What is 'an Albertan', anyway?

[B. Max]

And btw, a general point of information: the provinces do not "own" the resources in their borders.  The have administrative authority over them, under the Constitution of Canada.

Wrong, the people of alberta own the resources within the province. In fact, in 1930 all interests in natural resources were transfered from the fed to the provinces of AB. BC. SK. MB.

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/...sh/ca_1930.html

No, I am sorry, but ut is yu who is wrong. You'll find nothing anywhere that says the people of a province own the resources. What you fnd is that the provincil crowns have administrative authority over them. Look it up.

No you are wrong.

This is what you claim doesn't exist, and obviously it does. The province, meaning the people. Try and tell aberta that it doesn't own its resources and you will be met with arms.

Transfer of Public Lands Generally

1. In order that the Province may be in the same position as the original Provinces of Confederation are in virtue of section one hundred and nine of the Constitution Act, 1867, the interest of the Crown in all Crown lands, mines, minerals (precious and base) and royalties derived therefrom with the Province, and all sums due or payable for such lands, mines, minerals or royalties, shall, from and after the coming into force of this agreement and subject as therein otherwise provided, belong to the Province,

The word belong, means to own in anyones interpretation.

[August1991]

This is what you claim doesn't exist, and obviously it does. The province, meaning the people.

The Albertan government and the people of Alberta are two very different things. This is the distinction TS is making I believe.

[B. Max]

This is what you claim doesn't exist, and obviously it does. The province, meaning the people.

The Albertan government and the people of Alberta are two very different things. This is the distinction TS is making I believe.

However one trys to twist it does not change who owns it. Anyone trying to touch it will find out just what that means. Most albertans have little or no use for the eastern government. We survive in spite of it, not because of it.

[B. Max]

The feds now try to control natural resources within the provinces using the environment as a guise and means to control. Even though the environment its self is a provincial matter. Constituting more lawless government.

The environment is not a Provincial matter. Your dirty air and practices do not stay within your province. Why should the rest of Canada and/or the world suffer for your money hungry irresponsibility towards an environment that extend to outside your jurisdiction.

.. These agreements have not been implemented in national or provincial law. Provincial and federal governments share jurisdiction over environmental issues. ...

www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/ social/issue_viewer.asp?Issue_Summary_ID=15 - 11k - Cached - Similar pages

Alberta has ownership over its resources and their byproducts. The feds, in that area are nothing but lawless government. In other words a tyranny who seek to control what is not theirs. The fact that alberta's air is quite clean is due to alberta's regulations. Although, we are most grateful that quebec sucks and keeps the eastern stench flowing in an eastern direction.

THE SIXTH SCHEDULE.(78)

Primary Production from Non-Renewable Natural

Resources and Forestry Resources.

1. For the purposes of Section 92A of this Act,

(a) production from a non-renewable natural resource is primary production therefrom if

(i) it is in the form in which it exists upon its recovery or severance from its natural state, or

(ii) it is a product resulting from processing or refining the resource, and is not a manufactured product or a product resulting from refining crude oil, refining upgraded heavy crude oil, refining gases or liquids derived from coal, or refining synthetic equivalent of crude oil; and

( production from a forestry resource is primary production therefrom if it consists of saw logs, poles, lumber, wood chips, sawdust or other primary wood product or wood pulp, and is not a product manufactured from wood.

Albertans also understand that putting food on the table is not greed, or in anyway money hungry. In fact we take great pride in providing for ones self and family and reject dole as any source of pride or way of living. Through the hard work of the individual to be all that he can be is the the only way to prosperity and providing for ones self, now, or in later years.

[caesar]

Alberta has ownership over its resources and their byproducts. The feds, in that area are nothing but lawless government. In other words a tyranny who seek to control what is not theirs. The fact that alberta's air is quite clean is due to alberta's regulations. Although, we are most grateful that quebec sucks and keeps the eastern stench flowing in an eastern direction.

Oh whine, whine whine; some of you on this forum whine more than Quebeckers. Greed and selfishness,

[The Terrible Sweal]

No you are wrong.

This is what you claim doesn't exist, and obviously it does. The province, meaning the people. Try and tell aberta that it doesn't own its resources and you will be met with arms.

