August1991

I'll resurrect this old thread. (The posts above are pertinent.) Ibbitson today writes this. Would these be the consequences if we don't sign on? Is this what the NDP/Parrish want?

Very, very interesting thread.

I'd agree.But there is a constitutional means now to secede. It would require an amendment to the constitution removing that province from the confederation. Such an amendment would require the assent of all ten provinces and the federal government. Prior to 1982, such an amendment would have required only an act of the UK parliament. I'd agree too.In fact though, Trudeau passed federal referendum legislation shortly after the Quebec National Assembly did in 1979. Trudeau's 1979 legislation had the same effect as the Clarity Act. Trudeau clearly meant to hold a federal referendum if the PQ had won the 1980 provincial referendum. His federal referendum would have asked a direct question such as "Do you want Quebec to be an independent country?" The Clarity Act makes more explicit what Trudeau did earlier. IOW, we are just witnessing different strategems of threats in a complicated game. This stuff has been analyzed to death in Quebec. I realize that you are discussing this in the context of Alberta, not Quebec. The BNA Act treated different provinces diufferently and that's another question: Would secession of Quebec be different from the secession of Alberta?

That's a defendable argument although with 300 million people, I'd like to know which Americans you mean specifically. I can't believe that Canadians are afraid of all of them.Or MS, is it just the current US federal government (and the odd US corporation) that you mean? As to Parrish, if she posted comments here like she makes them to journalists, she would risk being banned. We all know what happens to debate when it descends to name-calling. In this case though, she referred to the "coalition of the idiots". She didn't blankly say, "W is an idiot." I see a difference. Kimmy raised the point that an insult attracts attention and the true message gets lost. That's true but how else to attract attention? There are not many politicians who can attract attention by presenting their message well. Parizeau did it recently.

They already have ratified it.

Rich? Poor people pay for milk and bread. Why shouldn't they pay for putting their car on a busy road?All four lane roads should be like the 407. We have the (Canadian) technology to do it. Let's. (Cities could eliminate property taxes and provinces eliminate income taxes with the revenues. Think!)

Actors and actresses simply have big egos. Politicians have big egos and ambition. Lots and lots of ambition. What's the gain? The sensation that you are standing at the centre of the universe. And maybe getting to order from room service. But then not eating it because you're too busy. Politician? I've always thought of Ramses II. He had his cartouche put under every single column of every temple built during his reign. Now there's a politician! PS. To be a politician now, it helps if you are tall, big headed and have a full head of hair (unless your name starts with C). Here's a link about US President characteristics.

I disagree. Clinton had a special prosecutor breathing down his neck for the better part of his second term. Can you imagine the amount of time Clinton had to devote to preparing affidavits, reviewing document requests, figuring out what to say in testimony. (Please don't tell me that he had people in his office to handle all this.) The guy was impeached for God's sakes.Bush has just faced the usual vilification of most Presidents. I flipped through the Swift web site and from what I can see, most of these guys don't like Kerry because of what he said when he came back from Vietnam. IOW, most don't really say that Kerry's a liar about his service - rather, they don't want him as President because he pulled, in their eyes, a Jane Fonda. The Swifties are partisan. That's all.

There's some truth to that.Petro Canada started during the Liberal minority government of 72-74. The NDP Lewis got Trudeau to pass the legislation. Then, Petro Canada started buying companies. One big purchase was PetroFina primarily because it had a retail distribution in eastern Canada. I have no idea what the whole venture cost.

It says nothing about intervention. It says everything about property rights. And corporations aren't the problem at all.When somebody clearly owns something, and can easily trade it, everything else will fall into place. It's when nobody owns something that problems arise. Nobody owns the environment. [iOW, the environment is proof that socialism doesn't work.]

