What is 'an Albertan', anyway?

[caesar]

That is a bunch of hooey as far as I am concerned. Trudeau was an arrogant ass who only did things that he felt was his vision of Canada, not what the populace wanted

Yeah, that's why we kept voting him in and why everyone world wide finally knew who our Prime Minister was.

We could sure use another strong, straight speaking prime minister like Trudeau again.

[kimmy]

I confess I'm somewhat disappointed. Someone had promised to edumacate me on a great many things.

I had wanted to hear about all the magical doors that would open for me if I were an avid nationalist instead of a parochial cynic.

I had wanted to hear about what it is that makes Canada's union authentic and real, as opposed to the "artificial" unions that have broken apart over the past decade or so.

I had hoped to hear some kind of response to my claim that even without provincial governments in Canada, there would still be regional issues that would create "us and them" thinking.

I had hoped there might be some discussion of my suggestion that the issue is of fundamental human psychology, as people crave, seek out, and build, their own distinct identities.

-kimmy

[Tawasakm]

My oustiders point of view is that Canadas identity is very fragmented. We have a great deal of state rivalry in Australia but almost everybody subscribes to a strong national identity.

Your questions intrigue me Kimmy. Why is it that some nations can have distinct internal identities and rivalry while retaining a strong unified national identity? Why is it that others can't? Perhaps the starting point may be to look at what the differences are between Canada and Australia. Are there distinct differences which would lead to a different appreciation of identity?

I haven't thought this through alot but I'll throw out of a few initial ideas. Australia is united by its sense of pride. Most people are proud of Aus, what it stands for and what it has achieved. You could say people are proud of the Aussie spirit. We are also the only nation existing on the continent which I suppose reduces outside influence from different cultures. It seems to me that Canada has opposing cultures within its own borders and there is the powerful influence of the US on the same continent. Additionally, and I may be mistaken, Canada may not seem to have the same pride. Alot of what I read from Canadians as it relates to pride in country is in the past tense and not really current (say within the last decade perhaps). Us Aussies are still congratulating ourselves on the Sydney Olympics. I think that people here (in Aus) also believe that Aus is growing in prosperity, power and influence. If I interpret things correctly it seems that many Canadians believe they are diminishing in those areas. So if there is a loss or reduction of identification to a national identiy it may be, in part, based on a perception of the success of that nation.

Summing up I suppose I am saying that Canadians may feel greater differences within their own nation, be affected more by neighbouring culture, have some sense of a diminishing influence and less pride in contemporary (not past) achievements. Now I'm not sure that this is all true and I'm just coming up with these off the top of my head. What does everybody else think? Do you think these factors are influencing the Canadian sense of national identity? By which I mean are these factors reducing identification with a national identity while reinforcing the strength of a provincial identity?

[Guest eureka]

I have been considering responding to you again, Kimmy. It is just that I do not have time for a considered post and am losing the inclimation. Tawasakm is not too far off the mark.

I am tired of this, which I have been arguing for moe than thirty years now: I am tired of each new crop of provincial "citizens" coming out with the same learned propaganda of the Provincial Firsters.

Frankly, I sometimes wonder why I bother. Why not let Canada get into the handbasket on its ride to Hell. The ignorance of Canadians as to what is Canada does not deserve the saving.

However, I will one day soon "edumacate" you, although that is not the term I would use and I don't think you wish to open yourself to a larger idea.

[Guest eureka]

Tawasakm, you are very close to the mark in some respects. However, the overriding factor in the Canadian malaise is the jurisdictional issue.

Since the late 19th. century, Provinces have been encroaching on what were never intended yo be provincial powers. Canada was to be, in the words of Sir. John A. Macdonald, a country of Provinces that were "Municipalities writ large." Provinces were to be a little more than English counties in their authority over the lives and welfare of citizens.

There is no doubt of this in spite of the contrary arguments you may hear. Canada has a Constitution that "is similar in principle to that of Great Britain," It was designed to not be the uncontrollable decentralized monster that the US was. It was designed to have a high degree of centralized authority with built-in avenues for the expression of regional interests.

Ironically, the USA has become increasingly centralized while Canada has become the most decentralized nation in the world.

And there are those who cry that Canada must be decentralized further: that the federal government has too much power while the reality is that all major powers are in the hands of the Provinces. The crying about "fiscal imbalance" is actually an attempt to diminish the federal government further by decreasing its power in its one overriding area of control..

It is the absolute example of the corruption of power. These people have had far more than a taste and want the whole pie.

[kimmy]

I have been considering responding to you again, Kimmy. It is just that I do not have time for a considered post and am losing the inclimation. Tawasakm is not too far off the mark.

I am tired of this, which I have been arguing for moe than thirty years now: I am tired of each new crop of provincial "citizens" coming out with the same learned propaganda of the Provincial Firsters.

Frankly, I sometimes wonder why I bother. Why not let Canada get into the handbasket on its ride to Hell. The ignorance of Canadians as to what is Canada does not deserve the saving.

However, I will one day soon "edumacate" you, although that is not the term I would use and I don't think you wish to open yourself to a larger idea.

I'm very open to ideas of all kinds. I won't necessarily find my life changed or anything, but I am always willing to consider other viewpoints (except those relying on the existence of Orgone Vortexes and mind-control beams.)

However, when it comes to Canada, nobody seems willing or able to actually articulate what the majestic dream is actually supposed to be. The Sweal apparently started this thread not to actually discuss these issues, but to offer his clever little math-style proof: "Alberta is a subset of Canada, therefore proud Albertans are actually proud Canadians. QED." And yourself, you've only used this thread to again trot out your favorite pet topic regarding centralization. No effort to articulate this great truth that I'm apparently just not seeing; just denouncement.