Transfer of Public Lands Generally

1. In order that the Province may be in the same position as the original Provinces of Confederation are in virtue of section one hundred and nine of the Constitution Act, 1867, the interest of the Crown in all Crown lands, mines, minerals (precious and base) and royalties derived therefrom with the Province, and all sums due or payable for such lands, mines, minerals or royalties, shall, from and after the coming into force of this agreement and subject as therein otherwise provided, belong to the Province,

The word belong, means to own in anyones interpretation.

No, friend you are wrong. The reference you supplied clearly applies to "crown lands". All it means is that the province of Alberta owns resources on the lands it owns directly, just like other provinces before it. That is to say, it empowers the provincial crown to hold land distinct from the pre-existing federal crown. It does not grant the province any rights over land or resources it does not own outright in a normal fashion.

But look, this is a simple, well known set of facts. Seriously, instead of arguing with me from a basis of ignorance, go read about it. I'm not making this up; I am simply reporting the constitutional facts to you.

[Guest eureka]

Provinces have a jurisdictional control of resources not ownership as in the right to the property. No section of the Constitution stands alone and many sections apply to resources They give the federal government joint control and the ability to regulate rsources in many ways, including taxation.

When the chips are down, national interest trumps everything else. It is just unfortunate that so many provincialists are so ignorant of the requirements of a nation, and so greedy, that we can never act until we lurch into emergency.

[August1991]

It does not grant the province any rights over land or resources it does not own outright in a normal fashion.

Now you're wrong, TS. The constitution grants the provincial governments the sole right to administer and collect royalties on natural resources (that presumably belong to the Crown).

BTW, I believe Trudeau justified the NEP using Section 91 and the federal government's limitless power of taxation and control of trade.

[Guest eureka]

Now if we could agree with some Albertans that they are what they think they are - frontiersmen - the federal government would have complete control. It still has jurisdiction over frontier resources.

[B. Max]

No you are wrong.

This is what you claim doesn't exist, and obviously it does. The province, meaning the people. Try and tell aberta that it doesn't own its resources and you will be met with arms.

Transfer of Public Lands Generally

1. In order that the Province may be in the same position as the original Provinces of Confederation are in virtue of section one hundred and nine of the Constitution Act, 1867, the interest of the Crown in all Crown lands, mines, minerals (precious and base) and royalties derived therefrom with the Province, and all sums due or payable for such lands, mines, minerals or royalties, shall, from and after the coming into force of this agreement and subject as therein otherwise provided, belong to the Province,

The word  belong, means to own in anyones interpretation.

No, friend you are wrong. The reference you supplied clearly applies to "crown lands". All it means is that the province of Alberta owns resources on the lands it owns directly, just like other provinces before it. That is to say, it empowers the provincial crown to hold land distinct from the pre-existing federal crown. It does not grant the province any rights over land or resources it does not own outright in a normal fashion.

But look, this is a simple, well known set of facts. Seriously, instead of arguing with me from a basis of ignorance, go read about it. I'm not making this up; I am simply reporting the constitutional facts to you.

What the hell are you talking about. This is what it says in the constitution.

Transfer of Public Lands Generally

1. In order that the Province may be in the same position as the original Provinces of Confederation are in virtue of section one hundred and nine of the Constitution Act, 1867, the interest of the Crown in all Crown lands, mines, minerals (precious and base) and royalties derived therefrom with the Province, and all sums due or payable for such lands, mines, minerals or royalties, shall, from and after the coming into force of this agreement and subject as therein otherwise provided, belong to the Province,

Alberta owns the resourses, that is what the constution says. What part of belong, don't you understand.

When the criminal trudeau tried to grab alberta's resources, alberta shut in the oil. If and when alberta secedes, the oil, the ground it is in, and everything else will go with alberta. If the east doesn't like that, to bad.

[The Terrible Sweal]

You already posted that, but you have misunderstood it. All it says is that crown land previously held by the crown of Canada is thereafter held as crown land by the province.

Obviously the province owns the land it owns. This transfer is not related to the question of residual title, nor to jurisdiction over resources generally.

If you really care about the facts, I urge you to inform yourself about them. There are numerous texts on constitutional law available.

[kimmy]

hmm, somebody's been busy!

I will respond to some of this more fully later, when I am feeling better, but in the mean time I would like to ask for a clarification from Mr. Swell:

TS, Canada itself is "a mere administrative division of a larger something" so I gather you find it difficult to understand anyone's pride in anything.

