Jerry J. Fortin

Oberg.......the guy wants to eliminate health care premiums and privatize health care. Good luck on the day we finally get a general election. Lets see, wasn't it the PC party who after winning an election in the spring that sat for a total of 39 days in the Alberta Legislature that entire year? The PC party is a dinosaur and facing extinction, and they are not bright enough to see it coming. Without some massive change the public will begin to reject them in the next election and reduce them slowly but surely in their aging numbers. The old party is on the way out the door. I give them at best two mandates before they wither and die.

Divorce is a fact of life. It is a legal reality and that won't change either. Having the government change the definition of a word or legislating morality won't change these facts either. I think it is folly to involve government in these intimate details of a citizens personal choices.

WE won't be going to war, fear not. Nobody is that stupid. In fact I think that we are all smart enough to advocate individual freedom and respect. Alberta will leave before 2015 with a majority of Albertans supporting the effort.

If the Tories elect anybody other than Mark Norris they are cutting their own throats because Norris is the only one of the leadership hopefuls that can be equated with change. I think the first ballot will yield a split of about 35% Dinning, 25 % Oberg and 20% Morton. Just a guess but I would venture to say that in a second ballot things will look a lot different. My guess is that there will be three dropping off the ballot after the second vote. I would venture to say that this will go a lot further than people think. In the end I see Dinning as the winner of the election.

Taxation is a matter of politics and economics. It is a legal means of wealth redistribution. The levels of taxation are roughy calculated to be able to fund a revenue stream sufficient to pay for the expenses of government and the services that government provides. But that doesn't mean that there is only one way to skin a cat. Income taxes are regressive and they have a detrimental impact on disposable income. Now considering that we live and work in a society where the consumption of goods and services provides the basis of our economy one has to wonder why the government would be intent upon limiting the ability of the citizen to contribute to the economic stability and potential growth of that society. Obviously governments created the income tax system to transfer the wealth of the citizens to the government in order to pay for the expenses of government. Once created the revenue stream was used to fund other "needs" of the government. These are known facts. The real question is simply what do we want our government to pay for because ultimately it is we who pay for it through our taxes. Within the current system we find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. Cut a tax and reduce a service, that is the only way it works right now. There are alternatives out there if you look for them but they are few and far between. It takes a brave politician to step outside the box and do something different. To get back to the current disussion within this thread, monkeying around with marginal rates and income splitting are mere political tools and represent no new solution to the problems we face. Harper is placing himself into position to take care of demographic driven politics, which isn't exactly silly. It will probably work for him. All new tory policy is directed at our aging demographic, who also by the way represent a vast majority of the voting public. Apathetic senior citizens are not common.

I couldn't agree more, but the limiting factor is the Tory government who are well looked after.

The Americans are banging the BSE drum again, wait for the twist. The candidate that does the best job of getting under Harpers skin will get the biggest share of the first ballot. Either Canada goes to bat for Alberta or there will be hell to pay in River City. In this province you either stand up for Albertans or you don't, those that don't simply aren't elected. While we now have a 65% to 35% urban vs rural population split the apple does not fall far from the tree and we are stil pretty darned conservative or right winged in out political views. But that doesn't translate into PC support the way it used to, probably because of the split. The Tories lost seats last time around because Albertans didn't like the approach used to deal with the debt load. By the way, that was a platform plank stolen from the Liberal leader Decore, it certainly wasn't Klein who came up with it. Albertans paid dearly to deal with the debt dragon, only to be lied to by their government. Service levels have still not returned to past bench marks even after all the privatization and deregulation which in truth cost citizens more in asset losses than it returned in benefits. The PC party is old in Alberta political terms. A party that takes a different approach could well garner support, and possibly bring some apathetic voters to the voting booth. Things are beginning to happen in Alberta.

It isn't about the average person its about society as a whole. If that society would lay claim to a democratic from of government then the definition of democracy needs to be reviewed and understood does it not. In my view the reason for the vast masses of apathetic citizens is the utter lack of true democracy. With freedom comes responsibility, and if we desire our freedom then we are obligated to defend it in the political process. As it stands today citizens see government as all powerful and corrupt. Many citizens look at corporate profits and CEO salaries and declare injustice for the working tax paying citizen, and why wouldn't they? They see politicians and their cronies leave public office and take up big salary jobs in the private sector using information and contacts gained from their public service. There is reason for their lack of participation in the system, they don't trust it! That is a problem that needs to be addressed. I trust the average Albertan to decide what is best for themselves. I trust the average Albertans to speak their mind and stand up for themselves. I trust my fellow citizens to accept a majority opinion.