As always, I ask what's this great national identity I'm supposed to connect with? What are these common threads that are supposed to bind Canadians from coast to coast to coast into one united people?

A popular American-owned donut-chain has built their entire corporate strategy around trying to offer some kind of answer to these questions-- their answers seem to involve Steinbeckesque adventures of discovery, coffee, and donuts. A popular American-owned brewery has built its entire corporate strategy around trying to offer some kind of answer to these questions-- their answers seem to be that Canadians are winners because they're courteous and considerate of others; Canadians like hockey; Canadians are not Americans; and Canadians like beer.

Donuts, beer, hockey, and road-trips are not, as far as I can tell, a basis for a national identity, but these two companies and their advertising agencies have constructed immensely popular campaigns based simply on trying to provide something for Canadians to grasp onto. They're not alone. National media outlets have run series trying to answer these questions. The CBC has that yokel with the banjo driving around to small towns meeting kooks trying to answer these questions.

I keep asking questions as well... and like the newspaper discussion articles and the yokel with the banjo, I never really arrive at any kind of answer either.

If you've been having this same argument for 30 years, then I imagine you must have come up with some kind of answers that you're satisfied with? Please, share it. Edumacate me. I can't promise I'll be compelled, but I promise I'll give it fair consideration.

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

You have never seen those superficial arguments from me, Kimmy. The Canadian Malady is too deep seated and grave for that. What is an Albertan? He is someone who, in these times, is being told that he is an Albertan, not a Canadian: just like the Quebecois.

This subject cannot be worked through without consideration of the respective powers. It is the excess of provincial power that gives such opportunists as Klein and Landry the platform to advance their own, personal interest. And that is all it is. Their powers place them close to the people in every walk of life; to the point that citizens can be forgiven for believing that a federal government is irrelevant.

Hence such things as the "Sponsorship Scandal."

What also comes into this is the question of Canadian identity: whether there is some common bond or genesis that is different than our friends to the South. It never ceases to amaze me how so many well-informed people, otherwise, cannot get beyond the cliches. I have made some refernce to this in the intent of the respective Constitutions and what they actually did which was to create a very different nation.

However, let's try something different. Let's start with the national ethos that went into the two beginnings.

England has been said to have a melancholy national disposition and I think that is accurate. It is that melancholia that spawned the most creative of nations in literature and philosophy.

Canada inherited that disposition through its Constitution as well as the more direct ways.

America, on the other hand was born to the naive faith of the "pursuit of happiness." Hedonism and personal interest are the root of the American national identity.

Canada was born to community and neighbour. America was born to personal gain and interest

The irony of this, of course, is that, as with all extreme beliefs, the American "dream" led to a deference to authority and to conformism.

Canada saw a truer individualism that also recognised that " No man is an Island." We also developed a healthy skepticism toward and mistrust of, authority.

Alberta, through its recent leaders, is forcing its province into the American mold.

[kimmy]

As I promised, I will reflect on what you've said about a Canadian identity. However, I'll address this part right now, since it's something we've already discussed a number of times already:

You have never seen those superficial arguments from me, Kimmy. The Canadian Malady is too deep seated and grave for that. What is an Albertan? He is someone who, in these times, is being told that he is an Albertan, not a Canadian: just like the Quebecois.

This subject cannot be worked through without consideration of the respective powers. It is the excess of provincial power that gives such opportunists as Klein and Landry the platform to advance their own, personal interest. And that is all it is. Their powers place them close to the people in every walk of life; to the point that citizens can be forgiven for believing that a federal government is irrelevant.

I question whether making people in the regions increasingly dependent on the federal government will increase their appreciation for it. It could certainly have the opposite effect. If people are unsatisfied with the delivery of services, it will be one more instance where "they" don't care about "us", "they" don't understand what "we" want, "they" care more about maintaining support in Central Canada than they care about providing service out here, etc. Giving the federal government a larger role in peoples' lives has the potential to simply create more areas for people to complain that the federal government is unresponsive to them.

A number of examples have been pointed out where strong central government does not preclude people having pride in their own region or belief in their own distinct identity. You mentioned Yorkshire; I mentioned Wales, which in spite of 700+ years of being just a province (if that) of England, the residents have been reviving their language and culture, and recently established a National Assembly (however modest its powers). One could also look at the United States, with its stronger central government, and often derided by Canadians for ridiculous flag-waving nationalism, where despite those factors people still have great pride in their states as well as their country. Again, I feel that your desire to reduce this to an issue of constitutional division of powers ignores examples like this.

I also looked at the recent tiff between Newfoundland and the federal government, and suggested that it likely could have turned out exactly the same even had there been no province and no premier at all. I believe that in a country as diverse and diffuse as Canada, there are simply just too many issues where the best interests of people in different regions will be at cross-purposes for there not to be regional friction. Reducing or eliminating the role of the provinces in Canada would not remove the factors that cause regional friction, but it would remove the most effective advocates the regions have in this country.

I'll offer another example that I think illustrates the same point. The CF-18 maintainence contract in 1986 is probably the most regionally divisive issue of my lifetime. There was no Klein, no Landry, no conflict of powers with the provinces, only the federal government exercising its spending power... in a way that showed pure naked favoritism for one region over another for political gain and left people again thinking in terms of "them" and "us". And there's nothing to suggest it would have gone any differently had there been no provinces at all.

