Should Alberta separate?

[flamingchina]

Originally posted by MarchHare@May 1 2005, 05:32 PM

Think of it this way: Alberta currently has 10% of the seats in Parliament, and people here are crying bloody murder. You want to switch to a system where our representation in the senate would be...10%.

Ummm, we already have 10% of the senate.
The issue is is that our senate is about the same as the Peoples Congress of China. aka a rubber stamper selected from party representives from various places in the country to show the people that they are represented.

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by MarchHare@May 1 2005, 11:32 AM

The alliance with the NDP only occurred after Harper vowed to vote against the budget. Harper didn't vow to take them down because of the changes to the budget.

As for gay marriage, as has been said in numerous other threads, because the Supreme Court has ruled that current marriage laws are unconstitutional, the Liberals only have two options:

1. Change Canada's marriage laws to allow gay marriage.
2. Invoke the notwithstanding clause to continue the status quo.

Doing nothing is not a choice.

Newfoundland + PEI + Nova Scotia + New Brunswick + 1 other province = 50%. Is that what you had in mind?

What four provinces are going to align themselves with "conservative" Alberta in order to get 50% support for anything? A senate where each province gets equal representation does nothing to help Alberta. The big winners are the Atlantic Provinces, and especially tiny PEI.

Well, there are more than two options with gay marriage... I see it as this:
1. Pass it
2. Notwithstanding
3. Consultative Referendum
4. Binding Referendum
5. Take Gov't out of Marriage - Gov'ts register unions, Churches marry
6. Table it for a few years (this is gov't... nothing has to happen overnight)

The way it was handled was clearly a shot across the Conservatives. As for the Alliance with the NDP... that was what FORCED Harper to overthrow. Before he was simply unhappy with his options and was leaning towards doing it. Clearly, if the Liberals would've made a deal with the Conservatives, they would've waited till the end of the year and market themselves as the champions of democracy keeping Parliament working even with a corrupt Liberal core.

As for provinces going left-right in Senate, politics are really not that simple. Many things go Centralization - Decentralization, Pro-Economics - Pro-Welfare, Pro-Conservative - Pro-Liberal, Pro-West - Pro-East...

In many cases you'd probably find Alberta, BC, Sask together, and with many issues you'd see Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario, Nfld, and maybe even Nova Scotia come our way on key votes. It works both ways.

[duncan]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@May 1 2005, 05:05 PM


And while elections may be based stupididly on rep by pop, you can't base running the country on that.

1 person- 1 vote.

yeah, that is a stupid idea. Damn democracy.



the most amazing thing of this argument is that everyone keeps commenting on evil Ontario being the reason the Liberals are still in power.
-the conservatives lost 5 previously Tory seats in BC, as well as two new seats.
-Ontario elected 22 new Conservative MPs in 2004, the biggest increase in any province.
--PEI was 100% Liberal
-the Liberals swept the North again
-the conservatives lost their only seat in Quebec

The conservatives gained more ground in Ontario, than Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba combined, even after a brutal Provincial Tory government. If you want to see where the Conservatives failed go further East, where they failed to gain a single seat in Quebec, or improve at all in NFLD, they actually lost ground in NB and NS, while PEI was 100% Liberal.

[MarchHare]

Originally posted by flamingchina+May 1 2005, 11:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (flamingchina @ May 1 2005, 11:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MarchHare@May 1 2005, 05:32 PM

Think of it this way: Alberta currently has 10% of the seats in Parliament, and people here are crying bloody murder. You want to switch to a system where our representation in the senate would be...10%.

Ummm, we already have 10% of the senate.
The issue is is that our senate is about the same as the Peoples Congress of China. aka a rubber stamper selected from party representives from various places in the country to show the people that they are represented. [/b][/quote]
But you seem to think equal representation by province in the senate is going to fix your woes. It's going to do nothing for Alberta.

What it would do, though, is give the Atlantic Provinces unprecedented power. A region that makes up less than 8% of Canada's population would have a 40% voice in the senate. How can anyone actually advocate that?!

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by duncan+May 1 2005, 11:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (duncan @ May 1 2005, 11:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaptainCrunch@May 1 2005, 05:05 PM


And while elections may be based stupididly on rep by pop, you can't base running the country on that.

