Jump to content

Alberta Sovereignty Act


Recommended Posts

Why is Alberta's desire to squander their future generation's wealth more important than BC's need to preserve their future generation's heritage. BC, the US and eastern Canada will not allow more pipelines. If Trudeau had not forced the Trans Mountain pipeline on BC, the expansion would not be taking place.

1 hour ago, Tony Hladun said:

I hear what you're saying, particularly if you get out of Vancouver and Victoria.  Even in Alberta Calgary and Edmonton are swinging to the left.  If the four Western Provinces could stand together they could do a lot to either get a better deal from Ottawa or as a separate country.  With a GDP of around $900 billion (CDN) that would make us about number 20 in the world (Switzerland or Argentina).  But BC just won't play along...

You are talking about breaking up the most beautiful nation in the world for something as irrelevent, stupid and silly as politics? 

Western Canada is the Saudi Arabia of uranium. We should be transitioning to nuclear power and saving our oil for when it is worth something, after the US, the Middle East and Russia, etc, run out. We have the technology to build reactors around the world, from Albania to Zambia, and the fuel to power them for a couple of centuries, by which time we will be replacing them with thorium and ...just maybe, fusion reactors. Canada will be a world leader in energy production that will dwarf the fossil fuel production.

So quit your whining and start looking for practical solutions. The ASA is a silly little stunt that is a last Hail Mary for a failed premier to get some votes. It will solve nothing, because governments will continue to do what they have always done and that is to find the best solutions to a myriad of problems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tony Hladun said:

If the four Western Provinces...

1 Western province and the first 3 eastern bastards you mean.

2 hours ago, Tony Hladun said:

But BC just won't play along...

Speaking for myself I'll play along to the extent that I support separation but it's with the understanding that the subdivision continues.

I'm a member of VILO - the Vancouver Island Liberation Organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Queenmandy85,

It's always politics. I was trying to just state a few facts.  If Alberta's energy resources have no future value in the new magic world would it not make sense to exploit them now?  If we're looking for practical solutions, what are yours?

In the 1970's I worked on the design of the control systems for the Bruce and Darlington nuclear reactors.  Nuclear power was (is) a large part of a good solution.  We should all remember that the Ontario reactors were largely financed by Ottawa and not Ontario.  But if you really want to hear whining, mention nuclear power.

Edited by Tony Hladun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Tony Hladun said:

Queenmandy85,

It's always politics. I was trying to just state a few facts.  If Alberta's energy resources have no future value in the new magic world would it not make sense to exploit them now?  If we're looking for practical solutions, what are yours?

In the 1970's I worked on the design of the control systems for the Bruce and Darlington nuclear reactors.  Nuclear power was (is) a large part of a good solution.  We should all remember that the Ontario reactors were largely financed by Ottawa and not Ontario.  But if you really want to hear whining, mention nuclear power.

Politics doesn't actually change how a government operates. Politics are Canada's national sport. We are better at politics than any other country in the world. What the Japanese and Germans are to engineering and the Americans are to marketing, Canada is to politics. Don't get me wrong. I love it. But whether the Grits, the CPC (Social Credit) or the NDP forms a government has as little impact on Canada as who wins the Grey Cup. 

An MP is appointed to Cabinet. She meets with her Deputy Minister who advises her on how to implement policy. The DM points out the pitfalls and guides her through the process. When a Minister fails to heed the advice of the professional civil service, they tend to not have success. I remember Glenn Clark. I was in BC at a time when you opened the morning paper, not to see if the Premier did something stupid that morning, but what new crative stupidity he could come up with. I also lived in Saskatchewan when Roy Romanow was Premier. Here we have two New Democrats, one who could do nothing right and the other governing like a Tory. It is the competance of the Minister, not the party that makes all the difference.

I never said "Alberta's energy resources have no future value." On the contrary, the petroleum and coal resources in Alberta and Saskatchewan will skyrocket in value in future, as other region's run out. Our technological civilization is built on three pillars. Coal, iron ore and oil. We managed without oil for 1800 years because the population of the earth was small and animal fat sufficed. Once we harnessed artificial energy (steam) oil was necessary to lubricate anything that moves. We ran out of whales.

Think about how long you can run a turbine without lubricating oil. What do you make a tubine out of? What do you use to make rails? Everything we rely on to support our population relies on steel and lubricating oil. Without it, there is no transportation, no energy production, no food where you need it.

The solution is to build nuclear and solar power plants around the world. Electrify the rail systems and maritime shipping to replace air travel. Most nations already do have good rail systems. 

