gc1765

To play devil's advocate, pretty much any industry is "non-renewable" in a sense. Alberta may run out of oil and need to diversify...but in 100 years cars could be obsolete and Ontario car makers may need to diversifty.

Why can't Saskatchewan make the same choice? That seems to be what the government website is saying: "Under the new Equalization program, provinces will get the greater of the amount they would receive by fully excluding natural resource revenues, or by excluding 50% of natural resource revenues." Link edit:...and how would provinces get more money by excluding resource revenues?

Agreed. I just figured Albertans would side with the maritimes on this one...that is to say, that resources should be excluded. I know it doesn't matter now because you are not receiving equalization, but in principle, how do you feel about resources being included? edit: I'm still confused on whether they are included or not "Under the new Equalization program, provinces will get the greater of the amount they would receive by fully excluding natural resource revenues, or by excluding 50% of natural resource revenues."

I wonder how many American citizens deal arms? I'm guessing one of the right-wingers on this board will soon start a thread about America dealing arms

But that's not what's happening right now? Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly. I always thought that resources were not included when calculating equalization, and that Harper promised to keep it that way, because there was debate about whether they should be included or not. If you included Saskatchewan's resource revenue, they would not be receiving money, but since they aren't included, they receive money. If that oil happened to be found offshore, in the maritimes, it wouldn't be included either. Seems to me that people here are trying to argue that offshore oil should be included, but not "on shore" oil.

How did they know you were from Alberta? I take it you weren't wearing an "I'm from Alberta" shirt? And how would people know I'm not from Alberta...I certainly wasn't wearing an I'm from Alberta shirt...or an "I'm from Vancouver" shirt for that matter.

I vote for "doing nothing"... ....and by "doing nothing", I mean not polluting.

Less likely than who? Another person living in Toronto? Kind of catch-22 isn't it...if you are on the 'outside' you wouldn't hear the comments, but if you're on the 'inside' you wouldn't hear them either because you're an insider?

From there, yes. But I"m not there anymore. Been in Vancouver for quite a while now.

Maybe not. I don't know. I just know that the time I did spend there, which was enough, I didn't notice any feelings of superiority. edit: forgot to mention I did live in the actual city for several months...although most of my time in Ontario was in the GTA.

I thought resource revenues were already not included in equalization. At least, that is what Harper promised. If that's not the case, wouldn't Albertans be pretty outraged right now?

30-60 minutes depending on which part of Toronto. why?

I'm not saying it should. I'm asking why there should be a difference?

Constitution aside, what's the difference?

Sure, and while they are at it, Ontario can make a claim to the resources of Alberta?

Hmm, let's see...I would have lived near to there just before you did (in the 90's), and I didn't notice any feelings of superiority by Torontonians. Maybe things changed after I left.

Why does it matter if the resources are on land or offshore?

Just out of curiousity, how long did you live in Toronto for? And when?

Yes, I do remember that. If I remember correctly a lot of the Republicans, including McCain, didn't read it either (but I can't remember so don't quote me on that ). But it seems most of the candidates didn't read the report, so I would rather see a candidate admit that he didn't read the report and admit that it was a mistake rather than hear a candidate say that she didn't read the report and then make up some phoney baloney reason for supporting the war. I guess I'm just assuming that Edwards, even if he didn't read xyz report, would have had other information...who knows how many reports he had, and how many he read. Considering that no one seemed to read the report, I'm guessing they must have read other reports of some sort??? Otherwise, what the heck were they basing their decision on??

As a non-Albertan, I'm curious: What exactly did Stelmach do wrong?

If we had a "none of the above" option, I imagine voter turnout would be near 100%. And "none of the above" would win every election hands down.

Atlantic Canada probably has the most seats per capita, so losing support there means a lot in terms of seats. And they are down 7% from election day, that can't be all from Atlantic Canada, can it?

I know you're right...I just can't wait that long, I want to know now

It has nothing to do with having a lead in the poll...it has to do with the senate vacancies. Not that I think it's a good idea...unless of course they want to form a coalition with the NDP or Bloc.

I respect people who can admit they made a mistake. I respect Edwards for admitting he made a mistake (It's a lot better than making excuses like Hilary). I'd like to see Harper admit that supporting the war in Iraq was a mistake...and I just might vote for him.