1 person- 1 vote.

yeah, that is a stupid idea. Damn democracy.



the most amazing thing of this argument is that everyone keeps commenting on evil Ontario being the reason the Liberals are still in power.
-the conservatives lost 5 previously Tory seats in BC, as well as two new seats.
-Ontario elected 22 new Conservative MPs in 2004, the biggest increase in any province.
--PEI was 100% Liberal
-the Liberals swept the North again
-the conservatives lost their only seat in Quebec

The conservatives gained more ground in Ontario, than Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba combined, even after a brutal Provincial Tory government. If you want to see where the Conservatives failed go further East, where they failed to gain a single seat in Quebec, or improve at all in NFLD, they actually lost ground in NB and NS, while PEI was 100% Liberal. [/b][/quote]
I think no one can argue that there definitely are some Tories in Ontario... problem is they are not the majority. They are also the big swing in the elections.

And I agree, Eastern Canada is a big problem for the Tories. They need to get in there... problem is many Easterners love the big-ticket welfare systems that the Feds operate there. Would you want to stop the gravy train? Many in Eastern Canada do, but not nearly enough.

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by MarchHare+May 1 2005, 11:47 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MarchHare @ May 1 2005, 11:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Ummm, we already have 10% of the senate.
The issue is is that our senate is about the same as the Peoples Congress of China. aka a rubber stamper selected from party representives from various places in the country to show the people that they are represented.

But you seem to think equal representation by province in the senate is going to fix your woes. It's going to do nothing for Alberta.

What it would do, though, is give the Atlantic Provinces unprecedented power. A region that makes up less than 8% of Canada's population would have a 40% voice in the senate. How can anyone actually advocate that?! [/b][/quote]
Don't forget these Senators will also be elected by party lines as well, and that could help Alberta too. As will the need for compromise and favors in voting. (ie: you vote for this, we'll vote for that)

That being said, it could expose a very critical flaw in the makeup in this country and show that we might all be better off as 3 or 4 countries.

Either way, its something that should be attempted. We may get a relatively harmonious result where all provinces can be satisfied with a tolerable amount of compromise. Or, we may get bedlam that forces the West and Quebec to the sidelines and consequently out of Confederation... either way, its better than the appointed and useless thing we have now.

[Shawnski]

So I see some who have CDD (Cranial Deficiency Disorders) are going to argue for equality of individuals, yet don't see the irony in not supporting equality of provinces.

I bet a certain individual like that would likely make fun of mentally challenged people by posting an inappropriate picture such a person, complete with a humilating caption.... Sad, and inexcusable really.

[flamingchina]

Originally posted by MarchHare@May 1 2005, 05:47 PM

But you seem to think equal representation by province in the senate is going to fix your woes. It's going to do nothing for Alberta.

What it would do, though, is give the Atlantic Provinces unprecedented power. A region that makes up less than 8% of Canada's population would have a 40% voice in the senate. How can anyone actually advocate that?!

I never said it would fix all my woes. However it is something I would like to see still, and as thunderball noted, different provinces would ally about different things. resource rich AB, BC, SK, and NF + someone, AB + QC + some others perhaps (who knows) for regional freedom, etc. It would be nice to have a multiple layers of government watching each other. My big complaint about the Senate, is it's members are appointed by the ruling party at the time, which if we had a constant cycling of political parties, would actually work, but we don't, so it doesn't. As well, there is no way to make the senate actually do something.
(mmm and I should note, Alberta doesn't actually have 10%, since NWT, YK, NV each have one seat as well)
The only thing that would fix all my woes is to make me supreme and absolute commander of the Dominion of Canada. My first act would be to move the CAF's bombing range to Edmonton

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Shawnski@May 1 2005, 10:54 AM
So I see some who have CDD (Cranial Deficiency Disorders) are going to argue for equality of individuals, yet don't see the irony in not supporting equality of provinces.

I bet a certain individual like that would likely make fun of mentally challenged people by posting an inappropriate picture such a person, complete with a humilating caption.... Sad, and inexcusable really.

Eh? Who's that aimed at?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Here's my take on things as an outsider, and well an east coaster.

Alberta is on the gravy train right now, I actually think it's great. Watch your money, invest, diversify. Things are different now than they were 150 years ago when Nova Scotia was the Alberta of Canada. Hard to believe eh? Coal, Steel, Fishery, Forrestry, Farming. It's safe to say that they thought they were diversified, mind you the economic knowelege was greatly less than it is now. Now where's Nova Scotia? The poorest province? One of the most indebted? Every single municipality is shrinking but one, and let's be honest, on life support due to the federal government. Is it the welfare equalization that is keeping Nova Scotia afloat? Yep. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so.

