Alberta is rich with oil, but what has it got to show for it?

[KrazyHorse]

Plus only half of Quebec would leave...

Native bands elected to stay in case of a yes vote in 1995, and Montreal was ~60% in favour of breaking off and forming a new province...

[Asher]

Must I procede with my nuclear war plan, then?

[notyoueither]

Busy making friends in other parts I see Asher.

KH. Yes, the post vote situation would be very volatile. I for one am very glad the last go was parried and that interest in the topic seems to be in decline.

I am also against Alberta separating, BTW. Personally, I would be very sad if the circumstances ever came about that made the notion probable.

[KrazyHorse]

I hope so too. Despite all the crap that's been flying around for the past couple of days, I'm happy to call Albertans Canadian...

[KrazyHorse]

Oh, and Asher: you want to know how dumbasses can affect a vote? ~25% of voters didn't know that a yes vote would authorize the formation of a new, sovereign state.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
His economics degree has taken him places, I see.

As a matter of fact, my economics degree has taken me many places. I use my knowledge of economics on routine basis and it makes me a better reporter than many of the other journalists covering business and economics.

I can see stories that others would overlook. I know the right questions to challenge the mythology of the day. Look at this thread. The mythology is that the BC NDP government were spent money left, right and centre, while the Albertan government were not spendthrifts. The 2001-02 budget figures suggest that this may not be the case.

Of course the downside to having a university education is that you tend to think that most people have the intelligence required to recognize that a glib comment should not be taken seriously and that people often make jibes that they don't really mean. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
He doesn't even live here, which is probably why he's so clueless about Alberta to begin with.

And what's your excuse about being clueless about the Canadian political system?

By the way, I have lived in Alberta, and BC, Ontario and Manitoba. It's amazing what you learn when you live in different parts of the country. You'll find that your assumptions and beliefs are not necessarily true. Or at least you will if you keep an open mind.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
And what's your excuse about being clueless about the Canadian political system?

Well, considering that you've yet to actually show any shred of evidence to support your claims that go against everything else on the internet, I'm willing to bet that it is not I who is clueless about the Canadian political system. You seem to think that since a Canadian can live 6 months in Alberta, then affect Alberta's vote, technically this government serves all Canadians. I tend to think in a more logical way.

By the way, I have lived in Alberta, and BC, Ontario and Manitoba. It's amazing what you learn when you live in different parts of the country. You'll find that your assumptions and beliefs are not necessarily true. Or at least you will if you keep an open mind.

Where did you live in Alberta, specifically, and when?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher

Well, considering that you've yet to actually show any shred of evidence to support your claims that go against everything else on the internet, I'm willing to bet that it is not I who is clueless about the Canadian political system. You seem to think that since a Canadian can live 6 months in Alberta, then affect Alberta's vote, technically this government serves all Canadians. I tend to think in a more logical way.

Where did you live in Alberta, specifically, and when?

You still don't get it, do you. The Canadian people decide to create a two-level government system to serve their needs. It was the Canadian people who created the Albertan government. Alberta is not independent from the rest of Canada. To paraphrase the Yanks, we the people created our political system.

So Canadians created the provincial and federal government to act on their behalf. The Canadian people have the right to change the powers granted to the federal and provincial governments.

I lived in Lake Louise and Banff during the early 1980s (ski bum. )

I saw what the Albertan economy was like when you were still in diapers. As a journalist, I also keep up-to-date on the economies in different parts of Canada, although less so since moving to HK in 97.

From everything you have written, I think you have a rather narrow viewpoint of the Albertan economy. You're a rich kid in Calgary, the son of an oil executive. Have you ever lived in a small northern town (I spent 18 months in The Pas, Manitoba and that was an eye opener)? Have you ever lived outside of Calgary? Do you know what it is like to live from pay cheque to pay cheque?

[Asher]

You still don't get it, do you.

I get it, I don't get your logic though.

