Here they come after our money

[JiriHrdina]

Originally posted by Hakan@Sep 2 2005, 04:49 PM
Sorry about the bigot comment but it just seems that the people who contantly whine and moan about the elections are long suffering social/moral conservatives. They blame the electoral system for the losses not the fact that what the party stands for doesn't resonate with the rest of Canada. So instead of accepting that fact they start complaining about 'fixing' the electoral system so that they have undue say in the democratic process. Conservative governments have governed this country many times, maybe the problem isn't with the electoral system electing conservative parties but with the present machination of conservatism in Canada.

Interesting take.

I should point out that in general I am more liberal with my politics. Heck - I might even vote Liberal in the next fed election (have not decided). For me this is not about who is in power, it is about who decides who is in power. The system seems flawed.

[There is no G in MacInnis]

One person, one vote. Sounds like quite a concept. I don't know Albertas numbers, but British Columbia would have 5 more MP's in Ottawa if the voting was one-person-one-vote. Not to mention the Senate. This has long been a source of Western alienation. The government in Ottawa taylors its program spending and social policies towards getting elected. Since BC has less MP's than it should, the funding goes elsewhere.

[RougeUnderoos]

Remind me again how Alberta is to blame for Ontario becoming a "have-not" please. I don't remember what happened.

I'm sure the news didn't make it too far east, but Alberta went through some pretty lean times to get out of that debt. It's a little annoying that as soon as it's gone everyone starts jumping up and down saying "they have more money than they know what to do with let's make a rule that they have to give us more".

I've got no problem with Alberta ponying up a few more bucks during the boomtimes, but we really don't want to pony up so much that the boom goes bust and we're screwed, like last time.

I was about 5 years old when the NEP rolled into town and even I remember it. It effed a lot of people, my old man included, out of money, jobs, opportunities. When some jackass in Timmins, which apparently these days boasts a goddamn Shania Twain museum and who knows what else, suggests that we bring it back, people are going to get defensive.

Alberta is playing by the rules right now but to hear some of the stuff coming from other regions, you'd think we were holding out on everyone.

[Flashpoint]

Originally posted by There is no G in MacInnis@Sep 2 2005, 05:52 PM
One person, one vote. Sounds like quite a concept. I don't know Albertas numbers, but British Columbia would have 5 more MP's in Ottawa if the voting was one-person-one-vote. Not to mention the Senate. This has long been a source of Western alienation.

Ya but Ontario would get a bunch more MP's too. Currently they are underrepresented on the basis of population.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 2 2005, 03:53 PM
Remind me again how Alberta is to blame for Ontario becoming a "have-not" please. I don't remember what happened.

The study says that Ontario will become a have-not province because the economy cannot withstand continuing to take so much money out of it's economy and putting it into poorer provinces. It's not because the economy has gone to hell. It hasn't. It's just that the transfer money going out is growing faster than the economy.

I don't believe the studies. But even if I were to believe them, they do not say that Ontario is becoming a have not province because of a downturn of production within the provincial borders.

[Barnes]

Originally posted by Flashpoint+Sep 2 2005, 04:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flashpoint @ Sep 2 2005, 04:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-There is no G in MacInnis@Sep 2 2005, 05:52 PM
One person, one vote. Sounds like quite a concept. I don't know Albertas numbers, but British Columbia would have 5 more MP's in Ottawa if the voting was one-person-one-vote. Not to mention the Senate. This has long been a source of Western alienation.

Ya but Ontario would get a bunch more MP's too. Currently they are underrepresented on the basis of population. [/b][/quote]
That is true. Almost 80% of the population lives between Windsor and Quebec City.
________
vapir oxygen vaporizer

[Devils'Advocate]

Well, it's a mess with each census. They have to redo boundaries each time because of growth in the population. According to the Globe and Mail, Ontario, BC and Alberta are traditionally under-represented because those are the three provinces with growing populations. Saskatchewan, Quebec and the Maritimes are over-represented, as populations there are stagnant or dropping.

[Flame On]

If we have a surplus what really is people's objections to sharing it seriously? If it is needed and justified and all the kinks worked out and we could afford it and we wouldn't suffer due to it. Surely Klein's running our province perfectly, everything sorted out, a little extra won't be missed will it cause he's perfect? Either he's bungled it somewhere and we need that money in which case why are we leaning on surpluses? Or perhaps we could losen our grip on extra cash.
Far from it. What's he do with the surplus, there's no more hospitals, UofC isn't the best Uni in the Country nor is UofA, there's no free child care or day care, he's thinking of privatising the health system. I wouldn't mind keeping it if he had some frickin vision and some ideas.
I'm not saying give it all away or agree to extra transfer I'm just asking what's the problem and do you think if we keep it all we're doing all we could with it in the first place?

