Albertas Oil ,Candas Mad Cow

[larry Strong]

There's a job opening at the Mint. Great expense plan.

 

[S McKee]

For all the Albertans with parents in other parts of the country - if you don't support equalization, who's supposed to pay for your parents pensions and health care?   Do you send a cheque every month?

One of the reasons Alberta is doing so well is that everyone moves there to work, conveniently leaving welfare, education, pension and health care cases where they came from.   So if you want to minimize the role and effect of the federal government, how are you going to address these issues?

McGinty is right to complain about the fiscal dividend.   Every year Ontario has its human resources expoited to the tune of $23 billion.   Perhaps folks shouldn't worry about Alberta, Quebec or Newfoundland leaving, but start thinking about a scenario in which 11 million people just leave and stop sending truckloads of money to the rest of the country.

By the way, the Auto pact expired years ago.   Arguments about Ontario gaining unfairly due to federal trade deals is a dead issue.

So what your saying is Ontario=Centre of the Canadian Universe and the rest of the country should be kissing ass. This is exactly why Westerners don't trust Ont. We pay our share and that's not the issue. The very real fear for the west is the federal government and those living in eastern Canada, have the perception that we all drive Cadillacs and our driveways are paved with gold, so whay aren't we giving them more money. What Easterners don't realize is that western discontentment is growing and if steps are not taken by the federal government to address our concerns, (Senate reform, Koyto Accord and jurisdiction over health care monies to name a few) the centre of the universe may have to deal with another "Quebec."

 

[S McKee]

Well I thought it was Ralph Klein who is handing out free money.

Yes he is, but the difference is it's OUR free money, were not being subsidized by the rest of the country.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Wow, didn't notice this thread before,[Radio Chatter, what part of the forum is THAT? :boring:] its amazing how talk of money equalization, etc. makes posters that I normally consider to be thoughtful, smart, mature adult posters turn into slobbering, sad, Rabble.ca dopplegangers....

 

[S McKee]

Money, politics and religion, slobber :argument:

 

[Kirkhill]

Cheeky_monkey

.... (but when the world goes from consuming oil like a fiend to something sustainable, and Alberta still hasn't changed, where screwed to say the least.)

Except for the fact that all the plastics that you consume and wear come from hydrocarbons, the miracle material for making planes, tanks and cars is carbon fibre, lubricants are overwhelming hydrocarbon based and arguably one of the cheapest sources of hydrogen for the hydrogen economy is hydrocarbons.

I wouldn't start worrying that your 1.4 trillion dollar tar sands are going to lose their value tomorrow. 

Cheers.

 

[Glorified Ape]

If Albertans want more clout, breed more or find a way to attract immigrants faster. Ontario has 4x the population of Alberta, Quebec has 2x - is it any mystery that they hold more clout in the elections? Of course we're going to decide the elections - we have over 50% of the country's population in our two provinces. That's the nature of representative government... or is that something we should be blamed for too?

Buh bye, I'll miss you terribly.  Send a postcard when you get settled.  Just think, you can keep electing Liberal govts until the end of time, and no more whining about it from us Westerners.  Pack lots of sweaters, it"ll be cold out there.

I see - yet our hearts are supposed to bleed for the reams of shrill Westerners. Quid pro quo.

There is confusion with who pays what in the country.  It is true that Ontatio has never recieved equalization payments (inception 1957) and Alberta has not received since 1964.  It is also true that Alberta has paid around $137 billion into the program since 1957.  But this is assuming that the money flows one way. 

If you were to take into consideration the federal transfer payments to the provinces over the same period, Alberta and BC would be the only ones to have paid more than they received.  Ontario has taken more than $20 billion than they give in equalization payments while Alberta has given more than $100 billion.  And Quebec .... well, having received more than $170 billion in equalization payments alone, it could be assumed that they received the same amount in federal transfer payments.

Sources? Quebec receives ridiculous amounts of money, no doubt. I haven't read anything about Ontario receiving more than its share, though. AFAIK it's done on a per capita basis w/ Ontario receiving almost exactly (if not exactly) 4x Alberta's share since it has 4x the population.

