HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Vote

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-29-2004, 12:30 PM
  #51
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by guymez
Thanks for the over simplification.
Pretty easy to cut and paste some stuff off of a left wing website and offer no explanation, other than to say it's NAFTA. Ther are valid reasons for Canada's manufacturing sector suffering after the implimentation of NAFTA. Primarily it is due to the fact that our manufacturing sector ( 99% of the content of your post) was severly lacking in technological inovation compared to the U.S.. Untill we complete the transition we are going to have to absorb some losses. Once the transition is complete, we should be able to compete very successfully. As an example, our high tech industry has benefited from NAFTA.
Also the Liberal strategy of calling the Americans " ******** and morons" must of had a positive effect on negotiations such as softwood lumber.
It's not over-simplifcation... these are points that were contested by the United States. As for cutting and pasting from a website... thanks, it was actually from a neutral message board where posters from several different political viewpoints (liberal, NDP, conservative, Green), were discussing issues. Go and google some of this stuff up... for instance:

The United States Countervailing Duty Law - The analysis concludes that U.S. laws treat the pricing of imports in the U.S. market differently from how they treat the pricing of domestically produced goods. The antidumping law imposes duties on imports sold in the U.S. market at prices below what is charged in the foreign exporter's home market or at prices below cost. Whether the prices are predatory is not considered.

Why on earth is this enforced on Canadian imports? Isn't the purpose of the NAFTA to allow free trade?

United Stats Anit-dumping duty law: U.S. antidumping law is the most powerful legal instrument that U.S. industries have to protect themselves from foreign competition, says William E. Perry. An antidumping duty order can effectively bar a foreign firm's products from the U.S. market. But, says Perry, a foreign firm can continue to export to the United States if it obtains a low dumping margin ruling at the U.S. Department of Commerce, or successfully argues before the U.S. International Trade Commission that the imports of the product under investigation are not hurting any U.S. industry.

To win an antidumping case, a U.S. industry must first establish with the U.S. Department of Commerce that a foreign exporter is selling its products in the United States at less than fair value. It must then establish with the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) that the dumped imports cause or threaten to cause material injury to a U.S. domestic industry.

In almost 90 percent of the cases brought to date, the Commerce Department has found that a foreign exporter/producer is dumping. So for foreign exporters trying to contest the dumping case, the objective at the Commerce Department is to get the dumping margin as low as possible. The dumping margin is the percentage by which the foreign exporter's prices in the United States are found to be lower than the prices in his home market, or the percentage by which the exporter is selling at less than his cost of production

Where is the free trade here? The anti-dumping duty law essentially allows the U.S. to add a huge duty of up to 400% on any good imported into the united states. This has nothing to do with manufacturing technology, it has to do with the U.S. being able at anytime to say that they aren't allowing a certain product into the country because it hurts an industry. This is precisely the issue with things like soft lumber, beef, and virtually anything else that is cheaper to produce in Canada... well except of course automobiles, but those companies are American owned anyways.

There shouldn't have had to be negotiaions on softwood lumber, as the corporations who wanted to purchase it from Canada should have been able to, under the "free-trade" agreement. They weren't.

NAFTA is fundamentally flawed from a non-American viewpoint... yes, Canada has benefitted from it, but the U.S. continues to put regulations in place that don't allow Canada to maximize their benefit from the agreement, not like the United States has.

So the Americans will continue to get their Tequila and Cars in this agreement, while Canadian business owners will continue to fight through red tape in other industries to peddle their goods to the worlds largest open market.

__________________
TheSpecialist - MacT thinks he was that good of a hockey player when in actuality he was no better then a Louie Debrusk.

Last edited by dawgbone: 06-29-2004 at 01:17 PM.
dawgbone is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 01:04 PM
  #52
guymez
The Seldom Seen Kid
 
guymez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,561
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
It's not over-simplifcation... these are points that were contested by the United States. As for cutting and pasting from a website... thanks, it was actually from a neutral message board where posters from several different political viewpoints (liberal, NDP, conservative, Green), were discussing issues. Go and google some of this stuff up... for instance:

The United States Countervailing Duty Law - The analysis concludes that U.S. laws treat the pricing of imports in the U.S. market differently from how they treat the pricing of domestically produced goods. The antidumping law imposes duties on imports sold in the U.S. market at prices below what is charged in the foreign exporter's home market or at prices below cost. Whether the prices are predatory is not considered.