[monkeyman]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 2 2005, 03:53 PM
Remind me again how Alberta is to blame for Ontario becoming a "have-not" please. I don't remember what happened.

That’s an excellent post RougeUnderoos, I don't think many of the posters on the board are even old enough to remember the NEP or the affects it had on Alberta. Your point about the lean times is also very prudent, we in Alberta sacrificed many social programs, including education, unemployment, health care and welfare to name a few, to get to the place we are now.
Perhaps we should have a special tax on big banks and insurance companies to come up with extra money, i'd be ok with that.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Flame On@Sep 2 2005, 05:15 PM
If we have a surplus what really is people's objections to sharing it seriously? If it is needed and justified and all the kinks worked out and we could afford it and we wouldn't suffer due to it. Surely Klein's running our province perfectly, everything sorted out, a little extra won't be missed will it cause he's perfect? Either he's bungled it somewhere and we need that money in which case why are we leaning on surpluses? Or perhaps we could losen our grip on extra cash.
Far from it. What's he do with the surplus, there's no more hospitals, UofC isn't the best Uni in the Country nor is UofA, there's no free child care or day care, he's thinking of privatising the health system. I wouldn't mind keeping it if he had some frickin vision and some ideas.
I'm not saying give it all away or agree to extra transfer I'm just asking what's the problem and do you think if we keep it all we're doing all we could with it in the first place?

I have no problem with Alberta sharing the wealth. None whatsoever and I think we should. My problem lies with other regions (Ontario) deciding arbitrarily just how much of the wealth we are going to share and then taking it.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Devils'Advocate@Sep 2 2005, 03:03 PM
Funny that people are ROOTING for the destruction of our nation.

Anyhow, Ontario pays far more into Canada than it gets back. I don't think that is being disputed.

However, Ontario seems *WILLING* to pay into Canada, as we continue to vote for the Liberals (I don't... I voted for Ed), but Alberta always seems to be yelling "MINE! MINE! MINE! HANDS OFF! IT'S MINE!" Which is a very generous attitude I must say.

When I pay my taxes, I know I'm paying my taxes, plus topping up that being paid back in Nova Scotia. I know that the schools in Nova Scotia are getting money from my portion of the equalization payments. I know the hospitals in Newfoundland are getting some of my money. And you know something? I'm happy to do so. To me, it's not all "MINE MINE MINE! HANDS OFF!" My parents taught me about sharing when I was just 3.

The attitude of Albertans is not "HANDS OFF! IT's MINE!"

We already share enough. In fact, we share more than enough. Per capita, we share more than Ontario does. By the time Martin's $5 billion bribe is accounted for, we will be paying twice as much.

Guess what? Every penny we collected in oil and gas royalties went to the Federal government in 2004. And $900 million more on top of that for good measure.

Allow me to repeat that: Alberta pays more into the national welfare system than it recieves from oil and gas.

Alberta pays it's fair share.

But if you want more, then we want something back.

Eastern Canada is all TAKE TAKE TAKE but wont give anything back.

Who is it really who has the "IT'S MINE" attitude?

[Flame On]

I have no problem with Alberta sharing the wealth. None whatsoever and I think we should. My problem lies with other regions (Ontario) deciding arbitrarily just how much of the wealth we are going to share and then taking it.

Yes, agreed that's dumb.

[Shawnski]

It's been a while since we had a good political discussion.

Mr. Courchene agrees. In a study presented to a federal committee in May, he argued that because Ontario has significantly higher wages than anywhere else in the country, it can afford to provide fewer services than elsewhere. "And for me, that's an ideal definition of a have-not fiscal province," he said.

Huh?

So let me get this straight. People in Ontario make more money than "anywhere else" yet that makes them able to provide LESS services to Ontarians? Does that not sound like the most absurd view you have ever heard? They make more money, so they can buy less. WTF?

IF he had worded it as it probably is, he would be saying that "since Ontario has a 'Big Inefficient Goverment' and 'Highly Overpaid Unionized Workforce' that supplies 'public services', the majority of Ontarians are paid less than those supplying governmental services, thus it is 'an ideal definition of a have-not fiscal province.'"

How else can his statement be true?

Does Alberta ever complain about the price of cars, which are primarily built in Ontario by people in the CAW where, for example, "The base wage for GM's workers in Canada is $24.44 an hour.... " link

$24.44 per hour BASE? That is a far cry from "According to the 2003 Alberta Wage and Salary Survey, most Albertans in the Petroleum, Gas and Chemical Process Operators occupational group earned from $31,600 to $141,400 per year. The average salary was $57,400 per year" link That $24.44 base equates to $50,835.20 on a 40 hour week WITHOUT any overtime BASE. I read recently that the Autoworker industry had an average wage of $36 per hour, which translates to $74,880 per year.