I favour income splitting because I would benefit from it. I make too much money to get any child tax credit dollars, and my wife does not work. My support payments for my first wife and family are not accounted for in my income qualifications according to the feds. So tax splitting is good for me!

Well Geoffrey I guess that in all honesty I no longer see my interests as complimentary to that of "Canadians". For instance, it appears that a majority of "Canadians" favour a carbon tax type of proposal, I don't. It seems that most "Canadians" favour an increased international presence, I don't. Gun registry, not. Same sex marriage....nope. For me the feds are simply wasting their time in parliment, I don't see the value in their efforts. I also don't see the benefit of remaining within confederation. There is an unworkable dinosaur of a constitution, no fixed election dates, no method of recall and no term limits to political office. From my perspective there is far too much government and at the same time far to little regulation. Too many bureaucrats and too little services for our tax dollars. The environment is being destroyed and the spectre of corporate governance hangs over our heads with powerful special interest lobby groups. I favour a direct democracy, like the Swiss model. Its time for the people to have a say and determine what a real public agenda really is.

HA ! Good one! Now what would you do I you caught her folling around? I did, and I got to pay for her transgressions. I signed over the house and walked away with two bags of clothes and an old car. She got $1200.00 a month in 1992, and I am still paying $700.00 a month now. From my perspective the system sucks!

Figleaf are you hard of thinking? The feds have outlined a process that they are legally committed to following in the case of a province with desire to seperate. They have even gone to the trouble of defining time lines for consideration of the proposal. But feel free to believe what you want Figleaf. In Alberta people are free to make their own decisions as well, and trust me we will choose independance in our own time. It is inevitable because of opinions just like yours. There is a large number of Albertans frusterated with confederation. A Liberal government with a carbon tax would speed up the process somewhat but a Harper government not acting on its promises would help too. Either way, unless Canadians want to create an elected Senate, reform the equalization formulas, and stabilize their debt loads then Albertans are walking a different political path with them and are sure to have a colision at some point.

My dog could have run and been elected as a conservative in Alberta for the last few decades. Its not like Ralph had a rough time of things here, being awash in revenues a goldfish could have governed as well. You have to look under the carpet for the lump in the middle of the room. Its a pile of skeletons from the closet that the conservatives have been hiding for years. Some clever human will lift the corner of the rug one day soon and the conservative legacy will be their own gallows.

While I don't like Harper or his policies, I fear Iggy and Rea for their carbon tax delusions. I certainly hope that the next election leaves things pretty much as they are with whoever winning only having a minority government.

You can't drop taxes in Canada! What about the debt load and unfunded liabilities! The average citizen owes the government more than $150,000.00. On the other hand, we are taxed rather highly. Just another reason to take Alberta out of confederation.

I tend to think that the morality is the perogative of those manipulating the masses of humanity. For example, the individuals that lead determine their following through their political policies, instead of using orartory to sway opinions and bring people into their line of thinking they select demographics and play upon those fears and grievances which are common within that group. True visionaries are rare commodities and often rejected. Those who are successful have shaped modern humanity within their own limits. Moses, Jesus, Mohamed are not exactly current yet their influences carry the day. Even so, they are all religous figures, and in todays world you have to consider the effects of Mao, Stalin, and Hitler. We have seen Churchill, Kennedy and their lot as well but overall those that have affected change in our time have been less than beneficial of themselves and it took counteraction to those individuals and conflict to get us where we are today. Perhaps in time the concept of nations and racial origins will be overcome by the great mass of humanity. Unfortunately I think that we have one large conflict in the making, and it will manifest itself very shortly. I don't believe the next conflict will be of a western Islamic confrontation. I think we will find ourselves in opposition to China, and when I say we I mean everybody but the Chinese. They are the emerging giant in both economic and political terms. Not to mention military terms, because little is known of their capabilities and that is very dangerous in and of itself.