-kimmy

[Hugo]

What is an Albertan? He is someone who, in these times, is being told that he is an Albertan, not a Canadian

Then what is a Canadian other than an Earthling who is being told he is Canadian? All borders are artificial.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Donuts, beer, hockey, and road-trips are not, as far as I can tell, a basis for a national identity,

Just curious... what sorts of things would you consider a basis for a national identity?

Really, I think that any national identity would appear absurd if the elements comprising it were stated explicitly.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Really, I think that any national identity would appear absurd if the elements comprising it were stated explicitly.

As, indeed, was demonstrated with regard to 'Albertan'.

[Guest eureka]

Kimmy. I probably should not say what I am going to, but when you keep bringing in Wales, I think I must.

A somewhat distant relative of mine was an icon to Welsh nationalists. He was a Welsh language poet and the founder, and, until his death a few years ago, curator of the Welsh National Folk Museum. He was one of those who negotiated the Welsh Assembly.

He would not have dreamed of the powers of a Canadian Province or wanted them. There is an overarching intrest that Canada is losing.

How would it hurt for Education to be a federal jurisdiction. If it were, then Quebec could not have passed it laws aimed at the extinguishing of the English community. Standards across Canada would be equalized and improved. Instead of the federal government being blamed for Provincial responsibilirty. it would fund directly where needed.

Canada now cannot attend international education conferences since it has no Ministry of Education and no input into the education system.

How would it hurt for Healthcare to be a federal responsibility. Provinces have proven that they are not to be trusted with the health of their citizens in recent years - again while blaming the federal government. Would it hurt to have all provinces held to the same standard of delivery?

Would it hurt citizens if the federal government were to be responsible for welfare (as the Constitution actually intended it to be. Then those radical ideologues, Harris and Klein would not have been able to destroy hundreds of thousands of lives in the feeding of their egos and their barracuda friends.

The CF 18 decision was one that should have had political consequences. However, there was a Landry and a Bourassa, and a Parizeau. There was huge tension over Quebc: tension that could not have existed had the provinces been no more powerful than they should have been. The spectre of separatism - and civil war- has hung oer Canada for the past thirty some years precisely because of the overweening power and ambition of the regionalists..

When you point to the pride of region and state in more centralized states, I think you are helping to make my argument. Of course there can be pride of regional diversity, but it should be a healthy one: not one based on the corruption of power

It is an easy excuse to talk of Canada's vast expanses and diversity, but it really does not wash. As Tawaskasm has indicated, Australia does not suffer the same degree of tension yet it is at least as diverse and its major population centres even more remote from each other.

That diversity should be a reason to cling to common interests

[kimmy]

Kimmy. I probably should not say what I am going to, but when you keep bringing in Wales, I think I must.

A somewhat distant relative of mine was an icon to Welsh nationalists. He was a Welsh language poet and the founder, and, until his death a few years ago, curator of the Welsh National Folk Museum. He was one of those who negotiated the Welsh Assembly.

He would not have dreamed of the powers of a Canadian Province or wanted them. There is an overarching intrest that Canada is losing.

I keep mentioning Wales not in reference to division of powers, but in reference to this issue:

When you point to the pride of region and state in more centralized states, I think you are helping to make my argument. Of course there can be pride of regional diversity, but it should be a healthy one: not one based on the corruption of power

I've bolded that part because it's what I've been arguing all along in this thread, in opposition to the thread originator, who views such feelings are illogical. I have sought to demonstrate that "Proud to be Albertan!" has analogues in other countries, and that such feelings are not necessarily the result of "rostrums" but are associations that people develop naturally.

I feel that in at least getting this cleared up, we've found some kind of common ground in this discussion.

How would it hurt for Education to be a federal jurisdiction.

(...)

How would it hurt for Healthcare to be a federal responsibility.

(...)

Would it hurt citizens if the federal government were to be responsible for welfare

Quite possibly it would not hurt at all. There are conceivably a number of areas in which it would be advantageous for the areas of federal and provincial responsibility to be rearranged. Perhaps we should begin a new thread to discuss that issue.

The CF 18 decision was one that should have had political consequences. However, there was a Landry and a Bourassa, and a Parizeau. There was huge tension over Quebc: tension that could not have existed had the provinces been no more powerful than they should have been. The spectre of separatism - and civil war- has hung oer Canada for the past thirty some years precisely because of the overweening power and ambition of the regionalists..

Was it really the spectre of separatism that caused the CF18 decision? Or was it just Mulroney's interest in maintaining power?

I think the widespread perception is that it had not much to do with national unity, but a lot to do with the greater Montreal area having far more political clout than Winnipeg. I personally feel suspicious any time the National Unity flag is raise in support of doing things that are politically expedient-- I feel it has become something of a Canadian equivalent to an American politician raising the fear of terrorism to justify anything under the sun.

Be that as it may, whatever the root cause of that decision, I think it is the perception of it and the effect that is the important part. Whether people believe it was a result of the desire to appeal to 4 million-or-so Montreal area voters, or whether it really was fear that the separatists could make political advantage of the issue, the message to the voter in Winnipeg (and far beyond) was the same: "You aren't as important."

Elsewhere on the forum you can find similar frustration. Take Digby's thread about the fisheries quota system. Underlying it is the same feeling: we Maritimers don't have any say; we can't make the federal government listen to us.

It is an easy excuse to talk of Canada's vast expanses and diversity, but it really does not wash. As Tawaskasm has indicated, Australia does not suffer the same degree of tension yet it is at least as diverse and its major population centres even more remote from each other.

