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

[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)