So what your saying is Ontario=Centre of the Canadian Universe and the rest of the country should be kissing ***. This is exactly why Westerners don't trust Ont. We pay our share and that's not the issue. The very real fear for the west is the federal government and those living in eastern Canada, have the perception that we all drive Cadillacs and our driveways are paved with gold, so whay aren't we giving them more money. What Easterners don't realize is that western discontentment is growing and if steps are not taken by the federal government to address our concerns, (Senate reform, Koyto Accord and jurisdiction over health care monies to name a few) the centre of the universe may have to deal with another "Quebec."

No one said Ontario is the centre of the universe. To bite paracowboy - drop the Jan Brady syndrome. For all I hear westerners speaking derisively about "anti-americanism", they certainly seem to take the same stance towards Ontario much of the time. Ontario doesn't run Ottawa - if we did, our premier wouldn't be scrapping with Ottawa all the time over much the same issues as the west does. You may not like that Ontario votes Liberal but a lot of us don't like the bible thumping neocons westerners vote for, either. It seems all our nuts go out there to get their political support - Day, Harper, who's next? Agree to disagree and vote how you please - it's the nature of our system.

I don't view Albertans or other westerners as having Caddillacs or whatever, I just view their political leanings as different from mine. I think Alberta has some legitimate beefs - senate reform being one of them. Jurisdiction over healthcare funding has always been a problem and likely always will. Like it or not, the provinces agreed to the CHA and are going to have to accept that the federal government, by virtue of its spending power, is going to have some input in provincial healthcare policy.

Another thing, enough with the threats of separation. If you're going to try it, try it already. All I hear is alot of talking and it's all we've been hearing for quite some time now. Less talk, more action. At least Quebec had the gall to step up and actually make a run at it... of course, they had some semi-legitimate basis for pursuing separation. Alberta won't separate. If some funding and jurisdictional issues were all you needed to pull off separation, every province and territory in this country would be gone by now. If the PQ and BQ, with all their support and all the clearcut cultural, linguistic, and historical differences between the Quebecois and English Canada, can't muster enough provincial willpower to separate, there's no way on earth Ralph Klein, if he can stay sober long enough, or anyone else in the West is going to manage it. Meanwhile why, if so many here hate Canada and want to break it up, are they in the CF?? I'm mystified, I truly am.

 

[S McKee]

If Albertans want more clout, breed more or find a way to attract immigrants faster

They're called Maritimers

No one said Ontario is the centre of the universe. To bite paracowboy - drop the Jan Brady syndrome. For all I hear westerners speaking derisively about "anti-americanism", they certainly seem to take the same stance towards Ontario much of the time. Ontario doesn't run Ottawa - if we did, our premier wouldn't be scrapping with Ottawa all the time over much the same issues as the west does.

Ontario may not run Ottawa however, as you aptly mention Ont carries a significant amount of the vote and your province consistently votes Liberal. Ont may not "control Ottawa" however it certainly sets the agenda.

You may not like that Ontario votes Liberal but a lot of us don't like the bible thumping neocons westerners vote for, either. It seems all our nuts go out there to get their political support - Day, Harper, who's next? Agree to disagree and vote how you please - it's the nature of our system.

Yes, yes, those bible thumping, redneck, neocons,and you forgot to say "scary" conservative politicians from the west, why on earth would anyone vote for them; when you can vote for corrupt, cheating, lying, stealing and morally bankrupt politicans from the east.  We've stopped trying to figure you people out....

I don't view Albertans or other westerners as having Caddillacs or whatever, I just view their political leanings as different from mine.

No argument here

Another thing, enough with the threats of separation. If you're going to try it, try it already. All I hear is alot of talking and it's all we've been hearing for quite some time now. Less talk, more action. At least Quebec had the gall to step up and actually make a run at it... of course, they had some semi-legitimate basis for pursuing separation. Alberta won't separate. If some funding and jurisdictional issues were all you needed to pull off separation, every province and territory in this country would be gone by now.

No one has threatened anything, and I don't think there has been a serious attempt at it, however you may see more support for the movement depending on the results of the next federal election.

If the PQ and BQ, with all their support and all the clearcut cultural, linguistic, and historical differences between the Quebecois and English Canada, can't muster enough provincial willpower to separate, there's no way on earth Ralph Klein, if he can stay sober long enough, or anyone else in the West is going to manage it. Meanwhile why, if so many here hate Canada and want to break it up, are they in the CF?? I'm mystified, I truly am.

