Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[Alta4ever]

Left wingers....like Andrew Coyne and 1/3 of the Conservative voting base.

Left wingers like most of the posters in this thread spreading false information with the doomsday prophecies, and talk of quote infringement on democratic rights(this is the one that got my attention).

[William Ashley]

Their wasn`t precedent for what happened in 2008 but likely the decision that was made held the country together.

Nothing partisan about correcting the information being flung by the left on what prorogation is and how it effects our democratic rights.

I find it funny how people like you refer to Alberta as "the country"

and spreading lies and misinformation as "correcting the information"

Edited January 10, 2010 by William Ashley

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I find it funny how people like you refer to Alberta as "the country"

and spreading lies and misinformation as "correcting the information"

Thar is not what he said, nor is it what I think he meant.

[Argus]

I think you're right but I think where you're wrong is that it would be coming from the government.

Oh please. I don't know how far your memory goes back but mine quite clearly remembers the Chretien years, and the enthusiastic contempt Liberals poured on all and sundry in the House, the jeering and laughing and wallowing in their own power. Your belief that this would somehow change in a coallition is ludicrous.

The atmosphere in the House was poisoned - on purpose - by Chretien and his "rat pack" during the Mulroney years, and it has gone downhill since then, driven deeper and deeper into the gutter by Chretien's vindictiveness and partisan contempt for others. As someone who still remembers visiting the House during Question Period before the more gentlemanly atmosphere was destroyed by Chretien, Copps, Tobin, etc., I can only shake my head at you people with such short memories who seem to think the partisanship is the fault of the Tories.

[Argus]

No, he was a Progressive Conservative and there's a difference.

Really? What was the difference between his Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals? Cause I can't think of any.

[Argus]

I could see Harper gone.

Right, yipppee. And then what? Then the bitterness and partisanship in the House ends, and a spirit of brotherhood and compromise rules? What are you, twelve?

[Argus]

The issue is that Parliamentarians have allowed themselves to become, at the best of times, voting machines, and at worst utterly irrelevant. As I keep repeating, and will keep repeating until I'm blue in the face, it's not the Prime Minister that's supposed to be supreme, it's not the Governor General, it's not the Cabinet, it is the entire body, and that entire body has lost all nerve, and willingly let's itself be little more than the pony in the party dog-and-pony show.

Trudeau had little but contempt for parliament and parliamentarians. His most famous quote on the subject was that MPs were nobodies 50 yards from the Hill. He centralized power in his office and ruled with an iron fist. His caucus were trained sheep terrified to say a word out of line. Mulroney, as a businessman with no political experience, was used to giving orders and having them obeyed - not questioned. He, of course, did nothing to engender respect for opposition to his word among his caucus, and so we had both major parties composed of obedient sheep.

Jean Chretien was even more of a micromanaging dictator than Trudeau, and whatever power or respect Parliament had was removed under his autocratic rule. Questions and speeches were all vetted - or even written - by his office. Committees followed his office's directions. It was pretty much a one-man show until his power broke down under the Martin rebellion.

Now whatever Harper's inclincations might have been they have turned, in a minority parliament, into a siege mentality which says "we stick together or we fall" and so again, power is centralized and controlled, all talking-points carefully crafted so the government doesn't go "off message" and nobody allows the opposition - including the media - to seize on some misstatement to create a media sensation.

So why people are all aghast that parliament is recessed for an extra month is beyond me. Parliament is nothing but a rubber stamp for the decisions made in the back rooms. In fact, you could simply send all the MPs home permanently, because the only ones that count are the party leaders. Let them meet in a small room and bargain and cast their votes accordinglly.

[Argus]

Lets! I really don't like Iggy either, but he has a little pet Trudeau hiding in the wings. Thats the guy I want on the TV, it will scare the hell out of Albertans!