I disagree. I once drove from Winnipeg to Edmonton in a single day; had I been in Australia a trip of the same length could have taken me from Brisbane to Melbourne, through most of the major population centers, with Adelaide just another part day of travel beyond. Only Tawasakm's home, Perth, can be said to share the kind of isolation that we have in Canada. Tawasakm and I earlier discussed this quotation about Perth, which I found in a Wikipedia article about Perth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perth%2C_West...stern_Australia

The population is easy-going and friendly, but can be parochial, especially towards the "Eastern States" which are often viewed with deep, but usually jocular, suspicion. This attitude is fuelled by the Eastern States' view of Perth as a "backward" civilisation, but can be mainly attributed to Perth's isolation — reflected in the widely-held belief that Perth is "the world's most isolated capital city"

Now, change "Perth" to "Edmonton", replace "the Eastern states" with "Central Canada", and tell me if that doesn't sound awfully familiar.

Nor do I agree that Australia is as diverse. While I realize many immigrants have come to Australia over the years, there's no confusion as to Australia's historical roots. We, on the otherhand, have the "two founding nations" crapola acting as a wedge issue within this country.

And while Australians might be isolated from each other, they're far more isolated from everything else.

That diversity should be a reason to cling to common interests

And again, back to the common interests. The kind of national institutions that would have me saying "Proud to be Canadian!" instead of "Moderately Pleased to be Canadian!"

And unfortunately for us, those common interests are so poorly articulated.

Why do people cling to the trivial (donuts, hockey, beer) in trying to express these things that are supposed to unite us?

I believe it's because the more substantial things that are supposed to unite us are actually contentious in this country...

-government? ongoing corruption issues, fractured on regional lines. Should be a uniting factor, but is actually a divisive factor.

-national identity? the 2 founding nations rhetoric that dominates substantive (ie, non-Tim Horton's) discussion of Canadian identity is a divisive issue, not a unifying one.

-language? we've got two of them, and the status of the languages in the areas of the country is a source of fiery divisive debate.

-culture? I'm not even sure we have a culture.

-our Constitution? has been another divisive issue since 1982, and especially during the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. Not only is the Constitution not a unifying factor in Canada, but the only way Canada can remain unified is to Not Talk About It.

I think that these are the sorts of things that in most nations are the common threads that bind the country together, but in Canada they're TNT. When we as Canadians try to discuss the things that are supposed to hold the country together, we wind up in fist-fights.

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

I think I will let Tawaskasm respond to the Australian geographic issue. It seems to me that you did not use a map. There are several more major population centres in Canada than in Australia and they are almost all in a narrow band.

In Australia, the band would would be desert or tropical jungle; or around a coastline.

I don't think the CF 18 decision was directly a sop to the separatists and it was to shore up Mulroney's support. It did, though, tell the French of Quebec that there were rewards to be had by being Canadian.

And, that is what is wrong and is the part you are not seeing. If the provinces were provinces, they would not have powerful local governments that are more important to their daily lives than the federal. There would be no separatism.

How many participants in this forum actually thought that our national identity was about beer and hockey and donuts? Quite a few, I suspect even given the high level of intelligence and information. If nothing else, I hope this discussion has stimulated some into giving it a little more thought.

I would disagree that "Proud to be Albertan" has analogues in other countries. The only analogues that might exost are in those once separate entities that were joined through war or colonialism. No nation that began as a nation or grew into one has the type of "Pride" that is based on political greed or self interest.

That comes with overweening local power and is not a an identity difference.

I have to give up for now. I got up from a sick bed because I knew you would need to be fed and I considered it a duty to do so.

[Tawasakm]

I think I will let Tawaskasm respond to the Australian geographic issue.

Well I'd first need to research Canadian geography otherwise I cannot draw a comparison. If I can find the time I will.

[Jerry Potts]

I would disagree that "Proud to be Albertan" has analogues in other countries. The only analogues that might exost are in those once separate entities that were joined through war or colonialism. No nation that began as a nation or grew into one has the type of "Pride" that is based on political greed or self interest.

To preface this I have been lurking on this debate for its entirety, and have refrained from commenting until now.

However, I think that the author of this comment is missing the point entirely when he makes this comment about Alberta.

There are many pertinent analogies that apply to Alberta in this case, and all reflect the nascent stage of nationalism the western region of North America called "Alberta" finds itself in.

There is a reason there are nations in Europe today. These are collective groups of people who shared comment characteristics, be it language, culture or geography, who came together to provide mutual benefit. Their experiences as a collective created bonds which in time evolved in to nations. For many of these nations, the ties that bound were formed in struggles against a greater entity, the Hapsburg or Ottoman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, or even the British Empire in the case of the United States.

While Canada is one of the oldest states in the world, it is far from mature as a nation, and is still in a formative stage compared to the nations of Europe. The oldest nations in the world, most of which are found in Europe, are constantly evolving, boundaries being redrawn, allegiances born and broken.

Why do we in our arrogance and short sightedness think Canada should be any different?

Canada as an autonomous entity was created in 1867, and has constantly evolved, adding provinces and territories, creating autonomous first nations jurisdictions within these groups. Remember, Canada's own independence has evolved over this time, with the patriation of the Constitution in 1982 and the subsequent wrangling over Meech Lake and Charlottetown.

Quebec and Newfoundland are further along in their nationalistic debates because they are older. That's it. Both have unique cultures that distinguish themselves from the one size fits all nature of Canadian nationalism.

Unfortunately in a country that occupies the scope of the Canadian nation, this kind of catch-all nationalism will never successfully integrate all peoples.

In the case of Alberta, yes as a province we are only 100 years old. But as far as the initial stages of nationalism goes, we are no different than the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and a host were at this point in their history. Alberta started off as a colony in a Canadian Empire, just as the forementioned nations did as part of the British. A combination of populations evolving together, developing common characterisitics and a culture based on shared experiences, in combination with the isolation and alientation of being far removed from a central government has fomented regional pride and an identity.

