Klein " We already give more than our fair share"

[Clarkey]

If other Canadians want a bigger fist full of Alberta's cash why don't they move here and work. Or buy stocks in Alberta energy companies.

[MarchHare]

Originally posted by Clarkey@Sep 19 2005, 09:41 AM
If other Canadians want a bigger fist full of Alberta's cash why don't they move here and work. Or buy stocks in Alberta energy companies.

They are.

Alberta is one of only two or three provinces that sees a net increase in inter-provincial migration. IIRC, the population of Calgary has doubled in the last decade. In New Brunswick where I grew up, all the smart young people are leaving, mostly to Halifax, Toronto, and Vancouver, but many to Alberta too.

And surely you've heard the joke, "Q: What's the second largest city in Newfoundland? A: Fort MacMurray.", right?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by fotze@Sep 19 2005, 03:44 PM
No that's not what I'm trying to say at all goof.

Without some sort of order to the extraction, it turns into a complete shinguardshow, ruining the resource and the land. This is a prime example of how it happened. Business and government saw how stupid that was and decided to do it with some order after bad cases like that.

I get the feeling your parents are really wealthy and you just can't stand to see your precious inheritance to dwindle at all.

I'm all for anarchy as long I am born into money, much like this shirt for babies.

Sorry to dissapoint but the only oil I own is in my car.

I can give you countless examples where the state has ruined the environment as well. But I will ask you this - what incentive does the company have to ruin resources it owns and generate negative publicity (when they completely neglect environmental issues)? Politicians, on the other hand, think short term. It is in their interest to extract as much resources as they want, consequences be damned. When people realize them, politicians are long retired so they dont bear any responsibility.

[monkeyman]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Sep 19 2005, 02:27 AM
How about the oil belongs to someone who finds it, drills a hole and extracts it from the oil field?

Or would that be too fairy tale-ish?

There was a time when it was like that. What happend was, companies would find oil and then extract as much of it as fast as they could before company b came in drilled into their pool and started sucking the oil out. At the time gas was seen as a waste and was burnt off. This ruined countless numbers of pools/fields and made it impossible to extract the majority of the oil, which still sits in the ground today. Did you know we still extract only about 50% of the oil that’s in the ground? (Someone correct me if my number is off)
The Alberta government then decided it had to protect this asset and formed the AEUB which monitors companies and ensures each pool/field is being produced to its full potential. When companies buy the mineral rights, they only buy the right to produce those minerals, they don’t own them, and they still belong to the Alberta government.
Alberta is an example for, not only other provinces but other countries when it comes to managing its natural resources.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Sep 19 2005, 06:50 AM
Actually, his argument is sound.

If Alberta's Oil should belong to all of Canada because the difference between Alberta and BC is merely a line on a map, why should national borders matter?

What is the difference between Alberta and Montana, except for a thicker line on a map?

People on the other side tend to be very self-serving with their arguments against jurisdiction over our oil.

Our oil does not belong to all Canadians. If you want to argue that artificially placed borders should not matter, then a Texan should have equal rights to our oil as a Nova Scotian.

Unfortunately for this argument, artificially placed borders do matter until such point as the constitution is changed.

I'm not even saying that Alberta's oil should belong to all of Canada. I agree that the borders do matter and the constitution states this.
I'm just saying that comparing Canada to New Zealand or Texas to New foundland is quite stretchy.
If the Canadian constitution states it's Alberta's oil, doesn't that involve Canada?

[Clarkey]

Originally posted by monkeyman@Sep 19 2005, 07:43 PM
This ruined countless numbers of pools/fields and made it impossible to extract the majority of the oil, which still sits in the ground today. Did you know we still extract only about 50% of the oil that’s in the ground? (Someone correct me if my number is off)

I think it's more like 20-30% recovery depending on the reservoir and techniques used, good point though.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates@Sep 19 2005, 06:42 PM
I'm not even saying that Alberta's oil should belong to all of Canada. I agree that the borders do matter and the constitution states this.
I'm just saying that comparing Canada to New Zealand or Texas to New foundland is quite stretchy.
If the Canadian constitution states it's Alberta's oil, doesn't that involve Canada?

I believe both of our comments are in response to a oft-made argument by easterners that we dont deserve to benefit "exclusively" because Alberta's borders just happened to be drawn right around one of the largest desposits of oil on earth.

I've argued this many times in the past, and very often, this line of reasoning all comes down to the other person saying that artificially placed borders should not matter, or in Hakan's case, that the oil should belong to all Canadians.

If that is the case, then the oil should belong to all North Americans.

Or everyone in the world.

It is funny how Alberta's oil should belong to all Canadians, but only Canadians. The self-serving nature of this argument is what defeats it. The touch of irony and hypocracy is not lost on me either. Alberta's borders dont matter, but Canada's do.

[Resolute 14]

I wonder how much David Swann's constituents appreciate being told they are greedy?

Why the Libs dont get many votes in Alberta

Tue, September 20, 2005

EDITORIAL: Share, or else!

In just two short sentences, Calgary Liberal MLA David Swann has demonstrated why the Alberta Liberals will never form the government in our lifetime and reminded us exactly why we don't believe the federal Liberals when they deny there's another national energy program in the works.

