Alberta is rich with oil, but what has it got to show for it?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Simple. There is no legal entity call a citizen of Alberta. You are citizen of a country, not a province. Canadian citizens in Alberta are residents of that province.

Ahahaha!
You and your SEMANTICS. Christ.

Obviously when we say "citizen of Alberta" we mean "RESIDENT OF ALBERTA". (Couldn't you figure that out instead of basing your ENTIRE argument off of a semantic and waited until NOW to point it out?)

[Asher]

Let's try this again.
Alberta, the province, owns the minerals in Alberta.
The Alberta Government is elected by RESIDENTS of Alberta to serve the needs and desires of the RESIDENTS of Alberta and to manage the assets of Alberta (ie, minerals) and other matters of PROVINCIAL INTEREST.

Again: the Alberta Government exists to serve the interests of the residents of that province, NOT Canada. Canada's interests are served by the federal government. Obviously, only residents of Alberta (there are restrictions) can vote for the Alberta Government. Since Canada does not select the Alberta Government, it does not serve Canada's interests, but Alberta residents.

Comprende?

[notyoueither]

Tell you what Tingkai. Hypothetical.

The feds do something to truely piss off Alberta and BC. On some hypothetical day, both BC and Alberta vote positively in a referendum to secede from Canada. A joint mission form the two provinces approach the government of the USofA seeking guarantees of our rights. The US says yes.

Now the M1 Abrams are parked in Ft McMurray. What force does your concept of citizenship have then?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Let's try this again.
Alberta, the province, owns the minerals in Alberta.
The Alberta Government is elected by RESIDENTS of Alberta to serve the needs and desires of the RESIDENTS of Alberta and to manage the assets of Alberta (ie, minerals) and other matters of PROVINCIAL INTEREST.

Again: the Alberta Government exists to serve the interests of the residents of that province, NOT Canada. Canada's interests are served by the federal government. Obviously, only residents of Alberta (there are restrictions) can vote for the Alberta Government. Since Canada does not select the Alberta Government, it does not serve Canada's interests, but Alberta residents.

Comprende?

Simple concept: there is a big difference between resident and citizenship. Simply being a resident (e.g. a Brit living in Calgary) does not give you the same rights as other citizens.

The Alberta government serves the interests of Canadians living in Alberta, but not the interest of all residents (e.g. the Brit living in Calgary). Every Canadian has the right to live in Alberta. Therefore, the Alberta government represents Canadian citizens. Is that so hard to understand?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Simple concept: there is a big difference between resident and citizenship. Simply being a resident (e.g. a Brit living in Calgary) does not give you the same rights as other citizens.

But we're not talking about international. This discussion was about legal voters in Alberta. Legal residents that can vote.

The Alberta government serves the interests of Canadians living in Alberta, but not the interest of all residents (e.g. the Brit living in Calgary). Every Canadian has the right to live in Alberta. Therefore, the Alberta government represents Canadian citizens. Is that so hard to understand?

Ah, very subtle tweaking of your words with an entirely different meaning.

The Alberta government represents Canadian citizens, true. It does not represent ALL Canadian citizens like you said.

The Alberta government represents the people that vote for the Alberta government. Which, as it turns out, are legal residents of Alberta and also Canadian citizens. Note the "and". You must be a legal resident of Alberta.

It is certainly not ALL like you said.

Here is what you said, word for word:

The jurisdiction over the mineral rights of that land is dealt with by the provincial government on behalf of all Canadians, not just those who happen to live in a given province.

Clearly not the case.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Tell you what Tingkai. Hypothetical.

The feds do something to truely piss off Alberta and BC. On some hypothetical day, both BC and Alberta vote positively in a referendum to secede from Canada. A joint mission form the two provinces approach the government of the USofA seeking guarantees of our rights. The US says yes.

Now the M1 Abrams are parked in Ft McMurray. What force does your concept of citizenship have then?

If this occurred before an separation agreement was made with Ottawa then it would be a recognized act of war, an invasion by the United States. The European members of NATO would be obliged to provide help Canada defend its borders. NATO would be ripped apart by conflicting interests. The international community would be free to provide aid to the Canadian government. Civil war breaks out in the two provinces.