If you come to Alberta, you will find that there is a distinct mindset and culture, based on a shared history and experiences, and people are very proud of it. Identifying oneself as an Albertan is just an indicition of the pride one feels in this history, of one's acomplishments or of the accomplishments of the collective. To deny this exists is to be ignorant of the reality.

There are those on this site who question Albertans who claim a regional identity by saying that there is nothing that distinguishes us from other Canadians. Well no one here attempts to deny the distinctiveness of the British, Americans, Australians or Kiwi's. As people we all share the same language, same culture and our societies are all derived from instititions that were passed on from the English.

What distinguishes us are the regional variations, the dialects, the cultural quirks, the institutions that have been formed regionally to meet challenges that were distinctive to one's particular jurisdiction.

To chalk up Alberta's divergence from the central and eastern Canada as being the result of "political greed or self interest" is only half correct. All nations and allegiances in this world exist because of self interest. It is hypocritical to maligne Albertans for acting for their own benefit when Canada owes its roots to the same philosophy. Why did the four founding colonies come together? For reasons of economics and political self interest. Canada's formation was more a business deal than the birth of a nation, as was the addition of the West.

It is not greedy for Albertans to look out for their own. It's what communities do. And when communities are presented with challenges from outside entities to struggle against they find common cause and come togther to fight against them.

This is what forms nations. Give Canada one hundred years, and unless the nation adopts a model more akin to the European Union or Swiss federation, the regional differences will be greater than ever, if Canada even exists at all.

[Guest eureka]

I m so sorry that you lurked for so long to such little purpose. Jerry. You seem to have taken in none of my argument and are merely positing some things that I think I have shot down.

It would be safe to say that I disagree with everything you post - including your extraordinary ignorance of the formation of European nations as we;; as of the development of institutions across Canada.

I will deal with your effort at length shortly: I do not have time for it now. I will deal with it at length though, because it is an example of the dangerous misinformation and misperceptions that your apparent favourite brand of leader has been spreading.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Identifying oneself as an Albertan is just an indicition of the pride one feels in this history, of one's acomplishments or of the accomplishments of the collective.

And what are they?

It is not greedy for Albertans to look out for their own. 

That depends on how one goes about it, I should think.

[Jerry Potts]

Spare me the condescension Eureka. I've read your "argument". Frankly characterizing the discussion on this forum as an "argument" would be a misnomer.

Unless this is what passes for an "argument" on this board these days:

Personal opinion and unsubstantiated comment passed off as "fact"

I think it was, in part, because he never could understand the thinking of his Lilliputian opponents in Quebec and Alberta. Lougheed was hardly of an intellect to broaden his vision and Levesque was a nasty little man consumed with hatred since childhood, for all things English. Sorry about that, August, but I had many dealings with Levesque and Levesquism.

Albertans are peppered with former Americans who are attempting to Americanize Canada.

You display disturbing intolerance towards the people of Alberta. Your comments betray a definite prejudice toward them, which is funny because, for someone who seems unclear as to what defines "an Albertan", you seem to have had no problem developing a very specific hatred towards the people of this province. For example:

I don't say that Alberta is a bad province. I say that it is inhabited by bad people. If we put them all in camps and repopulate the province with real Canadians then all will be well.

Real Canadians, eh? That's rich.

Then there's your distortion of historical events and presentation of "dangerous misinformation and misperceptions" about Albertan and Canadian history.

It is also worth noting something that is conveniently forgotten by the "Alberta Firsters:" that is that those people did come to Canada and that Central Canada subsidized Alberta with a per capita payment annually on Alberta's entry into Confederation.

Alberta would never have been more than a territory had it not been for the will and the money of Ontario and Quebec. The same, of course, is true of the other Prarie Provinces, though Manitoba may have had a different path.

Wow, thanks. This is why Alberta was forced in to near bankruptcy, and why Aberhart had to pursue many measures, a number of them ultra vires in order to pull the province out of debt.

Then there's this gem:

Most Albertans have a connection with Canada that predates the Alberta connection. Those that are from pre-Confederation heritage, should be able to make the connection with Canada that their grandparents had.

This is complete garbage. Where do you concoct this crap? Alberta was built by a large contongent of people who had no connection to this province whatsoever. If you knew anything about Alberta history, you might know this fact:

"By 1901 there were nearly 6,000 American citizens in Alberta but, interestingly enough, nearly 11,000 of all immigrants had been born in the United States. Over the next two decades, from 1900-1915 approximately 82,000 Americans arrived in the province, and by 1916 those of American birth constituted nearly 19% of the total population. "

http://www.albertasource.ca/alphabet/artic...p?article_id=17

"By 1911, 22 per cent of Alberta's population was American born, making them the largest immigrant group. By the 1920's, in the southern region, up to half the farmers were American."

http://www.ourroots.ca/e/viewpage.asp?ID=8...x=19&y=4&size=2

"People of German and Scandinavian origin formed the largest non-British minorities in Alberta, with the Germans comprising 11% of the population of 374,000 and the Scandinavian 8 percent by 1911." p.313 H. Palmer, Strangers & Stereotypes: The Rise of Nativism,The Prairie West- Historical readings

"Prior to World War I, the largest group of American settlers that came to Alberta were the Mormons or Latter-day Saints (LDS) from Utah."

http://www.albertasource.ca/alphabet/artic...?article_id=429

"Alberta in the twentieth century was an immigrant society. Until the 1930's half of its population was foreign born."

http://www.ourroots.ca/e/viewpage.asp?ID=860632&size=2

"By 1914 over half the population of Alberta could trace their roots to Britain."

http://www.ourroots.ca/e/viewpage.asp?ID=860635&size=2

"By 1918 just over 18% of Alberta's population was British born."

http://www.ourroots.ca/e/viewpage.asp?ID=860636&size=2

"Between 1898 and 1914, nearly 600,000 American immigrants, mostly farmers from the midwest, came to western Canada."