The Canadian National Railway had alot to do with the settlement out west, where did the funding for that come from? Where did the support come from? Where did the coal that ran the trains come from? Where did the rails come from?

I know I have a hard time comprehending Nova Scotia being a rich province, and Alberta being poor, but it used to be that way. Now the eastern provinces that built this country are down and out, they're on life support, and there are people that was to cull the herd sort of speak?

Now I'll admit there was a Nova Scotia seperation movement from day 1. But now the long-term benifits for my home province are better than if they went with the short term of being on their own.

What happens in 20-30 years if Alberta is on their own? People are previously stated the ease of moving back and forth, I can move to Alberta tomorrow and it would be no different than me moving to Halifax like I did last summer. No customs, immigration, etc.

Not to mention you'd have to set up a central bank, currency etc. Also with predictions of the US economy being set up for a fall, who's you're biggest trading partner? Canada? Seems counter productive. You no longer have the access to the oceans like you once did. Free trade agreements, Nato, UN, international politics gets complicated I would think.

Maybe it's because I'm on the receiving end of Alberta's handouts, or subsidies, but know that when your province's economy makes a down turn again they'll be there to help you.

Is there something that wrong with helping the little guy?

And Harper scares the who-ha out of most on the East. The mentality is "better the devil you know, than the devil you don't". I'm not going to debate that, just reporting the facts here.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by MarchHare@May 1 2005, 05:16 PM

If representation by population is such a stupid idea, how would you do it?

If you weren't so blinded by your seething hatred of all things Liberal, you would have seen that the budget was written in such a manner to get the CPC's support (corporate tax cuts, etc.). It was only after Harper said he was going to try to bring the government down anyway that the Liberals changed it to try to get the NDP to help pass it.

Please.

See my point above. That only resulted because Harper was so desperate to gain power himself, and the original Conservative-friendly budget fell by the wayside once Harper said he wasn't going to support it afterall.

1. Representation by population dosen't work when your population is centralized yet money from the smaller populations (ie Alberta) flows into the coffers in the center. The NEP was passed and almost destroyed Alberta, but it was sure good for Ontario. The Kyoto accord will greatly harm Alberta, yet the Federal government is going out of thier way to protect the auto industry in Ontario. Polls show that a majority of albertans are against gay marriage, but its what Ontario and Quebec want. In fact at its most base area, Alberta and B.C. and Sask don't vote for the Liberals, yet Ontario puts them into power.

This is a country governed in the best interests of Ontario and Quebec and screw the rest.

If we had a functional and proper senate that wasn't a country club we could balance the parliment out with it. But when an election is over before it even hits the Manitoba border then we're not living in a democracy, we're living in a fiefdom.

I'm all for enlarging the voting areas in Ontario and Quebec and reducing the number of seats residing there, while keeping the number of seats in the west and far east the same.

2. Geez what a terrible thing that Harper wants to bring down a corrupt government. Thats awful. so Martin promptly bends over for the NDP. And don't generalize me with the whole blind hatred of the Liberals thing. I mean honestlyI could say the same thing about you and the CPC.

The fact that Martin is willing to open up our wallet to the NDP in order to hold on to power is disgusting.



press - will you try to work with the conservatives over the possibility of a vote of non confident

Liberals - Those evil conservative bas**rds are trying to privatize health care while carting homosexuals off to consentration camps.




Please.

In one of Martin's last question periods before he went on his little roadshow was asked about the adscam scandal and promptly turned it around with a statement about the Conservatives going after Health Care.

so in response to your please, I say please



Also the Liberals were totally in favor of opening our wallets to appease the wack jobs in the NDP. Trading tax cuts for more stupid and un neccesary spending in order to keep thier grip on power.




See my point above. That only resulted because Harper was so desperate to gain power himself, and the original Conservative-friendly budget fell by the wayside once Harper said he wasn't going to support it afterall.

Bull, initially Harper said that he was willing to support the budget, and try to make parliment work, but as more garbage came from the Gomery Inquiry he withdrew his support. At least he's willing to call a spade a spade. The Liberal party in place is corrupt and criminal and needs to go, at least Harper has been consistant unlike Layton who was willing to use this to his advantage. And Martin and his weepy television speeches and false apologize.

