Alberta deserves more than half CPP assets if it exits program: report
Alberta deserves more than half CPP assets if it exits program: report
A report commissioned by the Alberta government says the province would be entitled to more than half the assets of the Canada Pension Plan - $334 billion - if it were to exit the national retirement savings program in 2027.
A report commissioned by the Alberta government says the province would be entitled to more than half the assets of the Canada Pension Plan - $334 billion - if it were to exit the national retirement savings program in 2027.
You're viewing a single thread.
She’s such a fucking ghoul.
I don’t believe for a second that a) this won’t be used to invest in oil and gas b) she won’t kick the management of this to her buddies’ private companies so she can benefit personally.
Remember, the conservatives always want to privatize public services and assets to benefit their friends. Reference: GREENBELT.
offtopic but the greenbelt is not a public asset. Its owned by private citizens mostly.
It's a public asset in the sense that its existence helps the rest of the province with things like groundwater, flood control, and air quality. It's also a potential source of food/agriculture for the province, though that part is just private enterprise and not guaranteed.
If we use that definition, as unusual as it is, then there is no way to privatize said asset. It will always be a public asset no matter what. That does not align with the original comment.
Not really. Land being removed from the Greenbelt would allow it to be developed and paved over, minimizing it's worth in all of those aspects.
There is no change in hands in what you describe. It would still be the same public asset, even if the public saw its transformation into something new.
Who owns it doesn't matter. What matters is that it isn't paved or developed. Pavement and digging basements reduce the land's ability to absorb water, which can cause flooding and reduce groundwater availability in surrounding areas.
Who owns it does matter when talking about privatization. Your definition of a public asset has no way to transfer ownership. It will forever and always be a public asset.
It's only a public asset as long as it's untouched (i.e. not paved or developed). The Greenbelt laws keep it that way.
Think of the Rocky Mountains as a public asset. I don't know who owns them, but that doesn't matter. They are a public asset as long as they exist, but if someone is allowed to flatten them, or carve the faces of dead prime ministers into them, they are no longer an asset to the public. Both of those are much more difficult to do than it is to build a house or a parking lot, so I'm not terribly worried about that scenario unfolding, but it's the same idea, just bigger.