And that's what you think is good for Canada? A "little pet Trudeau" being an idealistic, completely inexperienced young man of no proven abilities? Just so he can scare Albertans? And why do you hate Albertans anyway?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Right, yipppee. And then what? Then the bitterness and partisanship in the House ends, and a spirit of brotherhood and compromise rules? What are you, twelve?

You are one to talk Argus. Complaining about the conduct of partisanship in the house, and just how is it you treat your fellow humans? By putting words in their mouth, then run around saying the words you choose to put there were actually those of others, and those others should be ridiculed for their stupidity. That is very nearly a classic definition of a hypocrite.

I said I would see Harper gone, that was it. That is what you quoted. The rest is all yours buddy, I never said a word of it. I have a twelve year old smart enough to know the difference between what a person says and what someone else says they said. The truth isn't all that hard to find, you just have to look very carefully for it. In this case you are not being truthful are you.

Let me tell you what I think. If Harper goes, then the other clowns can be held to a very high standard. In order to get rid of Harper they will need that high standard, and clear goals and objectives to get the blessing from the GG to form a government. Now after that happens and these other jokers can't get their act together then there will be hell to pay on numerous levels.

What I seek is the best government for the people that WE CAN HAVE. I am not so partisan as many on this board, and I will vote for the person and not the party next election just the same as I have in every election since I was able to vote in 1977.

[August1991]

The atmosphere in the House was poisoned - on purpose - by Chretien and his "rat pack" during the Mulroney years, and it has gone downhill since then...

It hardly started with Chretien. Pearson and Diefenbaker loathed one another. Trudeau had nothing but contempt for Clark, and you can imagine what Clark thought about Trudeau after 1979 (or about Mulroney after 1983).

And the skirmishes in the House are only the exposed version of the skirmishes within parties themselves.

I don't know if I would blame anyone for this but I will admit that the federal Liberal party has been a practiced professional in the "art of the possible".

Moreover, I think Canadians (secretly) want our federal politicians to be conniving and clever. We have little patience for fools. Dion didn't fail because of the coalition, he failed because the coalition was such an amateurish undertaking. Meighen, an intelligent man, failed because King ran circles around him.

It is obvious now that Harper is running circles around Ignatieff.

Until this thread, if polled i would have fallen under the not following category because i really didn`t care about this so called issue. But when i saw this thread i needed to dispel some false information.

Alta, your first instinct was right.

Xmas/New Year is a slow news period and this story has more traction than it deserves. Nothing fundamental has changed and in a few short days, it will be back to business as usual.

Some people hate Stephen Harper and the Left hates in a way that the Right doesn't.

Edited January 10, 2010 by August1991

[Jerry J. Fortin]

And that's what you think is good for Canada? A "little pet Trudeau" being an idealistic, completely inexperienced young man of no proven abilities? Just so he can scare Albertans? And why do you hate Albertans anyway?

He doesn't scare us. What he represents angers us. That is a little different than being scared buddy. I certainly don't hate anyone, not even the easterners who look down on us. They are just ignorant of the realities of the west and they need to be educated.

[Argus]

You are one to talk Argus. Complaining about the conduct of partisanship in the house, and just how is it you treat your fellow humans? By putting words in their mouth, then run around saying the words you choose to put there were actually those of others, and those others should be ridiculed for their stupidity. That is very nearly a classic definition of a hypocrite.

I said I would see Harper gone, that was it.

I'm sorry if basic logic scares you. Harper is only a valid subject for removal if his being there is the cause of some problem. It's not. He's acting within the role as it was written. You can replace him five hundred times and every single time you'll get the same sort of behaviour. That you think otherwise is astonishing in an allegedly grown man. It's like, "Why yes, I did smash my head open on that wall every day last year. But I'm sure if I do it again things will be different!"

Let me tell you what I think. If Harper goes, then the other clowns can be held to a very high standard. In order to get rid of Harper they will need that high standard,

Oh give us all a break. You don't even have to go any farther back than the last three changes in government to see how ridiculous a thought that is.