Do I hate the Liberal's, hell yeah, but here's a little tidbit for you, I voted for the Liberals after the last Conservative government fell to scandal and garbage.

As for Liberal corruption, when it all comes out it's all just individuals and they should be held accountable and they will. Calling the liberals corrupt because of a few individuals that have broken the law is like calling the all Cons, Neo-Con like, or having hard core US style evangelical attitudes because a few do in the party. Equally foolish.

Sorry I'm not buying this at all. But nice try trying to absolve the crimes. I guess then you could say that the policies of the Soviet government were just the fault of one or two really bad people.

the Liberal party is responsible for its conduct.

If Martin wants to prove good faith, then he should resign and leave politics since as the second highest ranked Liberal he has shown himself as too incompetant or stupid to be able to control his party. And if he didn't know, then he's too stupid to run a country let alone a parking lot.

This is too well organized, to be the act of a few individuals. Now I will say that Chretian was a corruption force of his own, as were Stewart and the HRDC scandal, and the Gun Registry was the act of an individual, and then there's Gomery. So if you look at thier past records and its a few individuals, its all the ones at the top who have to take responsibility and go.

But I'm out of this debate, because I can see where its going to go with March Hare and others calling me a big red neck ignorant Liberal Canadian hating bas**rd.

Have a nice day.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by flamingchina+May 1 2005, 05:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (flamingchina @ May 1 2005, 05:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MarchHare@May 1 2005, 05:47 PM

But you seem to think equal representation by province in the senate is going to fix your woes. It's going to do nothing for Alberta.

What it would do, though, is give the Atlantic Provinces unprecedented power. A region that makes up less than 8% of Canada's population would have a 40% voice in the senate. How can anyone actually advocate that?!

I never said it would fix all my woes. However it is something I would like to see still, and as thunderball noted, different provinces would ally about different things. resource rich AB, BC, SK, and NF + someone, AB + QC + some others perhaps (who knows) for regional freedom, etc. It would be nice to have a multiple layers of government watching each other. My big complaint about the Senate, is it's members are appointed by the ruling party at the time, which if we had a constant cycling of political parties, would actually work, but we don't, so it doesn't. As well, there is no way to make the senate actually do something.
(mmm and I should note, Alberta doesn't actually have 10%, since NWT, YK, NV each have one seat as well)
The only thing that would fix all my woes is to make me supreme and absolute commander of the Dominion of Canada. My first act would be to move the CAF's bombing range to Edmonton [/b][/quote]
We have bombs, and planes that can carry them. Shocking to me

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by MarchHare@May 1 2005, 04:52 PM

Yes, it's so completely unfair and undemocratic that a province with 40% of Canada's population gets 40% of the representation in Parliament while poor Alberta's share is only 10%, seeing as only 10% of Canadians live in this province.

If you look at the representation by population, Ontario is actually under represented. Lots of people don't realize that.

Having lived in 4 provinces in this country, Albertans don't realize how good they have it.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Maritime Q-Scout@May 1 2005, 06:31 PM

Alberta is on the gravy train right now, I actually think it's great. Watch your money, invest, diversify. Things are different now than they were 150 years ago when Nova Scotia was the Alberta of Canada. Hard to believe eh? Coal, Steel, Fishery, Forrestry, Farming. It's safe to say that they thought they were diversified, mind you the economic knowelege was greatly less than it is now. Now where's Nova Scotia? The poorest province? One of the most indebted? Every single municipality is shrinking but one, and let's be honest, on life support due to the federal government. Is it the welfare equalization that is keeping Nova Scotia afloat? Yep. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so.

Exactly.

And back then, Alberta was pumping out socialism and wanted the federal government involved.

All this separation talk is nothing more than materialism, pure an simple.

[Hakan]

In my opinion, you lose a lot of credibility with statements like this:

The fact that Martin is willing to open up our wallet to the NDP in order to hold on to power is disgusting.

First, do you have the slightest idea about how politics works? Why is it disgusting that Martin made a deal with the NDP to bolster their parliamentary power? That's how politics works and that's what makes democracies work! The NDP has an electoral mandate as do the Liberals they saw some common ground that benefited both groups who voted for them. The NDP supporters got the tax cuts off the table and the Liberal voters maintained their influence in parliament. This is to the benefit of both Liberal and NDP voters. If Harper feels that he can make gains without compromise (which he is completely at the liberty to do) then so be it. Unfortunately, Harper's a solo act in parliament. You shouldn't blame anyone but himself for that.

