Jump to content
calgarydave

Alberta Debt Free

Recommended Posts

like Newfoundland and cod...oh wait...maybe PEI and potatoes...wait, those too...despite all the bitching ontarians and albertans do, federal transfer payments are necessary for those provinces that are not loaded with natural resources, or for those provinces that are not the economic centre of the country.

 

I understand that they are needed for other provinces, but do you not think that the "poorer" provinces should be able to find a way to increase their revenue? Whether they are the economic center of the country or not. I'm not saying that the Federal government should stop equalization payments. I'm merely suggesting that they are too much...unless I worded what I said before wrong.

With what? There really isn't much else in PEI or Newfoundland, minus the offshore oil and natural gas (which I think has only recently been put under Newfoundland control).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole thing is really twisting my position around..I think I'm going to just say I'm neutral at the moment.

 

If you want to hear it for yourself. You win. Now, back onto topic about Alberta being debt free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol I should add a couple more things.

 

I dont have the stats to back this up, but it has always been my understanding that Quebec pulls in more than they should based on the formula. This is one of the big reasons why people get annoyed. IF you look over the past 40 year or so Quebec has taken out just as much as Alberta has put in.

 

The other big complaint I have, is I belive under the new deal Newfoundland gets a big chunk of thier offshore oil resevers, despite technically they dont have the rights too them. (The oil is beyond the border of thier province as set out in the constitution or BNA or whatever las determines it). Now I'm not saying that they dont deserve to have access to it, but our concern is where aer the feds going to make up that money? Well NFLD should have thier transfer payments adjusted to reflect thier new found income, and currently I dont belive that it will be.

 

Lastly a lot of us are worried that the feds might implement a new law based on the fact that we are debt free, to try and take more of our money. This has been attempted before *cough* NEP *cough*. It quite often seems like Ottawa sees us as no more than a big bag with a giant $ on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the transfer payments were adjusted there would be no point in them keeping revenue from offshore oil. Newfoundland is a province that has seen its natural resources completely raped since joining Canada. They need all the money they can get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol yeah but they joined Canada cause Britan really didnt want them anymore ;)

Also as I said technically its not THIER resources, under the relevant law they are beyond the border of a province. My numbers arent accurate but for the sake of argument the law states a province extends 10km into the water but the oil is 50km away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually, part of the reason NF joined Confederation was because of a debate over what to do with a provincial surplus. Newfoundland was ruled by a commission government, which basically meant that Britain was deciding what to do with all that money. The Brits were saving the money for another depression, like after WWI, but because of the Cold War there wasn't a depression. People were still starving in the streets and they naturally were a little fed up with having no say in the matter. Originally the choice for people from Newfoundland was either to bring back responsible government, or continue with the commission government for five more years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know but its much more fun to claim that britan didnt want them.

 

However I truely belive that the French dint want Quebec way back when. Why cause the colonly was losing tons of money so they had reason to loose it, and secondly they really didnt commit to protecting it during the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, I know. We were Britain's largest ally for most of the war. My point though is, what do we need an army for? I don't see people lining up to invade our country. Perhaps a small self defense force (like the old Japanese model, I'm not sure if it still applies though) would be a better way to spend the taxpayers' money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey remember that Canada after WW2 had the 3rd largest army in the world. While I'll agree that our idenity as a country doesnt warrant a large army, I do think we need to put a bit more money into it as we're pretty pathetic right now.

THANK YOU DAVE!!!

 

I agree 100%. Our military is inept. We don't need a big mliltary, just a little more funding so that what we have now can actually function.

 

I never thought i'd find someone who agreed with me on this issue on a message-board such as this where the majority of members are left-leaning.

 

But maybe its not so suprising, since you are from Alberta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know but its much more fun to claim that britan didnt want them.

 

However I truely belive that the French dint want Quebec way back when. Why cause the colonly was losing tons of money so they had reason to loose it, and secondly they really didnt commit to protecting it during the war.

They wanted the colony, yes, but their army was already tied up in the Napoleanic wars. Besides that, the battle at Quebec was largely a stalemate until a British warship came up the St. Lawrence with fresh supplies for the troops so they could win, and then the French retreated to Montreal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But having an army acts is for more than just self defense.

IT raises patriotism, and is one of the largest employers of blue collar workers.

So a large portion of the money spent filters directly back into the economy. Plus if the army uses canadian contractor for all their hardware it creates even more jobs.

 

 

Encarf, sorry but your mistaken there, first off the 7 years war was around 1759 (when Quebec city was taken over) and the Napoleonic wars were from 1804-1815, so the 2 events are relativily unrelated.

 

The purpose being to try and take over each others colonies, in this case being Quebec, and the french didnt put much of an effort to defend.

 

THe English were acutally outnumbered in the area. In Quebec city there were more french regulars, than british regulars, but overall more british troops. However a few days march up the St. Laurence the french had another army consitting of againg more french regulars than the brits had seiging quebec city, and overall the same number of troops.

 

However the french commander (cant remember his name) made a mistake, he could've easily sent a runner to get the other french army to attack the brits from behind and destroyed them but he was too "honorable" to do this and marched his troops out to meet Wolfe.

 

Had he waited the brits would've had to retreat, and see how winter was coming the british admrimal wouldv'e had to sail his ships back out to sea or else risk them getting stuck in the ice (and becoming sitting ducks).

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
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.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.