so why would they discount it?
Once it gets to the other end of the line it is worth more, because it is past the bottleneck.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9753  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2018, 5:25 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,017
https://business.financialpost.com/c...revenues-daily

This article explains some of the complexities. Transport is so constrained that oil by truck may be economical... really good for the environment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9754  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2018, 5:37 PM
Me&You Me&You is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
Well thanks for the answers and it helps a bit but why doesn't the US have to pay the going rate? If Shell Canada, for example, sends it's oil to the US to be exported then why doesn't Shell USA get the full price? It's all the same company so why would they discount it?
That's not usually how it works, where "Shell USA" buys from "Shell Canada" and even if it did, they would technically be separate entities that are separately run to maximize their separate profits.

The hypothetical "Shell USA" would be better off financially to buy their oil from literally any other producer than to pay more than the going rate to "Shell Canada".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9755  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2018, 5:47 PM
DoubleK DoubleK is offline
#YYC
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 726
Quote:
Originally Posted by misher View Post
Many other reasons but the main one is because there stuck shipping it either to America or nowhere so they can lowball us. We also send them much more supply than they need so they're forced to incur costs shipping it somewhere.

America has us by the balls because it can't be shipped anywhere else as there's no pipeline to send it to.
This is exactly why I was hoping Northern Gateway or Energy East got built. It would have accessed a different market.

KXL is simply going to pump more oil into Cushing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9756  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2018, 10:41 PM
misher misher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleK View Post
This is exactly why I was hoping Northern Gateway or Energy East got built. It would have accessed a different market.

KXL is simply going to pump more oil into Cushing.
We both know the Pipeline is going to get built. We're just stalling for time now at great expense. I don't think anyone things that it "won't" get built. Only that its delayed.

As every single aborginal group whose territory the pipelines crosses has veto building anything long distance across Canada is a pain in the ass.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9757  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2018, 11:04 PM
Loco101's Avatar
Loco101 Loco101 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Timmins, Northern Ontario
Posts: 2,666
Most analysts said that the Ontario PCs would run the largest deficits of the three parties because most of their plans involve cutting sources of revenue.

I agree that it will be difficult for the Doug Ford government to make any cuts other than smaller programs such as DriveClean which were on their way out anyway. There aren't a lot of options for cutting unless they really want to have negative impacts on health care and education.

As for Ontario's economy, they like to say "Ontario's open for business" but that line is so unoriginal. They are doing nothing to address serious shortages of workers available for many places of employment and then say the higher minimum wage is bad for business. Ford is not fit for being Premier in my opinion and the fact his party has no clear platform will eventually catch up with them. There will likely be some shocks and surprises over the next few years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9758  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2018, 11:14 PM
WoodlandCritter WoodlandCritter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loco101 View Post
the fact his party has no clear platform will eventually catch up with them. There will likely be some shocks and surprises over the next few years.
Similar to Trudeau?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9759  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2018, 11:34 PM
Loco101's Avatar
Loco101 Loco101 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Timmins, Northern Ontario
Posts: 2,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by WoodlandCritter View Post
Similar to Trudeau?
The Trudeau Liberals released a platform document during the last federal election campaign. The Doug Ford PCs had no such document in the recent provincial campaign. Ford only made some verbal promises and slogans.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9760  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2018, 11:56 PM
WoodlandCritter WoodlandCritter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loco101 View Post
The Trudeau Liberals released a platform document during the last federal election campaign. The Doug Ford PCs had no such document in the recent provincial campaign. Ford only made some verbal promises and slogans.
The budget will balance itself
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:51 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.