Blah, blah blah. That's what you'd like to think. However, it has been voiced correctly that we are solid Conservative for the forseeable future. (Unless Don Getty was to run again) The only party that could gain credible ground doesn't exist yet, but would hold provincial values above federal and especially Quebec values. There is a portion of the public in Alberta who merely need a competent leader who isn't a Hitler type like some of the separatists that will vote in that direction. Alberta needs changes. We are conservative, that is true, but not necessarily Progressive Conservative. We do need an alternative, my choice is independent representation outside of the partisan factions. I want a representative accountable to my fellow constituents and myself not a party leader.

C.H.Douglas once debated Kynes and was hounded for the rest of his life for it. At the time Kynes was rather high in the economic theory category. My point is that there are in fact alternative economic models and theories.

Freedom to choose. That is the basis of democracy, the right to self determination and the willingness to accept the majority opinion. You can have your say only if you allow others to have their say as well. Fair and equal treatment is the name of the game. Albertans will decide what is best for them within the limits defined in the constitution. The Statute of Westminister 1931 granted independence from British rule, not our own constitution. The government of Canada has made it possible for a province to seperate from the nation by means of the clarity act. http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/C-31.8/228755.html NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: House of Commons to consider question 1. (1) The House of Commons shall, within thirty days after the government of a province tables in its legislative assembly or otherwise officially releases the question that it intends to submit to its voters in a referendum relating to the proposed secession of the province from Canada, consider the question and, by resolution, set out its determination on whether the question is clear. Extension of time (2) Where the thirty days referred to in subsection (1) occur, in whole or in part, during a general election of members to serve in the House of Commons, the thirty days shall be extended by an additional forty days. Considerations (3) In considering the clarity of a referendum question, the House of Commons shall consider whether the question would result in a clear expression of the will of the population of a province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada and become an independent state. Where no clear expression of will (4) For the purpose of subsection (3), a clear expression of the will of the population of a province that the province cease to be part of Canada could not result from (a) a referendum question that merely focuses on a mandate to negotiate without soliciting a direct expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada; or ( a referendum question that envisages other possibilities in addition to the secession of the province from Canada, such as economic or political arrangements with Canada, that obscure a direct expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada. Other views to be considered (5) In considering the clarity of a referendum question, the House of Commons shall take into account the views of all political parties represented in the legislative assembly of the province whose government is proposing the referendum on secession, any formal statements or resolutions by the government or legislative assembly of any province or territory of Canada, any formal statements or resolutions by the Senate, any formal statements or resolutions by the representatives of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, especially those in the province whose government is proposing the referendum on secession, and any other views it considers to be relevant. No negotiations if question not clear (6) The Government of Canada shall not enter into negotiations on the terms on which a province might cease to be part of Canada if the House of Commons determines, pursuant to this section, that a referendum question is not clear and, for that reason, would not result in a clear expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada. House of Commons to consider whether there is a clear will to secede 2. (1) Where the government of a province, following a referendum relating to the secession of the province from Canada, seeks to enter into negotiations on the terms on which that province might cease to be part of Canada, the House of Commons shall, except where it has determined pursuant to section 1 that a referendum question is not clear, consider and, by resolution, set out its determination on whether, in the circumstances, there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of that province that the province cease to be part of Canada. Factors for House of Commons to take into account (2) In considering whether there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of a province that the province cease to be part of Canada, the House of Commons shall take into account (a) the size of the majority of valid votes cast in favour of the secessionist option; ( the percentage of eligible voters voting in the referendum; and © any other matters or circumstances it considers to be relevant. Other views to be considered (3) In considering whether there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of a province that the province cease to be part of Canada, the House of Commons shall take into account the views of all political parties represented in the legislative assembly of the province whose government proposed the referendum on secession, any formal statements or resolutions by the government or legislative assembly of any province or territory of Canada, any formal statements or resolutions by the Senate, any formal statements or resolutions by the representatives of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, especially those in the province whose government proposed the referendum on secession, and any other views it considers to be relevant. No negotiations unless will clear (4) The Government of Canada shall not enter into negotiations on the terms on which a province might cease to be part of Canada unless the House of Commons determines, pursuant to this section, that there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of that province that the province cease to be part of Canada. Constitutional amendments 3. (1) It is recognized that there is no right under the Constitution of Canada to effect the secession of a province from Canada unilaterally and that, therefore, an amendment to the Constitution of Canada would be required for any province to secede from Canada, which in turn would require negotiations involving at least the governments of all of the provinces and the Government of Canada. Limitation (2) No Minister of the Crown shall propose a constitutional amendment to effect the secession of a province from Canada unless the Government of Canada has addressed, in its negotiations, the terms of secession that are relevant in the circumstances, including the division of assets and liabilities, any changes to the borders of the province, the rights, interests and territorial claims of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the protection of minority rights. There is a process in place, a mechanism which the Canadian government will be required to utilize in order to deal with a province that wishes to seperate. So Figleaf, it seems that we do have a right according to your precious federasl government.

