Alberta's Ticket Out? Poll

[redforever]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I tend to agree... But at the same time, I also tend to look around our fair country and notice that the only time any province has acheived any kind of fair say is when they threaten to seperate. So what does Alberta do? Just sit back and take it up the arse while Ontario and Quebec decide everything, or does Alberta stand up and say "Hey F'rs, We're pulling our weight around here... How about listening to us for a minute??? Remember, without us, you'd be kinda screwed right now..."

2/3 of the popluation is indeed in Quebec and Ontario, but how much is subsidized by other provinces? If everyone threatened to take ball/go home, they'd be screwed. Time for them to realize that we're not just a bunch of farmers at their mercy.

Here is something else I became aware of today and this is what I mean when I say, we need parliamentary reform.

BC and Alberta has just as large a combined population as Quebec, or a bit more, yet in Parliament, BC and Alberta have 11 fewer seats.

That is one thing that easily could and should be changed to reflect the current populations.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Each original member of NAFTA has a veto over the inclusion of any new member.

Think about that for a second...

OK...so you're for separation?

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Yah. BC, Sask and Yukon don't send money east, either...

You may want to do some factchecking.

[Flames in 07]

edit

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by Slava

OK...so you're for separation?

Nope. Because there's no way in hell AB would be admitted to NAFTA.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by redforever

Here is something else I became aware of today and this is what I mean when I say, we need parliamentary reform.

BC and Alberta has just as large a combined population as Quebec, or a bit more, yet in Parliament, BC and Alberta have 11 fewer seats.

That is one thing that easily could and should be changed to reflect the current populations.

And this is a huge reason why I'm whining so loud. Because it's never gonna happen. For it to happen, the constitution has to be changed. Quebec and Ontario and (IIRC) a few other provinces already have their entitled seat amount that is greater than we can achieve. Why would they ever give up their advantage?

Being told to suck it up is fine, but it's starting to sound like wife-beating after awhile.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Nope. Because there's no way in hell AB would be admitted to NAFTA.

Ya, the US hates oil, they could care less if AB built up pipelines to the west coast ... I think AB would have a fair bit of clout with the US.

However the thing that comes with separation is that after all the emotional venom and a vote there is a reality of setting up a new country. from a RCMP replacement to a clusterF government trying to figure out all the things that used to be out of their jurisdiction.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

You may want to do some factchecking.

Thanks, Hakan. Because Sask started contributing what... this year? And the Yukon is a territory, so they have half the say that we as a province have? And BC is contributing? Grrrreat... What? A couple bucks?

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Ya, the US hates oil, they could care less if AB built up pipelines to the west coast ... I think AB would have a fair bit of clout with the US.

However the thing that comes with separation is that after all the emotional venom and a vote there is a reality of setting up a new country. from a RCMP replacement to a clusterF government trying to figure out all the things that used to be out of their jurisdiction.

Pretty simple take on the situation. If you don't think that's a problem that's great, but I'd recommend coming up with better reasoning than that as to why not being a part of NAFTA is a very bad situation.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Slava

Times change though, and that is the point of confederation to begin with: if you are in a region as prosperous as ours you help out some of the less fortunate areas of the country.

It'd be nice if there was some kind of shared vision..something more than free (paid for in AB) health care and hockey.

I still think preston manning's the west wants in message was the one for me. It'll never happen, but I'd leave long before I'd ask the province to leave.

Cal-i-forn-ia here I come....

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Slava

I've heard that over the past couple of days, but don't really know what to make of it. What should Stelmach be saying/doing here to "stand up" for us?

Exactly, and what was the turnout at our last provincial election?

Pathetic you ask?

We had threads at this site asking if you were going to vote provincially and federally.

Read through them and see how many were willing to let the rest of us decide for them and say that was good enough for them. Well, maybe it wasn't. But for those who actually did go and vote, they gave Stelmach a HUGE majority. Ok, huge out of small voter turn out is not as big a deal as huge with a big voter turn out. Fact is though, each eligible voter had a choice to make, vote or stay home and for those who did make a choice, it was both a CLEAR and a RESOUNDING majority for Stelmach. He won fair and square and he won BIG.

Each and every Canadian has a weapon available to them, your pencil that you vote with during an election. Voting is democracy in action. If on the other hand, you choose to remain la dee dah about elections and choose not to exercise your democratic right to vote, well then, you eventually can and will end up with the current mess that we have in Canada. It is the citizens of the country that preserve democracy.

I am heartened however that Canadians as a whole do seem to be rising to the occasion here in voicing their displeasure about the current situation. We might be apathetic, but if the right circumstances present themselves, we do listen and we do act.

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Thanks, Hakan. Because Sask started contributing what... this year? And the Yukon is a territory, so they have half the say that we as a province have? And BC is contributing? Grrrreat... What? A couple bucks?

nice backpedal

So you admit that what you said was incorrect?

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Pretty simple take on the situation. If you don't think that's a problem that's great, but I'd recommend coming up with better reasoning than that as to why not being a part of NAFTA is a very bad situation.

Not much more simple that you writing off that AB would not be part of it.

As for weather they should be a part of it or not, who knows. That's not my point.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

nice backpedal

So you admit that what you said was incorrect?

I think what he said was the hair you split doesn't mean much. But I may be paraphrasing.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by 4X4

And this is a huge reason why I'm whining so loud. Because it's never gonna happen. For it to happen, the constitution has to be changed. Quebec and Ontario and (IIRC) a few other provinces already have their entitled seat amount that is greater than we can achieve. Why would they ever give up their advantage?

Being told to suck it up is fine, but it's starting to sound like wife-beating after awhile.

No it does not. Electoral change as to changing the boundaries or adding more ridings does not involve constitutional change.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

nice backpedal

So you admit that what you said was incorrect?

You really wanna fool around like this and start talking about nickles and dimes when Alberta has been paying billions more? Sure, yeah. I'm wrong.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by redforever

No it does not. Electoral change as to changing the boundaries or adding more ridings does not involve constitutional change.

It'll never happen. It's in the constitution.

[Ronald Pagan]

There's an important public service to correcting factually incorrect assertions on a public internet site. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of people read this. They see ol'4x4 mouth off about how BC and Sask don't pay equalization and believe it to be true when it's not. In fairness, 4x4 did expand on the knowledge by statis that they pay less and less often than Alberta.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by 4X4

It'll never happen. It's in the constitution.

No, the number of Senate seats is in the constitution.

The number of ridings that we elect MP's in changes with the population.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by redforever

No it does not. Electoral change as to changing the boundaries or adding more ridings does not involve constitutional change.

Let me be more clear... The original provinces were granted certain amounts of seats. Provinces admitted after that were granted seats on a 'need to have' basis. Have fun changing that without changing the constitution.