Hammering on poor old Ralph, I'll bet you can't name who the premier of PEI is? Right off the top of your head, right now...my point exactly. Ralph gets the job done, Canadians know it. I don't think anyone on this post has stated that they hated Canada and I didn't realize discussing regional differences means that you hate Canada or have to leave the CF. This is typical central Canadian liberal philosophy..If you disagree with the left of centre political view point somehow your UN-Canadian.  Marsha, Marsha, Marsha, give your head a shake....

 

[Kirkhill]

You know what I think the basis of representative democracy is?

Two sides in a debate coming to a point of mutual irreconcilable differences over an issue that must be decided only one way.  Both sides agree to vote on it. One side musters most votes. They win.

Essentially this says to the other side if you act against our will we can put more sticks, swords, guns, into the street than you and you will lose. Resistance is futile.  The minority might as well go along.

The minority does.  That doesn't mean that they like the result.  

The Supreme Court  and the Constitution says that that sort of rule is not appropriate for a post-modern society.  According to them the will of the majority is a problem if it doesn't produce the "right" answer.  At that point experts like themselves will decide what's right.  Because they control the power of the state resistance is futile.  The majority might as well go along.

The majority does.  That doesn't mean that they like the result.

By playing off the minority and the majority on an issue by issue basis it can make it easier to maintain privilege.

The only counter to this, either the tyranny of the majority (which used to be called democracy) or the tyranny of the minority (which just used to be called tyranny) is for those who feel tyrannized to do something about it.  A tyrranized majority can rise up, as can a tyrranized minority.  The majority has more chance of success.

Money of course can be a great leveller.

The other option of course, is to avoid confrontation and just walk away.  This is known as voting with your feet.

It is done every day by millions everywhere.  Sometimes large numbers decide to do it together.

Power can come from many sources including money, legal authority or just plain numbers.  All societies balance power.  Despite all the nonsense about win-win solutions pervading public discourse these days all solutions require giving something to get something. It used to be called compromise.

If Ontario and Quebec want something from Alberta, they will have to pay for it.  If Alberta wants something from Ontario and Quebec it will have to pay for it.

Ontario and Quebec deciding that their need is greater because they have greater numbers,  and having the Government side with them in order to get elected, smacks muchly of the tyranny of the majority and can be perceived as colonialism.  Ontarians and Qubecois want access to oil and other resources but they are unwilling to pay by allowing representation that supports policies with which they disagree.  Albertans and many other Westerners want not just to be represented but to see their deeply held views reflected in the laws and decisions that govern them.  In return they contribute wealth to the national coffers.

If people in society don't see their views reflected in the decisions that are made, if they are constantly derided for not thinking correctly, if the laws of the land no longer reflect the compromises which they can live with, then resentment increases.  And feet start walking - Ontario and Quebec to Alberta, Canada to Australia and the US, Boston to Texas, and to be fair the traffic goes both ways.

The result is majority opinion within the protection of given borders change.  And provinces, towns and nations move apart.

 

[S McKee]

Well put Kirkhill

 

[Wingman]

Quote from: Wingman on Yesterday at 21:26:15
There is confusion with who pays what in the country.  It is true that Ontario has never received equalization payments (inception 1957) and Alberta has not received since 1964.  It is also true that Alberta has paid around $137 billion into the program since 1957.  But this is assuming that the money flows one way. 

If you were to take into consideration the federal transfer payments to the provinces over the same period, Alberta and BC would be the only ones to have paid more than they received.  Ontario has taken more than $20 billion than they give in equalization payments while Alberta has given more than $100 billion.  And Quebec .... well, having received more than $170 billion in equalization payments alone, it could be assumed that they received the same amount in federal transfer payments.

Quote from: Glorified Ape on Today at 12:40:58
Sources? Quebec receives ridiculous amounts of money, no doubt. I haven't read anything about Ontario receiving more than its share, though. AFAIK it's done on a per capita basis w/ Ontario receiving almost exactly (if not exactly) 4x Alberta's share since it has 4x the population.

Sources:
"A Regional Analysis of Fiscal Balances under Existing and Alternative Constitutional Arrangements," by Mansell and Schlenker (1992) and analysis of Transfer payments from 1992 to 2002 in http://www.ctf.ca/FN2002/chap08.pdf.