It seems that you are moreso disgusted that not more people share your political stripes. Sorry, that's the way things work. Most canadians aren't down with the conservative agenda. And I would bet that from the polling data released this week that most canadians were in support of that deal as both the Liberal and NDP support has gone up. Infact, it looks like Jack is enjoying his best week ever as head of the NDP with his personal approval rating going up 27 points and the NDP being the unanimous second choice of voters. Don't castigate this deal on reasons other than your personal hatred of anything Liberal or NDP.

Why are you so upset about that deal in the first place. It's corporate taxes, infact only the largest corporations don't get tax cuts. How is that going to affect you? The money saved will be used on the environment, social housing, foreign aid, public transportation and post-secondary education. Huh?? What is your problem with this? Don't whine to me about the rights of corporations, look at this TD report and why corps don't need the cuts: TD Bank

[calculoso]

Originally posted by duncan@May 1 2005, 10:44 AM
The conservatives gained more ground in Ontario, than Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba combined, even after a brutal Provincial Tory government.

Gee imagine that.

It's kinda hard to gain ground when a party has almost the whole province as it is. They can gain 2 seats in Alberta, 1 seat in Saskatchewan, 7 in Manitoba. Even if they swept all those, it's only 10 seats. Good luck having that gain be more than the 20ish seats they got in Ontario.

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+May 1 2005, 01:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ May 1 2005, 01:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Maritime Q-Scout@May 1 2005, 06:31 PM

Alberta is on the gravy train right now, I actually think it's great.# Watch your money, invest, diversify.# Things are different now than they were 150 years ago when Nova Scotia was the Alberta of Canada.# Hard to believe eh?# Coal, Steel, Fishery, Forrestry, Farming.# It's safe to say that they thought they were diversified, mind you the economic knowelege was greatly less than it is now.# Now where's Nova Scotia?# The poorest province?# One of the most indebted?# Every single municipality is shrinking but one, and let's be honest, on life support due to the federal government.# Is it the welfare equalization that is keeping Nova Scotia afloat?# Yep.# Is that a bad thing?# I don't think so.

Exactly.

And back then, Alberta was pumping out socialism and wanted the federal government involved.

All this separation talk is nothing more than materialism, pure an simple. [/b][/quote]
To be fair... Alberta churned out something much different that socialism in the 1930s... (I am aware that the CCF had their first meeting in Calgary, but they formed in Regina) The Social Credit party, even though the word 'Social' is in there was a VERY VERY right wing party, which resembles the Alberta Alliance more than the NDP. Their big thing was key government control over certain things while encouraging the free market ad nauseum. Most prevalent of this was the Alberta Treasury Branch, which gave people fair loans, since the Canadian banks interest rates bordered on usury at the time. The goal was to kickstart capitalism again, not to become socialized. The CCF model of actual socialism never caught on in Alberta. UFA of Alberta was also a fairly right wing party that focused on laissez-faire while providing support for farmers on years where hard work wasn't enough.


Some have argued that it was the tactics of the Socreds that got Alberta rolling again, not any so-called help from the federal government. The only help they gave was getting into a war which kickstarted the economy.


I also find it very disheartening that everyone assumes that Alberta is simply gonna fall into oblivion when oil "runs out". Nova Scotia never had the investments, diversifications and rainy day funds that modern Alberta has. Unbridled by the Feds, Alberta should be a very diversified economy by the time Oil is reduced to an industrial ingredient, rather than the lifeblood of society.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Thunderball@May 1 2005, 07:21 PM

To be fair... Alberta churned out something much different that socialism in the 1930s... (I am aware that the CCF had their first meeting in Calgary, but they formed in Regina) The Social Credit party, even though the word 'Social' is in there was a VERY VERY right wing party, which resembles the Alberta Alliance more than the NDP. Their big thing was key government control over certain things while encouraging the free market ad nauseum. Most prevalent of this was the Alberta Treasury Branch, which gave people fair loans, since the Canadian banks interest rates bordered on usury at the time. The goal was to kickstart capitalism again, not to become socialized. The CCF model of actual socialism never caught on in Alberta. UFA of Alberta was also a fairly right wing party that focused on laissez-faire while providing support for farmers on years where hard work wasn't enough.

Socialism was a catch word back in those days. Many right wing parties used it. I'm aware of that. (Like the Nazis).

But go back further.

