Who should own Alberta's oil?

[caesar]

Then I suppose the federal government shouldn't be helping to bail out Albertan beef producers.

Nope, we don't whine we make wine. I am all for controlling our natural resources from foreign control which was another purpose of the NEP. Let's keep Canada Canadian owned.

[Bakunin]

Then I suppose the federal government shouldn't be helping to bail out Albertan beef producers. 

Nope, we don't whine we make wine.  I am all for controlling our natural resources from foreign control which was another purpose of the NEP.  Let's keep Canada Canadian owned.

This doesn't change the fact that province are not equal because of the federal and its a little bit frightning to know that the party elected who decide when he want to break the equalities are ontarian at 55%, quebecers at 15%, maritime at ~ 15% and the west at ~ 15% where alberta has only 1,4%. A bit disproportionate don't you think ?

[ticker]

Then I suppose the federal government shouldn't be helping to bail out Albertan beef producers.

the Alberta government could help out those farmers right away from the oil revenues. but instead big sums get sent to ottawa while the farmers have to wait a year and start going bankurpt until there is a federal election so some of that money can be sent back as an election bribe.

[caesar]

The farmers are waiting because the money sent went to large meat p[acking plants (Mostly American owned) instead of to the farmers. Who did that??? The federal government did send money to help the BSE crisis.

[ticker]

and they would of had the money to direct it to the farmers in the next payment if it wasn't going to ottawa.

[playfullfellow]

The farmers are waiting because the money sent went to large meat p[acking plants (Mostly American owned) instead of to the farmers.

Get your facts straight caesar, every farmer who owned cattle received money from the help given by government. Anyone who owned beef cattle was entitled to receive money, this included the cattle owned by killing plants that had cattle in feed lots. You can not exclude some companies just because they are american owned or own a large portion of the cattle. That opens you up to the biggest lawsuit you can ever imangine.

Nope, we don't whine we make wine. I am all for controlling our natural resources from foreign control which was another purpose of the NEP. Let's keep Canada Canadian owned.

You are correct that the NEP was also supposed to keep out foreign ownership of Canada's resources. The plan was to set up PetroCan to keep competition and pricing in Canadian hands. But in all honesty, when was the last time you saw PetroCan having the lowest price at the gas pump? When does PetroCan start any price wars at the pumps? So in other words, every aspect of the NEP went over like a lead balloon. Now, the Liberal government has put the rest of PetroCan on the selling block, you want to place a wager that the devil you know will sell it to a foreign company? How will you make wine out of that?

[caesar]

But in all honesty, when was the last time you saw PetroCan having the lowest price at the gas pump? When does PetroCan start any price wars at the pumps

Actually, quite often. the station at Knight and 33rd nearly every week. Only in Vancouver. Our prices go up and down like a yo yo and this station is a leader.

[ticker]

even when the liberals complete privatization or petro canada I will still not go there. in 25 years I have only spent $5 and that was so I could find the next nearest gas station.

I know I shoud of only spent $1

[The Terrible Sweal]

You wouldn't know how to read an academic citation.

Who are you kidding?

Is that the best you can do?

Pathetic.

[The Terrible Sweal]

... In 1982, the Supreme Court of Canada said the federal government cannot legally tax provincially-owned gas and oil wells.

Good on you for looking into it Kimmy. We now have the facts about the division of powers on oil, and in general. The federal government cannot tax a provincial government.

*Inferentially, then, a federal tax on non-provincially owned oil industry participants IS legitimate.*

I guess if King Ralph wanted to nationalize the oil industry then the feds would be shut out of taxing it. Somehow I don't see that happening.

[The Terrible Sweal]

You knew about the court ruling all along? Couldn't you have mentioned it a little earlier when people were arguing about whether the federal government could tax Alberta's resources?

Wait, Kimmy, you're confused now. The court said the feds can't tax provincial owned assets. That's a much more restricted issue that the question of taxing resources, for two reasons:

1) The provinces don't OWN the resources; and

2) as I noted in the prior post, the feds can still tax non-provincially owned activities.

[takeanumber]

It's still against the spirit, if not the letter, and certainly -- the founder's intent, of the Constitution.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Claims about what were and were not the founders intentions are open to be made from any perspective.

In reality, the founders intended the document to say what they made it say. It is the document itself which embodies the founders' relevant intentions.

[Bakunin]

The founder where talking about a confederation and misteriously with the years, we are now a federation.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The founder where talking about a confederation and misteriously with the years, we are now a federation.

The founders wrote a constitution which divided powers between the provinces and the federal government. Those power divisions remain what they have been since the beginning, no matter how many angels one sets to dancing on the head of a pin.

[Guest eureka]

Those power divisions are not the same mow as they were in the beginning. Conditions and circumstances have changed beyond any possibility of recognition by the framers of the Constitution. What are the major powers now are ones that were insignificant in 1867. The framers thought that they had prepared for the future by putting the reserve powers in the jurisdiction of the federal government.

That is why your other observation about interpretation of the Constitution is not correct. The Constitution, like any body of law, is to be interpreted as to intent. It is a linguistic impossibility to set out in word a complete body of thought on scores of legal separations.

Laws are before the Courts constantly in order to determine intent and to reconcile the intent with current thought and circumstance. The Constitution is no diferent since it is really no more than a summary of law of division of power and of the application of the Rule of Law.