As of 1992, when the first was written the balance was Alberta giving $140 billion (about $180 billion in 2005 dollars : Source Bank of Canada) and BC giving $10 billion (2005: $13 billion).   Every other province had taken more than given.   Reading the second source shows that the trend remained the same with BC balancing the give/take column.   I can't seem to get access to the link I had before to the first paper but the executive summary states that Ontario had received more than it gave and AFAIR it was $20 billion.

Quote from: Glorified Ape on Today at 12:40:58
If the PQ and BQ, with all their support and all the clearcut cultural, linguistic, and historical differences between the Quebecois and English Canada, can't muster enough provincial willpower to separate, there's no way on earth Ralph Klein, if he can stay sober long enough, or anyone else in the West is going to manage it.
 
So to separate you need to have a clearcut cultural, linguistic, and historical difference between factions.   I think someone better tell the Americans they really screwed up that one in 1776.

And love him or hate him, you usually know what Ralphie's position is.   No dithering there.  

 

[RangerRay]

If Albertans want more clout, breed more or find a way to attract immigrants faster. Ontario has 4x the population of Alberta, Quebec has 2x - is it any mystery that they hold more clout in the elections? Of course we're going to decide the elections - we have over 50% of the country's population in our two provinces. That's the nature of representative government... or is that something we should be blamed for too?

Another thing that many, if not most, representative democracies have is a regional counterweight to heavily populated regions.  In the US and Australia, this takes the form of an elected Senate where each administrative unit (state, province, etc.) has the same number of Senators.  That way, heavily populated states cannot run rough-shod over the interests  and rights of less populated states.  Last time I checked, New Yorkers and Californians weren't that upset that they have the same number of Senators as Wyoming and Rhode Island...

 

[Pencil Tech]

I live in Alberta and I don't think, like some, that because I started life on third base that I hit a triple. In the last provincial election more people voted against Ralph Klein than voted for him. The electoral map in this province has been so jerryrigged over the years that it's almost impossible to beat him. Many of us out here are loyal Canadians who don't have a chip on their shoulder, and don't cry like babies at the prospect of sharing some of our unearned riches with parts of the country with fewer $40,000 pickup trucks. And the vast majority of us will never let a few wackjobs convince us to separate from Canada. And anyone in the CF who advocates separation, whether they be from Quebec or Alberta, should be charged, and released 1A.

 

[Old Ranger]

 

[Glorified Ape]

They're called Maritimers

Ontario may not run Ottawa however, as you aptly mention Ont carries a significant amount of the vote and your province consistently votes Liberal. Ont may not "control Ottawa" however it certainly sets the agenda.

Yes, we consistently vote Liberal and you consistently vote Conservative/Alliance/whatever name they're calling themselves this week. By virtue of Ontario's large voting population, yes, we do hold more sway on policy and such. I don't see any way to change that without switching to a non-democratic system. The most votes will always command the most attention if someone wants to get elected. That being said, I don't believe the federal government "panders" to Ontario by any disproportionate degree.

Yes, yes, those bible thumping, redneck, neocons,and you forgot to say "scary" conservative politicians from the west, why on earth would anyone vote for them; when you can vote for corrupt, cheating, lying, stealing and morally bankrupt politicans from the east.  We've stopped trying to figure you people out....

The bible thumping rednecks ARE from the East, they just go West to get support. Day and Harper are both Ontarians. I don't believe ALL Liberal politicians are corrupt/lying/stealing/etc nor do I believe ALL cons are bible thumpers. Regardless, I don't believe that misconduct on the part of members of a party necessitate going from the sublime to the ridiculous and voting for the opposite solely as some kind of cut-your-nose-off-to-spite-your-face measure. The sponsorship scandal does not invalidate Liberal ideology, it just demonstrates the ineptitude, moral bankruptcy, and idiocy of some of their members.

No one has threatened anything, and I don't think there has been a serious attempt at it, however you may see more support for the movement depending on the results of the next federal election.

No threats? It seems I hear "wah wah do what we want or you'll be sorry" come every federal election. Is this the pathetic nature of our country now? Because someone doesn't get their way, they decide to just tear up the country? Do Westerners seriously expect Ontario and Quebec to change their voting habits because Westerners don't like said voting habits? Should the West change their voting habits because we don't like yours? No way.

