Ricki Bobbi Posted November 7, 2006 Report Posted November 7, 2006 That had to be the most random post I've ever seen. NEP to nukes to keep the yanks away? Wha?!!?Anyways, Alberta's concerns are not egotistical. At least, the RoC doesn't say anything Quebec complains in a similar manner despite contributing very little in real terms to the country. Alberta should be partaged? Did he mean portaged? I guess you could do it but it would be pretty cold and you would need super solid canoes. Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
gerryhatrick Posted November 7, 2006 Report Posted November 7, 2006 It's about time that Alberta quite whining about the NEP, duh? Quote Conservative Party of Canada taking image advice from US Republican pollster: http://allpoliticsnow.com
geoffrey Posted November 7, 2006 Report Posted November 7, 2006 It's about time that Alberta quite whining about the NEP, duh? It's about time Eastern Canada gave us a fair deal. Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
rogue state Posted November 7, 2006 Report Posted November 7, 2006 yeah, nukes. I'm pretty sure Canada can make them. The Americans sure don't like nukes. Neither pointed at them, nor given to their "friends". See all their whining about Iran, North Korea, Syria. Fair deal ? if Alberta wants to leave, maybe pay down the federal debt. Sounds fair to me, being so rich and all. Mahmoud Ghalehnoii Quote
rogue state Posted November 7, 2006 Report Posted November 7, 2006 rich people are never contended. the more you give to them, the more they want. they are a individualistic, insatiable folk, and they want to conserve their wealth. that's why, they will never be happy with any deal, other than complete independence. and this never happened without some, let's say, friction. so, better get ready for some friction or to make a good compromise , from the Albertan side. Quote
Figleaf Posted November 7, 2006 Report Posted November 7, 2006 Several points: 1. I agree with both August and Geoffrey about debt. Responsible use of debt is a perfectly appropriate government policy for the reasons they've given. A few things should be avoided however: financing current expenditures, locking in long term at high rates, and allowing foreign debt to exceed domestic ability to reabsorb the debt. 2. Rogue state probably meant 'partition' Alberta. I wouldn't target Alberta particularly for that, but I do think most Canadian provinces are too large and unwieldy. I think many of them should be partitioned: -Ontario into Southwest, Centre-East, Northern, and GTA; -Quebec into St.Laurent, Nord, and GMA; -Alberta into North and South, -BC into Vancouver Island and other islands, Mainland, and GVA; I'm not sure the others would profit from division, though there's an argument for combining the Maritimes. 3. Canada should definitely have nukes. It's a dangerous world and the demonstrated reality is that states with nukes have pretty effectively immunized themselves from strategic threats. Quote
mcqueen625 Posted November 7, 2006 Report Posted November 7, 2006 John Brussa, the architect of the first energy trust, says some Conservatives are tearing up party memberships in protest."This is akin to the NEP," said Brussa, a director of Progress Energy Trust, chairman of Penn West Energy Trust and partner with Burnet, Duckworth and Palmer in Calgary. "It's a bunch of people in Ottawa making decisions that severely affect peoples' lives here," he said. The oil industry fears they are now vulnerable to takeovers by American companies. This move of a revised NEP by Harper is damaging to all small energy business in Alberta. Flaherty should listen to Liberal finance critic John McCallum. He says that existing income trusts should be grandfathered while putting a hold on any further income trusts being formed. Flaherty would also have been wise to consult the Liberal paper on September 8, 2005 regarding consultations on IT instead of just kicking dirt in the face of the Alberta energy sector. "We launched consultations because of our concern about how the increased use of this type of business vehicle may affect economic growth," said Minister Goodale. "We have a viable and productive corporate sector that invests, creates jobs and contributes its fair share of tax. I want to make sure that government tax revenues are appropriately safeguarded, but even more importantly I want strong and vibrant Canadian enterprises of all sizes in all sectors contributing to a dynamic and growing economy." In the end Ralph Goodale's announcement was good news for income trust investors -- and those who buy dividend-paying stocks. He reversed his earlier plan to possibly tax the trusts. He also decided to cut taxes on dividends, to help dividend-paying stocks look as attractive to investors as the popular income trusts do. The lying Tory's hammered the Liberals during this period with crys of taxing seniors, blah, blah, blah and their promise of never taxing income trusts, which many seniors use the income of to pay living expenses. Also luring many seniors to invest their savings into income trust thinking that their hard work paid off and they could enjoy their retirement in peace with a Con government. IN THEIR OWN WORDS... 'We are supporters of income trusts and we oppose tax measures that would raise taxes on income trusts.' Conservative finance critic Monte Solberg Jan. 12, 2006 'A Conservative government will: . . . Stop the Liberal attack on retirement savings and preserve income trusts by not imposing any new taxes on them.' Conservative federal election platform Jan. 13, 2006 Taxes lost by corporations paying their earnings into income trust amount to around $800 million. Not much when comparing the federal surplus to be $13 billion last year and already $6 billion this year. Grandfathering any trust leaves the door open for more trusts in the future, and that will result as Flarety says in putting the full tax burden on ordinary Canadians. Individuals in this country already pay the lion's share of taxes in this country and trusts will ensure that individuals would eventually end up paying the whole thing, while corporate bums walk away to bank their money off-shore where the tax-man can't get his hands on their money. The Irving's from New Brunswick are a private empire and before K.C.'s death he gave up Canadian citizenship and moved to Bermuda so that the tax-man could not get their fair share of the money, yet this corporate bum still holds out their hands for lucrative government money. Quote
Recommended Posts
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.