Simultaneously, get thorium LIFTR reactors going. There is a lot more thorium than uranium. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of you sure like to feed your own perceptions, don't you?

If you ever looked, you'd see Northern BC is absolutely FULL of Conservative MPs. Ones who wouldn't dare reveal their pro-pipeline stance as the elector's did not support it in the least. Had they said so openly, they would've handily lost their seats.
Your stubborn insistence that the environment is only a concern of the left has cost you 2 terms of Trudeau and you risk a 3rd unless PP gets onboard. And to continue the same rant that the people of BC are obligated to assume all of the risk and none of the benefits a decade after the fact only shows you have learned so little, cared so little and doubled down on assuming no responsibility other than whining about your wallets. Someone else's wallet, as you yourself stand to gain very little.

Look at a map! What do you see besides a flat piece of paper?

Fjords, mountains, rivers, canyons, scattered islands and lakes. Forests that burn, waters that flood, landslides, avalanches, earthquakes and marine hazards that sink ferries and barges. Maybe we should take that giant 3D map of BC they used to have at the PNE - where you rode on a trolley and saw what you'd see from a plane, and put it up in Fort McMurray.

And again, whether you like it or not, it will take a decade to build a pipeline and by then you will have the dying market you refuse to see now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people who advocate separation have not thought through the ramifications. It is naive beyond believe that there would not be forces opposing the destruction of the nation. Separation will lead to civil war. The only example of the contray is Czech Republic and Slovakia. I remember studying the actions of the OAS in Algeria and we are all familiar with the American civil war.

 Alberta is a land locked province. If she were to separate, no oil would move. No pipelines, no trains. 

What would be gained? The NDP will still be there. In seven years, out of the four western provinces, only Manitoba will be conservative. Moe will likely retire after the next election. The NDP will be in shortly after. Eby looks secure and it looks like Premier Smith is trying to rival Liz Truss for incompetence. How long will it take for Albertans to ever vote Tory again? It is sad that all she has had to do to get out of this, before stepping into this pit of quicksand, maybe ask some of the professionals in the civil service for their advice and follow it. These are the people who have experience. 

So, a plea to Albertans, some where in such a gifted province you must have another Peter Lougheed. Move fast to get him/her into the Premier's chair ASAP. If you have two, can you lend him to Saskatchewan?

Edited by Queenmandy85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A rant and a lecture, the weekend two for one special.  Look at it from the perspective of Ontario and Quebec...if they got rid of us they'd meet their 2030 emissions targets and the world would love them.  Who wouldn't want that?  They should be showing us the door.   

Edited by Tony Hladun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tony Hladun said:

A rant and a lecture, the weekend two for one special.  Look at it from the perspective of Ontario and Quebec...if they got rid of us they'd meet their 2030 emissions targets and the world would love them.  Who wouldn't want that?  They should be showing us the door.   

The point is, we all (meaning the whole world) have to exceed the emissions targets. It is a global crisis and we have to take into account the countries unwilling to make the sacrifices needed.

Why is destroying the country and putting us in danger of being swallowed up by the giant republic to the south, so importnt to to some people. We have fought off three invasions so far. We fought two world wars in defence of Canada. Is all that blood spilled by our ancestors just to be flushed without thought? Do these separatists give any thought to the violence they would be imposing on their fellow Canadians? Any war is tragic but a civil war is the worst. It is the most viscious conflict imaginable.

The two for one special is better than you think. I used to charge $30 an hour for my lectures, back when $30 meant something. Of course, for obvious reasons, I never actually got paid for them. Cheers

Edited by Queenmandy85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The people who advocate separation have not thought through the ramifications. It is naive beyond believe that there would not be forces opposing the destruction of the nation.

The advocacy for separation does occupy a necessary place in the scheme of things however.  It signals to the establishment that sometimes the status quo needs to be tweaked a little and at times a lot. 

Your reaction and prediction of a bloody horrific civil war seems a little alarmist. It's been such an off and on again topic so many times already.  We should by now be able to approach it without becoming unglued but if not...it is what it is.

In any case the ASA and the way it's been worded and then Tony's comment about salmon being nothing but an impediment to Alberta really does stir me up.  The part of the ASA that says Alberta will stand up to policies from Ottawa that harm Alberta is poignantly ironic given how badly Ottawa has mismanaged salmon in BC.

Does Alberta assume it'll be managing BC's salmon in the future or something?  No one outside of BC has even considered that maybe we'd like to manage our salmon for our own benefit.  Ottawa presumed to be managing BC's salmon for Canada's benefit and look how that turned out.