Hammering on poor old Ralph, I'll bet you can't name who the premier of PEI is? Right off the top of your head, right now...my point exactly. Ralph gets the job done, Canadians know it. I don't think anyone on this post has stated that they hated Canada and I didn't realize discussing regional differences means that you hate Canada or have to leave the CF. This is typical central Canadian liberal philosophy..If you disagree with the left of centre political view point somehow your UN-Canadian.  Marsha, Marsha, Marsha, give your head a shake....

Discussing regional differences is one thing, alluding to support for tearing up the country is quite another. I'm not saying YOU specifically support Alberta's separation but some of the statements made by members can be construed as nothing but. As for Ralph, I have no respect for a man who accosts the homeless and blames his city's problems on "eastern bums and creeps".

You know what I think the basis of representative democracy is?

Two sides in a debate coming to a point of mutual irreconcilable differences over an issue that must be decided only one way.  Both sides agree to vote on it. One side musters most votes. They win.

Essentially this says to the other side if you act against our will we can put more sticks, swords, guns, into the street than you and you will lose. Resistance is futile.  The minority might as well go along.

The minority does.  That doesn't mean that they like the result. 

The Supreme Court  and the Constitution says that that sort of rule is not appropriate for a post-modern society.  According to them the will of the majority is a problem if it doesn't produce the "right" answer.  At that point experts like themselves will decide what's right.  Because they control the power of the state resistance is futile.  The majority might as well go along.

The majority does.  That doesn't mean that they like the result.

By playing off the minority and the majority on an issue by issue basis it can make it easier to maintain privilege.

The only counter to this, either the tyranny of the majority (which used to be called democracy) or the tyranny of the minority (which just used to be called tyranny) is for those who feel tyrannized to do something about it.  A tyrranized majority can rise up, as can a tyrranized minority.  The majority has more chance of success.

Money of course can be a great leveller.

Are you suggesting that Alberta is "tyrannized"?

The other option of course, is to avoid confrontation and just walk away.  This is known as voting with your feet.

It is done every day by millions everywhere.  Sometimes large numbers decide to do it together.

Power can come from many sources including money, legal authority or just plain numbers.  All societies balance power.  Despite all the nonsense about win-win solutions pervading public discourse these days all solutions require giving something to get something. It used to be called compromise.

If Ontario and Quebec want something from Alberta, they will have to pay for it.  If Alberta wants something from Ontario and Quebec it will have to pay for it.

I disagree with your first point - "voting with your feet". If you want to vote with your feet by leaving the country, that's fine, but leave the province where it is. So many westerners would seem to be so much happier if they just moved to Texas or Montana since, after all, much of the province's culture is "borrowed" from such places anyway - stampedes, stetsons, rodeos... all that's missing is the American dollar and the accent.

Ontario and Quebec deciding that their need is greater because they have greater numbers,  and having the Government side with them in order to get elected, smacks muchly of the tyranny of the majority and can be perceived as colonialism.

Please - colonialism? Where is the colonialism? You're in a federated state where your vote gets thrown in with everyone else's. If majority influence or federal authority is colonialism, we're going to have to revise much of history. The British-Canadian relationship was a colonial relationship. The British-American relationship was a colonial relationship. Alberta is geographically, historically, and governmentally contiguous with Canada.

As for "needs" - a province with a population of 12-13 million has "no greater need" than one with a population of 3 million? Wow, if only.

Ontarians and Qubecois want access to oil and other resources but they are unwilling to pay by allowing representation that supports policies with which they disagree.

Judging by the 76% of Canadians (including Albertans), it isn't just Ontario and Quebec that believe provincial resources should be a common good. On top of that, 69% believe Alberta should keep its budget surplus so where, apparently, this "Ontarians and Quebecers want to steal our money" idea is coming from, I don't know.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1126833908147_62/?hub=TopStories

Albertans and many other Westerners want not just to be represented but to see their deeply held views reflected in the laws and decisions that govern them.  In return they contribute wealth to the national coffers.

That's what everyone wants and as far as representation is concerned, what everyone gets - save Western representation in the senate which, I agree, absolutely must be addressed. The problems with the senate are far from being the reason the West doesn't get its way much of the time, though. You just don't have the voter base to swing as much clout. I can understand the frustration but a 6:1 ratio is going to have a large effect. Why there should be some need to change the system of representation, though, I have no idea. Smaller groups should be heard and involved, yes, but I don't think disproportionate representation which cheapens the votes of others is the answer.