Mulroney "You had a choice!" Riiight. He was going to be the righteous man who would put an end to political patronage and such. LOL. Riiiiight. He was so much purer than the Liberals he had condemned, wasn't he?

Chretien. Chretien was going to save us from patronage AND... wait for it... lobbyists! He said that when he took over lobbyists could just close up shop and go home because they'd be useless in his government. What we wound up with were lobbyists actually writing legislation! Chretien even put Mulroney's partisanship, political game playing and patronage to shame.

And then Harper. Harper was going to reform things and give us an open, more accountable government with less secrecy and more power to MPs. Uhmm, yeeeaahhh, okaaaayyy. Thanks there Stephen. Mind you, the patronage has been toned down and his government is a lot more honest than Chretien's.

And yet somehow, you seem to believe that Santa will deliver a new type of government with respect for all. If we can just get rid of Stephen Harper!

[Argus]

He doesn't scare us. What he represents angers us. That is a little different than being scared buddy. I certainly don't hate anyone, not even the easterners who look down on us. They are just ignorant of the realities of the west and they need to be educated.

I'm still not getting how you think a Liberal party in power run from Quebec is going to be good for the West. Help me out here. Just to start with I imagine Trudeau would do everything he could to crack down on all the CO2 emissions coming from Alberta.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Argus

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I'm sorry if basic logic scares you. Harper is only a valid subject for removal if his being there is the cause of some problem. It's not. He's acting within the role as it was written. You can replace him five hundred times and every single time you'll get the same sort of behaviour. That you think otherwise is astonishing in an allegedly grown man. It's like, "Why yes, I did smash my head open on that wall every day last year. But I'm sure if I do it again things will be different!"

Oh give us all a break. You don't even have to go any farther back than the last three changes in government to see how ridiculous a thought that is.

Mulroney "You had a choice!" Riiight. He was going to be the righteous man who would put an end to political patronage and such. LOL. Riiiiight. He was so much purer than the Liberals he had condemned, wasn't he?

Chretien. Chretien was going to save us from patronage AND... wait for it... lobbyists! He said that when he took over lobbyists could just close up shop and go home because they'd be useless in his government. What we wound up with were lobbyists actually writing legislation! Chretien even put Mulroney's partisanship, political game playing and patronage to shame.

And then Harper. Harper was going to reform things and give us an open, more accountable government with less secrecy and more power to MPs. Uhmm, yeeeaahhh, okaaaayyy. Thanks there Stephen. Mind you, the patronage has been toned down and his government is a lot more honest than Chretien's.

And yet somehow, you seem to believe that Santa will deliver a new type of government with respect for all. If we can just get rid of Stephen Harper!

No Argus, you need to do a little research. Harper is a valid subject for removal at the whim of the majority of members of the House of Commons. Yty reading about that will you. What on earth is a non-confidence motion? Think man! There is no difference in a non-confidence motion and the creation of a coalition it represents the exact same thing a majority of members. I would replace every tin pot dictator who ever sat in the Commons if it was up to me. The will of the majority, that is the law of the land in Canada. I am not an expressed fan of our system but until it changes that is the law. All we can do is try, thats it in the long and the short of it. Harper isn't even trying to govern within our system of democracy, he has tried and will continue to rule by means of orders in council until he is compelled to do otherwise. He is subverting the rules to suit himself, and he needs to pay for that.

The system is screwed, because it allows this kind of nonsense, and it needs to change.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I'm still not getting how you think a Liberal party in power run from Quebec is going to be good for the West. Help me out here. Just to start with I imagine Trudeau would do everything he could to crack down on all the CO2 emissions coming from Alberta.

It won't be good for the west at all! That is the point! At least the treatment we get will have public consequence and serve the long term needs of the people. Alberta and the west need changes within confederation or they need to get out of confederation its that simple. There is no valid reason to compel western provinces to serve the best interests of the nation at personal expense. You realize that the provinces have no real part of this right? Its the citizens of Alberta that have an issue with the federal government of Canada in how we have been treated.

