Saturn

Watch yourself, don't speak down to me. Sure, I'm in my twenties. Living off my parents? No, I've lived on my own since 17, never taken a dollar of government money my whole life. I earn upwards of $60k a year managing a group of people double my age in a company where I got the position based completely upon my ability (no daddy getting me the spot, I earned it).... while going to school full-time, so don't try me. I know how the system works, I get it. I'm not a 20 year old philosopher, I'm someone that has experienced relatively fantastic success in business and in life. You couldn't be more wrong. Have you checked your numbers lately? Let me enlighten you, as you seem to be living in the typical Torontonian arrogance: Median Income: http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil108a.htm Ontario 2000: 55,700 Alberta 2000: 55,200 Sweet deal hey, your making more!!! Then... Ontario 2004: 62,500 Alberta 2004: 66,400 Ouch. Our growth is enourmous compared to Ontarios. And it continues. Small-business http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/61F0...9XIE1997004.pdf Per 10,000 population Alberta: 480 Ontario: 347 Again... Ouch... And lastly, and most importantly... Real GDP http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/econ50.htm Ontario 2000: 437 million Alberta 2000: 123 million Ontario 2004: 483 million Alberta 2004: 145 million Growth for Ontario over 4 years: 10.5% Growth for Alberta over 4 years: 17.9% Hmmmm... so Ontario's economy is barely struggling to keep up with the world, Alberta's is leading. So yes, you need Alberta. We provide 4 times per capita more into equalisation than Ontario. I hate to get into these Alberta v. Ontario pissing matches, but sometimes you need a little enlightenment amongst those Southern Ontarians. I'm not a Southern Ontarian, so you can keep up the pissing match. Second, the government has been paying for you most of your life and your taxes over the next decade or two won't make up for your schooling, health-care and all the other services you've been getting. $60 grand - good for you, you may be able to afford one of those $300 grand 1 bedroom trailers at Fort Mc. You can give me all the stats on averages all you want, the fact is that Alberta has far more young working people than Ontario does. Ontario has more seniors (cause few in their right mind will retire in Alberta). Your growth doesn't mean anything because of runaway inflation. In real terms, growth in Alberta isn't any better. Finally, Mr. Oil Baron Bush will go in 2 years and so will his efforts in wreaking havoc in the Middle East - oil will drop back to $20 barrel, just the way it was before he got in and guess whose economy will go down the tubes? Alberta may be temporarily paying more into equalization but don't be surprised if you end up getting equalization. To have a solid economy, you need more than just oil. Now don't snub others because at times others have done better than Alberta at other times Alberta has done better than others. In fact, NFLD had some years of huge economic growth but then the fish died and look where NFLD is now. 4-5 years is nothing in history. On top of that Alberta is hardly leading the world - communist China is growing at 10% per year. So don't get so eager to tell others how great you are because you have no idea what things will be like ten years down the road.

I've made myself a quite comfortable student because of oil and the wealth it's brought. It's not a bunch of retirees. Where are you going with that? Are you one of those tree-huggers that predict a 20 year end to oil? Keep dreaming, oil is here to stay, and it's only going to be more profitable in the future. Start appreciating those that pay for your country instead of trying to trip up Canada's ONLY economic success right now. Pff. Keep dreaming. I hardly need anyone's help to be comfortable. And of course, you are one of those 20 year old philosophers, who haven't done any work themselves and are living off their parents and off government subsidies. Canada will do just fine without oil and gas. Last time I checked Toronto's economy is still larger than all of Alberta's. Oil makes up a tiny percentage of Canada's economy and all of that is in Alberta anyway. If it all goes, nobody outside of Alberta will even notice.

You have no problem taking advice from the oil and gas industry do you? If they provide me with my current standard of living, nope. They haven't failed, last time I checked, most oil industry folks are doing quite well with their objectives. Last time I checked, most oil folks are near retirement and they will stick you with the consequences of their standard of living. What's your standard of living anyway? You make a few million bucks a year or you barely make enough to buy a trailer in Fort Mc? You are probably one of those "average" Canadians who consider themselves wealthy and think that they'll be better off paying more taxes under a flat tax.

Shut down every industry? Who the heck is talking about that (besides retarded Rona)? We need energy, no matter what. It can be generated in a zillion ways and we happen to do it the most harmful way possible. F**k the oil industry. Replace them by solar energy industry and wind power industry. I have no problem driving a fuel efficient vehicle and my life won't be ruined by taking the bus. If someone won't be able to sleep knowing that his TV isn't using 100W while it's turned off, then let him lose sleep over it. I bet your energy efficient dishwasher, which uses 1/3 the power that some old piece of junk does, won't cause you to commit suicide. It's all about kissing the rears of industries that just don't want to be bothered to move a finger. Cause moving a finger would cost them 2 bucks right now. Who cares that 30 years down the road it will cost us 1000 times as much?