In short, all hell breaks loose. Which is why the American government would not respond to the initial request, just as Britian stayed out of the American Civil War.

[Tingkai]

Asher: Maybe this will help you understand.

Who gave the Alberta government the right to manage mineral rights.

[notyoueither]

aHahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Asher]

Hmm. I think you'd be hard pressed to find international members of the community that'd help you keep a hold of provinces that clearly voted in a democratic function to get the h*ll out of the country.

After all, we can legally separate with a vote. If we meet those legal requirements, as a clear desire for the provinces to separate, I seriously doubt any European country would send forces to make Alberta & BC part of Canada. Particularly when facing the Americans.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Asher: Maybe this will help you understand.

Who gave the Alberta government the right to manage mineral rights.

Now now, this ain't no Indian gift.

You gave the rights, it's ours and YOU AIN'T GETTIN IT.

Think of it this way: If I give you an apple, whose apple is it? Mine, or yours? Or in this case, is it Canada's because they provided the land for me to give the apple in the first place?

And it's not just "manage mineral rights". Canada GAVE the rights to Alberta. Alberta is the crown owner of the minerals under the soil. Therefore it is ours, regardless of who gave it to us originally.

Should we let The Bay take the mineral rights for the land it once owned and gave to Canada?

[notyoueither]

Actually.... the rights devolve from the crown. Now, in the case of Nfld, NS, PEI, NS, PQ, ON and BC, the colony predates confederation. The people of those provinces elected to join.

In the case of MN, SK and AB, these provinces were created from federal crown lands. Does that mean that the three western provinces enjoy some kind of second-class provincial rights, Tingkai?

I believe that Ohio was also settled while under US federal jurisdiction. Does that mean that Ohio is not equal to New York within the union?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Think of it this way: If I give you an apple, whose apple is it? Mine, or yours? Or in this case, is it Canada's because they provided the land for me to give the apple in the first place?

Think of it this way. There is an apple orchard owned by a family. The family hires someone to manage the apples and it is agreed that the profits from the orchard will stay on the property. All the family members are allowed to live on the orchard property, and if they do, they get the benefits from the profits. As well, they have voting rights to elect the orchard management as long as they live on the Orchard property.

Or they can move to the family property in the city, but none of the orchard profit can be spent on the family house in the city and if they live in the city they don't get the right to vote on the management.

Cousin joe was born in the city. He doesn't get any orchard benefits, but he has the right to move back to the orchard at any time and enjoy the same benefits of those who stayed on the Orchard. He is still an owner of the orchard.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Think of it this way. There is an apple orchard owned by a family. The family hires someone to manage the apples and it is agreed that the profits from the orchard will stay on the property. All the family members are allowed to live on the orchard property, and if they do, they get the benefits from the profits. As well, they have voting rights to elect the orchard management as long as they live on the Orchard property.

But that's not what happened.

There is an apple orchard owned by a family. The family gives the apple orchard away.

It seems your argument revolves around Canada allowing Alberta to "manage" it, but that implies it'a temporary work deferal or something.

Canada gave the rights to the minerals to Alberta. Thus it's ours unless Canada goes through legal motions and changes the law, at which point Alberta would certainly secede.

[Flubber]

I took tingkai's analogy a little different in that the manager is the government (provincial) while the family is all the citizens of Canada. The local family can benefit now but all of the extended family have every right to move into the country and share the benefits.

Given that every Canadian citizen has mobility rights, it is important to realize that the rights of a"Alberta resident" to Alberta resources is as transient or as permanent as the particular persons residency.

Asher, you have moved in and out of this province and I have recently moved here . . . but we are both " entitled" to the resources of this province to the same degree. So the argument and semantics over residency and citizenship are just that, semantics. I still find the argument a little self serving and shallow when it seems to be -- " I live here so its mine and I'll only share with people that come live here too"

[notyoueither]

Quite correct about rights of other Canadians to relocate here and to enjoy all the benefits and obligations of residency. Similar to how things are arranged in the US.