Why on earth is this enforced on Canadian imports? Isn't the purpose of the NAFTA to allow free trade?

United Stats Anit-dumping duty law: U.S. antidumping law is the most powerful legal instrument that U.S. industries have to protect themselves from foreign competition, says William E. Perry. An antidumping duty order can effectively bar a foreign firm's products from the U.S. market. But, says Perry, a foreign firm can continue to export to the United States if it obtains a low dumping margin ruling at the U.S. Department of Commerce, or successfully argues before the U.S. International Trade Commission that the imports of the product under investigation are not hurting any U.S. industry.

To win an antidumping case, a U.S. industry must first establish with the U.S. Department of Commerce that a foreign exporter is selling its products in the United States at less than fair value. It must then establish with the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) that the dumped imports cause or threaten to cause material injury to a U.S. domestic industry.

In almost 90 percent of the cases brought to date, the Commerce Department has found that a foreign exporter/producer is dumping. So for foreign exporters trying to contest the dumping case, the objective at the Commerce Department is to get the dumping margin as low as possible. The dumping margin is the percentage by which the foreign exporter's prices in the United States are found to be lower than the prices in his home market, or the percentage by which the exporter is selling at less than his cost of production

Where is the free trade here? The anti-dumping duty law essentially allows the U.S. to add a huge duty of up to 400% on any good imported into the united states. This has nothing to do with manufacturing technology, it has to do with the U.S. being able at anytime to say that they aren't allowing a certain product into the country because it hurts an industry. This is precisely the issue with things like soft lumber, beef, and virtually anything else that is cheaper to produce in Canada... well except of course automobiles, but those companies are American owned anyways.

There shouldn't have had to be negotiaions on softwood lumber, as the corporations who wanted to purchase it from Canada should have been able to, under the "free-trade" agreement. They weren't.

NAFTA is fundamentally flawed from a non-American viewpoint... yes, Canada has benefitted from it, but the U.S. continues to put regulations in place that don't allow Canada to maximize their benefit from the agreement, much like the United States has.

So the Americans will continue to get their Tequila and Cars in this agreement, while Canadian business owners will continue to fight through red tape in other industries to peddle their goods to the worlds largest open market.
There are obviously going to be positives and negatives when NAFTA is analyzed on an issue by issue basis. I am not the great defender of NAFTA, but the truth is that since its implementation, Canada's exports to the US rose from $168 million to $217 million. An average annual growth rate of almost 7%. Also our GDP has grown at an average rate of approx 4%. I could post a mulitude of positives on how NAFTA has benefited Canada, just as you can post the negatives. But these numbers show the big picture, and in the final analysis that is what matters most.

guymez is online now  
Old
06-29-2004, 01:16 PM
  #53
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by guymez
There are obviously going to be positives and negatives when NAFTA is analyzed on an issue by issue basis. I am not the great defender of NAFTA, but the truth is that since its implementation, Canada's exports to the US rose from $168 million to $217 million. An average annual growth rate of almost 7%. Also our GDP has grown at an average rate of approx 4%. I could post a mulitude of positives on how NAFTA has benefited Canada, just as you can post the negatives. But these numbers show the big picture, and in the final analysis that is what matters most.
You could probably tie those numbers into inflation too (1993-2003), because if those numbers are recent, that is only a 3% annual increase.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 01:35 PM
  #54
theoil
Registered User
 
theoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloned
It's interesting what Preston Manning said on Global during election coverage tonight. After the Liberal minority was predicted, he repeatedly mentioned that the problem will lie in western alienation. Same old, same old, I know, but he added a new twist by saying that the West will be angry at the East for voting a 'scandal-tainted' government into power when they could have voted for a new alternative. Something like that.

Thoughts?
I predict that if the Liberals are successful in cobbling together a government that there will be a petition begun to ask the provincial government to hold a referendum on separation. Personally I have reached the conclusion that BC, Alberta and the Yukon would make a great country.

theoil is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 01:39 PM
  #55
theoil
Registered User
 
theoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allan
For the last point, I don't see how you can say the Liberals are left wing. They are a centre-right party who are trying desperately to appear left wing, but I suppose they do appear left when compared to the extreme right. I know that my leftist views are not popular in this part of the country, but they won't change. I just don't want anyone mixing up the Liberal party with the left wing.
Or the conservatives with the right wing. This country has never seen a right wing 'government in my lifetime so trying to portray the Conservatives as 'extreme right' is not only dishonest liberal rhetoric but show a fairly limited understanding of political possibilities.

theoil is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 01:40 PM
  #56
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Can someone please explain to me what the big problem is out in Alberta?