The United Farmers of Alberta and the Society of Equity both formed shortly after Alberta became a province and were both soicalist organizations at the time that promoted social welfare in Alberta. And back then, people in Alberta seemed to have no problem with the federal government advertising for foreign investment and settlement in Alberta, and they had no problem with the federal government propping up Alberta and handing out grants. That was all Canadian land, and the only reason why people were settled there was because the Canadian government financial drove the process.

Now that Alberta is well established, people want to take the ball and go home. Be a team player. Don't be the Val Bure of Canada.

[duncan]

Originally posted by calculoso@May 1 2005, 07:11 PM
Gee imagine that.

It's kinda hard to gain ground when a party has almost the whole province as it is. They can gain 2 seats in Alberta, 1 seat in Saskatchewan, 7 in Manitoba. Even if they swept all those, it's only 10 seats. Good luck having that gain be more than the 20ish seats they got in Ontario.

What I was showing, was a comparative swing. Ontario went through a horrible experience, in its 8 years of Provincial Tory rule, yet it actually saw a huge improvement for the Conservatives.

The problem for the Conservatives isn't Ontario, where it is finding new found support, it is Quebec, NB, NFLD, NS, PEI, and the North. The Conservatives took 7 measely seats out of a possible 110. Make any kind of inroads in the East, and the Liberals wouldn't be in power.

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+May 1 2005, 01:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ May 1 2005, 01:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Thunderball@May 1 2005, 07:21 PM

To be fair... Alberta churned out something much different that socialism in the 1930s... (I am aware that the CCF had their first meeting in Calgary, but they formed in Regina) The Social Credit party, even though the word 'Social' is in there was a VERY VERY right wing party, which resembles the Alberta Alliance more than the NDP. Their big thing was key government control over certain things while encouraging the free market ad nauseum. Most prevalent of this was the Alberta Treasury Branch, which gave people fair loans, since the Canadian banks interest rates bordered on usury at the time. The goal was to kickstart capitalism again, not to become socialized. The CCF model of actual socialism never caught on in Alberta. UFA of Alberta was also a fairly right wing party that focused on laissez-faire while providing support for farmers on years where hard work wasn't enough.

Socialism was a catch word back in those days. Many right wing parties used it. I'm aware of that.

But go back further.

The United Farmers of Alberta and the Society of Equity both formed shortly after Alberta became a province and were bother soicalist parties at the time that promoted social welfare in Alberta. And back then, people in Alberta seemed to have no problem with the federal government advertising for foreign investment and settlement in Alberta, and they had no problem with the federal government propping up Alberta and handing out grants. That was all Canadian land, and the only reason why people were settled there was because the Canadian government financial drove the process.

Now that Alberta is well established, people want to take the ball and go home. Be a team player. Don't be the Val Bure of Canada. [/b][/quote]
I did go far back enough to consider the UFA... in fact, from day one, Albertans have been opposed to "Canadian" interference... They were held back from buying cheaper (and in many cases higher quality)American goods because of the National Policy. The only good thing the Federal Gov't brought to the West was the NWMP, and even they were supposed to be an assimilation force to keep us from going American. Furthermore, the CP Rail held Alberta over a barrel many a year. The government wasn't even free from federal meddling in resources till 1930 despite their efforts to free themselves from it. In fact, judging from everything I've heard and read, Alberta has never wanted federal money, and federal interference, nor did they receive in any great amount, especially compared to any other province or territory in Canada.

Society of Equity were never a prevalent force, and UFA of Alberta stood for United Farmers of America... a noted socially right, economically balanced special interest group turned political party... and even then, they didn't last that long by Alberta standards. Alberta's first governments were Liberal, and they disappeared not because they were not getting enough federal monies, but because they couldn't be trusted. Conservatives too.

Back to the present, I think its important to say that the Federal Gov't should help out the provinces if/when they catch a snag, I mean its our money they take before, during and after anyway... if they weren't there, the Provincial government would be taking some of that money for use as relief in the future.

I think if you add it up, Alberta received next to nothing in any sort of federal relief, nothing that couldn't have been handled locally with less federal taxation, seizure of royalty and Central Canada-centric laws (National Policy and National Energy Policy for instance). That data is hard to find, but what we can find easily enough is from 1960 to present, Alberta had given almost $350 billion in transfers with no return, even during rough economic times. During the early 70s and mid 80s, Alberta was getting beaten economically, and yet was still a net contributor.