9. A labour code that does not give absurd privileges to trade unions — a stark contrast to what ndp and PQ governments have done in BC, Manitoba, and Quebec. Alberta does not tolerate union violence, keep out workers from other provinces, or force employees to accept bargaining agents without a democratic vote.
10. A tough-minded attitude toward welfare. Social assistance is the least “generous” in Canada. Not surprisingly, welfare dependency is lower here than anywhere else. The best welfare program is still a job. And we make sure that entry-level jobs remain available by keeping legislated minimum wage rates no higher than what the market would set in any event.
Tom Flanagan
Professor of Political Science,
University of Calgary
Calgary, Alberta
Allan Gregg notes that over 60 percent of Albertans have a university or college education. The actual percentage, for the population over fifteen years of age, was 32.5 percent according to the 2001 Census — respectable enough by national standards but lower than in Ontario and British Columbia. Gregg also notes that service industries account for about 60 percent of the provincial economy, to emphasize Alberta’s economic diversity. In fact, that puts the province behind the national average of 68.3 percent of gdp.
Gregg describes the National Energy Program as a “power and money grab” by Ottawa that diverted exploration activities to other areas of the country. A more careful reading of history shows that the nep had two main objectives. The first was to set a made-in-Canada, below-market price for domestically produced oil, which was not favourably received in Alberta for obvious reasons. The second was to develop new sources of supply through incentives to explore in expensive and difficult areas such as the Atlantic coast. The energy sector has shown that it is able to mount major new exploration projects (the oil sands, for example) without abandoning other viable activities.
High oil prices in the late 1970s, one of the triggers of the nep, were caused by collusion within the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries cartel. A recession in the early 1980s, combined with consumer resistance to high energy prices, led to a decline in the demand for oil, falling prices, and a retrenchment within the North American oil sector. This retrenchment was damaging to Alberta, just as it was damaging to Texas and other jurisdictions with economies driven by oil. The only difference was that Albertans blamed it on the nep. This misinterpretation has endured in Alberta, especially among economic conservatives, who use it as an example of government interference stifling industry.
Gregg also seems to endorse the idea that equalization funding is contributed by richer provinces (notwithstanding one reference to it as a federal program). In fact, equalization is paid out of federal tax revenues, and everyone who pays federal income tax contributes to the pool. The disparity, in terms of provincial finances, lies in the way the money is distributed. Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty’s argument for additional transfers to provinces based on percapita grants rather than equalization is rational, at least in terms of economic self-interest, since this would benefit rich provinces as well as poorer ones. Alberta premier Ralph Klein’s anger over the possible inclusion of resource revenues in the equalization formula is not rational, since this would make no difference to Alberta. His posture is attractive as political demagoguery, however, and presumably it is intended to build political support by raising fears about the “enemy at the border.”
Comments