jbg Posted May 23, 2011 Report Posted May 23, 2011 While I agree that we shouldn't be giving the oil away for next to nothing like we are currently doing, any regulations and taxation have to be adopted strategically. I have a feeling that many of these companies wouldn't mind keeping their oil in the ground for a few years until there is another election if it meant that they would make more money doing so in the long run. Ridiculously low royalties. Oil sells for a world price that in the last three years has fluctuated between $147 per bbl. and $33 per bbl. Any royalty scheme has to balance revenue production with need to incentive thst production. The NEP failed to do that. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Shwa Posted May 24, 2011 Report Posted May 24, 2011 Because the prairie provinces had not been granted those rights upon entry into confederation. Now you are getting it. They were granted to the provinces, as administrative privledge. The Government of Canada has no more right to lands held by "Her Majesty The Queen In Right Of Alberta" than it has to lands held by "Her Majesty The Queen In Right Of Australia." Oh, but they do. As yourself have already said, the lands are "held" by the provinces, and such administrative privledge, as noted in the Acts, are subject to the supremacy of the Parliament of Canada. The language is right there, clear as a bell. This appears to be based upon your own "legal scholarship", meaning sheer speculation. Not really. It doesn't take detailed scholarship to understand the obvious and clearly written. Any obfuscation is all yours. If you were to back up your point by citing instances of federal government unilaterally seizing provincial crown lands for purposes of land claims settlements, that would be more convincing. Now you are shifting the goalposts and trying to shirk. I said the Government of Canada can - is able to. That they haven't only means there has been no need. I am not saying they have, I am saying they can. http://www.aboriginal.alberta.ca/956.cfm While land claims are a federal responsibility, Alberta has a constitutional obligation under the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement (Constitution Act, 1930) to transfer back to Canada unoccupied Crown lands necessary to allow Canada to settle claims with First Nations. You see? Even the Government of Alberta agrees. The title is held by the queen in trust of the province, and the rights are granted by the constitution. Parliament giveth and Parliament can taketh away. It's a portion of the Constitution Act of 1930. Parliament can't do jack shit about it. Of course, because, you know, Parliament can't do anything about our Constitution. (If it were otherwise, Trudeau would have done it 35 years ago.) Trudeau did what was expedient and look what he did just with the tools he had on hand. Not too shabby. He didn't even need to open any constitutional talks. He just used existing provisions. And was probably light handed about it. A provincial police force? So what? That it doesn't is a matter of choice. Sure. But more Government of Canada powers in Alberta. The provinces are not on the same footing as the federal government, but have unavoidable legal rights and powers that the federal government has no choice but respect. To respect them so long as the provinces play ball with the rest of the country. As soon as they don't, all bets are off. Including Treay 8 lands. Unless you want to rip up our international trade agreements, you can pay the going rate. Agreements can be altered, that isn't any stumbling block to be worried about. That be kind of like blowing off your head to spite your face, it seems to me. It would, as things stand now in our peaceful national family. But put a separatist Albertan government in place, and there are many areas which can be successfully squeezed and there is not a thing that Albertan government can do about it. Alberta is only a province of Canada. Play ball, keep pumping our oil. And let's be clear, NEP was a policy of the Federal Government, not a law, as opposed to the Anti-Inflation Act, which gave us wage and price controls. One would have to ask upon which basis could a mere policy be enforced? Well, any ideas about that? Quote
Scotty Posted May 24, 2011 Report Posted May 24, 2011 (edited) It would, as things stand now in our peaceful national family. But put a separatist Albertan government in place, and there are many areas which can be successfully squeezed and there is not a thing that Albertan government can do about it. Alberta is only a province of Canada. Play ball, keep pumping our oil. I am bemused that you continue to return to this topic again and again to get your ass kicked. Do you really not understand that you lost this argument days ago and are so deep underwater you're just making word bubbles? It is patently clear that the provinces and federal government all derive their powers, responsibilities and territories from the Crown. The provinces are not creatures of the federal government (though the territories are) and their powers are not delegated and so can not be rescinded or altered by the federal government. All this is set in the virtual bedrock of the constitution. You're continuing to claim otherwise is just plain silly. Edited May 24, 2011 by Scotty Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Shwa Posted May 24, 2011 Report Posted May 24, 2011 I am bemused that you continue to return to this topic again and again to get your ass kicked. Do you really not understand that you lost this argument days ago and are so deep underwater you're just making word bubbles? It is patently clear that the provinces and federal government all derive their powers, responsibilities and territories from the Crown. The provinces are not creatures of the federal government (though the territories are) and their powers are not delegated and so can not be rescinded or altered by the federal government. All this is set in the virtual bedrock of the constitution. You're continuing to claim otherwise is just plain silly. And yet you say this, but provide no proof of your claim, no evidence to support it and no rebuttal to anything I have written thus far, including the clauses and articles from the various Acts with their clear wording, etc. You just pull stuff out of your ass and expect everyone to believe it. So how can anyone take anything you say seriously when you continually prove yourself to be grossly incompetent when debating anything? Again. "Oh, it's Scotty's opinion and based upon the intrinsic truthiness of Scotty himself, it must be true." LOFL! Seriously Scotty, Alberta Natural Resources Act 1930, Section 10. It's consitutional son. LOFL! "...the Crown..." Quote
scouterjim Posted May 24, 2011 Report Posted May 24, 2011 Except the constitution. Natural resources are the domain of the provinces. Not to the Liberals. They created the NEP because Alberta wouldn't share oil revenues with Ontario. Quote I have captured the rare duct taped platypus.
jbg Posted May 25, 2011 Report Posted May 25, 2011 Not to the Liberals. They created the NEP because Alberta wouldn't share oil revenues with Ontario. The Constitution says otherwise. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.