If people in society don't see their views reflected in the decisions that are made, if they are constantly derided for not thinking correctly, if the laws of the land no longer reflect the compromises which they can live with, then resentment increases.

If SOME people in society don't see their views, yes, resentment grows. That resentment has always been there and always will. There will always be those who have more influence by virtue of their number but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Does that mean that an Albertan vote should count for 1.25 or 1.5 Ontarian votes? No. Why should the people's votes in Ontario or Quebec count for less than those in Alberta simply because Alberta has fewer people?

And feet start walking - Ontario and Quebec to Alberta, Canada to Australia and the US, Boston to Texas, and to be fair the traffic goes both ways.

As I said, let them walk. Let them walk all the way to Bolivia if it makes them feel better but they leave the common property of Canada where it is. So long as they live in Canada, as Canadians, it's their property to govern how they wish according to the jurisdictional agreements and realities set forth. If they don't like the composition of the federal government, fine - vote, protest, lobby, or leave. I don't tear my apartment out of the building and walk off with it because I dislike the management.

Quote from: Wingman on Yesterday at 21:26:15
There is confusion with who pays what in the country.  It is true that Ontario has never received equalization payments (inception 1957) and Alberta has not received since 1964.  It is also true that Alberta has paid around $137 billion into the program since 1957.  But this is assuming that the money flows one way. 

If you were to take into consideration the federal transfer payments to the provinces over the same period, Alberta and BC would be the only ones to have paid more than they received.  Ontario has taken more than $20 billion than they give in equalization payments while Alberta has given more than $100 billion.  And Quebec .... well, having received more than $170 billion in equalization payments alone, it could be assumed that they received the same amount in federal transfer payments.

Quote from: Glorified Ape on Today at 12:40:58
Sources? Quebec receives ridiculous amounts of money, no doubt. I haven't read anything about Ontario receiving more than its share, though. AFAIK it's done on a per capita basis w/ Ontario receiving almost exactly (if not exactly) 4x Alberta's share since it has 4x the population.

Sources:
"A Regional Analysis of Fiscal Balances under Existing and Alternative Constitutional Arrangements," by Mansell and Schlenker (1992) and analysis of Transfer payments from 1992 to 2002 in http://www.ctf.ca/FN2002/chap08.pdf.

As of 1992, when the first was written the balance was Alberta giving $140 billion (about $180 billion in 2005 dollars : Source Bank of Canada) and BC giving $10 billion (2005: $13 billion).  Every other province had taken more than given.  Reading the second source shows that the trend remained the same with BC balancing the give/take column.  I can't seem to get access to the link I had before to the first paper but the executive summary states that Ontario had received more than it gave and AFAIR it was $20 billion.

How did it get more than it gave if it's not receiving equalization payments? I won't pretend to be an accountant, but even after going over the link I still can't find where it's getting more than giving. I'm not denying it's true, I just can't find it.

Quote from: Glorified Ape on Today at 12:40:58
If the PQ and BQ, with all their support and all the clearcut cultural, linguistic, and historical differences between the Quebecois and English Canada, can't muster enough provincial willpower to separate, there's no way on earth Ralph Klein, if he can stay sober long enough, or anyone else in the West is going to manage it.
 
So to separate you need to have a clearcut cultural, linguistic, and historical difference between factions.  I think someone better tell the Americans they really screwed up that one in 1776.

Not at all, but they surely help. There's a reason why the more successful autonomy/independence movements are found in peoples which have cultural, historical, linguistic, etc. differences from the body's they're railing against. The Irish, the Basques, the Chechens, the Kurds, even the Americans. If it wasn't for the religious differences and history of persecution that many of the American colonists had with Britain, I doubt there'd have been sufficient impetus for the revolution. Keeping in mind, also, that the nature of their political and economic gripes with the British were also of a character nowhere near anything Alberta has with Canada.  I think you'd have a hard time rallying people to separate based on "more fiscal autonomy and two-tiered healthcare!"

And love him or hate him, you usually know what Ralphie's position is.  No dithering there. 

The same was said of Mike Harris, so I don't hold that quality to be particularly endearing.

