Accountability Now

You keep comparing Norway to Canada when there is no comparison where as a comparison of Norway to Alberta is more suitable. Norway has 5M people versus 4m in Alberta. Alberta is about 600k sq km and Norway is about 400k. The difference is that Norway's oil proceeds go to support itself and Alberta gets to share with the ROC. Alberta still does well which is why the Heritage Fund is around 17billion but it could be and would be better if Alberta was on it's own. Now...with that said, it doesn't mean Alberta should be on its own. In regards to this so called national energy program that you keep referring to. Allowing areas for Alberta to take the oil to market is not a national program. It's two entities realizing they both have something to gain from the venture....as a joint venture. Not like the NEP that looked to have Canada benefit from Alberta's resources. Perhaps you'd understand if the Government were to tell BC they had to sell their lumber for much less so the ROC could get a good price.

And here you prove my point to a tee. You don't support oil sands development (especially if it goes through your back yard) yet you have your hand out for the pension fund! You want to know the difference between Norway and Canada? Norwegians support their oil development. They understand the benefits it brings and the country is not bogged down with bi-lateral movements dragging it down. Canada has the same opportunity for prosperity and trust funds as Norway but it needs to develop the resources to do so. This means pipelines. If you don't want to develop the pipelines then don't bitch about not having the pension trust fund. It's very simple!

First off...I was young when the first Alberta movement happened in the 80s, so yes I didn't give a shit. In recent years the so called movement is a joke and usually gets about 4,000 of the popular votes every election. I feel the same way about those people as I do about anyone that wants to separate from Canada and that is 'don't let the door hit your ass on the way out'. I guess the same should be said to your fellow Cascadians! Despite what you might think of Albertans, there are a lot of us who are quite nationalistic and the vast majority laugh at the thought of separatism. Having said that we do get tired of people not supporting oil sands products but then have their hands out to share in the profit. Personally I think the East West pipeline is the best idea out there as it provides that nationalistic approach....but just my opinion.

Misbegotten? Perhaps you forget where we live. Canada is continuously ranked as one of the best places to live and you call it misbegotten? Maybe spend some time elsewhere and see how lucky you have it in spite of your "woe is me" attitude.

I guess you don't know how investments work. You are supposed to make money off a good investment yet for every dollar Alberta gets from the Feds we give two dollars back. I think we all know who's getting the best bang for their buck.

Wouldn't you go to bat for something that consistently paid you a 50% return on your investment? Look at page 2 http://www.finance.alberta.ca/publications/fiscal/spotlights/2012-0223-alberta-net-contribution-to-confederation.pdf

It did make CBC...http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/higher-cancer-rates-not-found-in-oilsands-community-study-shows-1.2584323 That's positive...right? lol

Ya...I guess its much better to get into office saying that you are completely against the GST and will remove once in it but then ride its coat tails all the way to the bank. Thank you very much Mr. Chretien.

That tiny dip started the recession. Taxes are based on the previous years earnings. You do realize that the 2009 number they use actually means fiscal year end 2009 which covers April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009. The 5.8B deficit happend in this same time frame (ie when the tax revenues dropped). So we didn't hit deficit until tax revenues started to drop. Up to March 31, 2008 Harper had a surplus. Not sure why you are making claims otherwise. Also...this is just a decrease in the revenues. As I stated from the 2008-2009 Financial report: "The recession resulted in more support being provided to Canadians in 200809 through higher Employment Insurance (EI) benefits and over $1 billion in personal income tax reductions as part of Canada's Economic Action Plan. As well, the recession has resulted in a weakening in tax collections." Less revenue, more expenses....5.8B deficit. All due to the recession.

No...the major downturn was in November of 2008 but the actual slowdown/decrease in economic activity started in 2007 before the 2008 budget came out. That's why we see a minor deficit of 5B in 2008 and the much larger one in 2009. Of course, anyone making budgets were also aware of the housing bubble issue in the US which started in 2006 and hit the fan in 2007

The 2008 budget was presented on February 27, 2008. The start of the housing bubble burst was 2006/2007. The recession was well under way. As per the 2008-2009 financial report: "The recession resulted in more support being provided to Canadians in 200809 through higher Employment Insurance (EI) benefits and over $1 billion in personal income tax reductions as part of Canada's Economic Action Plan. As well, the recession has resulted in a weakening in tax collections." https://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2009/afr-rfa09_1-eng.asp#highlights

It appears that you and On Guard aren't quite up to speed with the actual timeline of the global financial crisis and Harpers' surpluses. Take a look at the timeline below.http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/aug/07/credit-crunch-boom-bust-timeline The crisis started in 2007 with the US housing bust. Harper still had a 9.6 billion surplus year in 2007. In 2008 the crisis got worse with Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and Lehmans....and in that year Harper had a small deficit of 5.8 b. It wasn't until 2009....well into the crisis that Harper posted a substantial deficit. The deficits every year since 2009 have decreased and now we're looking at surpluses. Long story short....you are mistaken about spending the surplus before the crisis.