[nicky10013]

It won't be good for the west at all! That is the point! At least the treatment we get will have public consequence and serve the long term needs of the people. Alberta and the west need changes within confederation or they need to get out of confederation its that simple. There is no valid reason to compel western provinces to serve the best interests of the nation at personal expense. You realize that the provinces have no real part of this right? Its the citizens of Alberta that have an issue with the federal government of Canada in how we have been treated.

The whole argument presumes that the provinces matter more than the country. You're not much of a Canadian in the first place to be thinking like that so you might as well leave. PS, Ontario wants it's share of equalization back with interest.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The whole argument presumes that the provinces matter more than the country. You're not much of a Canadian in the first place to be thinking like that so you might as well leave. PS, Ontario wants it's share of equalization back with interest.

You are a fool, the citizens matter more than the nation. The fair and equal treatment of all should be the primary consideration of a federal government in charge of a confederation. When governments act against the interests of citizens, that should be considered a crime, since it is a crime to act against the interests of a nation by a citizen. But not here, in the great nanny state we have created in Canada. Here it is okay to punish the successful and reward the dregs of society. Here you get cradle to grave benefits at the expense of the tax payer, all in the name of a more gentle and forgiving civilization.

I am not much of a Canadian, eh? Let me tell you something buddy, I am more a Canadian than you could ever dream to be. I can think as I choose to, I am not one of the sheeple that swallows what is put into their mouths with a smile. Only a fool would accept abusive behavior at the hands of government. We have the right to question what government says and does, and we have the right to oppose the government as well.

[nicky10013]

You are a fool, the citizens matter more than the nation. The fair and equal treatment of all should be the primary consideration of a federal government in charge of a confederation. When governments act against the interests of citizens, that should be considered a crime, since it is a crime to act against the interests of a nation by a citizen. But not here, in the great nanny state we have created in Canada. Here it is okay to punish the successful and reward the dregs of society. Here you get cradle to grave benefits at the expense of the tax payer, all in the name of a more gentle and forgiving civilization.

I am not much of a Canadian, eh? Let me tell you something buddy, I am more a Canadian than you could ever dream to be. I can think as I choose to, I am not one of the sheeple that swallows what is put into their mouths with a smile. Only a fool would accept abusive behavior at the hands of government. We have the right to question what government says and does, and we have the right to oppose the government as well.

Yes, the citizens matter more than the nation. However, you're not a citizen of Alberta, you're a citizen of Canada which is a fact you've lost somewhere down the line. You see equalization as abuse however, no one else has. You want Alberta to hold the rest of the country hostage over a program that no one else has a problem with because god forbid Alberta pay into confederation like all the other provinces have. Everybody pays and there are no exceptions. There isn't any abuse going on and to act like there has been is just wrong. Other than equalization, which has been proven that Alberta isn't paying as much as they claim, what is the "east" doing to abuse Alberta? Something tells me I'll be waiting for a while for the answer.

Speaking of foolish behaviour, declaring yourself to be the ultimate Canadian while arguing for an Albertan seperatist party is pretty laughable.

Edited January 10, 2010 by nicky10013

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Yes, the citizens matter more than the nation. However, you're not a citizen of Alberta, you're a citizen of Canada which is a fact you've lost somewhere down the line. You see equalization as abuse however, no one else has. You want Alberta to hold the rest of the country hostage over a program that no one else has a problem with because god forbid Alberta pay into confederation like all the other provinces have. Everybody pays and there are no exceptions. There isn't any abuse going on and to act like there has been is just wrong. Other than equalization, which has been proven that Alberta isn't paying as much as they claim, what is the "east" doing to abuse Alberta? Something tells me I'll be waiting for a while for the answer.