Regardless of who is "above" the provincial governments in the hierarchy of our beurocracy, the Alberta Government is elected by Albertans (people who have lived here six months or more and are Canadian citizens) to deal with provincial matters and provincial assets. What the other people in Canada think about it means absolutely nothing. Alberta's provincial government is there for the province of Alberta. Why is that so hard for YOU to understand?

You seem to think Canada is communist or something. The federal government gives provinces jurisdiction on certain things because it realized that different regions sometimes want different things. Thus they regionalized some issues, one of them are mineral resources. The voters of Alberta have complete control over what is done with those resources. NOT "all" of Canada.

Your semantics don't take you very far. I hate them.

I saw what the Albertan economy was like when you were still in diapers. As a journalist, I also keep up-to-date on the economies in different parts of Canada, although less so since moving to HK in 97.

I'm going to be paying for your liquid-food in a couple more years, so I'd learn to show some respect to the youngun's.

I really, really hate it when people always bring age (and it's ALWAYS the diapers comment too). Just because you're old doesn't mean you're wiser. In fact, you're getting so old your brain is on a downward slope in functionality.

I think you have a rather narrow viewpoint of the Albertan economy.

Sure as hell beats yours, seeing as you have no clue about the Albertan economy, no?

Have you ever lived in a small northern town (I spent 18 months in The Pas, Manitoba and that was an eye opener)? Have you ever lived outside of Calgary? Do you know what it is like to live from pay cheque to pay cheque?

Oh christ, would you give it a rest?
Nobody cares about where you've lived or who you've ****ed or what you ate for breakfast.

We're talking about Canadian politics, and your ideas are outrageous and go against everything I've ever learned in school, anything on websites I can find. And you still insist you're correct without providing proof.

And FYI, I have lived outside of Calgary. Although it was in a San Francisco suburb that was all white-collar since the oil company's worldwide HQ was there as well as Pac-Bell's HQ, in a town of 35,000.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
You seem to think Canada is communist or something. The federal government gives provinces jurisdiction on certain things because it realized that different regions sometimes want different things.

Ah, the old "If you disagree with me, you're commie" argument.

The federal government did not give provinces jurisdiction. Jurisdiction was determined, initially, by the governments of the future provinces. After confederation, any decision to change jurisdictional power was determined by the federal government and the provinces. In other words, by representatives of all Canadians.

Originally posted by Asher
Nobody cares about where you've lived

That's funny. I could have sworn that you asked me twice about where I have lived. And didn't you make some earlier comments about where I currently live?

Originally posted by Asher
We're talking about Canadian politics, and your ideas are outrageous and go against everything I've ever learned in school, anything on websites I can find.

Well since you stated "The federal government gives provinces jurisdiction on certain things", you may want to brush up on your knowledge of Canadian politics. It is quite different from the American system.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Ah, the old "If you disagree with me, you're commie" argument.

No, it's the new "you're describing a communist state" argument. I never called you a commie.

The federal government did not give provinces jurisdiction.

How would you describe the 1930 agreement then?

That's funny. I could have sworn that you asked me twice about where I have lived. And didn't you make some earlier comments about where I currently live?

I asked you where you currently live, I don't recall asking where you have lived, other than the Alberta-specific question. You went off on some tangent about Manitoba, etc.

Well since you stated "The federal government gives provinces jurisdiction on certain things", you may want to brush up on your knowledge of Canadian politics. It is quite different from the American system.

Again, how do you explain giving mineral rights to the western provinces in 1930?

Are you playing with semantics again? I swear to god, if you are...

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
How would you describe the 1930 agreement then?

It was an agreement reached between the federal government and the western provinces. The agreement was ratified by the federal parliament AND by each of the provincial legislatures. As well, it was also ratified by the British parliament (which had the final say at that time).

In no way did the federal parliament give the provinces jurisdiction. It was a joint agreement about who would manage the resources, who would pay the management costs and who would receive any benefits.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
In no way did the federal parliament give the provinces jurisdiction. It was a joint agreement about who would manage the resources, who would pay the management costs and who would receive any benefits.

Again, I have a hard time believing this considering everywhere I look the term "owns" is mentioned between "Alberta" and "the oil".

