kimmy

It seems as if Ignatieff is leaving himself room to backtrack... “Why the hell are we doing this now?” -k

Well, if Alberta went it alone, it would be a land-locked country dependent on its neighbors for all of its transportation and export needs. And if Alberta joined with BC, then they'd have to put up Greater Vancouver having near majority share of voting power, and I don't think anybody in Alberta wants that to happen. Vancouver politics is just loco. -k

And to return us to the topic that was at hand earlier... He might not be from Quebec, but if Michael Ignatieff showed leadership in providing an alternative solution to this current situation, he seems like the sort of guy that Albertans would be willing to give a chance. -k

I'm too young to remember the NEP myself; I wasn't born when it was installed and I was a toddler when the last portions of it were finally dismantled. I don't hold any first-hand bitterness over it. I only know the hatred it inspired through the lasting resentment held by people like my dad, who never worked in the oil industry. And yet I've had this discussion numerous times with online friends from other parts of the country who reject the idea that there was anything to actually be upset about. The arguments usually range along the lines of "it was actually a really great idea, it's just that the timing was bad" or "it was actually a really great idea, it's just that the benefits weren't explained very well" or "they had to hurt one part of the country to save the rest of the country" or "it had built in protections that would have saved Alberta and helped the energy industry except that Mulroney shut it down before they could kick in" or "you guys just hated it because you're greedy". So I've researched the topic myself because I just couldn't really believe that my parents and every other Albertan their age were upset about nothing. One thing that surprises me is that people who think the NEP was a great idea that would have benefited all Canadians don't seem to have considered how awesome it would be if the same principles were applied to hydroelectric power. I mean, I think we all understand the importance of Green Power now. And I think one of the most important things we could do to meeting Canada's energy challenges of the future would be to shut down coal-burning electricity plants from coast to coast, and replace them with clean, renewable hydroelectric power. As part of meeting Canada's commitments to reducing greenhouse gasses, I think it makes sense that we stop selling clean electricity to the United States, and use this green energy at home so that we can shut down Canada's dirty generating stations. Clean power should be sold to Canadians at below market prices, so that all Canadians can benefit from reduced energy costs. This would establish a permanent domestic market for Canadian-produced hydroelectricity so that producing provinces would never need worry about international price fluctuations. As well, the federal government should take a share of profits resulting from hydroelectric power. This share of the hydroelectric windfall could be used to help all Canada by funding the construction of clean electricity projects from coast to coast. The federal share of hydroelectric revenues could also be used to fund other made-in-Canada eco-friendly projects, such as the Kimmy Green Energy Center for Wind-powered Scooter Innovation. And the federal share could also be used to upgrade and modernize Canada's coast-to-coast power grid, which is in need of infrastructure investment. I mean, all of this makes such perfect sense that I can't imagine why some Prime Minister hasn't already done it. -k

I gather some coalition supporters are not pleased with the Governor General's decision. -k

We already have a thread on this topic. -k

I hope this temporary reprieve will give Harper some time to recognize the reality of the situation, or at least give his allies a chance to talk some sense into him. -k

We will have to wait and see if some alternative solution can be arrived at during the break, or if the same thing is going to happen as soon as they get back. After the firestorm of controversy this has ignited, I expect that the Conservatives and many Liberals would be very eager to find some alternatives. Layton and Duceppe no doubt thought this coalition was a dream come true. And for Dion I am sure it seemed like his big chance to be remembered as something other than the political equivalent of the Edsel. Saner portions of the Liberal party, however, still have the future to think about. Ignatieff and Rae both want to be Prime Minister some day, and are probably painfully aware of the long-term effects this coalition would have had. I think Ignatieff or Rae (or both of them) could come out of this looking like true statesmen and (dare I say) Prime Ministerial, if they took the reins from Dion and worked with the Conservatives. The potential for Rae and/or Ignatieff to come out of this looking like the kind of leaders that Canadians want in Ottawa is absolutely huge, and I hope they take advantage. It would be so much better for the country than this coalition. -k