Does Alberta "whine" about higher paying jobs in Ontario? Not that I have ever seen. Are Ontarians able to use their higher earnings to buy property in Alberta more readily than we can if they choose? Absolutely. When they move out here for jobs, and buy houses that drive the overall real estate prices up, does that help the lower paid Albertans when THEY want to get into their first homes? Not whatsoever.

Rouge, good post. The NEP destroyed Alberta. It took guts and a lot of hardship for our gov't and citizens to get our fiscal house in order. And now we should be paying out for that? Perhaps we should have just kept running deficits and spending freely and no one in the East would be complaining.

Come on. Oil will run out at some point probably in the next half century or century, and unless the revenues stay around and continue to diversify our economies into other sectors that will be long range, we will be back to where we started, or worse. The goof that wrote that article is a supreme example of why I will never EVER support opinions that you should penalize those that are doing well.

[Hakan]

Do you have any links or data to prove your claim Snakeeye? That seems suspicious.

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by Hakan@Sep 2 2005, 05:28 PM
Do you have any links or data to prove your claim Snakeeye? That seems suspicious.

He's bang on the money with his quotes. There were long discussions even here about it what it meant to per capita costs to each province when Ontario got that $5 billion rebate. You can probably just search our own forums here for your answer.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Devils'Advocate+Sep 2 2005, 03:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Devils'Advocate @ Sep 2 2005, 03:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaramonLS@Sep 2 2005, 03:42 PM
Maybe you don't understand what election reform means.

WE WANT A GOD DAMN REAL SENATE.

Well, I personally think the senate should be abolished... I think I said that in the GG thread. But let's say there is an elected senate. Don't you think that people in eastern Canada would vote in Liberal Senators just as they do Liberal MPs? We'd be in the exact same position. And the people of Alberta would be even madder than they are now. We'd even be paying MORE money for more elections, more turnover, and we'd have the same dynamic. Nicely done. [/b][/quote]
Not just elected Senate.

EEE Senate.

Also, Rep by Pop in the House of Commons - as well as all provincial legislatures.

People are right that 80% of the nation's population lives between Windsor and Quebec city. As such, that region of Canada dominates the population based house of Commons.

I'm sorry, but nobody out there has any bloody clue what is going on in the west. In the north. In the Maritimes.

Thus the need for a region based house. One where the under represented provinces can have balance.

In the HoC, the west is completely valueless, and thus overlooked, ignored and abused. Thus a great deal of alienation and anger.

Ontario and Quebec have the population bases, thus their obvious importance. The Maritime Provinces have as many MPs as Alberta and BC do, despite the fact that BC and Alberta have three times the population. Votes are much easier to buy on the east coast.

After that, there is usually enough MPs elected to determine the election.

[Clarkey]

It's understandable that Albertan's get a little defensive when it comes to this issue after the NEP, but let's look at who's making these comments, a bunch of nobodies. Some bozo academic in Quebec, some NDP reject. Who cares.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Hakan@Sep 2 2005, 04:28 PM
Do you have any links or data to prove your claim Snakeeye? That seems suspicious.

Lucia Corbella mentioned many of the numbers in a recent column of hers - which is also apropos to this discussion.

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Cor...31/1194817.html

Also, as Shawnski mentions, many stories have been posted in previous discussions on the issue.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Clarkey@Sep 2 2005, 04:37 PM
It's understandable that Albertan's get a little defensive when it comes to this issue after the NEP, but let's look at who's making these comments, a bunch of nobodies. Some bozo academic in Quebec, some NDP reject. Who cares.

Timmons city councillor.

McGuinty referring to Alberta as an "elephant in the room"

Eastern Canada is noticing Alberta's wealth. Eastern Canada is hearing the "every $1 the price of oil, or every 10 cents the price of natural gas, the Alberta government gets $90 million" statements, and Eastern Canada is watching gas prices shoot up.

We'd be fools not to believe that such resentment isnt building - like it did 30 years ago - and we'd be fools not to expect that eventually it will become a political issue out east.

Though he denies it, we all know that McGuinty is after our oil. It's just part of his hidden agenda.

[Shawnski]

And just to add a point about the O&G industry comparison to the Autoworkers industry, consider the working conditions.

IF you have ever been a "Rig Pig" or worked in seismic, your working environment can be absolutely BRUTAL. Working outdoors in -30 or worse conditions, carrying 100lb bags of shyte on EACH shoulder or pulling seismic lines through rugged landscapes being compared to a nicely heated manufacturing plant where robots do much of the work..... pretty equal, eh?

Right.