Hey hitops...quit fighting innuendos with REAL facts. Lol.

Yes....I just heard on the radio the other day that researchers are really pushing for the introduction to such allergens much sooner than before. Interesting. Looking at your link I noticed the see-saw which differentiated the developed countries from western countries. It explains that the reason for such allergies could be a result of high antibotic usage but then also claims that westerners have stable micro-intestinal flora. Maybe I'm misreading that but I think that that its our poor intestinal flora that is causing some of these reactions....which again the poor flora coming from high use of antibotics which kills off all the bacteria including the good bacteria.

I just read this article today about how the recent flu vaccine was relatively ineffective against the flu this year in Canada suggesting that the actual vaccine was a mismatch to what was out there. Further proof that we need to dig deeper to find out more about the viruses and the so called vaccines before we start pumping a ton of money into something that isn't working. http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/flu-vaccine-offered-only-modest-protection-in-2012-13-study-1.1745808

I guess you like cherry picking as you seem to leave out Chretien's years. Sure...he had surpluses but if you add up all of his surpluses and deficits (in adjusted for inflation numbers) you get -74.7 billion. You do the same to Harper and you see that he's at -158 billion but one of these guys dealt with the greatest recession since the Great Depression and the other enjoyed boom years where even the US turned surpluses. I'll let you figure out who was who.

I agree 100%

Seriously? I just answered this.

Actually when you look at long term numbers this isn't true at all. Here is a link showing the provincial populations dating back to 1971. http://www.stats.gov.nl.ca/statistics/population/PDF/Annual_Pop_Prov.PDF The population of Alberta as a percentage of Canada in 1971 was 7.6% where as in 2013 it had 11.4% of Canada's population. Compare this with all these other provinces that had decreasing percentages in the same time period (NL - 2.4 to 1.4, PEI - 0.5-0.4, NS - 3.6 to 2.7, NB - 2.9 to 2.2, Que - 27.9 - 23.2, Man - 4.5 to 3.6, Sask - 4.2 to 3.2) The only provinces to gain more of Canada's percentage were BC (10.2% to 13%) and Ontario (35.7% to 38.5%). Now I have nothing to back this up but BC typically gets large immigration numbers from Asia and Ontario (particularily Toronto) also gets a large immigration influx. I'm sure that Alberta gets some immigration influx but one number that is apparent is the large intra provincial movement to Alberta as of late. This chart shows the numbers for 2011-2012 which is not indicitave of the same 1971-2013 timeframe but does highlight the recent trend. You'll notice the dark blue NET is only postive in Alberta (and barely in Sask). The rest are negative. As shown above, Quebec's population as a percentage of Canada has dropped drastically since 1971. It went from 27.9% to 23.8 %. I would consider that 4% drop to be hemorrhaging since all the other provinces that dropped were by 1% or less. Compare that with increases by 2.8% in Ont and BC and 3.8% in Alta.

So I guess according to your infinite wisdom, Canada is under redneck rule right now too? And all those Ontario MPs are rednecks too? Is that what you are saying? What other generalizations do you want to put on display today?

So which is it? Conservatism or Redneck? Don't shy away now.

That's the quick back pedal....so now it's conservatism versus redneck? Which is it? And again....any other stereotypes for other provinces while you're at it?

Wow...that's hardly stereotyping. I wonder what your narrow minded views on other Canadian provinces are?

You comment on why the CPC has had it tough during the global recession but yet you make it out like there was no outside influence during the Liberal surpluses. All you need to see is that during the those surplus years, the US also had four years of surplus....which is quite impressive as they've had about 10 surplus years in the last 100! If that's not enough for you then look at the exchange rates during those years which again showed a strong US dollar which made it much better for Canada as an exporting nation to thrive. Compare that with the parity dollar the CPC government has had. The bottom line is that as much as we want to believe any party is doing a good or bad job, it really needs to be addressed in the context of how the US is doing.

She clearly took the premier's office to be more than it was. She thought she had a free ticket to do what she wanted which gets right in the face of those who feel they are serving honestly. It doesn't take long to lose your confidence in a leader when you see that he or she has little to no respect for the office.