That's not correct. Aspects of the NEP were taken to the court and ruled unconstitutional. The struck down sections dealt with the levying of federal export taxes on natural gas exports to the United States. First off, it must be pointed out that Clark was also intent on letting the price for domestic oil move towards the world price, from the price that Trudeau had frozen it at at the start of the OPEC crisis in the mid 1970s. Increasing the federal tax on oil wouldn't have been so hard to swallow if oil had been allowed to sell at closer to world prices instead of the price where Trudeau had frozen it. Secondly, if the NEP had just been a simple cash-grab, it probably wouldn't have been received so poorly. But it was far more than that. It contained a variety of measures. It put punitive taxes on energy exports to the United States, to force energy to be sold to domestic markets at discounted prices. It contained punitive measures directed toward the American firms that made up 3/4 of Alberta's oil industry, intended to drive them out or sell to Canadian ownership. It controlled where energy could be sold, and at what price. It dramatically altered the way in which companies in the industry conducted their business, to great detriment of the large majority of them. Some American companies, facing increased royalties, increased costs, capped prices, and having no access to the subsidies available to their Canadian competitors, simply took their equipment and went back home, taking jobs with them. Well, as you point out, these subsidies were not available to the American firms that made up 3/4 of Alberta's oil industry, which considerably dampened any positive impact this might have had. I think you'll also find that these subsidies were primarily targetted toward discovering "new" oil sources (read offshore and Arctic), not "conventional" (read Alberta) oil sources. I think giving the Maritimes and the far north a "hand up" is great... but trying to sell this as a feature of the NEP that Albertans should have really appreciated is just not going to work. Taxing Alberta's oil industry to subsidize exploration in other parts of the country is not the bonanza for Albertans that you make it out to be. (A cynic might wonder if the federal government's enthusiasm for finding oil offshore and in the Territories might have been spurred by the fact that they wouldn't have to share the royalties with any provincial governments.) If you've got any specific information about that, I'm all ears. The NEP raised billions of dollars from the west... and what portion of that was spent on upgrading railroads in western Canada? $462.83? Considering the difference in scale, I have a hard time taking that response seriously. It sounds like putting lipstick on a pig (as the President Elect likes to say.) Some of your earlier messages on the topic gave me the impression that you felt everybody thought the NEP was great at first and only got mad about it later when the world oil price plunged. But that's patently false. It was hated from day one, long before oil prices plunged. Your messages also give the impression that you feel the draconian measures in the NEP wouldn't have been so devastating for Alberta's economy if only the world price of oil hadn't plunged. I don't even know how to respond to that. It's like arguing that the shortage of lifeboats on the Titanic wouldn't have been such a big deal if they hadn't hit that darned iceberg. In the early 1970s, the federal government refused to extend the pipelines to Montreal. It was more profitable for Montreal refineries to buy oil from the Middle East and South America. Shortly after that, they put an end to Diefenbaker's National Oil Plan, so that Ontario refineries could also increase their margins a bit with import oil. All of this energy was being sold to the Western US because Central Canada didn't even want it. And it's funny that there was this enthusiasm for market forces in Central Canada when prices were low, but a couple of years later when prices were high, market forces weren't important, nation building was what mattered. You can argue that the economic catastrophe that came later wasn't directly caused by the NEP... but the economic catastrophe was not the only part that Albertans resented. Albertans also kind of resented the NEP because it placed the interests of central Canada consumers above the interests of western Canada producers, because it was a massive tax grab directed almost exclusively at one industry in one province, because it was an intrusion on provincial jurisdiction, and because it was a massive federal intervention into the private industry that Alberta depended on for its economic well-being. None of that is a myth. -k {"The major factor behind the NEP wasn’t Canadianization or getting more from the industry or even self-sufficiency. The determinant factor was the fiscal imbalance between the provinces and the federal government... Our proposal was to increase Ottawa’s share appreciably, so that the share of the producing provinces would decline significantly and the industry’s share would decline somewhat." -Marc Lalonde, Trudeau's energy minister in charge of the NEP.}

I caught a portion of a CTV broadcast where this issue was discussed (CTV received the same poor-quality video, apparently, and they received it too late to be broadcast at the same time as the others.) They put a statement from Dion's spokeswoman, Johanne Senecal, on the screen. The statement apologized for the quality of the video and the late delivery, and said that they are investigating what went wrong. At the risk of sounding partisan, I must point out that this doesn't really help Dion put aside the "absent-minded professor" image... -k