I hear a lot of complaining, but no actual reasons why there is complaining (even on this board there aren't any explainations)... also with regards to the last comment by theoil (BC, Alberta, Yukon being their own country), I don't feel the same hostility towards the federal government from B.C. that I do from Alberta...

Not being a smart ass, I just don't know what the real issues are (obviously there are some as the Liberals can barely win a seat in Alberta), and how these issues are different from what everyone else faces (i.e. money waste like the sponsorship program).

dawgbone is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 01:56 PM
  #57
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by theoil
I predict that if the Liberals are successful in cobbling together a government that there will be a petition begun to ask the provincial government to hold a referendum on separation. Personally I have reached the conclusion that BC, Alberta and the Yukon would make a great country.

I have traditionally been a federalist, but I have to honestly say that with each passing election I experience, I end up leaning more and more towards the need for big changes for Alberta. If those changes result in a serparatist movement then so be it.

The one thing that I constantly left feeling after an election is "what's the point?"

copperandblue is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 01:57 PM
  #58
Allan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: United Nations
Posts: 1,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by theoil
Or the conservatives with the right wing. This country has never seen a right wing 'government in my lifetime so trying to portray the Conservatives as 'extreme right' is not only dishonest liberal rhetoric but show a fairly limited understanding of political possibilities.
Where would you place the Conservatives? I only referred to them as extreme right because they are by far the furthest right of the Canadian parties. I wasn't equating Harper to Mussolini, but he is clearly much further right than any of the other leaders. On the other hand, Martin is called left wing, but there is a major party which leans much further left than he does.

Allan is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 01:59 PM
  #59
oil slick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by theoil
I predict that if the Liberals are successful in cobbling together a government that there will be a petition begun to ask the provincial government to hold a referendum on separation. Personally I have reached the conclusion that BC, Alberta and the Yukon would make a great country.
So I have to ask.. why do you feel this way now?

a)Are you feeling like the East should have voted Conservative? If so, I have to say that the conservatives brought it on themselves. I was ready to vote conservatives... I did in the last election, but Whites comments, coupled with Harper not coming down hard on him, to me means that the Conservatives could well do things that are completely reprehensible as far as I'm concerned. Far worse than squandering a few hundred million as far as I'm concerned.

b)Do you feel that the results did not adequately represent the Western Voice?

Well - with the present system, you have a Liberal minority.

I hear this idea that proportional representation would be better somehow... If so, look at percentage of the total vote, we would still have a Liberal minority government.

I hear the idea of making it equal, so each province gets an equal number of seats, but then we'd have a liberal majority.
(Alberta, BC, Manitoba, Saskatchewan) = Conservatives
(NB, NFLD, Nanuvat, NWT, NS, Ontario, PEI, Yukon) = Liberals
(Quebec) = Block.


How do you think it should be run?

oil slick is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 02:11 PM
  #60
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
I have traditionally been a federalist, but I have to honestly say that with each passing election I experience, I end up leaning more and more towards the need for big changes for Alberta. If those changes result in a serparatist movement then so be it.

The one thing that I constantly left feeling after an election is "what's the point?"
Ah yes, the good old Separatist movement.

It's always about the separtist movement until you realize what a kick in the shorts it is to actually go through with it.

Good luck with your currency... because it sure as hell won't be Canadian... and any power or energy supplied to Alberta outside of Alberta? Bye bye (unless you are going to pay through the nose for it.

And good luck with land-claims... don't think it's going to be a simple matter of what's on the map labelled Alberta is going to be part of this new Mecca of P.C. thinkers.

And while all this is happening, kiss some of those multi-national corporations good-bye... nothing scares the crap out of business men like political and economical instability.

There is a reason Quebec voted no... It's not simply a matter of the status quo, except you get a little more control.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 02:14 PM
  #61
Allan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: United Nations
Posts: 1,405
vCash: 500
There'd also be the mass exodus into Canada. A very substantial portion of the population who could afford to leave, would, leaving a serious economic crisis.

Allan is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 03:49 PM
  #62
Cerebral
Registered User
 
Cerebral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,725
vCash: 500
Sigh, pretty disappointing night. I really thought the Conservatives would win a few more seats but it just didn't work out. I thought it was all going to come down to BC to decide it but the Liberals major victory out east early on pretty much ended it. I believe there are only two non-Conservative MP's in Alberta and they're both in Edmonton. At least the Li(e)berals can't form a clear coalition with the NDP. It will be interesting to see if Layton can actually convince parliament to introduce a proportional representation system..