Taking pride in the success of others strikes me as eminently human. Is this what you find hard to understand?

Being proud (for good reasons) of a collective entity such as Canada, or Quebec, or the Atlanta Braves or whatever, makes sense to me if there is some distinction particular to that collective.

Are all Quebecers entitled to be proud of their collective entity, in your opinion? Or just the Francophones? Or just the "pur-lain"?

And are any of the other provinces sufficiently distinct for their residents to take pride in them, in your view?

-kimmy

[The Terrible Sweal]

Hope you feell better soon, Kimmy.

As to your questions:

You don't need to be part of something to feel pride in/for it. If you're part of it you have pride in it, outside, you have pride for it. My point is not about who shoud have pride, it is about what it makes sense to take be proud of.

Let me make an analogy: take your liver. If you say to me "I'm pleased with the left lobe of my liver, but not the rest of it." and your explanation for that preference shows no basis for prefering the left lobe over the rest of it, would that not be a peculiarity worth wondering about?

[kimmy]

You don't need to be part of something to feel pride in/for it.  If you're part of it you have pride in it, outside, you have pride for it.  My point is not about who shoud have pride, it is about what it makes sense to take be proud of.

There's a distinction that you seem to gloss over, "pride in" vs "proud for". What is "proud for" supposed to mean? Are you "proud for" the Ukrainians who forced a new election to be held? I'm respectful of, admiring of, and even somewhat inspired by what they did. But not "proud", even with my half-Ukrainian ancestry.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with what you are saying here... an association or connection with something is, as I see it, an integral part of the very concept of pride.

Let me make an analogy:  take your liver.  If you say to me "I'm pleased with the left lobe of my liver, but not the rest of it."  and your explanation for that preference shows no basis for prefering the left lobe over the rest of it, would that not be a peculiarity worth wondering about?

Well, if we're going to do body-part analogies, then suppose the cells in my liver declared themselves "proud to be a Liver," proud to be playing an important role in the overall success and continued health of Kimmy. Is that an affront to Kimmy's Kidneys? A slight against Kimmy's Stomach? A poke at Kimmy's Pancreas? A declaration that the Liver wishes to separate from Kimmy and be an independent organism? Or can Kimmy's Liver be proud of the role it plays in Kimmy without offending the rest of Kimmy?

I suspect you won't like the analogy; feeling that the Liver, Stomach, Pancreas, and Kidneys are not distinct enough to be considered separate organs; the Lungs being the only part of Kimmy being sufficiently distinct to merit being proud of their role in Kimmy. Rest assured that my Kimmy includes Lungs, and despite my current disagreement with my lungs I intend to remain a unified Kimmy, even while many individual bronchioles are currently in an inflamed state and spew virulent mucus that's causing unrest throughout Kimmy, and particularly in other parts of the Lungs.

I would still appreciate it if you could further comment on why you feel that Quebec is something to be proud of (or have "pride for", if you really insist...)as an entity, while Alberta is not, and what you feel is the distinction-- please be specific. I would also appreciate if you could explain which other provinces are distinct enough to be proud of as entities.

Bob Rae, for one, feels that his province is distinct enough to be "proud of" as an entity:

Receiving the (Order of Ontario) "is a great privilege," Rae said, standing in the halls of the legislature where he was the New Democrat premier from 1990 to 1995.

"I'm a very proud Ontarian and delighted to be part of this community and to be recognized in this way is quite wonderful," said Rae, currently working at a Toronto law firm and dealing with various groups.

http://www.ryanswell.ca/order_ont/Expositor.htm

Do you agree? Or is Ontario just one lobe of a larger liver?

-kimmy

[The Terrible Sweal]

Well, if we're going to do body-part analogies, then suppose the cells in my liver declared themselves "proud to be a Liver," proud to be playing an important role in the overall success and continued health of Kimmy. Is that an affront to Kimmy's Kidneys? A slight against Kimmy's Stomach? A poke at Kimmy's Pancreas? A declaration that the Liver wishes to separate from Kimmy and be an independent organism?