How can they be a massive net contributor when (as you recognize) their fiscal capacity is below the national average and the government is nearing a deficit? The $347 million equalization payment is in addition to the $14.1 billion dollars of regular funding Ontario will receive this year through Canada Health and Social Transfers and other federally funded programs. -k

After Trudeau, the Liberals were doomed in the west. After Mulroney, the Progressive Conservatives were also doomed in the west. The explosive growth of Reform in the west toward the end of Mulroney's time in office was because westerners no longer wanted anything to do with either of the old-line parties. -k

Indeed; installing Jack would NOT help the optics of the situation. Two names tossed about on this forum yesterday were Goodale and McCallum. Both are guys with no past or future leadership aspirations, which would help fight the impression that this was a power-grab. And, both guys with credentials on the economy side of things, which would help people that it's about helping the economy. Ralph being a Saskatchewan guy might also help defuse some of the anger building in the West. -k

If you've been following the news, Ontario is about to receive equalization for the first time. Which basically means that excess monies collected from wealthy provinces such as Saskatchewan and Newfoundland will be provided to Ontario to help maintain the level of services. -k

Live appearances by Governor Palin have obviously trumped robo-calls from the President Elect. -k

Lucrative for who? For the federal government, certainly, as they dramatically increased their share of revenue from oil at the expense of the province and the producer. And certainly for Central Canada industry. I don't think anybody thought it would be lucrative for the economy of Alberta. Lougheed was so excited about the NEP that he threatened to "turn off the taps" and took the federal government to the Supreme Court over it. He grudgingly signed on after managing to gain a few concessions in regards to oil sands development. And while the drastic drop in world oil prices hurt the industry, the sharp increase in the share of money that the federal government took for each barrel was about the last thing the industry needed at that time. (present day analogy: slap a $3000 dollar federal surcharge on each new car built in Canada. Just what an industry needs at a time like that.) I have read that other oil-dependent economies at that time survived the price-plunge quite well; presumably in those countries the government opted not to pick that particular time to start gouging the industry with massive royalty increases. -k

I don't think anybody objects to contracts being awarded in Quebec if the bidding process is done fairly. The F18 contract made people livid because it was such a shocking example of bias. Well, I think the fact that the Harper government has not been outright hostile to the province, as Chretien was and Dion would have been, gives Albertans a feeling that they're more respected under his regime. I don't think most people object to transfer payments and equalization. What people objected to, a lot, was the discretionary spending and special programs and subsidies and grants and initiatives in Quebec, that were really just blatant attempts to buy Quebecers' support for federalism. (Which, ironically, Quebecers didn't even want; they found it insulting for the most part.) Have that; will continue to have that. Again, I have to mention Dion's anti-energy platform, and the Mulroney was not from Alberta, but people loved him. Paul Martin was not from Alberta, but Albertans would have given him a chance... until he got left holding the bag all the stuff the Gomery inquiry brought out. Dion? How is it possible to feel respected by someone who put in place a platform that's so fundamentally opposed to your interests? But yes, having a Western PM for a change did undoubtedly help the region feel accepted. Prior to Harper, there was Kim Campbell's few months in power, and Joe Clark's few months in power, and before that, Diefenbaker, and that's all. I'm not sure that John Turner counts (or if he even matters.) Chantal Hebert once wrote a column wondering whether it was even possible for an Albertan to become PM (in reference to the series of defeats suffered by Manning, Day, and Harper, and speculation that Harper would be ousted to make way for someone more palatable to central Canadian voters.) At the time it was a legitimate question. Harper's victories in 2006 and 2008 have at least provided an answer, and don't doubt that it means something to Albertans. The "Quebec pandering" is just the most flagrant example of what I've been talking about. Higher status, and lower status. -k

Yeah, there are 14 BC seats that the Liberals and NDP could lose, but 10 of those are in Vancouver... and Vancouver is just different. Down is up. Night is day. Hedy Fry is The Honorable Hedy Fry. This just isn't going to play the same in Vancouver as it does in the rest of the west. Sure, westerners will be angrier that they've been in years, but it really doesn't matter. "Losing seats" is the only manifestation of that that is of any concern to the Liberals and NDP in Ottawa, and how concerned can they really be about losing what's left of their miniscule representation in the west? -k