Cerebral is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 03:55 PM
  #63
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,880
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
On the seperation front. The question isn't why leave... it's why stay. For years the wests voice equates to, at best, being able to decide which eastern party will hold the balance of power. The west has no real say at all in the governance of our country because the only place where it really matters is in Ontario and Quebec because that is where the election is won or lost (as we saw yesterday). Do you want some financial reasons why we should leave? Between 1961 and 1992 Alberta paid out $139 BILLION** more to Ottawa then it recieved back. If that money was to stay in Alberta, then we would be far and away the RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. If you think big companies - Oil- will leave because of instability you're simply ignorant to the fact because Alberta has the second largest oil reserves known to man and holds the potential to create a western global economy that is barely reliant upon oil from the middle east. And the hypocracy that is how the Liberals would ratify the Kyoto accord and inforce it on our Oil (yet another Liberal taking shots, which would lead, as did with Trudeau's NEP, at western economy) yet would exclude Ontario's Auto industry. Simple fact is that to seperate would put us in a position to make Luxembourg look like Ethiopia. I am not some cold blooded anti-social person that believes in a cut-throat world. But I am a FIRM believer that if you want to take my money, you better ask and be thankful and offer us something in return rather then just take it and run as if it's yours to begin with. The simple fact is that there are only two key contributors to the confederation, Ontario and Alberta. Ontario gets its say Alberta doesn't. That's why we want out, and that's why EVERY Albertan on this board needs to remember yesterday and remember how YOUR opinion in this confederation is worth NOTHING.

** Source: Dr. Robert Mansell and Ronald Schlenker, “The Provincial Distribution of Federal Fiscal Balances,” Canadian Business Economics 3:2 (Winter, 1995), 3-21

__________________
http://hfboards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=160 - the Unofficial HF Political board
thome_26 is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 03:58 PM
  #64
get yer Aivazoff
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: a little left of centre
Posts: 39
vCash: 500
Welcome to the ruin of Montreal. After Expo, the profile of Montreal had never been higher -- we were THE world-class city of Canada. Literally -- immigration here boomed because it was the only city many non-Canadians could even name. Enter the separatist movement, referendum, October crisis, referendum #2. Goodbye employers, enjoy Brockville Ontario. Goodbye English citizens, enjoy Toronto. Montreal is now economically stagnant, despite a short high-tech boom.
Don't let it happen to you!

As an English Quebecer, I've invested a lot of time in my life arguing against separatists. I can't face the prospect of the same old rhetoric raising its head again on both sides. In Quebec, I can at least appreciate the language/cultural/ethnic motivations behind the movement, even if I don't agree with them. Alberta's argument seems to be, "we keep getting overridden by liberal Ontarians, we'll never make them agree with us, so let's form our own country and run it the way we want." Great.
Know what? my next door neighbours are Bloc voters. I'm gonna keep getting overridden by them on public policy. Should I split off from Canada and run my own country? Obviously not. Where do you draw the line? Say Alberta separates, and a relatively liberal Edmonton keeps getting its vote overridden by a relatively right-wing Calgary and rural population. Should Edmonton be allowed to separate from Alberta too?

You can't simply sit there at home and throw up your hands because people a thousand miles away don't believe the same things you do. You have to give them a reason. I give a lot of credit to Harper for a good try at doing that. But he and members of his party made a series of slips over the course of the campaign that betrayed their cause, and re-awakened the worries of urban Ontarians. Don't blame Ontarians for you not getting the government you want, blame the party and its leader for not convincing the people that they needed to convince.

.

get yer Aivazoff is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:02 PM
  #65
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Ah yes, the good old Separatist movement.

It's always about the separtist movement until you realize what a kick in the shorts it is to actually go through with it.
I am not arguing for a separatist moevement here. I am simply saying that I am tired of being told what I can expect out of my government by people that do not represent my concerns or needs.