I often quip that Canada should have gotten Norway to manage Alberta's oil.  But in fact my regard for Norway is facetious to say the least - Ottawa let them put their Atlantic salmon farms all up and down our coast after telling us we couldn't build Pacific salmon hatcheries in our rivers.  I get it that Alberta is pissed off at Ottawa, I really do.  But I've seen nothing to suggest that Alberta will give any more of a shit about BC than Ottawa did or does.

Edited by eyeball
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My reference to the usual result of separation was to several posts advocating separation in this thread, not to ASA. ASA affirms Alberta's comitment to remaining in Canada. I agree with you about Norway. Peter Lougheed had a similar idea but, like the ASA, subsequent governments used the fund as bait to voters. I also agree with your negative view of fish farms. They are an ill concieved attempt to avoid investing in restoration of real spawning grounds and science based fishery. I defer to your expertise on that front.

Ja elska Norge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The point is, we all (meaning the whole world) have to exceed the emissions targets. It is a global crisis

Actually it is Trudeau and his environmental radical tower-climbing Greenpeace minister who are wrecking Canada with the carbon taxes, their net zero objectives imposed on western provinces, 30% reduction in fertilizer emissions reducing food production, and driving up the price of everything.   There is no climate crisis, only an economic crisis created by Trudeau and his minions.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

Actually it is Trudeau and his environmental radical tower-climbing Greenpeace minister who are wrecking Canada with the carbon taxes, their net zero objectives imposed on western provinces, 30% reduction in fertilizer emissions reducing good production, and driving up the price of everything.   There is no climate crisis;  only a crisis created by Trudeau and his minions.

You are mis-informed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The environmental cult is meeting again in Montreal under the heading of COP15 to continue with the U.N. agenda of wrecking the economies of the world in their fanatical worship of their god, Mother Earth.   I thought they just had their cult meetings in Egypt a couple weeks ago.  It never ends with the cult trying to brainwash and control the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

fanatical worship of their god, Mother Earth.

Why does your fanatical worship of your sky wizard not include caring for his earth? Why do you worship money to the extent that you'd not care if the earth is destroyed in pursuit of riches?   Is that what your sky wizard expects of you?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Why does your fanatical worship of your sky wizard not include caring for his earth? Why do you worship money to the extent that you'd not care if the earth is destroyed in pursuit of riches?   Is that what your sky wizard expects of you?  

If you speak of a "sky wizard" it demonstrates a problem you have of a bias against the God who created us and everything we have and who we depend upon.

Here is an article which explains the difference between the cult that worships Mother Earth and proper stewardship of the earth for the benefit of mankind.

The first thing you should understand is that the Mother Earth cult wants to set aside 30% of Canada to prevent man from developing it or using it for man's benefit.  God created the whole earth for the use of mankind.

quote

Answer by Peter Geyer

It’s easy for us to adopt the language the world uses when we come to speak about environmental matters today, but we should resist the temptation to do so. Nowhere in the Bible will you find the earth referred to as our mother! Jesus taught us that we relate to the God who created both us and the universe in which we live, as our Father, and our Father in heaven certainly didn’t need a wife in order to bring all things into existence. God alone is our Father, and the earth we live on certainly isn’t our mother!

The fact that people speak of ‘mother earth’ and ‘mother nature’ panders to the evolutionary idea that everything originated by natural processes from the earth over billions of years. This thinking has been popularized in recent times by the Gaia hypothesis which notes the connectedness and inter-dependence of all living organisms with their environment. The idea is that all organisms and their inorganic surroundings are so closely integrated as to form a single self-regulating complex system that maintains life on earth. Also, the idea of ‘mother nature’, comes from pagan belief that the earth itself is a god.  Perhaps you remember the film Avatar, where all life on the planet was an expression of the goddess Eywa. According to the film, all life came from Eywa and returned to Eywa, and continues on in a spiritual realm.

As Christians, we know that the earth is as much a creation of God as we are ourselves. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen. 1:1) “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness therefore” (Psalm 24:1), and it was intended for man’s use to God’s glory. Genesis 1:26 states that God gave mankind dominion over the earth. That doesn’t mean the right to exploit and pollute the earth, but to exercise the same caring dominion over the earth that parents have over their children. Genesis 2:15 shows how Adam exercised this dominion in the Garden of Eden, “…to work it and take care of it”.

The earth is God’s gift to human beings. The wonders, beauties, and intricacies of creation declare the qualities of God who put a little of himself into his creation (Romans 1:20). “The heavens declare the glory of God and the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech” (Psalm 19:1). But the basic point is a simple one; the earth is God’s creation, much like the Mona Lisa is the creation of Leonardo DaVinci. It has no personality as to be referred to as our mother, sister, brother or any other such thing. The earth provides food and resources for us much the same way as a cow provides us with milk, and a sheep with meat, and we would hardly refer to a cow as our mother, or a sheep as our sister! The evolutionist may wish to claim the pig as his cousin, but the Christian knows that man alone was created in the image of God unique and unrelated to any other creature.