In the case of environmental protection, it's not the lack of market regulation. It's the lack of any market at all.When the environment can be bought and sold for a profit in a market, then we'll protect the environment. The federal legislation starts us down the road to do this. Corporations are not going to happily pay for something that they can at present use for free. One solution is to give it to them and then let them sell it for profit. This legislation partially does that. I suspect that Transalta is taking out a very cheap option (which it may never exercise) and getting a little PR into the bargain. What's Transalta's relationship to the Chilean firm? I would agree with that. But you have just made the State the owner of the environment. I can think of several reasons that is a bad idea.

No, Canadians are very anti-Republican. Many Canadians would feel quite at home in Massachusetts.

The interesting detail is that the price is not public.The creation of a market in CO2 emissions is the important feature of the federal legislation. This method must be extended to other environmental problems. The suggestion that all corporations are going to voluntarily go along with this is crazy. Although starting them at 85% makes their agreement a little easier to obtain. *Sigh*.... where do I begin? A tax (tariff) imposes a burden on both parties to a transaction.

Sorry, I can't help but point out that the US puts on a great show. These two guys going at each other is entertaining. So far, I think Bush is doing better because it looks as if he's above the fray. It's the Swifties who are doing the dirty sniping. Kerry should get someone else to take them on. Also, it seems that Vietnam is still the no-luck, quagmire. The name itself spells trouble for Americans.

If you were the CEO of a company, who would you rather have holding the shares of the company you manage: 1) general public, 2) pension fund or 3) federal government? In each of these cases, what do you think you would spend much of your time doing?

Why not simply define as "ethical" anything that achieves a particular objective at least cost? That is, something is unethical if it leads to waste. For this rule to apply, one must think of consequences. Murder is unethical because not only does it waste a life but also because many will exert efforts to avoid being the next victim. This definition avoids many subjective disagreements.

The following article deserves to be read by all Canadian "nationalists". Canadian Peacekeeping Myth

Well, why did you choose to move in to the small town?People voluntarily pay to enter a cinema. Imagine the cinema doesn't last for two hours but rather several years. In fact, it's like joining a club. The decision to join the club is voluntary, but to remain a member, you must submit to the club's will. In one view, we have just defined "government". I would go further and suggest that there may be clubs to which we would choose to be a member before our birth and in which membership would last our whole lives. To me, this is the proper sense of "government". In fact though, the first definition is adequate (and perhaps less contentious). Welcome to the club! But if you don't like it, leave. Agreed, but this is ex post. Ex ante, I'm not so sure.More pertinent, I can see why people might voluntarily agree to restrict their options prior to negotiating an agreement. IOW, we voluntarily restrict our freedom receiving nothing of benefit in return - except the benefit of making the negotiation possible. Examples? Two parties in a divorce agree (commit) not to consult lawyers. Two countries commit to using nuclear weapons in the case of war. Another example? It's as if we both agree to have the Hell's Angels ensure we stick to certain agreements but then we discover that the Hell's are stealing from both of us. You're saying get rid of the Hell's; I'm saying let's figure out how to stop them stealing from us. IOW, on balance, you may be right. They're not worth the hassle.

I prefer Dole's "Stop lying about me" to Bush Snr. The Bushies are one seriously competitive gang. They play hardball to win.

I don't disagree but... The government is an institution that we may choose to submit to.Humans wisely prefer to conduct their affairs in association with others because as individuals, we achieve more. Call this co-operation. We use a variety of associations to do this primarily markets, a family, corporations and the government. IOW, the government is just another method people use to co-operate. It has the peculiarity that it creates a long term contract which cannot be breached. It is the ultimate commitment. I can see why people would voluntarily enter into such a contract. When you move into a small town, you are assessed property taxes to pay for the fire department. This is a form of insurance which could in theory be offered "privately". If it's offered by the municipality, what's the difference? That's one view of "government". I'll go further, you move into the small town and you agree never to leave. That's my view of government and I can see valid reasons for it to exist. Hugo, don't be ideological on this one! As for the others, 1000 years ago a world without the Catholic Church would have been unthinkable in Europe. Well, it has in effect happened. Just because something is here now does not mean it will be here tomorrow.