If a movement against the status quo goes in the direction of a separatist movement then so be it. It doesn't mean that I think it will be successful, but it would likely cause some changes, including the transfer of more power to the provinces and a more hands off approach by the Feds.

copperandblue is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:07 PM
  #66
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,880
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
What more can be done to convince!?!?!? Ontario elected a CORRUPT party. And the problem is that it isn't simply because we disagree.... it's because our opinion NEVER EVER matters. The conservatives were a party willing to give the west a greater say by reform in the house and in the senate - but his message wasn't heard as loudly by the foolish masses (I'm not saying all are fools, I'm saying the masses, I know that many voted conservative and herd the message) as what complete and utter scare adds (lies) were. What will it take to open their eyes!?!?! I guarentee that if this minority government lasts and if another Liberal government (especially if it's a majority) then you will see the seperatist parties all over Alberta win NUMEROUS seats in the both federal and provincal elections. Perhaps after a 100 years of not not listening we have the right to want to for our OWN government and decide HOW and WHEN we give money to Quebec and the maritimes.

thome_26 is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:17 PM
  #67
get yer Aivazoff
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: a little left of centre
Posts: 39
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thome_26
What more can be done to convince!?!?!? Ontario elected a CORRUPT party. And the problem is that it isn't simply because we disagree.... it's because our opinion NEVER EVER matters. The conservatives were a party willing to give the west a greater say by reform in the house and in the senate - but his message wasn't heard as loudly by the foolish masses (I'm not saying all are fools, I'm saying the masses, I know that many voted conservative and herd the message) as what complete and utter scare adds (lies) were. What will it take to open their eyes!?!?! I guarentee that if this minority government lasts and if another Liberal government (especially if it's a majority) then you will see the seperatist parties all over Alberta win NUMEROUS seats in the both federal and provincal elections. Perhaps after a 100 years of not not listening we have the right to want to for our OWN government and decide HOW and WHEN we give money to Quebec and the maritimes.
How does your opinion not matter? That's absolute garbage. Your opinion matters exactly as much as the opinion of Joe Toronto. You feel powerless now with 26-odd seats in your province? Try moving to New Brunswick and see how you feel with 2. This is the nature of representation by population. If Alberta separates, you will face the same problem, merely on a different scale. Dividing the land area of the country arbitrarily until the public opinion of each sector's inhabitants matches a particular political party or platform is not a solution.

Face this fact: Ontarians eyes are open. They were ready to vote Conservative and give Harper a chance. The polls pointed to that all the way through the campaign. In the end, they elected the Liberals because they preferred a corrupt party that matches their beliefs on social policies over a potentially corrupt party that is diametrically opposed to their beliefs on social policies.

.

get yer Aivazoff is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:18 PM
  #68
Allan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: United Nations
Posts: 1,405
vCash: 500
How exactly is it that people in Alberta have less say than people in Ontario? The number of citizens represented in each riding is almost identical. That means that people in Alberta have exactly the same amount of influence as people in Ontario. The difference is that there are a lot more people there, so it seems to me that they should have more seats in a democracy. After all, I thought the idea was to represent everyone equally. The only way to give Alberta a lot more say in the House of Commons would be to have more seats out here, which would give individual Albertans more say over the country than individual Ontarians, which is hardly a fair, democratic system.

Allan is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:31 PM
  #69
theoil
Registered User
 
theoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,155
vCash: 500
Those who argue for the status quo in this country always seem to proceed from the assumption that the status quo is a country. Canada, in my opinion, is not a country but a remnant of an empire whose power has devolved from London and Paris to Toronto and Montreal. Toronto is currently winning that battle but it has never been a battle between other than those two centres. The list of grievances is long and loathsome but for those that have to ask in this year 2004 I think that ignorance in and of itself is the answer. In this past election campaign we were told over and over again by Paul Martin that we are not Canadians and I think that a larger and larger number are starting to believe it.

Now I know there are policy issues and economic issues and almost all of them lead Albertans to the conclusion that we would be better off outside of Canada with the condition that we can get sea port access. If Alberta were in the geographic position that BC is in we would have been gone 25 years ago.

What is the proper size of a country? It is funny. As the Soviet empire was breaking up over the last 15 years most Canadians cheered. The Ontario empire may be more benign but it is still an empire. It runs Ottawa. We don't like it. We don't like the way that we are treated.

And you must reflect upon this. Quebec, which is the part of Canada that is generally considered to be closest to voting for independance, votes for the Liberals quite often. Haven't noticed that out here. In fact most Albertans will tell you that the Liberals get 80% of their votes from Ontarians who have moved here as adults.