Let's stick with the liver. Say the cells in the left lobe start proclaiming their pride in being 'left-lobers'. When asked they explain that they are proud to be left-lobers because: "We clean the blood!" Doesn't it seem reasonable to wonder what they think the right-lobers are doing? They clean the blood too, don't they? What's with the left-lobe/right-lobe stuff?

[kimmy]

Let's stick with the liver. Say the cells in the left lobe start proclaiming their pride in being 'left-lobers'. When asked they explain that they are proud to be left-lobers because: "We clean the blood!" Doesn't it seem reasonable to wonder what they think the right-lobers are doing? They clean the blood too, don't they? What's with the left-lobe/right-lobe stuff?

You view Canada as a single liver (with Quebec apparently associated as a spleen, or something...) while I view Canada as more like different organs comprising a single body. Maybe that's a difference of opinion we just won't be able to get past.

Still hoping you'll expand upon what you see as the key distinction that makes Quebec a spleen rather than another lobe;

-kimmy

[The Terrible Sweal]

Let's stick with the liver.  Say the cells in the left lobe start proclaiming their pride in being 'left-lobers'.  When asked they explain that they are proud to be left-lobers because:  "We clean the blood!"  Doesn't it seem reasonable to wonder what they think the right-lobers are doing?  They clean the blood too, don't they?  What's with the left-lobe/right-lobe stuff?

You view Canada as a single liver (with Quebec apparently associated as a spleen, or something...) while I view Canada as more like different organs comprising a single body. Maybe that's a difference of opinion we just won't be able to get past.

Still hoping you'll expand upon what you see as the key distinction that makes Quebec a spleen rather than another lobe;

-kimmy

Cop out. What is YOUR basis for seeing Alberta as a spleen rather than as a lobe?

As for Quebec, it predates the Canadian liver as a distinct entity.

[ticker]

You don't need to be part of something to feel pride in/for it.  If you're part of it you have pride in it, outside, you have pride for it.  My point is not about who shoud have pride, it is about what it makes sense to take be proud of.

There's a distinction that you seem to gloss over, "pride in" vs "proud for". What is "proud for" supposed to mean? Are you "proud for" the Ukrainians who forced a new election to be held? I'm respectful of, admiring of, and even somewhat inspired by what they did. But not "proud", even with my half-Ukrainian ancestry.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with what you are saying here... an association or connection with something is, as I see it, an integral part of the very concept of pride.

Let me make an analogy:  take your liver.  If you say to me "I'm pleased with the left lobe of my liver, but not the rest of it."  and your explanation for that preference shows no basis for prefering the left lobe over the rest of it, would that not be a peculiarity worth wondering about?

Well, if we're going to do body-part analogies, then suppose the cells in my liver declared themselves "proud to be a Liver," proud to be playing an important role in the overall success and continued health of Kimmy. Is that an affront to Kimmy's Kidneys? A slight against Kimmy's Stomach? A poke at Kimmy's Pancreas? A declaration that the Liver wishes to separate from Kimmy and be an independent organism? Or can Kimmy's Liver be proud of the role it plays in Kimmy without offending the rest of Kimmy?

I suspect you won't like the analogy; feeling that the Liver, Stomach, Pancreas, and Kidneys are not distinct enough to be considered separate organs; the Lungs being the only part of Kimmy being sufficiently distinct to merit being proud of their role in Kimmy. Rest assured that my Kimmy includes Lungs, and despite my current disagreement with my lungs I intend to remain a unified Kimmy, even while many individual bronchioles are currently in an inflamed state and spew virulent mucus that's causing unrest throughout Kimmy, and particularly in other parts of the Lungs.

I would still appreciate it if you could further comment on why you feel that Quebec is something to be proud of (or have "pride for", if you really insist...)as an entity, while Alberta is not, and what you feel is the distinction-- please be specific. I would also appreciate if you could explain which other provinces are distinct enough to be proud of as entities.

Bob Rae, for one, feels that his province is distinct enough to be "proud of" as an entity:

Receiving the (Order of Ontario) "is a great privilege," Rae said, standing in the halls of the legislature where he was the New Democrat premier from 1990 to 1995.

"I'm a very proud Ontarian and delighted to be part of this community and to be recognized in this way is quite wonderful," said Rae, currently working at a Toronto law firm and dealing with various groups.

http://www.ryanswell.ca/order_ont/Expositor.htm

Do you agree? Or is Ontario just one lobe of a larger liver?