Since when has Canada been considered a third-world country? Not a third world country but "an honorary member of the third world". That was coined by the Economist magazine with regards to Canada's fiscal situation in 1993. Courtesy of Mr. Mulroney.

In case you haven't noticed, Quebec has 3 times more seats in Parliament than Alberta does. On top of that, no matter what Harper does, he won't lose more than a seat or two in Alberta. He isn't sneaky, he is smart enough to realize that. A lot of people in the west don't want Quebec getting special powers and what have you and to be honest why should they, they are different, not better. You are talking about the region which gutted the Progressive Conservative party, like I say it's not wise to piss off a sleeping dragon because if he ever decides to wake up there will be hell to pay. A lot of people in the west don't want Quebec getting special powers but they won't vote against the Conservatives over it anyway. If they do, then the whole long live Reform - kill the PC party thing will happen all over again. Harper has hit the peak in all regions except Quebec and he needs Quebec to get a majority. He knows that he won't lose more than a few seats in the Prairies over giving Quebec special powers. He is smart enough to know that and he will use it to get a majority.

I suggest that you grow up and realize that if there is nothing in common between different regions of a county, then it is NOT a country. If you want to be entirely different and have no consideration for anyone else, I'd suggest you separate. Just when you are drink and scream all night long, your roommates will tell you to leave eventually. YOu can't just share a country or a house with other people and behave like you are on your own.

National Security is still a - well - national jurisdiction. Why have twelve different flavours of ice cream when one will do? Because people want choices. We don't want to all be the same across the board. There should be more than only 13. There should be an unlimited number of health-care administrations - not simply one government-supplied health-care. A Free Market would allow people with different needs to receive the treatment they require. Education has been, is being, and can be provided by the private sector - often with greater results than the public system. Government doesn't have to cost us so much. Also, astoundingly, many private schools provide education not only of a greater quality--but at a lesser cost per student than is spent in the public system. Whoah there, a person has to be careful government programs that benefit everyone are good things and i have no problems paying taxes on them. A free market healthcare would screw over a low income earner, private healthcare should have STRICT government controls What for? We pay 10% of GDP to get shitty health-care. Why not pay 16% of GDP to get shitty health-care like the Americans do? I'm not sure that a free market health care will screw only low-income earners. I know someone in the US who had 4 operations to remove a brain tumor(s). The bill was $1.25 million, 80% covered by insurance, $250,000 to be paid by her. She is a surgeon and was able to pay. But how many Canadians have a quarter million dollars sitting in their bank accounts? Most would have to sell their homes and many would be bankrupt and on the street. Private insurance never pays for everything and even the middle-class can get screwed pretty bad.

In case you haven't noticed, Quebec has 3 times more seats in Parliament than Alberta does. On top of that, no matter what Harper does, he won't lose more than a seat or two in Alberta. He isn't sneaky, he is smart enough to realize that and use it to his advantage.

You have no problem taking advice from the oil and gas industry do you?

Nice speech,but just another useless complainer. I've asked this question before, what is YOUR solution to the problem. Oh sure,wine about Rona, wine about all this taking too long to fix, but what is YOUR solution? This government is starting a process,it will take time.Don't like it,ammend the program, They will listen. YOU want it now, well complainer,this won't be solved now,it won't be solved in ten years,it won't be solved in twenty years,and it won't be solved in thirty years. So forget about it ending in YOUR life-time. The process has to start, and Rona is starting it now. Every day the opposition rejects the plan is another day the plan is not started.Don't like it,present a solution. Get off your pity-the-government-is-too-slow mentality and get it moving. I hear you bitching,I don't hear you offering a solution. Same old useless complaining about something you have nothing to offer. Electing another government's will not make a difference in YOUR lifetime. Face reality. I suppose being a rude a*****e will solve the problem. The solution is: 1) Close all coal burning plants. Replace them by solar/wind power and nuclear power. 2a) Implement mandatory emissions caps and controls on oil and gas producers similar to those that exist in Europe. 2b) Implement mandatory emissions caps and controls on all other industries. 3) Slap $1/littre tax on gasoline. Put the money collected from that tax in public transportation. 4) Slap heavy taxes on all gas guzzlers. Put the money collected into subsidies on fuel-efficient vehicles. 5) Ban the use of 2 stroke engines without cat. converters. 6) Ban the sale of appliances that draw electricity while turned off. Ban the sale of appliances that waste electricity while in use. 7) Implement regulations on all new construction (to satisfy minimum energy efficiency requirements) This would be a good start and there is a whole lot more that can be done. And all of this can be done before 2012 and if it is done we could even meet our Kyoto targets or come pretty close anyway.