I have an Alberta drivers license, to prove that I reside here. I pay property tax to the government of Alberta, and I will declare myself a citizen of Alberta if I choose to. This government of Canada allows First Nations peoples to declare themselves as citizens of their native bands, and this nation allows Quebecers to declare they are a distinct society and are citizens of Quebec. Yet when I choose to call myself an Albertan, a citizen thereof, I am less a Canadian than anyone else. Nice double standard, just another reason for my views and further proof of the discriminatory treatment my fellow citizens in Alberta receive at the hands of delusional fools.

I never said nor do I desire that Alberta hold the nation hostage. That is already being done by the clowns in Ottawa and their foolish supporters. The entire nation bailed out Ontario just a few short months back, but the nation did diddly squat for Alberta during the NEP, go figure. Who is holding who hostage? We have been through the entire Meech Lake thing and the Quebec separatism thing, and you say that I want Alberta to hold the nation hostage? You are a complete idiot to believe that all provinces have paid into equalization. The provinces never had and never will pay a dime into that stupid program. That money comes from the tax payers, the citizens of the provinces, and straight to the federal government by means of income tax. I seem to recall Ontario was making noise about equalization not very long ago. In addition the abuse is ongoing, with now only three provinces actively putting money into the program. Please bring forth your data to support that nobody else has a problem with the equalization formula, and while you are at it please prove EVERYONE has paid into it with no exceptions as you say. I should not ask you to do the impossible, because it just can't be done, yet I would like to see you prove at least something and back up your posts with more than just your verbose crap. You ask what is the east doing to abuse westerners? How about not changing the Senate to a triple "E". That is at the root of our issues with the Federal Government. The Senate was intended to act as means of balancing the population of the nation with the regions of the nation, we have been waiting for more than a century for that to happen. Lets talk about carbon taxes, and how Quebec will benefit at our expense? Lets talk about the manufacturing industry and how since the Crow Rate it was economically discouraged from creation in western Canada to protect the interests of Ontario and Quebec. We can talk about the thousands of reasons that the west has felt slighted for if you like. Yet somehow I don't think that makes any difference to you, in your arrogant manner, to allow for reasonable conversation and debate.

Speaking of foolish behaviour, declaring yourself to be the ultimate Canadian while arguation for a Albertan seperatist party is pretty laughable.

Go ahead and continue to lie, most fools do. I never said I was the ultimate Canadian you fool, just more of a Canadian than you would ever be. What is truly laughable is that you are the only one who believes your lies.

[Argus]

No Argus, you need to do a little research. Harper is a valid subject for removal at the whim of the majority of members of the House of Commons.

As is every other Prime Minister. I'm just not getting how you think removing him is going to help anything. Or even why YOU think it would help anything.

I would replace every tin pot dictator who ever sat in the Commons if it was up to me.

You still aren't getting that there are two kinds of party leaders in this country. The soft, weak, considerate, polite, caring, thoughtful kind - ie, losers, and the tough as nails, cutthroat, take-no-prisoners machiavellian bastards - ie, winners.

First group: Robert Stanfield, Joe Clark, John Turner, Stephan Dion

Second gropu: Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien, Stephen Harper.

That's all there is to it.

The system is screwed, because it allows this kind of nonsense, and it needs to change.

Now that's a more valid statement, but changing it is rather difficult because only the tough bastards get to be in charge, and they don't seem to have a lot of interest in changing it - regardless of what they say before they're in charge.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

As is every other Prime Minister. I'm just not getting how you think removing him is going to help anything. Or even why YOU think it would help anything.

You still aren't getting that there are two kinds of party leaders in this country. The soft, weak, considerate, polite, caring, thoughtful kind - ie, losers, and the tough as nails, cutthroat, take-no-prisoners machiavellian bastards - ie, winners.

First group: Robert Stanfield, Joe Clark, John Turner, Stephan Dion

Second gropu: Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien, Stephen Harper.

That's all there is to it.

Now that's a more valid statement, but changing it is rather difficult because only the tough bastards get to be in charge, and they don't seem to have a lot of interest in changing it - regardless of what they say before they're in charge.

Excellent post Argus...I really hate it when you are right!

