Who should own Alberta's oil?

[The Terrible Sweal]

We all know that Canada was called a confederation in 1867 and now we all know its a federation, if you don't know that then your totally insane.

If you knew as much as you claimed, you would understand that the distinction you are purporting to draw between a "federation" and "confederation" is specious.

The BNA Act specified the operative effects that were agreed, and they are what they are, irrespective of the word-games you may play around essentially identical terms.

It sounds to me like you have been paying far too much attention to the cabal of fools at the University of Calgary.

P.S. your link doesn't take me to the article you quoted.

[Bakunin]

August1991

Bakunin, lache!

Georges-Étienne Cartier said confederation was the best deal possible.

I agree with him. Confederation is better than Federation.

Confederation? The southern states, formed in 1861, were called the "Confederated States of America". Jefferson Davies with his wife and mother-in-law came to Montreal in 1865. Macdonald and Cartier in 1867 adopted the term for Canada. End of story.

America was a confederation too.

Why the BNA Act? Macdonald and Cartier were politically ambitious and the British were afraid of the post-Civil War US.

Canada was no Confederation. It was un mariage blanc. (Bakunin, les Anglais n'ont pas de dictionnaire définitif. Ils n'ont que les sentiments.)

Un mot a une définition et si le mot confédération a été choisi pour déterminer le canada. il était trompeur. c'est tout ce que je dit et évidement il n'y a pas un spécialiste qui va appeler le canada une confédération, donc c'est irréfutable que le canada n'est pas une confédération. Maintenant de la a savoir pourquoi le mot confédération a été utilisé, il parle d'une façons de "tromper" la population pour que le projet soit plus accepté parce que évidement les français ne voulais pas être dirigé par les anglais et les maritimes ne voulait pas être dirigé par le québec et l'ontario. Si je l'explique mal en anglais alors fait la traduction , sinon apporte moi de la documentation parce que je suis sur que tu n'était pas la en 1867 alors tu l'a lu et je veut m'assurer du sérieux de la chose genre si tu te documente dans de la documentation reconnus pour son objectivité ou si c'est dans la rédaction d'un étudiant qui a écris cela sans trop mettre de preuve ;P . Après tout si les encyclopédie ne disent pas la vériter alors je vais pouvoir les actionner et devenir riche .

The Terrible Sweal

If you knew as much as you claimed, you would understand that the distinction you are purporting to draw between a "federation" and "confederation" is specious.

I don't claim to know something that happend in 1867, thats why i cite document who claim to know what happenned, i think its more accurate.

If you or anybody here have other document that proof its not true then fine we will try to find more documentation to compare but hey im not an historian i don't know what really hapenned and if your not an historian then i doubt you know too....

It sounds to me like you have been paying far too much attention to the cabal of fools at the University of Calgary.

Its really easy to claim that we really know what happend hundred of years ago, you just have to persuade your brain but if you want to be accurate you use document, thats what i do.

P.S. your link doesn't take me to the article you quoted.

I put the link for general use, but if you want the text with my citation you can find it on there site if you do a research on the canadian confederation. You can also go look in the encarta encyclopedia if you have one, they say about the same thing. In fact i was quite surprised when i read it for the first time so i watched for other source and they where all saying the same thing.

[August1991]

Un mot a une définition et si le mot confédération a été choisi pour déterminer le canada. il était trompeur. c'est tout ce que je dit et évidement il n'y a pas un spécialiste qui va appeler le canada une confédération, donc c'est irréfutable que le canada n'est pas une confédération.

A word does not have a single definition for all time. Consider the word gay. Its definition has changed over time. How about the word boot? Depends where you are, or what dictionary you consult. Un autre exemple? Les gosses.

I prefer the Anglo-Saxon approach to law. Use different decisions and see if the meaning makes sense now. The Roman Code approach to law implies we have found the truth, until the Code/truth is rewritten.

[bTW, the US Constitution (and our BNA/Charter) follow the Roman approach.]

Mathematicians are Roman. Grammarians are Anglo-Saxon. Go figure.

[theWatcher]

So the concept of this thread is that you take a single natural resource and appropriate the taxes on it?

Based on the fact that it has a higher value right now?