Another thing that many, if not most, representative democracies have is a regional counterweight to heavily populated regions.  In the US and Australia, this takes the form of an elected Senate where each administrative unit (state, province, etc.) has the same number of Senators.  That way, heavily populated states cannot run rough-shod over the interests  and rights of less populated states.  Last time I checked, New Yorkers and Californians weren't that upset that they have the same number of Senators as Wyoming and Rhode Island...

Yes, and the electoral college is one of the most gleaming examples of why intentional proportional bias instruments are just a bad idea. Heavily populated states are incapable of running rough-shod over the interests of less populated states by virtue of the enumeration of state vs. federal rights and jurisdictions and that's assuming that heavily populated states deciding elections = heavily populated states explicitly and directly controlling the federal government which is not the case.

If you look at the effect of the electoral college and senatorial entitlements, you'll find that a Californian's vote is worth less than someone from say, Idaho. That's hardly democratic. If you're interested, I can give you the paper I had to write on the electoral college. As boring as it seems, it's actually kind of interesting.

I live in Alberta and I don't think, like some, that because I started life on third base that I hit a triple. In the last provincial election more people voted against Ralph Klein than voted for him. The electoral map in this province has been so jerryrigged over the years that it's almost impossible to beat him. Many of us out here are loyal Canadians who don't have a chip on their shoulder, and don't cry like babies at the prospect of sharing some of our unearned riches with parts of the country with fewer $40,000 pickup trucks. And the vast majority of us will never let a few wackjobs convince us to separate from Canada. And anyone in the CF who advocates separation, whether they be from Quebec or Alberta, should be charged, and released 1A.

While I agree with your sentiments, I'm not sure charging people would be a good idea. Maybe a strong recommendation that they find a job less hypocritically impacting with their politics.

Overall, I get the impression that Albertans are very proud Canadians and love their country just as much as anyone else. I understand the frustrations they have and I agree, in some cases, that they're not getting a fair deal but I cannot, no matter how hard I try, get behind separation - be it Quebec, Alberta, or BC. That being said, it would be interesting to see Toronto separate and become its own province. See how much the Toronto-hating populous of Ontario likes being saddled with the bills for all the municipal and provincial services that aren't economically feasible without the provincial income generated by Toronto. I'd wager Ontario starts sucking up equalization payments within 2 years if that happened.

 

[TCBF]

"See how much the Toronto-hating populous of Ontario likes being saddled with the bills for all the municipal and provincial services that aren't economically feasible without the provincial income generated by Toronto. I'd wager Ontario starts sucking up equalization payments within 2 years if that happened.'

- A lot of those so-called services are corrupt commie psychobable money pits that serve no useful function other than to turn productive citizens into lifelong wards of the guvmint.  Toronto can take those services with her. 

Down with central Canadian colonialism!

;D

Tom

 

[Kirkhill]

The problem, Glorified Ape, is that many in your part of the country want a monolithic state with one set of laws applying across the country.  A federated, or confederated state, doesn't work that way.  The whole point of a Federation is to allow a PATCHWORK (Lord how that word has come to be detested) of laws across the country as individual groups of people accept that they are not like each other, they don't want to live their lives the same way but they do want to get along.  That is how you address the disparities in population and the differences in belief.  That is precisely why Canadian politicians, and everyone else for that matter, are urging a federated state for Iraq.

The whole purpose of the Confederation exercise was to allow a degree of local autonomy.  That autonomy has been eroded and the imposition of central authority is having a corrosive effect on the residue of goodwill of those that find themselves subject to laws not in consort with their beliefs.

As to Alberta being tyrannized - I don't suppose it makes much difference to the person on whom a code of conduct is imposed if it is imposed by a raving lunatic like Saddam or a well-meaning democracy like America. Isn't that the essence of the argument against supporting the US in Iraq?  If you believe you understand why Iraqis don't want democracy imposed on them along with an American style constitution, why is it so difficult to accept that some folks out west might not be appreciative of well-meaning easterners imposing their views on them?

Personally I think the Iraqis may not want western notions imposed on them but they do want some help to get themselves organized. In the case of our west, we seem well enough organized and thus in little need of help.

WRT voting with your feet - what I am saying is that people of like views will seek out places where they can associate with people of similar views.  The trade works both ways.  Conservatively inclined free-traders from the east gravitate to the west.  Liberally minded, socially conscious, supporters of big government and statist agendas gravitate towards the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal area.  Populations naturally divide over time.  That is an ongoing, unchangeable process as constant as the rise and fall of the tides and the come and go of the ice-ages.