If it was simply an agreement to "manage" it on "behalf of all Canadians" like you're claiming they wouldn't own it, would they? Alberta is the crown OWNER of the land. They are not the crown MANAGER of the land.

There is a distinct difference.

Now you're reaching to hit the Reply w/ Quote button.

And you're going to tell me I have no clue how the system works.

And I will reply saying the same things once again.

So why don't we just call it quits?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher

No, it's the new "you're describing a communist state" argument. I never called you a commie.

I am describing Canadian confederation, a democracy. It is very different from traditional communist states where all power is held by the central government. Confederation represents the people (i.e. democracy) deciding how their government should operate.

[Flubber]

Asher what I don't understand is this . . .

You accept that Alberta has ownership of mineral rights because this is agreed between the provinces and the feds at some point. Alberta owns it absolutely, no question because they do and because at some point the feds said so. (and it benefits Alberta)-- I am using your own words that the mineral rights were "given" to the Western provinces in the 1930s

yet on anything else, if the feds implement anything that negatively impacts on Alberta it is wrong, mooching or whatever. (BTW I agree that the NEP had more flaws and downright wrong policies than redeeming features). But take equalization . . . In theory you could look at this as the "cost" a resource rich province "pays" for having the benefit of those Canadian resources granted/agreed to be provincially owned and administered. We are one country and not a set of loosly affiliated autonomous republics.


Also a question . . . Alberta is just an arbitrary geographical division with all its legitimacy as a political entity coming from its status as a province of Canada. If this entity could separate from Canada, does it not follow that the smaller legislative or regulatory districts could separate from Alberta. I'm thinking that the district/county that contains the bulk of the oil sands would probably be much richer going it alone

My example is extreme but why could only a province as a whole separate? What gives a province some right that other regions/political entities would not have ??This could even fall in with some of Asher's economic hopes. Alberta could leave those drought stricken farm areas as part of canada ( and take any lucrative areas with them). After all, why share the wealth with anyone else ??

[Asher]

Originally posted by Flubber
You accept that Alberta has ownership of mineral rights because this is agreed between the provinces and the feds at some point. Alberta owns it absolutely, no question because they do and because at some point the feds said so. (and it benefits Alberta)-- I am using your own words that the mineral rights were "given" to the Western provinces in the 1930s

yet on anything else, if the feds implement anything that negatively impacts on Alberta it is wrong, mooching or whatever. (BTW I agree that the NEP had more flaws and downright wrong policies than redeeming features). But take equalization . . . In theory you could look at this as the "cost" a resource rich province "pays" for having the benefit of those Canadian resources granted/agreed to be provincially owned and administered. We are one country and not a set of loosly affiliated autonomous republics.

I've said it before that I don't really like equalization, but we seem to be doing fine with the current system. I would expect that the Federal government would give more respect to Alberta, considering we give away 70% of those revenues on our own accord and we still get Chretien making comments like he doesn't enjoy working with Westerners because they're "different" or spreading the blatant lie advertising campaign about Bill 11 and linking it with the CA.

The point is, I wouldn't really mind sharing if we got as much as a "thank you".

I also don't like it when the federal government gets so greedy they do a massive tax grab without thinking of the consequences (like the NEP)...

Also a question . . . Alberta is just an arbitrary geographical division with all its legitimacy as a political entity coming from its status as a province of Canada. If this entity could separate from Canada, does it not follow that the smaller legislative or regulatory districts could separate from Alberta. I'm thinking that the district/county that contains the bulk of the oil sands would probably be much richer going it alone

They could go for it, but all of the management and decision makers are based in Calgary. The only people who live in that area are temporary workers who usually work 3 weeks on, 1 week off and come back to Calgary or Edmonton for their week off.

Anyway, sure, they could go for it. Wouldn't do them very much though.

My example is extreme but why could only a province as a whole separate?

1. Alienation
2. No respect (Rodney Dangerfield inspired)
3. 1 & 2 on a consistent basis

What gives a province some right that other regions/political entities would not have ??

