this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
38 points (93.2% liked)

Canada

7193 readers
430 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Thrillhouse@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] MrFlagg@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

offtopic but the greenbelt is not a public asset. Its owned by private citizens mostly.

[–] prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Rocket@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Rocket@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Rocket@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

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.