And the fact that Ontario has little or none of the said resource doesn't mean anything, its all just a coincidence.

If you're going to appropriate resources you might as well go for all of them. The whole enchilada, hmmm, everything.

Cause if its legal to do it to oil, might as well do it to diamonds and potash and gold, and platinum.

Grab it all.

[August1991]

So the concept of this thread is that you take a single natural resource and appropriate the taxes on it?

....

And the fact that Ontario has little or none of the said resource doesn't mean anything, its all just a coincidence.

The concept of this thread is that by chance you win a lottery.

Well, by chance, you have oil under your land that you can produce for 10$ and sell for 45$ a barrel. But no one else can do the same as you.

You're Jack Nicholson, or Charlize Heron. You show up, you get millions.

If Nickelson were not a movie star, what would he do? So who should benefit from his chance gift?

Should the Albertan government alone benefit from chance geology, like Brad Pitt benefits ftom chance genetics?

Cause if its legal to do it to oil, might as well do it to diamonds and potash and gold, and platinum.

Grab it all.

Who gets the chance waterfalls in Labrador? Well, who gets the chance way to transmit power. Chance is a fickle master.

[Slavik44]

Should the Albertan government alone benefit from chance geology, like Brad Pitt benefits ftom chance genetics?

Yes

[takeanumber]

I don't think anybody is arguing about redistributing some of the wealth.

Of course Alberta should share, after all, it benefits from confederation.

The program is called equalization.

What I don't understand is why some feel entitled to go in and deny Alberta of its temporary gains, while arguing that they should be allowed to keep their gains without sharing. (As is the case with the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, and Manitoba).

Actually, I do understand the logic. It's always easier to take than to make. Steal rather than deal.

That's why we got a constitution.

So, those of you in Have-Not provinces: be happy that Alberta is still being a good sport about the equalization payments. We transfer 4 grand a head (2001 dollars) out of the province. (Compared to Ontario's 300 bux a head).

Demanding 8 grand per head is only going to make things worse.

[August1991]

It's always easier to take than to make. Steal rather than deal.

Cool.

What's easier?

Take than make. Steal than deal.

Old English is a good, direct, plain language.

You have also defined rent-seeking.

TalkNumb, you need an editor.

[Guest eureka]

In the spirit of applying royalties to all resources, should we retroactively pay a royalty on all the fish produced by Newfoundland?

The benefit to Canada since 1948 was huge. All Newfoundland has to show for it is a resource that is disappearing due to Canadian neglect.

Should Alberta be required to pay for the fish it has consumed, cheaply, over these years? The sums involved would turn Newfoundland into a "have" province. It would also enable thousands to return to their homes there and empty Fort McMurray.

[The Terrible Sweal]

August1991

Bakunin, lache!

Georges-Étienne Cartier said confederation was the best deal possible.

I agree with him. Confederation is better than Federation.

Confederation? The southern states, formed in 1861, were called the "Confederated States of America". Jefferson Davies with his wife and mother-in-law came to Montreal in 1865. Macdonald and Cartier in 1867 adopted the term for Canada. End of story.

America was a confederation too.

Why the BNA Act? Macdonald and Cartier were politically ambitious and the British were afraid of the post-Civil War US.

Canada was no Confederation. It was un mariage blanc. (Bakunin, les Anglais n'ont pas de dictionnaire définitif. Ils n'ont que les sentiments.)

Un mot a une définition et si le mot confédération a été choisi pour déterminer le canada. il était trompeur. c'est tout ce que je dit et évidement il n'y a pas un spécialiste qui va appeler le canada une confédération, donc c'est irréfutable que le canada n'est pas une confédération. Maintenant de la a savoir pourquoi le mot confédération a été utilisé, il parle d'une façons de "tromper" la population pour que le projet soit plus accepté parce que évidement les français ne voulais pas être dirigé par les anglais et les maritimes ne voulait pas être dirigé par le québec et l'ontario. Si je l'explique mal en anglais alors fait la traduction , sinon apporte moi de la documentation parce que je suis sur que tu n'était pas la en 1867 alors tu l'a lu et je veut m'assurer du sérieux de la chose genre si tu te documente dans de la documentation reconnus pour son objectivité ou si c'est dans la rédaction d'un étudiant qui a écris cela sans trop mettre de preuve ;P . Après tout si les encyclopédie ne disent pas la vériter alors je vais pouvoir les actionner et devenir riche .