The constitution?

This could even fall in with some of Asher's economic hopes. Alberta could leave those drought stricken farm areas as part of canada ( and take any lucrative areas with them). After all, why share the wealth with anyone else ??

That's not a bad idea, Flubber.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Asher


I really, really hate it when people always bring age (and it's ALWAYS the diapers comment too). Just because you're old doesn't mean you're wiser. In fact, you're getting so old your brain is on a downward slope in functionality.

We had this discussion as well and I acknowledged that a young person can have valid and informed opinions but asked if you could acknowledge that there might be some value to real life experience. You never responded.


For the record, I find that on average younger people are more opinionated, more radical in their beliefs. With life experience, beliefs tend to moderate in many cases in reasoned rational people as they experience many things that let them see the other side of the coin on many issues.

With you Asher, it is less a function of your age as your totally limited life experience (based on what you have related here)-- you are a student, living at home with an affluent family , having lived only in affluent and prospering communities. Based on what you have related, you have have never struggled, faced financial hardship, lost a job that you needed. All that is well and good-- but when you opine on what a man who worked 30 years should do when he loses his job, excuse me if I see you as a spoiled kid who doesn't know jack about real life.


and Asher, I don't claim to know it all so my purpose isn't to inspire you with MY wisdom . . there are many many people who have experienced much more than me on many many issues. It doesn't mean I don't have an opinion, but I am always aware of the fact that I am talking about things that are outside my own experience and you better believe that I try to listen to those that have " been there". See, I figure i can learn from anyone . . . even a spoiled kid that knows jack about real life . . . I think about issues regardless of the source-- and you are a pretty decent source of internet and book knowledge, levened with rich kid attitudes and just a touch of arrogance. So I listen . . . and sometimes learn . Do you ??

[Flubber]

Asher

the constitution has many rights for provinces, but there is no separation mechanism so your flip answer that the constitution provides separation rights to a province is no answer at all.


Oh and by the way " THANK YOU" for being blessed with sitting on rich natural resources and deigning to share them with your countrymen.

[Asher]

...
The argument is about who owns the resources in Alberta.

Can you please relate what this has to do with:
1) Age
2) Life experience
3) Family background

[Asher]

Oh and by the way " THANK YOU" for being blessed with sitting on rich natural resources and deigning to share them with your countrymen.

See? That wasn't so hard was it?
Far better than calling me "different" and saying you prefer not to work with me as such, isn't it?

[KrazyHorse]

You're starting to sound like DF, Asher...

[KrazyHorse]

Well, a Canadian DF. So less arrogant but more whiny.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You're starting to sound like DF, Asher...

The difference being:
1) I support the notion of having public healthcare (this is a basic right everyone in a country should have)
2) I support the notion of having a military
3) I don't think it's okay to shoot people because they stepped on your property without permission
4) I believe in strict gun control laws
etc

[KrazyHorse]

I mentioned that you were a Canadian DF...

[Asher]

How am I like DF? Because we're both right wing?

DF is off the scale. I'm just right wing economically. And even then not as far as he is.

[KrazyHorse]

General attitude...

[Asher]

Kickboxing texan who believes in anarchy, more or less?
I don't see it.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
...
The argument is about who owns the resources in Alberta.

We're all agreed that under the Constitution Act of 1930, the British crown transferred ownership to Alberta. So the government of Alberta owns the resources.

But then who owns the government of Alberta? It was created by the British Crown and until 1982 the British Crown retained final say on the composition of the federal and provincial governments.

After 1982, the governments of Canada belonged to the people of Canada.

This is similar to a corporation that buys a peice of land and is now the owner of the land. But who owns the corporation? The shareholders. Alberta is the corporation. Canadians are the shareholders.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Asher
...
The argument is about who owns the resources in Alberta.

Can you please relate what this has to do with:
1) Age
2) Life experience
3) Family background

No asher

I never argued that point with you. I folowed up a side issue which you have avoided for the second time and mentioned life experience as being relevant in shaping opinions in certain areas on which you have given opinions ( as in my example)