-kimmy

kimmy you should of been a doctor or a poet

[Guest eureka]

The problem, Kimmy, with the "pride" of Albertans at this time in their history, is that it is misplaced. I would think that the majority of Albertans now living were from elsewhere before they were Albertans: certainly only one generation remove would take in the overwhelming majority.

So where did their pride in being Quebeckers; or Ontarians; or Newfoundlanders; or whatever, go? Alberta less than any province of Canada except, perhaps, B.C. can claim long lineage in Canada.

One would think that Albertans, from this circumstance, have more claim to being "proud Canadians" than any others.

That takes me back to the point that it is the ever present and suffocating local government that colours thre reality of Canadian existence: to the ever increasing demands of local governments concerned only with their own privilege and lying like a George Bush about their aims; to certain media outlets and owners who find it to their own benefit to keep the anti-Canada rhetoric going.

Those Ontarians who callthemselves "proud Pntarians" often have roots deep in the past of Ontario. I have never heard anyone say it though, and I would think that Ontarians in general do not make that a condition opposed to Canadianism.

Quebc is two societies. The one, English speaking has always been "proudly Canadian" and the most open to the rest of Canada of Canadian groupings. The other, Francophone, has only recently emerged from several generations of "conditioning" to hatred of Canada. It still has not got over it and its only pride is fear: cut off drom what it mistakenly thinks is its own root, and isolated from the world around it.

Francophone Quebec suffers from a siege mentality fashioned in a siege that can never be lifted - in the learned view. It is much like the Alberta that Klein and some of his predecessors began to shape.

[ticker]

Francophone Quebec suffers from a siege mentality fashioned in a siege that can never be lifted - in the learned view. It is much like the Alberta that Klein and some of his predecessors began to shape.

Point A) Ontario is Canada as far as federal elections go so there is no sense in saying Ontario has a different mindset in what makes up Ontario vs. Canadian policies.

Point The different treatment the west got in the past going back to confederation were minor grievances added to the list. It was Trudeau and his determination to show he could bring Alberta to its knees with his NEP that raised the stakes and not provinces saying lets start rebelling for the sake of it.

[ticker]

And as far as Alberta leaders stepping out of line to send Ottawa a message as you are implying... it is crystal clear to any party leader that if they offend Ontario they haven't got a chance of being elected. So any threat from Ontario is automatically implied and there is no reason for an Ontario premier to send vocal signal to the federal government

[ticker]

Take last election where Klien spoke about Medicare and privatization during the election. If an Ontario premier did the same would the liberals bash Ontario and use them as the bad boy example. Or how about Quebec with its existing private Medicare setup; I didn't here a peep from the liberals about Quebec because those possible voters are too important. But it is ok to bash Alberta as the bad boy. It goes both ways when it comes to blaming the other party. You can't say the feds are civil but only those bad Albertans are the ones making insinuations.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The different treatment the west got in the past going back to confederation were minor grievances added to the list.

???

"Going back to confederation", the west wasn't even part of Canada. It was an almost empty wilderness.

[ticker]

then take 1905 or 1930 if you don't like the word confederation

[August1991]

If an Ontario premier did the same would the liberals bash Ontario and use them as the bad boy example. Or how about Quebec with its existing private Medicare setup; I didn't here a peep from the liberals about Quebec because those possible voters are too important.

Ticker, I think you have a good point. There is a double standard.

Still hoping you'll expand upon what you see as the key distinction that makes Quebec a spleen rather than another lobe;

Uh, language? Religion? History? Law? Cultural attitudes?

According to Trudeau, the issue is whether these constitute grounds for a country.

The other, Francophone, has only recently emerged from several generations of "conditioning" to hatred of Canada. It still has not got over it and its only pride is fear: cut off drom what it mistakenly thinks is its own root, and isolated from the world around it.

That's hilarious, eureka.

Recently emerged to vote federally for a sovereigntist party? And conditioning? (Why is that whenever a person disagrees with someone on the Left, the person is assumed to have been "conditioned" or "brainwashed".)

As they say about Europe, "Too much history, not enough geography." And as they say about Alberta, "Too much geography, not enough history."

I'm inclined to think that TS feels that Albertans simply don't have enough gravitas to form a pride-inspiring entity. But Canada, for some reason, does.