Realistically, they can't get beat any worse out west than they just did. "You'll lose seats in the west!" is about as empty as a threat could be. -k

Personally, I'm not surprised at all. Support for the coalition seems fairly mixed to start with, and it would be a whole lot lower in Alberta. 64% of Canadians don't want Dion to be PM... is it really that much of a stretch to think that Albertans hate Dion 19% more than the average Canadian? What I did find surprising in the poll is that the percentage of people who support Dion as PM is actually less than the percentage that voted for him in the past election. Not only does it seem as though not very many BQ and NDP supporters like the idea of Dion leading this coalition, it seems as if some of the people who voted for him in the past election aren't even fond of the idea. They really should have assigned an interim leader. -k

hmm? What is the myth? That people have not forgotten the NEP? Or that there were grievances and slights that long predated it? -k

Talk of separation is pretty silly. Among my family and friends, I have heard lots of people talk about separation in a flippant way, but never in a serious way. I think the famous "Republic of Alberta" bumper-stickers represent a hearty "up yours" to old-line Ottawa politics, not an actual intent to separate. For the most part. Among my family and friends, I've never heard serious separatist sentiment, but what I did used to hear all the time is utter contempt and cynicism with regard to federal politics in Canada. The belief that the Liberals care about little outside of the Windsor-Montreal corridor... the belief that the Progressive Conservatives stabbed us in the back... the belief that our paltry handful of MPs just doesn't matter in Ottawa anyway, that we could send Liberal, send PC, or send the Moose Party, it's all the same: a token representation with no impact at all... the belief that the Liberals could legalize kindergarten prostitution rings and Ontario voters would still put them in power. Harper's victory in 2006 challenged all of this cynicism. For almost 3 years, the system delivered a result that made people think "wow, this thing ... actually works?" This coalition, though, it will reignite all of the cynicism with an intensity that exceeds the darkest days of the Gomery Inquiry. It can't do anything but make people decide that federal politics in this country is more broken than they ever imagined. -k

It is evident from the words and deeds of your representatives, and comments posted on message boards like this one, that many of you already do. I believe the phrase you're searching for is "eastern creeps and bums". 2Ralph Klein was mayor of Calgary at the time, and was assessing the cause of rising crime in Calgary. He attributed it to the influx of people looking for work in Calgary's booming economy of the day. Politically incorrect language aside, he was more or less on the money... and not a lot has actually changed... Substitute "eastern creeps and bums" for angry, mean, stupid dropouts of unspecified geographic origin, and it's pretty much the same story. I think the example you're really looking for is "let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark"... I think the historical context of that one is well known too. Anyway, I've gone on at some length trying to explain the chip on the shoulder that's a prominent feature of Alberta politics (and the rest of the prairies to some degree.) And I think it should be made clear that it is not just the National Energy Policy that launched it. You can go back to the late 19th century and look at the racist attitudes Canadians had towards the peoples who were recruited to Canada to populate the prairies, and work from there. It's a long history of the region being shown through policies (if not words) that it is of lesser importance than Central Canada. -k

Get rid of Joe Volpe, and we'll talk about it... Albertans don't want Dion heading a coalition? Shocking. I'm shocked. I don't know if I'm shocked or stunned, or perhaps a little of both. That Albertans would be against Dion heading a coalition leaves me both shocked and stunned. 64% of Canadians oppose Dion as Prime Minister, while just 25% support him. That restores my faith in the common sense and good judgment of Canadians. -k

"NAIROBI, Kenya - Pirates chased and shot at a U.S. cruise ship with more than 1,000 people on board but failed to hijack the vessel as it sailed along a corridor patrolled by international warships, officials said Tuesday. The captain of the M/S Nautica ordered passengers inside and gunned the engine, allowing the ship to outrun the pirates' speedboats in the Gulf of Aden on Sunday, a company spokesman said." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28011013/ What I'm getting from this article is that 1000 people were dumb enough to be on a luxury cruise through pirate-infested waters. I was also once on a luxury cruise through pirate infested waters; luckily it was within the confines of Disneyland and the pirates were all animatronic. -k