The reason I raised the issue of independance for Alberta and BC (and maybe Yukon and Saskatchewan) is because it is actually an excellent size for a country. Larger than any European country it would flourish. I see this as a positive and natural step in the maturation of this part of the country. I know that the Globe and the Star and CBC all try to persuade Torontonians that we just aren't as evolved as you guys but the truth of the matter is far from that. We see the mistakes and stupidities and stubborness of positions adopted by a centrist based media and political structure and we think we can do much better.

I had lunch today with a fairly major player in the Liberal party. He sits on McLellan's board (she is my neighbour oh shame of shames) and the dreaded word 'region' came out of his mouth. He was making a point and didn't even hear himself. I looked at him and told him that until I heard a liberal refer to Ontario as a region I would not believe that they had any idea of what the problem is. He is a Liberal but he is also an Albertan. As soon as he heard it he knew what the problem is.

I hope this helps.


Last edited by theoil: 06-29-2004 at 04:35 PM. Reason: spelling
theoil is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:47 PM
  #70
get yer Aivazoff
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: a little left of centre
Posts: 39
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by get yer Aivazoff
You feel powerless now with 26-odd seats in your province? Try moving to New Brunswick and see how you feel with 2.
Do excuse me. 28 and 10 respectively. Substitute 4 for PEI or 1 for Nunavut if you like. The point is the same.

Theoil -- the status quo IS a country. It's a country that I love, that I believe has value, and can work just fine. I am not denying that Albertans have legitimate gripes. However, I do not believe the way to address those gripes is to tear Canada apart and start fresh. You have elected the leaders that you believe will best serve your interests. It is now the responsibility of those leaders to spread your message.

Yes, Quebec often votes Liberal. Quebec is very left-wing socially, perhaps more so than any other province. People vote accordingly. Same with Alberta (edit--same in that people usually vote according to their beliefs on social policies). A party with a more conservative social agenda will have trouble convincing these people (edit--social liberals) that they will represent them adequately in government. Hence, the defeat of Harper's party.

To win other people to your cause, you have to give them a reason. Harper had a glorious chance, given the general sense of disenchantment with the Liberals. However, he was not able to convince people that he would represent their social beliefs on issues such as abortion, gay marriage/human rights, access to health care, and preserving the environment. Social liberals fear the damage that a right-wing party could wreak. In my opinion, if Harper had made concessions on some of his social policy agendas, he could have made a lot more headway than he did.

I'm sure Alberta could be a great country. But Canada is already a great country. It is my home, and I love it. I love Alberta, and I don't want to see it go. I love Quebec (my home), and I don't want to see it go. I want to make Canada a strong nation that everyone from coast to coast WANTS to be a part of.

.


Last edited by get yer Aivazoff: 06-29-2004 at 04:50 PM.
get yer Aivazoff is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:47 PM
  #71
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,880
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allan
How exactly is it that people in Alberta have less say than people in Ontario? The number of citizens represented in each riding is almost identical. That means that people in Alberta have exactly the same amount of influence as people in Ontario. The difference is that there are a lot more people there, so it seems to me that they should have more seats in a democracy. After all, I thought the idea was to represent everyone equally. The only way to give Alberta a lot more say in the House of Commons would be to have more seats out here, which would give individual Albertans more say over the country than individual Ontarians, which is hardly a fair, democratic system.
Oh, yes, per capita everything is nice and fair. Economicly? Not a chance. The fact is that although, yes, per person all the say is good and equal - the vast majority of the populace is located in one area. The fact that Ontario's government (also known as the federal government) sets policies to keep the people who elect it happy. Guess what.... that's what they do, and there for they don't listen to what we have to say. For instance, imagine Ontario as a state of the US, and all that government does is take, take, take, take. It's a complete detriment to the people of Ontario to be apart of the the States..... is it democratic what they would be doing? Yes, most certainly. Is it right? Well.... if you think so then that is yet another reason why I have considered myself an Albertan LONG LONG LONG before a Canadian becuase my "fellow" Canadians use me and benefit off of my wealth without so much as a thanks.

thome_26 is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:48 PM
  #72
HotToddy
Registered User
 
HotToddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Can someone please explain to me what the big problem is out in Alberta?

I hear a lot of complaining, but no actual reasons why there is complaining (even on this board there aren't any explainations)... also with regards to the last comment by theoil (BC, Alberta, Yukon being their own country), I don't feel the same hostility towards the federal government from B.C. that I do from Alberta...