I realise that you were just responding to Bakunin's absurd insistence on the idea of a Confederation of Nation states. Some day it may grt through to him that this is a nation of joined colonies that were intended to be equal in jurisdiction and in opportunity under a central umbrella that is akin to a federation. A federal system was devised as the most likely one to achieve that equality. There was no thought of near national powers for any and no thought of superior jurisdictions - in the same way that the provinces are not subordinate to the federal government. That non subordination makes it all the more necessary to keep the provinces in check and within the bounds of their intended realms.

[August1991]

I realise that you were just responding to Bakunin's absurd insistence on the idea of a Confederation of Nation states. Some day it may grt through to him that this is a nation of joined colonies that were intended to be equal in jurisdiction and in opportunity under a central umbrella that is akin to a federation.

I think Bakunin is simply expressing a desire that Canada be a true Confederation.

As to 1867, I believe Cartier said that it was the best deal for French Canadians under the circumstances. I don't believe that linguistic equality was the original intent; religious tolerance was a tolerated necessity. Laurier was Canada's first Catholic PM, and I believe he was the only one in his 1896 cabinet.

But in principle, I agree with you eureka. The BNA Act was a practical document; its use has changed with time. One has only to think of the changes in 1931 through the Statutes of Westminster.

[Bro]

Eureka,unlike me,but I must play your style of debate very momentarily.I read your last post very quickly,as I was not looking for any sound comments,but did observe at least three spelling mistakes.Could you possibly go back and correct them,so that I might take what you were saying more seriuosly.Thanks

[Bakunin]

Unlike you eureka, im not rewritting history to fit my personal vision of canada.

Im basing myself on documentation because i wasn't there in 1867.

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.

Here are some documentation taken in an english encyclopedia. Im just warning you in case you don't take the time to read and call those citation an a quebec nationalist propaganda ;P

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/

Canadian Confederation, or the Confederation of Canada, was the process that ultimately brought together a union among the provinces, colonies and territories of British North America to form a Dominion of the British Empire, which today is a federal nation state simply known as Canada.

In light of the evolution of Canada, the term confederation is today perceived as mostly a ruse by Prime Minister of United Canada John A. Macdonald and others to encourage French Canada and the maritime colonies to come to the talks. The political leaders of the maritime colonies worried about being dominated by the population centres of Central Canada and like French Canada did not want a strong central government. Macdonald had no intention, however, of actually making Canada a confederation and was willing to have many of the colonies remain outside a political union rather than weaken his proposed central government. Canada thus became a federation, but certainly not a confederation, such as Switzerland or the first American confederal republic.

In Quebec, the idea that the new confederal Canada was a pact between two founding peoples dominated the political discourse for almost a century (1867 to 1960s).

The term Confederation is now often used to describe Canada in an abstract way--"The Fathers of Confederation" itself is one such usage. Provinces and territories that became part of Canada after 1867 are also said to have joined Confederation (but not the Confederation). However, the term usually refers more concretely to the political process that united the colonies in the 1860s; it is also used to divide Canadian history into pre-Confederation and post-Confederation (post-Confederation being a living term that includes the present day).

Now if you don't agree then at least show up some documentation that we can trust, and please don't cite me academic work , i don't consider that credible enough.

[Guest eureka]

Bakunin, I fail to see how your cited supports differ from what I say. I have noticed this in other posts of yours. I have to wonder at your understanding of them.

Incidentally, the greatest opposition to "Confederation came from Nova Scotia; from a man who later became a Prime Minister of Canada and a fervent centralist.

[Bakunin]

Bakunin, I fail to see how your cited supports differ from what I say. I have noticed this in other posts of yours. I have to wonder at your understanding of them.

The only thing im saying is that not evryone wanted a federation and misteriously Canada started as a confederation and became federation...

This is a fact now i hope you agree on that.

Then if you think canada must be a federation then its your point of vue and i don't care but as long as you agree the fact mentionned in official documentation. If you want to criticize my point of vue, your totally welcome but at least dont criticize it when i say fact like the post i did else its confusing.

[August1991]

Bakunin, lache!

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

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.

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.)

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear eureka,

The Constitution, like any body of law, is to be interpreted as to intent. It is a linguistic impossibility to set out in word a complete body of thought on scores of legal separations.

Indeed, this is what Mullahs do for the Koran, and Rabbis for the Torah. Both the Koran and the Torah are believed to be 'God's intent' and are interpreted to make them legally binding.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Those power divisions are not the same mow as they were in the beginning. Conditions and circumstances have changed beyond any possibility of recognition by the framers of the Constitution.

As you say, circumstances have changed. The constitutional division of powers has not.

That is why your other observation about interpretation of the Constitution is not correct. The Constitution, like any body of law, is to be interpreted as to intent.

The intent discernible from the document, not the hypothetical intent ascribed through convenient whim to individual dead men who are no longer available for consultation.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Eureka,unlike me,but I must play your style of debate very momentarily.I read your last post very quickly,as I was not looking for any sound comments,but did observe at least three spelling mistakes.Could you possibly go back and correct them,so that I might take what you were saying more seriuosly.Thanks

I'm sorry,but I could not grasp your point due to the faulty grammar,and punctuation in particular.Could you go back and fix that so I can get it.Thanks.