Swann was reacting last week to the poll published in the Globe and Mail - the second one of its kind this month from Canada's unofficial "Get Alberta!" newspaper - suggesting that 61% of Canadians outside of Alberta believe that "Alberta should share its budget surplus with other provinces hurt by higher energy costs."

Premier Ralph Klein reacted to the poll with his usual, 'Yeah, you and what army?' bravado, declaring, "It's not in the cards." But Swann declared that Albertans just aren't generous enough. "Alberta needs to step up and share," said Swann. "The feds will do what they need to do in the interests of Canada - they don't need to apologize for that."

Wow. It's nice to see Swann so willing to commit his party to another eternity on the backbenches of the Alberta legislature with his willingness to sell out our province to the federal Liberals like that.

As has been pointed out by numerous columnists and commentators lately, Alberta shares plenty with the rest of Canada - to the tune of about $2,400 per person or about $10 billion to $12 billion per year. For a family of four in Alberta, that's nearly $10,000 per year paid in taxes that leaves this province to subsidize government services for people in have-not provinces.

...

[MarchHare]

I wonder how much David Swann's constituents appreciate being told they are greedy?

I highly suspect that anyone who would be upset at Swann's comments wouldn't have voted for him to begin with.

And in other news, support for the federal Liberal Party is up 16% in Alberta. Granted, they couldn't go any further down, but that's still a pretty dramatic increase for the most anti-Liberal province in the country.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2005/...1222599-cp.html

Marois said the poll revealed strong growth for the Liberals in Western Canada, including a jump of 16 percentage points in Alberta in two months and an increase of 14 percentage points in British Columbia.

In Ontario, the Liberals outstripped the Conservatives by a 46-27 margin, while the Bloc Quebecois continued its dominance in Quebec, leading the Grits by a 55-34 score.

The poll of 1,500 respondents is considered accurate within 2.6 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, meaning Liberal support could be as high as 42.6 per cent or as low as 37.4 per cent.

I guess we can turn this into another thread about how Canadians are just a bunch of brainless sheep and only the free-thinkers from Alberta can save us from ourselves.

[transplant99]

But Swann declared that Albertans just aren't generous enough. "Alberta needs to step up and share," said Swann

Yeah....but thats not what they REALLY mean.....just ask em.

And MH.....take a hike.

Free-thinkers in ALBERTA want what's best for ALBERTANS. Just like the welfare whiners in the other provinces want whats best for them....Albertas money. Its so clear, its a joke.

The Liberal party you so PROUDLY support and defend are nothing but a bunch of crooked, bungling, pork-barreling buffooons. Be thankful Ontario supports them....or they would be in the exact same position that the Conservatives find themselves.

IMO only, (and i hope this is OK with you rabbit man) Alberta are the ONLY province that collectively thinks for themselves....and not what they can get....from Alberta.

[Resolute 14]

Much like it was with the last provincial election, Liberal gains in Alberta very likely have nothing to do with anything the Liberal party itself. Rather, concern with the Conservatives. Given that the NDP is no option, and the Greens arent even as good as the NDP at the moment, there is nowhere else for one to go.

Of course, as is nice with stats, they can be manipulated any way one wants.

The latest Ipsos-Reid poll has support at 56-24 C-L. April 16, it was 65-9. However, April 24, it was 57-26. All polls done by Ipsos-Reid.

Truthfully, the Liberals have always polled around 20-24%. Even during the height of AdScam, while one poll might put them at 8%, the rest were still around 20%. It's all about the question, and who you ask.

In reality, the Liberals havent gained or lost anything. They merely remain in a rut they have no hope of escaping, while their fortunes are determined by what the Conservatives are doing rather than the Liberals.

[Winsor_Pilates]

In just two short sentences, Calgary Liberal MLA David Swann has demonstrated why the Alberta Liberals will never form the government in our lifetime and reminded us exactly why we don't believe the federal Liberals when they deny there's another national energy program in the works.

Don't believe that Libs when they say there's no NEP in the works?
The same people, who always say the Conservatives have no hidden agenda, have no problem claiming there's hidden agendas in the other parties. Slightly hypocritical I think.
Not to mention this quote links the provincial Liberals, with the federal Liberals to conveniently take a shot at both. Looks like something Ezra Lavent would write.
This quote could very easily be changed to this...

In just two short sentences, Conservative MP (choose one) has demonstrated why the Federal Conservatives will never form the government in our lifetime and reminded us exactly why we don't believe the federal Conservatives when they deny there's (Insert hidden agenda topic here) in the works.

[Resolute 14]

As they say, what's good for the goose is good for the gander...

While I mostly agree with you, the difference here is that it is a Liberal saying Alberta should give more to Canada (read: Federal Liberals). On the "conservative hidden agenda" thing, it is Liberals saying the Conservatives have that hidden agenda.

Kinda hard for the Libs to call this an opposition lie when Libs themselves are making such comments.

Regardless, I hope the Conservatives and Alliance pull those comments back out come next provincial election. MLA's arent supposed to be intimating that their constituents are greedy, especially when they already overpay.