"perhaps as many of one-third of those coming from the U.S. were actually European-born."

http://www.ourroots.ca/e/viewpage.asp?ID=860639&size=2

Then you contradict yourself on the question of resource ownership:

What has to be done to make Alberta feel a "partner in Confederation." Would making Ralph a king in fact as well as in his mind do it? Alberta has jurisdictional authority -as does every province - such as no regional government in the world has. It has exclusive ownership of its resources to the detriment of the national interest. It was financially supported by Central Canada until it was able to stand on its own feet. The rebellious child act does not cut it any longer: it needs to grow up.

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.

Well, what is it?

Here, let me help you out:

Section 92A, which was added in 1982, to summarise states: "The provinces can regulate non-renewable natural resources, including forestry and electrical energy, and can even regulate exports.  However, the federal government can also regulate exports in this area, and federal laws are paramount."

Section 109 of the Constitution Act states as follows:

"109. All Lands, Mines, Minerals, and Royalties belonging to the several Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick at the Union, and all Sums then due or payable for such Lands, Mines, Minerals, or Royalties, shall belong to the several Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick in which the same are situate or arise, subject to any Trusts existing in respect thereof, and to any Interest other than that of the Province in the same. (56) "

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e...ml#distribution

Where's Alberta you say? well, I'm glad you asked:

"(Endnote #56). Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan were placed in the same position as the original provinces by the Constitution Act, 1930, 20-21 Geo. V, c. 26 (U.K.). "

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/endnts_e.html#(56)

This in conjunction with section 92A, which states:

"NON-RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES,

FORESTRY RESOURCES AND ELECTRICAL ENERGY

Laws respecting non-renewable natural resources, forestry resources and electrical energy 92A. (1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to

a. exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province;

b. development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom; and

c. development, conservation and management of sites and facilities in the province for the generation and production of electrical energy."

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e...ml#distribution

Seems to mean the following:

"The provinces have more limited legislative authority, "direct taxation within the province in order to the raising of a revenue for provincial purposes." Provinces also own the natural resources within their boundaries."

http://www.cepra.ru/publics/eng_fiscal.htm

The above synopsis was penned by Dr. J. Peter Meekison. Here are his credentials:

"Dr. J. Peter Meekison is University Professor Emeritus of Political Science of the University of Alberta having retired from the university in June 1996. From July 1974, for ten years, he served with Alberta Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, seven and a half of those years as Deputy Minister. During the 1978-81 constitutional negotiations, Dr. Meekison developed and prepared the formula, tabled by Alberta, which ultimately became the amending formula in the Constitution Act, 1982. As constitutional adviser to the Alberta government, he was actively involved in the Meech Lake Accord discussions and the discussions leading to the 1992 Charlottetown Accord.

Currently, Dr. Meekison serves on the boards of Canadian Policy Research Network Inc. and the Advisory Council of the Institute of Intergovernmental Relations at Queen’s University. He is an Officer of the Order of Canada and a recipient of the 125th Anniversary of Canada Medal and the Lieutenant Governor’s Medal for Excellence in Public Administration for the Province of Alberta.

Dr. Meekison received his undergraduate education at the University of British Columbia and his graduate education at the University of Western Ontario and Duke University."

http://www.cwf.ca/abcalcwf/doc.nsf/doc/E34...7256BCE006B58BE

I'm sure they're almost as good as yours eureka, but being from Alberta I suppose disqualifies him from being a qualified source in your mind. So please dispense with spreading half truths about provincial resource ownership in the future.

What those who are now Albertans seem to forget - or never knew - is that Alberta was nurtured and financed by the Central Provinces into maturity and that it enjoys its present prosperity as a consequence of a miswriting of the Constitution that has allowed the retention of its blessings for its own sole use. The intent of Confederation was quite different.

Nurtured eh? This is why 1000's of settlers were left to their own devices on the bald-assed prairie, parkland and bush, subject to discriminatory incremental freight-rates, predatory practices by eastern based lending institutions, and subject to higher priced on Canadian goods as lower-cost American goods had their prices inflated as a result of protective tariffs.

This also was in the days before EI, Equalization and social transfers. Oh, and then there was the little fact that the prairie provinces were left with subordinate status to the other provinces as they were deprived of the benfit of their natural resources for the first 25 years. I assume giving Alberta equal status to the rest of the provinces was the "miswriting"?.

Oh, we haven't forgotten what the east has done for the west.

I think you've got it wrong eureka: the pioneers and consumers of the west nurtured the Canadian state, not the other way round.

Oh yes, then there's the NEP:

Most of those rigs pulled out in desperation not because of the NEP but because of the collapse in worlf oil prices. The NEP was intended to increase exploration: exploration by Canadian companies. That did not happen because of pricing.

The only thing wrong with the NEP was that prices collapsed later. That hurt Alberta which was already suffering, along with everyone else, from the recession. And Alberta could sell outside the country at world prices. The NEP ended and should have had a better adjustment mechanism.

The NEP did not wreak devastation on Alberta. That is the propaganda. The NEP was about national security in energy supplies. Canada was in a serious deficit in balance of trade of energy at the time when there was a world crisis in the making. Alberta was guaranteed a price for it oil that would be no more than $4 a barrel less than world prices.