Even speaking of the creation as ‘the realm of nature’ and ‘the natural environment’, can be misleading. There’s no such thing as ‘the natural environment’, since we know that nothing came about by itself ‘naturally’, but that everything was the special and intentional creation of God. Perhaps in place of using terms like ‘the natural environment’ and ‘the realm of nature’, it might be more appropriate for Christians to refer to the earth and all that is in it simply as God’s creation. It’s too easy to adopt secular terms when we could use language that witnesses to Christ as Creator.

Enjoy the creation and give praise to God and God alone!

Were you helped by this answer? If so, consider making a donation so we can keep adding more answers. Donate here.

Tagged:environmentalismgaiaGenesispaganism

About The Contributor

Peter Geyer

Peter Geyer is a pastor of the Lutheran Church of Australia, and has served in New Zealand, and among the indigenous people of Australia and Papua New Guinea. He currently pastors three congregations in the Fassifern district of southeast Queensland, Australia. He is married to Kayleen and has two married daughters. His passion has always been for Gospel outreach, and he recognizes just how important the literal understanding of the Word of God is for a correct grasp of doctrinal truth, and for the certainty of salvation.

 

MOTHER EARTH? People talk about Mother Nature & Mother Earth. What is a Christian view of Earth? – Ask John Mackay | Creation Questions & Answers

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

My reference to the usual result of separation was to several posts advocating separation in this thread, not to ASA. ASA affirms Alberta's comitment to remaining in Canada. I agree with you about Norway. Peter Lougheed had a similar idea but, like the ASA, subsequent governments used the fund as bait to voters. I also agree with your negative view of fish farms. They are an ill concieved attempt to avoid investing in restoration of real spawning grounds and science based fishery. I defer to your expertise on that front.

Ja elska Norge.

Well, the thing that gave farming an invasive alien species of salmon precedence over restoring native salmon is that the management of our resource is pretty much out of BC's hands and almost entirely invested in Ottawa.

To some economists fishing communities are just like canaries in a coal mine, when either suffer or die it says there's something in the environment that is inimical and deadly to them.  In our case the most inimical thing is the sheer distance from which BC's salmon are managed.  Ottawa is 1500 miles from the nearest ocean and over 3000 miles from the Pacific, it simply does not have the capacity to represent our values better than we can ourselves.  It's not enough for Ottawa to just defer to local expertise they also need to defer to local autonomy.

In addition to the normal mismanagement we've become long used to we now we have climate change impacting coastal fisheries.  What few management documents exist that pertain to rebuilding Canada's fish stocks barely mention climate change.  The canaries on both coasts are basically screaming that there's something wrong but Ottawa and Canada it seems are completely deaf.

As the canaries go, so will the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2022 at 3:12 AM, eyeball said:

The advocacy for separation does occupy a necessary place in the scheme of things however.  It signals to the establishment that sometimes the status quo needs to be tweaked a little and at times a lot. 

Your reaction and prediction of a bloody horrific civil war seems a little alarmist. It's been such an off and on again topic so many times already.  We should by now be able to approach it without becoming unglued but if not...it is what it is.

In any case the ASA and the way it's been worded and then Tony's comment about salmon being nothing but an impediment to Alberta really does stir me up.  The part of the ASA that says Alberta will stand up to policies from Ottawa that harm Alberta is poignantly ironic given how badly Ottawa has mismanaged salmon in BC.

Does Alberta assume it'll be managing BC's salmon in the future or something?  No one outside of BC has even considered that maybe we'd like to manage our salmon for our own benefit.  Ottawa presumed to be managing BC's salmon for Canada's benefit and look how that turned out.

I often quip that Canada should have gotten Norway to manage Alberta's oil.  But in fact my regard for Norway is facetious to say the least - Ottawa let them put their Atlantic salmon farms all up and down our coast after telling us we couldn't build Pacific salmon hatcheries in our rivers.  I get it that Alberta is pissed off at Ottawa, I really do.  But I've seen nothing to suggest that Alberta will give any more of a shit about BC than Ottawa did or does.

If you actually read what I said it is that we all have priorities...yours being salmon.  I also said that if we worked together salmon could benefit as well.  Mick Jagger said it best "if you try sometime, you just might find you get what you need".  Blind hate serves no one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Tony Hladun said:

If you actually read what I said it is that we all have priorities...yours being salmon.  I also said that if we worked together salmon could benefit as well.  Mick Jagger said it best "if you try sometime, you just might find you get what you need".  Blind hate serves no one.