I think that if Harper is removed that the replacement government would have at least an inkling of what the future holds for those in power here in Canada. The people will have a say about what the government says and does. The power plays and games that go on at the expense of the nation had better deliver some legislative effort that serves the needs, the wants and the desires of the public. Right now the public wants the elected representatives working in the House of Commons, but the PM doesn't. He is putting his interests ahead of the peoples and for that he needs to go. That should provide a little education for those that desire to follow in his footsteps.

Harper doesn't have a majority, nor is likely to get one. He must govern with the consent of the majority and he has failed to do so.

[Argus]

Yes, the citizens matter more than the nation. However, you're not a citizen of Alberta, you're a citizen of Canada which is a fact you've lost somewhere down the line. You see equalization as abuse however, no one else has.

Who says no one else has problems with equalization? I'm from Ontario and I have problems with it. I like parts of it, but not others. The idea that all should benefit from what are, in essence, national resources is a valid concept. People shouldn't be poverty stricken in one province and wealthy in another simply because one has oil and the other has nothing of economic value.

But it's become something more than that - a sort of socialist equality of outcomes program as opposed to one of equality of opportunities. Why should a province, ie, Quebec, get increased funding to make up for its own economic incompetence and poor governmental decisions and structures? If Quebec doesn't choose to reform its socialist governments and is constantly bleeding red ink, is that something the people of other provinces need to increase their subsidies to counteract?

[Smallc]

You do realize that per capita, Quebec receives one of the lowest amounts of Equalization, right? They actually receive less than Manitoba (about 1/2, and we have a larger economy per capita.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Smallc

[nicky10013]

I have an Alberta drivers license, to prove that I reside here. I pay property tax to the government of Alberta, and I will declare myself a citizen of Alberta if I choose to. This government of Canada allows First Nations peoples to declare themselves as citizens of their native bands, and this nation allows Quebecers to declare they are a distinct society and are citizens of Quebec. Yet when I choose to call myself an Albertan, a citizen thereof, I am less a Canadian than anyone else. Nice double standard, just another reason for my views and further proof of the discriminatory treatment my fellow citizens in Alberta receive at the hands of delusional fools.

I never said nor do I desire that Alberta hold the nation hostage. That is already being done by the clowns in Ottawa and their foolish supporters. The entire nation bailed out Ontario just a few short months back, but the nation did diddly squat for Alberta during the NEP, go figure. Who is holding who hostage? We have been through the entire Meech Lake thing and the Quebec separatism thing, and you say that I want Alberta to hold the nation hostage? You are a complete idiot to believe that all provinces have paid into equalization. The provinces never had and never will pay a dime into that stupid program. That money comes from the tax payers, the citizens of the provinces, and straight to the federal government by means of income tax. I seem to recall Ontario was making noise about equalization not very long ago. In addition the abuse is ongoing, with now only three provinces actively putting money into the program. Please bring forth your data to support that nobody else has a problem with the equalization formula, and while you are at it please prove EVERYONE has paid into it with no exceptions as you say. I should not ask you to do the impossible, because it just can't be done, yet I would like to see you prove at least something and back up your posts with more than just your verbose crap. You ask what is the east doing to abuse westerners? How about not changing the Senate to a triple "E". That is at the root of our issues with the Federal Government. The Senate was intended to act as means of balancing the population of the nation with the regions of the nation, we have been waiting for more than a century for that to happen. Lets talk about carbon taxes, and how Quebec will benefit at our expense? Lets talk about the manufacturing industry and how since the Crow Rate it was economically discouraged from creation in western Canada to protect the interests of Ontario and Quebec. We can talk about the thousands of reasons that the west has felt slighted for if you like. Yet somehow I don't think that makes any difference to you, in your arrogant manner, to allow for reasonable conversation and debate.

Go ahead and continue to lie, most fools do. I never said I was the ultimate Canadian you fool, just more of a Canadian than you would ever be. What is truly laughable is that you are the only one who believes your lies.

