Alberta
“We’re doing our best to be prepared for anything”
Little more than a month ago, members of the Alberta Colleges Athletic Conference – and the fans and parents who care about this under-valued level of college sport — were seriously focused on next week – specifically a Monday morning meeting in Medicine Hat.
For many years, interest and intensity have grown at this time of year. The month of May marks the formal start of preparation for the coming season, primarily soccer and golf and cross-country. A lot of details are needed to have everything ready when the first flag flies.
This year is bound to be different. Possible change, everywhere, is set for debate during the five-day annual general meeting.
Mark Kosak, the ACAC’s chief executive officer, made clear his belief that the major issues, time and money, must be faced head-on. Several outlines will be considered in a virtual meeting – “lots of protocols and requirements in place.” All participants have some insight to his combination of caution and aggression.
“So many complexities, so many variables,” Kosak said. “We’re doing our best to be prepared for anything.” He specified the pressure of dealing with COVID-19, of course, but also dealt with an ongoing issue in minor and amateur sports at all levels: “Everybody has financial troubles” that existed long before the pandemic arrived.
Front and centre is the need for the Augustana Vikings to complete the elimination of men’s soccer (the women’s program will survive) and to continue the community- and alumni-led bid to keep men’s hockey alive despite intense financial pressures. An interesting conundrum presented by Kosak: the backlash faced by Keyano College officials when they eliminated their Huskies hockey team a few years back and resulted in an about-face. “We have a proposal from Keyano to enter both men’s and women’s hockey; now, Keyano has agreed to wait until next year for a decision.”
“Honestly, there’s no real chance to tell what’s going to happen,” Jason Richey, head of the NAIT Ooks athlete program, said in a brief recent discussion. “As far as I can tell, the only way to avoid cutting some of our early sports is if, somehow, the distancing regulations are changed in time, but it’s too early to count on that, I think.”
Three options – all tied to the paced of reopening the economy — will be discussed in Medicine Hat. One Saskatchewan team, the Briercrest Clippers, may face regulations different from the bulk of ACAC members.
Kosak’s proposals:
* Start on schedule, Sept. 15 or thereabouts, with first-term sports such as soccer, cross-country and golf;
* Prepare for a potential Oct. 1 start, requiring less play in those three sports but maintaining full activity in the others.
* Eliminate the early events if necessary and prepare to begin remaining sports after Christmas. keeping them at the busiest possible level: futsal indoors rather than the outdoor game; maybe one full golf tournament in the fall; possibly a series of indoor track meets.
Kosak and others have been somewhat successful, in building fan interest in the ACAC, whose sports have been attended for years by mostly small crowds. Some growth in regional and national interest has shown in college-level championships, although crowds still remain far below the level of attendance for Canada’s national university playoffs.
From the Fraser Institute
By Spencer Gudewill and Tegan Hill
Last November, Premier Danielle Smith announced that her government will give up to $1.8 billion in subsidies to Dow Chemicals, which plans to expand a petrochemical project northeast of Edmonton. In other words, $1.8 billion in corporate welfare.
And this is just one example of corporate welfare paid for by Albertans.
According to a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, from 2007 to 2021, the latest year of available data, the Alberta government spent $31.0 billion (inflation-adjusted) on subsidies (a.k.a. corporate welfare) to select firms and businesses, purportedly to help Albertans. And this number excludes other forms of government handouts such as loan guarantees, direct investment and regulatory or tax privileges for particular firms and industries. So the total cost of corporate welfare in Alberta is likely much higher.
Why should Albertans care?
First off, there’s little evidence that corporate welfare generates widespread economic growth or jobs. In fact, evidence suggests the contrary—that subsidies result in a net loss to the economy by shifting resources to less productive sectors or locations (what economists call the “substitution effect”) and/or by keeping businesses alive that are otherwise economically unviable (i.e. “zombie companies”). This misallocation of resources leads to a less efficient, less productive and less prosperous Alberta.
And there are other costs to corporate welfare.
For example, between 2007 and 2019 (the latest year of pre-COVID data), every year on average the Alberta government spent 35 cents (out of every dollar of business income tax revenue it collected) on corporate welfare. Given that workers bear the burden of more than half of any business income tax indirectly through lower wages, if the government reduced business income taxes rather than spend money on corporate welfare, workers could benefit.
Moreover, Premier Smith failed in last month’s provincial budget to provide promised personal income tax relief and create a lower tax bracket for incomes below $60,000 to provide $760 in annual savings for Albertans (on average). But in 2019, after adjusting for inflation, the Alberta government spent $2.4 billion on corporate welfare—equivalent to $1,034 per tax filer. Clearly, instead of subsidizing select businesses, the Smith government could have kept its promise to lower personal income taxes.
Finally, there’s the Heritage Fund, which the Alberta government created almost 50 years ago to save a share of the province’s resource wealth for the future.
In her 2024 budget, Premier Smith earmarked $2.0 billion for the Heritage Fund this fiscal year—almost the exact amount spent on corporate welfare each year (on average) between 2007 and 2019. Put another way, the Alberta government could save twice as much in the Heritage Fund in 2024/25 if it ended corporate welfare, which would help Premier Smith keep her promise to build up the Heritage Fund to between $250 billion and $400 billion by 2050.
By eliminating corporate welfare, the Smith government can create fiscal room to reduce personal and business income taxes, or save more in the Heritage Fund. Any of these options will benefit Albertans far more than wasteful billion-dollar subsidies to favoured firms.
Authors:
Alberta
Official statement from Premier Danielle Smith and Energy Minister Brian Jean on the start-up of the Trans Mountain Pipeline
-
Education14 hours agoSupport a young reader through the Tim Hortons Smile Cookie campaign
-
Automotive1 day agoVehicle monitoring software could soon use ‘kill switch’ under the guise of ‘safety’
-
Business2 days agoWhen politicians gamble, taxpayers lose
-
Addictions1 day agoCity of Toronto asks Trudeau gov’t to decriminalize hard drugs despite policy’s failure in BC
-
Opinion1 day agoClimate Murder? Media Picks Up Novel Legal Theory Suggesting Big Oil Is Homicidal
-
Environment2 days agoClimate Alarmists Want To Fight The Sun. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day agoIt Gets Late Early These Days: Time To Bounce Biden & Trudeau?
-
Energy15 hours agoNet Zero’s days are numbered? Why Europeans are souring on the climate agenda