The Terrible Sweal

If you knew as much as you claimed, you would understand that the distinction you are purporting to draw between a "federation" and "confederation" is specious.

I don't claim to know something that happend in 1867, thats why i cite document who claim to know what happenned, i think its more accurate.

If you or anybody here have other document that proof its not true then fine we will try to find more documentation to compare but hey im not an historian i don't know what really hapenned and if your not an historian then i doubt you know too....

It sounds to me like you have been paying far too much attention to the cabal of fools at the University of Calgary.

Its really easy to claim that we really know what happend hundred of years ago, you just have to persuade your brain but if you want to be accurate you use document, thats what i do.

P.S. your link doesn't take me to the article you quoted.

I put the link for general use, but if you want the text with my citation you can find it on there site if you do a research on the canadian confederation. You can also go look in the encarta encyclopedia if you have one, they say about the same thing. In fact i was quite surprised when i read it for the first time so i watched for other source and they where all saying the same thing.

Comment avez vous choisi les definitions des termes 'federation' et 'confederation'? Quoi dites vous, si je sugere que le 'confederation' c'est simplement le mot pour le process de former un 'federation'?

[Mes excuses pour les fauts de grammaire, l'orthographie, et usage, et aussi pour le manque des accents, et finalement les mots anglais utilises comme francais.]

The only document which is relevant to how Canada 'ought to be' run is the authoritative document, the BNA Act. We have a division of powers which is clear enough;call it federation, call it confederation, it says what it says.

[Bakunin]

Comment avez vous choisi les definitions des termes 'federation' et 'confederation'? Quoi dites vous, si je sugere que le 'confederation' c'est simplement le mot pour le process de former un 'federation'?

C'est parce que généralement on utilise le mot confédération pour parler d'une association d'état ou de nation souveraine qui normalement ne serait pas a la merci du gouvernement fédéral. Les 13 colonies de la nouvelle angleterre état une confédération. n'importe quel dictionnaire qu'il soit anglais ou français vous donnera cette définition et la définition était la même dans les année 1800.

je vais répondre au reste de ton message plus tard je manque de temps :/

[takeanumber]

Should Alberta be required to pay for the fish it has consumed, cheaply, over these years? The sums involved would turn Newfoundland into a "have" province. It would also enable thousands to return to their homes there and empty Fort McMurray

How is it Alberta's fault that the fish went dry?

We have regional cycles in this country.

Alberta is paying more than its fair share now, and when the oil dries up, I'm sure Newfoundland's growth will outpace Alberta and Newfoundland will be able to pay some equalization Alberta's way.

@August

Most ppl don't know what Rent Seeking means, which is why I put it the way I did.

[Bakunin]

The only document which is relevant to how Canada 'ought to be' run is the authoritative document, the BNA Act. We have a division of powers which is clear enough;call it federation, call it confederation, it says what it says.

I agree but i looked in encyclopedia and they say that if it was called a confederation while the bna act and what canada became looks more like a federation, it was a ruse to calm down the population and politician who didn't wanted a federation. I just tought i would share this information but its being contested, why ? Is it that hard to imagine a politician using ruse ?

I have some question i would like to know which has nothing to do with the question,

Before world war 1 and 2 was the federal government taxing its citizen ? What kind of taxes and at what rate? What was the role of the federal government and was it jumping over provincial juridiction ?

Should Alberta be required to pay for the fish it has consumed, cheaply, over these years? The sums involved would turn Newfoundland into a "have" province. It would also enable thousands to return to their homes there and empty Fort McMurray

I think we have to be rationnal, if we see oils, fish, aluminium and etc.. as ressources, then evry province's as ressources, some worth more some worth less but at the end evry provinces as its ressources. I think it must be provinces that deal with other province to get the ressources they want and to have some kind of equality and especially when we talk about ressources that may be expired in 30-40 years. There is 2 way to deal this out, wheiter the federal(at 55% ontarian) force provinces to give their ressources or we let the province make their own deal like equal society.