Not being a smart ass, I just don't know what the real issues are (obviously there are some as the Liberals can barely win a seat in Alberta), and how these issues are different from what everyone else faces (i.e. money waste like the sponsorship program).
It's called taxation without representation. As an Albertan and a Canadian I don't mind paying taxes and sharing our wealth with the rest of the confederate. We are fortunate here in Alberta to be sitting on a wealth of black gold and I don't resent equalization dollars going to other provinces.

What I can't accept is not having a Godamn say in how this country is run.
Elected senate, we can dream on. We don't like the gun registry, too F**CKING bad it's gonna be crammed down our chaw. Kyoto is gonna cause problems with the oil industry, suck it up Alberta, we're only handing out exemptions to the Ontario auto industry.

We have this antiquedated parliament system that makes the opinions of our elected MP's null and void. Central/Atlantic Canada votes in the Liberals and that's what we get an Eastern based governent with an Eastern based cabinet and Eastern based views. That's why an elected Senate is such a big deal in Alberta,to at least allow for the possibility of some balance of power in Ottawa.

The question remains, how long can a nation that is divided into three political regions survive. I would guess this county is in the last 20-30 years of it's life for the simple reason that the powers to be have never come up with a way to distribute power equally among the provinces. People point fingers and laugh at the American republic system but they found a way to distribute power among 50 states (triple E senate) we can't even do it among 10 provinces. Liberals can laugh and Conservatives can whine about last nights result but we are witnessing the beginning of the end of Confederation.

HotToddy is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:56 PM
  #73
PineJockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: E-Town
Posts: 616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotToddy
We have this antiquedated parliament system that makes the opinions of our elected MP's null and void. Central/Atlantic Canada votes in the Liberals and that's what we get an Eastern based governent with an Eastern based cabinet and Eastern based views. That's why an elected Senate is such a big deal in Alberta,to at least allow for the possibility of some balance of power in Ottawa..

And yet Conservative voters (although not, I might add the CPC party), seem to reject the notion of proportional representation . . .

PineJockey is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:56 PM
  #74
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,880
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
Quote:
Originally Posted by get yer Aivazoff
Do excuse me. 28 and 10 respectively. Substitute 4 for PEI or 1 for Nunavut if you like. The point is the same.

Theoil -- the status quo IS a country. It's a country that I love, that I believe has value, and can work just fine. I am not denying that Albertans have legitimate gripes. However, I do not believe the way to address those gripes is to tear Canada apart and start fresh. You have elected the leaders that you believe will best serve your interests. It is now the responsibility of those leaders to spread your message.

Yes, Quebec often votes Liberal. Quebec is very left-wing socially, perhaps more so than any other province. People vote accordingly. Same with Alberta (edit--same in that people usually vote according to their beliefs on social policies). A party with a more conservative social agenda will have trouble convincing these people (edit--social liberals) that they will represent them adequately in government. Hence, the defeat of Harper's party.

To win other people to your cause, you have to give them a reason. Harper had a glorious chance, given the general sense of disenchantment with the Liberals. However, he was not able to convince people that he would represent their social beliefs on issues such as abortion, gay marriage/human rights, access to health care, and preserving the environment. Social liberals fear the damage that a right-wing party could wreak. In my opinion, if Harper had made concessions on some of his social policy agendas, he could have made a lot more headway than he did.

I'm sure Alberta could be a great country. But Canada is already a great country. It is my home, and I love it. I love Alberta, and I don't want to see it go. I love Quebec (my home), and I don't want to see it go. I want to make Canada a strong nation that everyone from coast to coast WANTS to be a part of.

.
Then people in the east HAVE to stop electing centralists who are only interested in serving the east!!! Why would they not vote for the reform party then? Because the main agenda of the reform party was to give the west a voice. Guess what, if that happens then the west wouldn't be run over like it has been. Do you truely believe that it is just that a province should be burdened economicaly and financialy to be part of a confederation where the people who benefit from Alberta's presence continue to elect governments that don't care one bit about the western part of the country!? Canada is a great country for those who benefit from the status quo. To those of us who are burdened and who's opinions are rendered valueless it is a terrible system that is simply holding us back as a people.