They are only responsible for making and enforcing the laws pertaining to those services. They are not responsible for making them work on a day to day basis and they are not fiscally responsible, which is more than anything what this is about. Money. Actually, yes they are. The federal government is responsible for making sure that the quality of life of all Canadians is roughly the same across the country. The constitution says so. And then it proceeds to put most of the areas that have to do with quality of life under provincial jurisdiction. Pretty retarded if you ask me but that's how it is.

The real issues are that Canada is sliding further down the list of good places to live year after year. Our health-care is getting worse, education is getting worse, the gap between rich and poor is getting wider, 1 in 6 Canadian kids live below the poverty line, our infrastructure is deteriorating, our cities are are becoming less safe, more polluted, and quality of life is going down. Our environment is deteriorating, our population is aging and we are not prepared for massive numbers of seniors. Our governments are becoming less and less democratic, less and less responsive to the needs and the wishes of the people and more and more corrupt and unaccountable. Fewer and fewer voters exercise their right to vote and our voting system is 100 years behind the times. Those are the real issues. It may sound cruel, cold hearted, whatever. But most Canadians don't give a shit about those ideas. They care about how much they get at the end of the work week. They are concerned, no doubt in their health care wait times and how good of an education their kids get. But that's about as far as their real conscience goes. No one cares about pollution or some imaginary poverty line (no one dies of hunger in Canada). Any real stats on the gap between the rich and poor getting wider? Canada's will vote for the party that offers them the best chance at getting themselves ahead. That's why the PC's and Liberals have always done well... they offer opportunity. The NDP will never be successful because of what I just said... no one cares about issues completely irrelevant to their own well being. Democracy is only successful as long as it's selfish. Sadly enough most people are too nearsighted to see the big picture. Many are so blinded and selfish that they won't realize that their selfish choices hurt them in the long run. It's like a run on a bank - everyone runs to pull his money out and the bank goes under as a result and many of those who rushed to get their money out end up with no money at all. It's funny how many people endorse policies out of greed without realizing that these policies actually leave them worse off. That's what Harper is trying to avoid. He doesn't want a debate that will give Canadians a better understanding of the real issues. Because his policies are harmful to the majority of Canadians and he doesn't want them to realize that. He wants some false debate about whether Quebeckers are a "nation", whether gays should marry and about a constitution he cannot change. All things that are completely irrelevant and meaningless.

Hiti, it's called a federal system of government. One size does not fit all.We have ten different ministries of education in Canada and each one sets a different curricula. Imagine that! Canadians grow up learning different things! Makes sense. When we meet up internationally to talk about securities regulations, the European Union shows up with one representative at the table and Canada shows up with 9. Great plan! What's better than setting up 13 different administrations to deal with health-care when one will do? 13 different education administrations, 13 different of this and that and then we can complain about how much government costs us. Provincial governments can opt out now by the simple expedient of imposing a $1200 tax on any child under the age of six - assuming the provincial government had the political courage to do it.This amendment would mean that federal government cannot create and fund a programme in provincial jurisdiction (let's say, education) and then tell the provincial government to take or leave it. Did I mention that the federal government is RESPONSIBLE for making sure that Canadians across the country have more or less the same access to services? As it is the feds get blamed for everything - including health care waiting lists. How exactly are they going to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities if they have absolutely no say in the areas they are responsible for (which means all services)?

The real issues are that Canada is sliding further down the list of good places to live year after year. Our health-care is getting worse, education is getting worse, the gap between rich and poor is getting wider, 1 in 6 Canadian kids live below the poverty line, our infrastructure is deteriorating, our cities are are becoming less safe, more polluted, and quality of life is going down. Our environment is deteriorating, our population is aging and we are not prepared for massive numbers of seniors. Our governments are becoming less and less democratic, less and less responsive to the needs and the wishes of the people and more and more corrupt and unaccountable. Fewer and fewer voters exercise their right to vote and our voting system is 100 years behind the times. Those are the real issues.

I certainly hope not. I'd just opt out of everything, take my money, and run my province as I see fit. If that's how Albertans feel, then I see no problem with Alberta separating from Canada and running its own affairs any way it sees fit.

Instead we get years of constitutional debates that rip the country apart as in the Mulroney years? Hey Mulroney and co. are the ones pulling the strings behind the Harper government. So what do you expect? He needs to take attention away from the real issues in Canada and what can do that better than some discussion over the constitution. Worked for Brian, why not for Steve?