[kimmy]

If Alberta only can succeed by gouging other Canadians; I have no sympathy.  Surely they must have other eggs in their basket.  The NEP only tried to ensure a better rate for "family"  It did not ask for a below cost deal.

If you ask your nephew to give you a "family rate" for renovating your basement or whatever, you at least have to pay him for the materials plus enough to show him that you appreciate the time he's taking, that he could be spending renovating his own basement.

And if you ask your nephew to work at your house at a "family rate", you certainly wouldn't expect him to stop going to his regular job during that time, would you?

You wouldn't try and get your nephew blacklisted from local construction companies, so he'd have little choice but to work at your house, right?

As I understand the NEP, it not only arranged a "family rate" for oil sold in Canada, it also

-prevented Alberta from earning world price on its oil, by severely taxing any oil exported outside Canada.

-essentially tried to drive American oil companies out of Alberta by imposing severe taxes on non-Canadian oil companies.

Putting a "family" spin on it doesn't sound very accurate. If that's how things work in your family, caesar, I bet the reunions are a riot. (literally )

Everybody's so amped up about Canadian ownership, and somehow forgets that the American firms that were slammed by the NEP employed real people. Does it make much different to the average employee whether his company is owned by Wall Street or Bay Street? His main concern is that he has a job. Getting foreign owners out of Canada's resources might sound good, to nationalists at least, but when that policy impacts real people it is hard to blame them for not thinking "big picture" when their livelihoods are affected. While doing research in this thread, I came across the claim that Bay Street wasn't interested in investing in Alberta's oil industry when it was just getting started; American money played a bigger role in getting Alberta rolling.

The question keeps popping up, "what if your neighbor won the lottery"? What happens if your neighbor wins the lottery? The government takes a large chunk of it to redistribute, but your neighbor still reaps some of the benefit of his good fortune. Federal transfer of wealth ensures that a good chunk of Alberta's oil largesse is shared with other Canadians, but Alberta keeps a lot of it as well. As it should be. Mobility within Canada is a right we all have, and one of the ideas that built this country was that people should go where they have the opportunity to succeed. It used to be looked at as a good thing, at least until Chretien said otherwise. My family has relocated several times to pursue opportunities. I don't see why other Canadians can't.

-kimmy

[Big Blue Machine]

Alberta should own its oil, because its in their province.

[theloniusfleabag]

Ft. McMurray has become Ft. McNewfoundland because the Newfies that want to work have gone where the work is, and rightly deserve to 'share the spoils'. If the feds were to take this wealth for 'equitible distribution', they might as well have said "No need to work, Mr. Newfie, stay where you are and we'll send the cheques to you".

I know of one person that quit their job in Ft Mac because he was only clearing $1200 a week, setting up scaffolding, and didn't have the opportunity for overtime. The money to be had up there is silly, I hear tell, but if I want some of it, I should have to go there. I shouldn't expect any of it in the mail.

[playfullfellow]

There are plenty of decent paying jobs in Alberta, largely the result of the patch doing good. We all know agriculture is not doing much to help the situation right now. If these jobs are cut back because federal interference, then does Canada not lose the benefit of receiving the income taxes from these higher paying jobs? Does leaving the money in the province enable more businesses to succeed through lower taxes? Do these businesses not create more jobs hence more income taxes collected which is the distributed to the ROC? No matter how you look at it, the ROC receives a piss pot full of money right now from Alberta. You take the royalties and you take those jobs away and lose the long term benefits. Short sighted thinking is what keeps us getting into trouble in this country, there is no long term vision.

[ticker]

It just needs to be a little bit higher for a while longer then we can have NEP2 when martin is out of the picture and replaced with another liberal PET or chretien... wait a min we already have that with Kyoto when we see the details.

The politicians are quite happy to let the public think green house gas is smog therefore want clean air. Gas emissions are clear but why tell the public if it means they will not get on the environmental bandwagon for clean air.

we need a smog bill where they shut down all the plants in ontario for the benifit of the public.

[stamps]

"In the heady exploration days of the 60's and 70's, the money to float and grow all those exploration companies was coming from Ontario. In those days, the people and expertise came from Ontario and overseas - not Alberta."