At the same time there was an ambitious plan to expand exploration an production in Alberta to meet all Canadian requirements. This included Canadianising the industry as far as possible to keep us from what we have since fallen into as most of the mid-sized companies have fallen into American hands.

Complete garbage. You sure know how to twist the facts. The NEP was all about Canadianization of the oil industry, and it was done at the expense of the companies who were doing exploration in Alberta at the time.

As you conveniently forget to mention, or likely didn't know at all, the NEP would prevented companies who did not have at least 50% Canadian ownership from engaging in production. Considering exploration in the Alberta oilpatch was driven by American companies and subsidiaries, activity in some sectors dried up over night. In addition, the new government revenue scheme that introduced an increased share of federal royalties (25% of total revenues), and measures such as implementing a blended price scheme and wellhead taxes meant companies couldn't get out of Canada fast enough, relocating south of the border where there was a shortage of rigs while leaving the workers behind. Considering the Canadian oilpatch was under-developed and unable to pick up the slack, the NEP turned out to be an unmitigated disaster.

The purpose of the NEP was also not to increase exploration in Alberta, but in areas like the Beaufort Sea where the royalties would be the exclusive domain of the feds. Why do you think Petro Canada spearheaded the development offshore?

The NEP failed because world oil prices plummeted, and while Alberta likely would have entered a recession, it was greatly accelerated due to what amounted to a federal revenue grab.

I, too, was in Alberta for the early stages and in a business that had connection to hundreds of the players in the oil patch. Not too many of them blamed the NEP until the politicians began playing their games.

Really. Well I am from an oil town that exploded in rage against the federal government the moment the NEP was announced. The people here needed no prompting from politicians in expressing their rage towards the feds. These people were easy converts to the WCC, WestFed, United West and were quite fond of boycotting eastern goods, burning your hero trudeau in effigy, and sporting bumper stickers that said "Pierre Elliott Trudeau Rips Off Canada" and the old favorite "Let The Eastern Bastards Freeze In The Dark."

Then the coup de grace, when all else fails, the pass off unsubstantiated and unspecific anecdotes as fact:

Why do the feds have to spend time or energy appeasing Albertans????? Klein does like to mouth off without thinking and then back out of his remarks but his swipes at our healthcare are the worst. The majority of Canadians do not want private healthcare like the USA style. An American girl without healthcare was in a car accident. They had to remove part of her skull to relieve the pressure on her brain. She was told they would replace the section of her skull when she had the money to pay for it. Normally this section of skull ( quite large) is not left off for more than 2 weeks as it could shrink. She was released from hospital without a large portion of her skull as she could not pay. Fortunately her mother put her on her health insurance and that company compassionately agreed to back date the coverage to pay her bills from the accident and allow her to have her skull section replaced.

Not in my opinion. Alberta "bashing" comes in part from Klein's outbursts and attempts to weaken our Health Care system in Canada. The rest comes from Albertans who cry for separation. Like Quebeckers who whine to separate whenever they don't get their little butts kissed; Albertans who do the same are a hinderance to our becoming a strong viable country with an influence on the world stage. Like the little boys who own the bat and ball running home with his bat and ball whenever he doesn't get his own way. poor sports and whiners stop the rest from performing.

I think I've discoverd the problem:

Perhaps living in Ontario gives me a wider perspective and less incentive to believe the rantings of the local demagogues and parochial media outlets.

Let me guess, you will "deal with my effort at length shortly", as you do not have time for it now. However if you do, spare me the flights of fancy, dangerous misinformation and misperceptions that your apparent favourite brand of leader has been spreading.

I don't have time for it.

[Guest eureka]

What you do not have time for, Jerry, is anything that contradicts your paraanoia.

I offered you the courtesy of a response to your rants. Your idea is to collect selected quotations over a long period of time and think you have made some points.

You even manage to include the statements of other people and claim they are mine. That is a pretty sick way of arguing and says more about the weakness of your position and your mind.

I will deal with you in full and in the fullness of time - if you have the courage to stay around and participate. And, I am going to enjoy it. You are a puffed up ignoramus and your mishmash of "facts" is inconsequential.

Does it not occur to you that your idea of ehnic uniqueness is little different than can be said of other provinces? Does it not occur to you that those Germans, etc. were also settling in Ontario and elsewhere?

Have you read the Provincial Constitution? Have you noted the per capita payments that were made by the Central governments to the new Provinces annually? You also should not simply cite articles of the Constitution without having some point to the citation. You contradict nothing I said and do not even manage to look clever.

Have you not been able to get past the lies about the Depression in Alberta? Or is it so comfortable to be living the role of victimhood? The whole country was in depression and suffering every bit as much. Many people from the East rode the rails to Saskatchewan and Alberta to find some work on the farms. Many did.

The NEP is what I said it was. Your "oil town" rage does not alter that. And Meekison is not credible as you think he is. He is another regionalist who would sacrifice Canada on the altar of Provincial prerogative. That was the purpose of both Meech Lake and Charlottetown.

Jerry, I did not sit in some "oil town" waving my fists in impotent fury and shouting imprecations at Trudeau from a thousand miles away. I fought Trudeau on the ground and in his own lair. I still have the Press kit from a Calgary paper that wanted me to do a critical exposure of the Trudeau proposals for the Charter of Rights.

I fought Trudeau over his neglect of the English community in Quebec. If you had lurked more effectively around the forums you would have remembered (perhaps yoou would not since you remember only what you think suits your purposes) that I once spoke of the letter I have from Trudeau in which he said; "I admit that the Rights of Anglophones have been reduced but my government will not allow them to be reduced further."