Jeez, could you have used "fool" any more in that?

I disagree with Quebec Seperatism and the native issue. I also agree that it's citizens who pay the taxes and in the end what makes you any different than I? Ontarians pay the same amount of tax that Albertans do which is something no Alberta loyalist would ever care to admit.

Ontario complained because it wanted to keep at least a little bit of its own money. The province pays in so much yet only gets to keep 300 million. To me, considering the problems we're going through, it only seems fair. Ontario has qualified to recieve payments 6 times and have only recieved them once. If there should be any outcry at all, it should be here in Ontario and not out in Alberta.

As for the triple E senate, how can anyone actually agree to that. Set aside elected for a minute, how could ANYONE support equal? Giving provinces equal representation supposes that the provinces were meant to be more powerful than the federal government and therefore each deserved to have a seat at the table. That's NOT how the federal government was designed. Anything other than rep by pop would be HORRIBLY unequal. With an equal sente you disenfranchise millions of others.

As for Carbon Taxes, its out of no desire to screw Albertans that people want carbon tax. People want a carbon tax to curb abuse of the environment. What happens in the Canadian wilderness is an issue that needs to be discussed by all Canadians and not just Albertans. Furthermore, why can't Alberta use their royalties to invest in new green technologies to curb their own emissions, to innovate so that the oil sands won't pollute as much as they do right now? Because it's too easy not to. It's too easy to make the argument that we wan't to steal your wealth when the truth is you're just as responsible for the health of Canadians and the Canadian wilderness as all other Canadians. The oil companies don't want to pay, the Alberta government doesn't want to lose the tax money that they use to buy votes so they come up with this grand story about how we want to steal all your wealth. It's nothing more than shifting responsibility to the next person. For someone who is against abuse you'd think that you'd want to stand up to wildrose and the tories on that, wouldn't you?

What about the NEP? Is the NEP still around? How far did the NEP go? That's exactly what I thought. I've said it before and I'll say it again. The NEP is the bogeyman in the closet of every westerner. Bogeyman in that it's a terrible thing that threatens the west; Bogeyman in the fact that it doesn't exist.

I'm not the one lying. I'm not the one who is using 30 year old excuses that are no longer relevant to hold the country hsotage. And yes, that's exactly what you're doing. It's just like Quebec. Every time Alberta wants money, they'll say "we're unhappy with our place in confederation, dole it out." As for me, I have no idea what type of Canadian I am. What I do know is that I would never advise anyone to have Ontario leave confederation. It seems that for a lot of people being Canadian is purely a convenience; unless you get exactly what you want, you're willing to walk away. Being Canadian or a member of any other country is far more than that. It's realizing that citizens across the country are in this together despite what kind of wealth we have or what region we live in. If you're going to berate me for believing that is the Canada I want to live in, then go ahead. It could very well be stupid to believe what I do because god forbid I don't want to profit from my country.

[nicky10013]

Who says no one else has problems with equalization? I'm from Ontario and I have problems with it. I like parts of it, but not others. The idea that all should benefit from what are, in essence, national resources is a valid concept. People shouldn't be poverty stricken in one province and wealthy in another simply because one has oil and the other has nothing of economic value.

But it's become something more than that - a sort of socialist equality of outcomes program as opposed to one of equality of opportunities. Why should a province, ie, Quebec, get increased funding to make up for its own economic incompetence and poor governmental decisions and structures? If Quebec doesn't choose to reform its socialist governments and is constantly bleeding red ink, is that something the people of other provinces need to increase their subsidies to counteract?

I'm not saying people shouldn't have a problem with the formula. Hell, I've got a problem with the formula! Where a lot of Albertans seem to have a problem with is the entire system itself. It's all about the province and not about the rest of Canada. It's been drilled into their heads for 50 years that the East is somehow robbing the west when the system works the way it works. 50 years ago and even up until last year, it was Ontario doling out the cash yet no one seems to care about that. It hasn't been JUST Alberta which no one seems to understand.