If one tries to view this from the perspective of a historian writing in the year 2100 (for example), it is hard not to see the past 25 years or so of Canadian history as laying the framework for what can only be some kind of confrontation. Our recent history ressembles so much the lead up to such conflagrations as the US civil war (recall all the various "compromises" from about 1830) or World War I (the Franco-Prussian War and the posturing from 1900). I don't think there will be a violent confrontation but clearly something is afoot. Like in life itself, some events in history just happen and other events have clear antecedents. They seem inexorable.

You might want to read this Wikipedia entry about secession. The BNA Act made no reference to a province leaving Confederation. Indeed, the BNA Act was mute on amendments to itself. Since in fact it was an Act of the UK Parliament, it required technically only a new law in London. Trudeau changed this in 1982 by getting Thatcher to pass an Act of the UK parliament. In effect, the BNA Act (now the Constitution Act of 1982) would be amended by the federal government and/or the provincial governments according to differenet formulae depending on the amendment. The 1998 Supreme Court secession reference in effect said that for Quebec to secede legally, it would require an amendment to the Constitution Act. In this case, the applicable formula would require assent of all ten provinces and the federal government in agreement. I frankly feel that this whole issue is academic. The US Declaration of Independence was a political document, not a legal document as such. A Quebec Declaration of Independence would be the same. If such ever existed, we would all be moving into new territory where I hope cool heads would prevail. The Soviet Union was dissolved in December 1991. God knows if it was done "legally". It was done quite peacefully however.

Informed people in Quebec understand your idea but it's practically lost on them. I just chose France to make the idea more dramatic. In fact, the difference between Quebec French and France French is very much like the difference between Texan English and British English. (The same is true for Mexican Spanish and Spain Spanish, incidentally. Populism and familiarity vs. Henry Higgins.) This site is hosted in Lethbridge. There seem to be alot of Albertans here. Pick your own province if you prefer.Kimmy made the point that Albertans would be pragmatic and try to learn French. That's what most Quebecers want to do. At the same time, it's not so easy to do. I've often used the example of Holland or Sweden where about 75% of the population speaks English well - while writing and speaking Dutch/Swedish fluently. (The example has one big flaw for a federalist. Those countries are sovereign.) Kimmy also made the point, very valid, that an English Albertan Klein who speaks bad French would win a majority of votes outside of Alberta! (That's what Chretien did in effect.) On the French forum, one point made is that some Albertans would argue in favour of accomodation with the French provinces and other Albertans would argue with going it alone. That seems a reasonable conjecture.

I'm uncomfortable discussing Spain in the 16th century since while I know about the Duc de Parme and the defeat of the Armada, I'm hardly knowledgeable.As to Saudi Arabia, I've travelled there and met Saudis. I have to say that it is one of the most weird places I've ever been to. (All things considered, Iran is more normal.) I agree with you TalkNumb but for slightly different reasons. True, as soon as the oil runs out (or its use is replaced), the Saudis will have nothing. But in addition, the Saud family's hold on the country is tenuous and feudal. I'm also surprised to read rarely about how the Saud population is about 7 million and the non-Saud population is about the same. (These numbers are extremely rough, and indeed unknowable.) Non-Sauds have no citizenship and can be deported at any moment. Needless to say, they do all the work, from cleaning to managing. The US is selling its country to foreigners. The Sauds are accumulating the countries of others.I recall a British engineer's comment about Saudi Arabia. "Imagine you gave $500 billion to Henry VIII. What would he do with that kind of money? That's Saudi Arabia."

The simple fact that we are communicating intelligibly (usually) on this forum is evidence that we share some points in common. I believe that we have participants from all the western provinces (BC, Alta, Sask and Man) as well as Ontario. Is there anyone from posting from the Maritimes? We can discuss political and economic issues using cultural references we all know and understand. We would detect quickly if a poster was an American. IOW, we speak the same "language". There is a place called "Canada" that functions in English and has every right to exist. I sometimes fear that the Liberal Party has so skewed things that what I just wrote is no longer obvious. IOW, there are two Canadas and Quebec is not a province like the others. That too should be obvious.