CTVThis has long been requested in Quebec and follows directly from Harper's statements about provincial rights. The US constitution states that all government powers not clearly stated as going to the federal government, belong to the states. And any powers not clearly stated as government belong to the people. Our Constitution does the reverse and gives the federal government power the right to tax or spend in any domain it feels appropriate. Harper's amendment is good and would limit the federal government's power to intervene in jurisdictions that are not in its competency. The Liberals and NDP will likely oppose this proposal. The problem is that the same constitution makes the federal government responsible for making sure that Canadians across the country have the same access to services. So on one hand, the feds have to make sure that access to health care, education, etc. are similar across the country, while on the other hand Harper wants the feds to have absolutely no say in how these services are delivered. Will Harper change the constitution so that the feds aren't responsible for anything that they have no say over?

Heather is bang on when it comes to how I feel about Rona Ambrose tarnishing Canada's reputation on the international stage: What truly amazes me is that people will talk about what the Liberals didn't do in the past (in the letters). Honestly, who cares what they did or didn't do? This is all in the past and the past cannot be changed. What can be changed is the future and government policy is set by the current government we have, not by a past government that we don't have. When will people get the idea that when our and our children's future is at stake, there is no room for pointing fingers, there is no room for politics, because if we keep doing that, there will be no room left for action when it's too late? What the hell is wrong with people? Why are the profits of oil companies more important to some people than their own lives and the lives of their children and grandchildren? Or are they just assuming that nothing bad will happen during their lifetime and who cares what happens after that?

History is repeating itself again. The CPC is going down the road of Brian's PC. Harper is trying to get votes in Quebec and doing it in the same manner Brian was. At the end of it all, there will be another deep scar left between Quebec and ROC, the west will realize they've been used in all of this - watch out for another Reform, the Conservatives will ravish the country's finances and Canada will be an honorary member of the third world again.

All NDP governments over the last 20 years. I guess that would include several in each of BC, Sask and Man, and one in Ontario.

The right wing telling people that it would only be worse under the Liberals is starting to ring a little hollow. I agree. That being said, then who are the real fiscal conservatives? Any government will have to spend to stay in power. The question is where this spending will go. Will we spend more on military equipment and tax cuts for the rich or will we spend more on health care and education. With the liberals and conservatives running the show, we'll be spending way more on the first than on the latter. In the last 20 years, the records of conservative and liberal governments across the country is exactly the same: both parties have managed to balance their budgets (or have a surplus) about 20% of the time. The remaining close to 80%, both parties have had deficits. Strangely enough, the odd one out is the NDP, balancing budgets twice as often as the liberals and conservatives. The only explanation I can see for this is that everyone is watching NDP governments much more closely when it comes to money. The conservatives are "fiscally responsible" just because the newspapers tell us so, so we don't pay much attention to what they do with their finances.

Flaherty is doing just what he did in Ontario several years ago. Used gimmicks (the most optimistic scenario to make Ontario look richer than it was and then spent all the "extra" money like a drunken sailor. Then reality hit, his bubble burst, and Ontario turned out to be buried in deficits. Now he is looking to do the same to federal finances.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/11...474855-sun.html Bob is absolutely correct on this issue. What Iggy and now Steve are doing is just plain dumb. This time I have to agree with you and Rae gerry. Prolonging this debate only draws the lines deeper, and does nothing to fix any of the real problems facing Canadian unity. It's a vote buy in Quebec that will backfire elsewhere. While I agree that this was only intended to buy votes in Quebec, where is it going to backfire? How many seats do you think Harper will lose in Alberta over this?

All savings are invested in some way. Even if they are not invested directly a surplus of savings will lead to lower interest rates which helps the economy. Well you obviously don't know much about the economy. Taxing income reduces the incentive to work - taxing consumption reduces the incentive to spend. In the long term the health of the economy depends on the willingness of of people to work - not spend. Quite the opposite. Consumer spending is what drives the economy. If consumers want to buy, businesses will provide. The problem with a consumption tax is that it hits consumption directly. Income taxes on the other hand can actually encourage consumption. Income taxes shift income from high-income earners to low-income earners. Income taxes are approximately neutral to the middle class. The middle class will be paying approximately the same whether we use income taxes or consumption taxes. The difference between the two comes at the low and high ends of the income distribution. Multi-millionaires generally consume a small percentage of their incomes - the rest goes into savings - investment (a large portion of that goes overseas). Low-income earners consume their entire incomes. If you give them an extra dollar, they will go out and spend it, not invest it in China. The same goes for foreign investors in Canada. If we don't tax their income which Canadians generate, they will take it out of our economy tax free.