WRT colonialism - colonialism has nothing to do with contiguity or distance although if you want to consider that then Alberta is farther from Ontario than England's first colony, Ireland, was from her.  It has everything to do with exploitation, or in the words or some rabble rouser down south, "No taxation without representation".  Although we can't argue that we aren't represented we can argue that we are under-represented, over-taxed and unheard.

And please don't start doing the numbers and needs thing.  Next thing you know you'll be citing "From each according to their ability. To each according to their need."  This isn't about central planning.  This is about voluntary co-operation.

The issue is not money.  That is a straw man.  Blow him down as you will.  You set him up.  The West generally has had more grievances, of longer standing, with Ottawa than just the current brouhaha over 400 dollar checks.  The call from the West, since the time of the depression, and before, is to give the West consideration when creating policies.  At least as much as are given to Ontario and Quebec separately (10 million Westerners, 8 million Quebecers, 12 million Ontarians, 2 million Maritimers, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians). 

Finally on the crack about "borrowed" culture - read the book "Braehead" if you want a good synopsis of how Albertan culture became what it is.  It came by it naturally.  It came north with the cattle and cowboys in the 1880s and was seasoned by British remittance men, some of whom were already investing family investments in ranches and railways in the Western US.  Southern Alberta land wasn't considered suitable for anything else other than raising cattle.  This western culture of course is vastly different to the culture of the east where British remittance men invested in fur trading and railroads after having left the Yankee rabble to sort themselves out.  They eventually reinvested in that country as well, in fact according to Amir Taheri they are the biggest foreign investors in the US http://www.benadorassociates.com/pf.php?id=18452.

The attachment to America may be a bit stronger in Alberta in part because when Alberta needed funds to develop her economy in the 1930s and 40s, she went to Ottawa to get financial support.  Ottawa declined so Alberta printed her own money for a while.  That was declared inappropriate and Ottawa still wouldn't support even loan guarantees so the Alberta government of the day went to New York and there found investors willing to back Alberta so that she could develop her oil assets.

I would just make one final note on tone.  For someone who rightly decries stridency and lack of toleration from others you seem quite comfortable taking hardline positions yourself.  Not much room for compromise with you it would seem.

In any event, wish you well Cadet. 

 

[Kat Stevens]

You want to bring up "borrowed culture"?  Puh-leeze... anywhere in the GTA it is impossible to decipher where Illinois and Michigan end, and Ontario begins.  I have heard more fractured English and Ebonics babble from directly across the line than anywhere else in Canada.  If you are referring to me as a Western separatist, you missed the mark.  My post was in reply to a "what if 12 million Ontarioids left?" question.  I see you are trying to be an Infantry Officer, RCR I presume, as your moral high ground shouldn't be watered down by exposure to our borrowed values and culture in the PPCLI.  Good luck with that...

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
You want to bring up "borrowed culture"?  Puh-leeze... anywhere in the GTA it is impossible to decipher where Illinois and Michigan end, and Ontario begins.  I have heard more fractured English and Ebonics babble from directly across the line than anywhere else in Canada.

Wow, I consider myself as of the same politics of the majority of Albertans, but this goes beyond simple "right leaning " philosophies, this is plain racism and does a disservice to your long and distinguished career.

...and just FYI, how did you miss the 200 miles of tobacco and/or 32 miles of water? They are a dead giveaway.....

 

[Kat Stevens]

How did you arrive at racism from not understanding what anyone, white, black, yellow, or plaid, is saying?  The point was borrowed culture, was it not?  I suppose I should have written a a nice long term paper instead of a short post, as peoples ability to misconstrue my point  is getting out of control. Plenty of white kids are also prone to it.  Shorts below the knees?  THEY'RE PANTS!!  Ball hat on backwards/sideways/upside down?  IT'S MADE TO KEEP THE SUN OUT OF YOUR EYES!!  Boomcars?  THERE'S A TREBBLE KNOB ALSO, YAKNOW!!  I was speaking regionally, not ethnically.  At no point did I mention anyones race, as I am usually very careful not to do so.  On a personal note, I take great offence to to the implication that I am a racist.  Arseholes come in all shapes, sizes, colours, and geographical location, and I'm sure more than a few here count me as one. that's the beauty of a democracy, you're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is