The Oil industry in Alberta was developed and funded by the Americans, for eastern Canada to take any credit what so ever is a complete and utter falsehood... Alberta is built on the American not the Canadian model and is successful because of it, the constitution says we (Alberta) OWN the resourses... eastern Canada can cry all it wants but my suggestion to you would be to get use to it, Alberta is the economic engine driving this country and will only get stronger as the years go by...

[Guest eureka]

If you had ever been involved in the stock market in those days you would know how wrong you are. The activity in

Western Oil stocks and the money to float dozens of junior oils came from Toronto.

[ticker]

So baystreet bought the odd stock of a little oil company. The real funding came from NY when it was needed baystreet had other ideas on how to spend money.

Just another myth of how the center of the universe makes everything possible... well not everything but at least Trudeau socialism

People did come from Ontario like in the late 70's looking for work in the oil boom before Trudeau decided to keep the economic focus on Ontario by giving them an NEP reason to leave Alberta.

[stamps]

"If you had ever been involved in the stock market in those days you would know how wrong you are. The activity in

Western Oil stocks and the money to float dozens of junior oils came from Toronto."

People or money being invested from Toronto was just a byproduct of the original efforts by the people of Alberta and the Americans whom found and established the industry here originally, eastern canada came onboard after it was established... when Alberta was first looking for money to invest in exploration we were ingnored by the east thus in stepped the Americans with their money and expertise.... on the subject of expertise it was developed in Alberta with help from the Americans,not eastern Canada, Ontario jumped on an opportunity to invest in junior stocks that was brought on by absolutely nothing they did...

[Guest eureka]

Do you people know anything? Dozens of junior oil companies were floated in Toeonto in the boom years of exploration. Many more already in exostence increased capitalization through new stock issues in Toronto. I could name some of them if you are really so ignorant of Alberta's development.

[August1991]

People or money being invested from Toronto was just a byproduct of the original efforts by the people of Alberta and the Americans whom found and established the industry here originally

Dozens of junior oil companies were floated in Toeonto in the boom years of exploration.

All of the people involved in Alberta's energy industry were properly compensated for anything they did. I don't see how, afterward, anyone of them can claim to have special "dibs" on the oil.

If you hire me to build your house, I get paid and you own the house. End of story.

The issue of who owns Alberta's oil is more fundamental. If, purely by chance, you discover oil under your house, whose oil is it?

Should it belong solely to you?

Should it belong to all the people in your province?

Should it belong to all the people in your country?

When the world price of oil goes to 50$/barrel, Alberta's oil is like a lottery win. How do we share the prize?

[playfullfellow]

When the world price of oil goes to 50$/barrel, Alberta's oil is like a lottery win. How do we share the prize?

You share in the prize in the following way:

1: Alberta is a net contributor to the equalization payments. Alberta has not received any money back since the late 60's. This is all part of the agreement Alberta has with Ottawa.

2: Wages all over Alberta are on the rise because the oil patch is paying such high wages hence the increase to income tax folders is increasing.

3: Ottawa's tax take at the pumps is increasing each time the price jumps. Alberta can't help it that Ottawa pisses this money away instead of fixing our roads like this money is supposed to do.

4: Alberta is in a strong enough financial situation that we do not have to run to Ottawa everytime we have a disaster in the province. Ottawa generally only pays percentages that have been in agreement for several years with all the provinces.

5: The number of jobs available in Alberta right now is through the roof. The majority of employers I know can use more people but can't find them. They don't even advertise a lot of the jobs they have because it is so hard to find people who are willing to sweat for a living. If people in the ROC want to benefit, get a job in Alberta. People from the Maritimes, especially NFLD have figured this out. Why do you think so many companies have moved their head offices to Alberta? Alberta has tried to become as business friendly as possible. Yeah, these companies enjoy a tax break for a few years but look at all the jobs created.

It has already been established that Alberta is a net contributor to equalization payments because we get to keep our own royalties. So we know we are only talking about an extra 2 billion dollars that the ROC would receive. This money would just get pissed away on some stupid program Ottawa would think of. What would happen when the oil prices drop again? You have taken a province that can look after itself and made it into a province that has to rely on Ottawa for everything again.