Blind hate?  You figure hyperbole serves us better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2022 at 4:12 AM, eyeball said:

Your reaction and prediction of a bloody horrific civil war seems a little alarmist.

It is the inevitable product of separation. History demonstrates that when a part of a nation tries to separate, it almost always leads to a terrible civil war. India, the United States (twice), Ethiopia, Algeria, Ireland, Nigeria, France, Korea, Viet Nam, Turkey, and Yemen come to mind. Only two that were without conflict come to mind,- Czechoslovakia and Sweden. 

Separation of a Canadian region is unlikely. The thought of the consequences should be enough to deter it. Why would  any sane person, wish that on their children.

Alberta has said the ASA affirms it's role in Canada. Premier Smith may be the Glenn Clark of Alberta, but she got that bit right. Premier Smith and former Premier Clark have a lot in common.

 

 

Edited by Queenmandy85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Separation of a Canadian region is unlikely. The thought of the consequences should be enough to deter it. Why would  any sane person, wish that on their children.

Given the time it would take Canadian bureaucrats to get it done it would be our great great grand-kids.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't mean civil war. It could mean Ottawa decides it created you, so it will dissolve your legislature and revert you back to territorial status.
Hell, seeing as how the whole raison d'etre for separation seems to be "for a few more bucks" that should make separatists happy; no more provincial sales tax!
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For over a decade I've posted umpteen ways Alberta energy fanatics could increase or achieve  some of their goals on multiple forums. All these years and nothing has changed, I can only conclude they just want something to whine about.

Hell, listen to what's posted. Trudeau spends billions to ensure TMX gets built because the oil money said it was too much trouble for their investment but you're blaming him for them not building more pipelines. They see the writing on the wall, listen to your corporate Overlords. Not worth the investment. You think PP will build oil pipelines with tax dollars?

FFS Asia just might buy LNG. They're transitioning from oil. If you can come up with a way to ship stuff all the way down the coast, through the Panama Canal and all the way to Europe cheaper than from the Middle East they might be interested.
Otherwise the market for Alberta oil is and will continue to be N America, so make an effort to maximize it.

Edited by herbie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, herbie said:

It doesn't mean civil war. It could mean Ottawa decides it created you, so it will dissolve your legislature and revert you back to territorial status.
Hell, seeing as how the whole raison d'etre for separation seems to be "for a few more bucks" that should make separatists happy; no more provincial sales tax!
 

And no more investment and fewer jobs. People won't invest in an unstable economic environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, herbie said:

For over a decade I've posted umpteen ways Alberta energy fanatics could increase or achieve  some of their goals on multiple forums. All these years and nothing has changed, I can only conclude they just want something to whine about.

Hell, listen to what's posted. Trudeau spends billions to ensure TMX gets built because the oil money said it was too much trouble for their investment but you're blaming him for them not building more pipelines. They see the writing on the wall, listen to your corporate Overlords. Not worth the investment. You think PP will build oil pipelines with tax dollars?

FFS Asia just might buy LNG. They're transitioning from oil. If you can come up with a way to ship stuff all the way down the coast, through the Panama Canal and all the way to Europe cheaper than from the Middle East they might be interested.
Otherwise the market for Alberta oil is and will continue to be N America, so make an effort to maximize it.

I've been involved in designing and building pipelines most of my life.  I did projects in NS, NB, QC, MB, SK, AB and BC so I have some experience.

TMX will be a disaster waiting to happen.  Shipping that much oil through Vancouver harbour and the Strait of Juan de Fuca is not wise.  It was a political decision made by a drama teacher and his friends.  Once TMX starts up (if it does and that's still a big if) public outcry and real safety concerns will shut it down and that's just what Ottawa wants, but Vancouver might pay a heavy price with a major spill.  Throwing away $20 billion on TMX is nothing compared to $576 billion on COVID so that doesn't concern Trudeau.

The Northern Gateway line (but to Prince Rupert) is the one that made engineering and environmental sense.  That one would have worked and BC could have benefited by developing a second major export port, taking the pressure off the lower mainland and the inside passage and having tankers safely go directly to the open ocean.

Sadly BC might get what they want but at a huge cost.  If BC had thought about it they could have benefited economically and environmentally by supporting NG but they fell for Ottawa's trick. 

Edited by Tony Hladun
  • Thanks 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,698
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    IPEM Group of Institutions
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Ethan Wylde earned a badge
      First Post
    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...