Albertans will create a new political party and embrace it if there is no other viable alternative. The one known thing is thaty things need changing. In our past when that sentiment gets legs the old dynasty bites the dust and a new one is created. It has only happened four times, but then again we have only had four different governments. Liberal, United Farmers, Social Credit and now Progressive Conservative and with the exception of the United Farmers all dominated for decades at a time. Personally I want to see a new party. Call them the Commonwealth Party of Alberta for now. There is a growing group of Alberta citizens that want to see things change, they represent the largest demographic in the province and they are the apathetic citizenry. A lot of them are becoming very vocal in their opinions, but still do not support a partisan faction. That is because they are simply too independent minded and don't want to conform to some party line. They have watched the big majority governments at the federal and provincial levels ram legislation down the throats of citizens and they don't like it. But there is a this time no viable alternative to the big political parties. What will work for them is a grass roots movement to address citizens issues with government. In other words a new partisan faction, the independents. Candidates that are elected on the basis of desiring to represent their constituents instead of partisan parties and their leaders, yet are willing to work with others to resolve problems are what Albertans want.I am currently seeking out people who want to see change in this province. I am advocating that they find independent candidates for their ridings and help them get elected. The Conservatives have at least one more majority government to start addressing the needs of Albertans. After that at best they will find themselves in a minority position. The third election from now there will be an entirely different form of government in Alberta. If the government of Canada does not recognize the direction that Alberta is travelling in, then there will be large problems for the nation down the road. In my opinion within 15 years Aberta will be in a position to seperate because of federal policies and provincial public agendas.

I don't think raising the minimum wage would cause unemployment. I really doubt that it would put any company out of business. I think that theory is unfounded.

It is not the oilsands that are ruining the environment but the greed of people and their cowardly and irresponsible corporations.

Because the PC's are morally bankrupt and ethicaly challenged. Their misuse of the Heritage Trust Fund, and their blatant incompetance in the design and application of royalty schedules are becoming known by the public. During the election that will surely be called in the spring I think many will be surprised to see a number of Tory seats disappear, perhaps enough to elect a 3 more more NDP and 7 more Liberals. There will likely be 3 more Alliance people and perhaps even an independent of two. There is a very real possibility that there could be a minority government here within two election cycles. In Alberta opinion polls are misleading because of the apathetic citizenry. When the time comes to hold an election I suspect that whoever is talking about royalty reforms, taxation and federal provincial relations will carry the day.

Alberta will choose its own path for the simple reason that we believe we are becoming a nation in isolation. We will become even more isolated over the next few years as the federal government undertakes the changes it desires. Any form of carbon tax or industrial tax that threatens the economic diversification of Alberta will be viewed detrimentaly here. The wants and desires of Canada of as much concern to Albertans as ours are to them. That is the reason we will choose to leave confederation. Others can question our intentions and grievances but the final authority lays with the citizens of Alberta and their right to self determination. Other opinions have no weight in this consideration. Canada is a failed nation. Crippled by debt it is unable to resolve its financial issues. The nation is disabled by its regional disparities. Its political system is antiquated and unable to address the pressing concerns of many of its citizens. The sooner Alberta gets out of confederation the sooner our citizens will be able to realize the benefits of their heritage. As it stands today we are required to share that without choice, and that lack of choice is the basis of our discontent.

In my opinion minimum wage is income below the poverty line. If a person can live at that level of income fine, have at it. If not then I would suggest some upgrading to provide greater skills and employment options, this is a personal responsiblity. The government ought not to have to subsidize a citizen, nor should an employer. We should all pay our own way, if you want something you pay for it. Having said that I do think that there are some things that the government should do, such as provide education and healthcare. With respect to welfare, I have issues with that program. Employment insurance I can understand and willingly support, however welfare is another story altogether. In my opinion welfare should be rethought from the ground up.