That comes from my run-ins with Trudeau who never understood the meaning of individual freedoms but was steeped in the French idea of personal freedom.

That being said, in general, I would support Trudeau's vision - not his practise.

I could go on but I won't. I will deal with whatever there is in your collected fairy stories that is worth the response. Your second effort and its tone gives me pause to wonder whether you are worth it.

It is also not personal opinion to comment on the relatively puny minds of the Albertan opponents of Trudeau. They are known by their works. Neither is it so to give facts about Levesque and his background. I knew that well and Levesque knew me well - I was at the top of his most hated list.

Frankly, the more I write now, the less I feel inclined to humour you. I ammore than a little angry at your lies about what I have said.

Right at the opening, you accuse me of intolerance to Albertans though no one in his right mind would do that. My intolerance - what their is of it - is for the ethnic supremacists in one region and the provincialists elsewhere.

More importantly, you try to support the accusation with "quotation" from someone else saying that it is mine.

You are just a little contemptible, I would say. That, not only because you are an Albertan from an "oil town."

[kimmy]

eureka, while you're accusing Jerry of dishonesty by attributing Caesar's fevered babbling to you, you've also been a little dishonest yourself:

Does it not occur to you that your idea of ehnic uniqueness is  little different than can be said of other provinces? Does it not occur to you that those Germans, etc. were also settling in Ontario and elsewhere?

As Jerry quite plainly stated, he presented that information in opposition to your claim that most Albertans had prior connection to Canada. Putting his argument out of context and putting words in his mouth is also dishonest.

I will contribute more as time permits.

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

No, Kimmy, and I would have expected you to understand better.

Germans were settling across Canada. They came to Canada: some stayed in Quebec: some in Ontario. Some moved further West.

Many of those who went West had relatives who remained in the East. The same applies to various nationalities and the ethnic makeup of Canadians everywhere is not so very much different.

I appreciate your participation and I think something useful was coming out of our exchanges. I am not so interested in pandering to a paranoia that seems to think I must drop life to immediately deal with the little black book it has been compiling.

[Jerry Potts]

A bit of pot and kettle going on here don't you think eureka?

You have no facts to back up your conjecture, so you resort to moralizing and personal attacks thinking you can bully and demean those who do not share your myopic point of view in to submission.

All your boasting of press kits and newspaper credentials doesn't mean a thing if you can't, and seemingly after 12 pages of bloviation, won't back it up.

I have read numerous well thought out and thought provoking submissions from kimmy and others only to see you dodge the question and fabricate your own notions of Albertan and Canadian history, regardless of the truth.

As I expected, you are presented with the facts, and still refuse to acknowledge the truth.

You are highly contemptable in my estimation because you are the type intolerant left-wing rube who is unable to engage in healthy discourse lest they discover that the little dream world they've been living in is nothing more than a delusion.

As for this:

More importantly, you try to support the accusation with "quotation" from someone else saying that it is mine.

Unlike yourself, I am willing to admit my mistakes, as in this case the misattributing of one quote, and I apologize for giving you the only avenue of retort you have in this whole discussion. It will be the last mistake of this kind, trust me. Frankly there are so many quotes of this "calibre" from various blowhards on this site it's hard to keep them straight.

However, you resort back to fabricating the facts almost immediately by saying I used the quote in question to reference your obvious intolerance of Albertans. Must be pathological.

How exactly do you explain away comments such as these ones?

eureka Posted: Feb 23 2005, 07:01 PM 

Ticker!

I don't say that Alberta is a bad province. I say that it is inhabited by bad people. If we put them all in camps and repopulate the province with real Canadians then all will be well. 

You are just a little contemptible, I would say. That, not only because you are an Albertan from an "oil town."

You seem to think you're a real card, when in fact you're a snivelling little coward who won't own up to his own intolerant comments.

Typical leftie tactic, dodge the question and attack the opposition.

Quite frankly, there is no discussion to be had with the likes of you, but I look forward to your next episode nonetheless.

[Guest eureka]

You are right that there is no discussion to be had and you attributed other quotes to me that were not mine.

The only avenue, indeed! You are in error from the first word of your original post to your last. You also are incapable of sustaining anything like debate until you get a skin over your prickles.

What facts do you wish to bring into question. Any facts you are given are dismissed not disputed. Your hatreds will not allow you to consider anything but your "learned" program. You are simply another Albertan Separatist with no more to your cause than mythology.

Anyway, Jerry, I am not interested in justifying myself to you. You are simply an idiot or an highbrow in the Wildean sense. Do you call people who oppose you in person, "snivelling cowards?" If so, how many teeth do you have left?

For those who are interested in pursuing this question with all the ramifications that it brings - and which are not unique to any province, then it appears that you have not managed to turn it into a separatist propaganda site.

[Jerry Potts]

Eureka,

You are not interested in debate. Your dismissive, condescending attitude towards myself and other posters is a reflection of your lack of intellect, and it shows in the complete lack of substance you display in defending your own "beliefs".

I sincerely regret having quoted ceaser in your place. Frankly you two are peas in a pod, and as a result of my error I have given you an out. You have sidestepped the debate completely, chosing to deal in manufactured anecdotes rather than documented fact.

It is too bad that you will never produce facts to substantiate your claims that I am wrong, which undoubtedly is because you don't have any. You know, just because you say things are the way they are doesn't make it's true eureka. Have you ever heard of facts? You should try using them sometime.

Well congrats, you have ceased your opportunity and are off the hook.

Anyways, slither off an play your violin and sob story.

I assume the other posters on this site have been too polite to point out how much of a pompous hypocrite and intolerant buffoon you really are.