thome_26 is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 05:01 PM
  #75
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by thome_26
On the seperation front. The question isn't why leave... it's why stay. For years the wests voice equates to, at best, being able to decide which eastern party will hold the balance of power. The west has no real say at all in the governance of our country because the only place where it really matters is in Ontario and Quebec because that is where the election is won or lost (as we saw yesterday). Do you want some financial reasons why we should leave? Between 1961 and 1992 Alberta paid out $139 BILLION** more to Ottawa then it recieved back. If that money was to stay in Alberta, then we would be far and away the RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. If you think big companies - Oil- will leave because of instability you're simply ignorant to the fact because Alberta has the second largest oil reserves known to man and holds the potential to create a western global economy that is barely reliant upon oil from the middle east. And the hypocracy that is how the Liberals would ratify the Kyoto accord and inforce it on our Oil (yet another Liberal taking shots, which would lead, as did with Trudeau's NEP, at western economy) yet would exclude Ontario's Auto industry. Simple fact is that to seperate would put us in a position to make Luxembourg look like Ethiopia. I am not some cold blooded anti-social person that believes in a cut-throat world. But I am a FIRM believer that if you want to take my money, you better ask and be thankful and offer us something in return rather then just take it and run as if it's yours to begin with. The simple fact is that there are only two key contributors to the confederation, Ontario and Alberta. Ontario gets its say Alberta doesn't. That's why we want out, and that's why EVERY Albertan on this board needs to remember yesterday and remember how YOUR opinion in this confederation is worth NOTHING.

** Source: Dr. Robert Mansell and Ronald Schlenker, “The Provincial Distribution of Federal Fiscal Balances,” Canadian Business Economics 3:2 (Winter, 1995), 3-21
Ah yes, the good old "The Provincial Distribution of Federal Fiscal Balances" report. A little outdated, but still interesting. Interesting in the numbers you quoted are on a strictly cash flow basis, not a benefits basis. The difference of course is huge, and it irritates me to no extent that people are continually grabbing this report and taking small sections out and crying about it.

Firstly, cash-flow is the very simplified version of it. It's also the only means to look at it, because once the money is in the pot, it's hard to look back after 30 years to find exactly what money went to what.

Now, the real analysis is the benefit basis, and in his report (which I hope to God you actually read, and didn't just rip this from that separation alberta website), he clearly defined the two.

If the federal government collected $10 billion in revenues from province A and used it to purchase $10 billion worth of military hardware produced in province B, the cash-flow approach would show a transfer of $10 billion in purchasing power from province A to province B. With the benefits approach, the expenditure of $10 billion would be viewed as producing consumption (or defense) benefits of this amount and some portion of these would be credited back to province A. If this were the only transaction and the two provinces were equal in terms of population, the benefits approach would show a balance of -$5 billion for province A and +$5 billion for province B. With the cash flow approach, the respective balances would be -$10 billion and +$10 billion.

It also states that the fiscal balances by region are determined by: Direct Taxes (income taxes on individuals and corporations, succession and estate duties, contributions to public service pensions, contributions to unemployment insurance and withholding taxes); Indirect Taxes (indirect taxes on banks and insurance
companies, customs import duties, excise duties, excise taxes, the oil export charge, the Petroleum Compensation levy, the Canadian Ownership charge, air transportation taxes, and miscellaneous indirect taxes); Investment Income (interest
on government-held public funds and on loans, advances and investments plus remittances from government business enterprises); Government Expenditure (expenditures on goods and services associated with government operations); Transfer Payments (transfer payments to individuals, businesses, non-residents and to provincial and municipal governments); and Interest on the Public Debt
(interest payments to residents and non-residents).

Add to that, which is the biggest thing here, is that if the going price for oil was $10/barrel, and Alberta sold it to Ontario for $6/barrel, Alberta adds $4, and Ontario takes away $4. And considering Alberta sold a tonne of Oil to Ontario between 1962 and 1992, yeah, that's going to affect Albert a lot.

Add to that the fact Albert has been selling Oil to all of Canada under the going market value, that grossly inflated number becomes huge. If you sell 3000 barrels of Oiler for $2 under market value, yours (according to the table) goes up $2, while who ever you sold it to has theirs drop $2, meaning a $6000 difference either way. Add to that the fact that Alberta has shipped a hell of a lot more Oil than that in 30 years, and you see why the difference is so huge.

Don't kid yourself, Alberta made a hell of a lot of money from this.

I really would wish that people read the whole report instead of picking out one single table and labelling it as fact... it's absolutely tragic that Robert Mansell and Ronald Schlenker went to all that trouble to go into detail about what the study involved to have one person destroy all that research by posting an inaccruate (which it was) listing of his interpretation of some of the information.

dawgbone is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:47 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.