However, the fact that the borders of Alberta are not national, does not mean that Alberta does not own mineral rights. Nor does it mean that the people of Quebec or PEI have some sort of claim on those minerals.

The simple fact is, until you relocate to Alberta you may very well have potential rights to do so, but you have no other rights what so ever until you do so. And BTW, you'll have to establish a permanent residence and live here for at least 6 months before you get any say in government (like any other province). So it's not quite so simple as blowing through and asking for your ballot during an election.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Quite correct about rights of other Canadians to relocate here and to enjoy all the benefits and obligations of residency. Similar to how things are arranged in the US.

However, the fact that the borders of Alberta are not national, does not mean that Alberta does not own mineral rights. Nor does it mean that the people of Quebec or PEI have some sort of claim on those minerals.

The simple fact is, until you relocate to Alberta you may very well have potential rights to do so, but you have no other rights what so ever until you do so. And BTW, you'll have to establish a permanent residence and live here for at least 6 months before you get any say in government (like any other province). So it's not quite so simple as blowing through and asking for your ballot during an election.

I know (been here 8 months and plan to stay). I agree with everything you said. I was just trying to say show Asher that status as an Albertan is pretty quickly gained or lost. All those other " Canadians" he seems to find it so difficult to share with through things like the federal transfer payments all have the right to come here.

[Garth Vader]

Asher, although you made the comment 100's of posts ago the NDP is Sask has been a great fiscal government.

The PC's spent money like drunken bums, building hospitals for every town with a few hundred people, stupid programs where the government pays people to renovate their houses. They racked up a massive debt.

The NDP have done a good job despite the problems of being a large, spread out province with a small tax base.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Flubber
I know (been here 8 months and plan to stay). I agree with everything you said. I was just trying to say show Asher that status as an Albertan is pretty quickly gained or lost. All those other " Canadians" he seems to find it so difficult to share with through things like the federal transfer payments all have the right to come here.

I understand that it's pretty easy to become an Albertan, and I was ever arguing to the contrary.

But to say the resources belong to everyone and the provincial government acts in the interests of all Canadians is bull. That's what I was saying.

Garth: So why do the doctors keep hopping the fence?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Asher

Garth: So why do the doctors keep hopping the fence?

That one is pretty easily answered by the things in his own post. A spread out province with a small tax base cannot pay the same salaries as a larger richer province no matter how fiscally competent the government may be

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

But to say the resources belong to everyone and the provincial government acts in the interests of all Canadians is bull. That's what I was saying.

Garth: So why do the doctors keep hopping the fence?

I think we're coming around to an understanding about residency. The whole thing seems to me to have been a bit of a red herring.

re the doctors... maybe for the same reason a lot of Alberta's professionals have gone to the states... brighter lights and more money.

[Asher]

Anyway, I hope Tingkai had his questions answered in the thread.

Tingkai, out of curiosity, you said you have a BA in Economics -- where do you live today and what do you do?

[KrazyHorse]

I can answer those: he's a Canadian ex-pat living in Hong Kong who does freelance journo work.

[Asher]

His economics degree has taken him places, I see.

[KrazyHorse]

You're an ass, Asher, and you're been more than a bit twattish lately...

[Asher]

He doesn't even live here, which is probably why he's so clueless about Alberta to begin with.

Then he throws red herrings and semantic arguments out and slowly changes his stance hoping no one would notice throughout the debate.

It's pretty frustrating.

[KrazyHorse]

You're clueless about Quebec, Asher. I'm probably clueless about Alberta. He's had more experience closer to the Canadian political scene than you and I put together. This doesn't make him an infallible source, but to hear you, a useless student, making fun of him for having a useful career is astounding. And there's no such thing as a "citizen of Alberta".

[Asher]

Do you see me making troll threads about Quebec filled with lies and bull?

KrazyHorse, that was a semantic argument.

Citizen IN Alberta. Are you happy now?

I guarantee he knew that too. But to save face from his blatantly wrong comments earlier he tried to slowly turn it into a semantic argument to distract attention.

And how could ANYONE with a REMOTE CLUE about Canada today say: "The Socreds and the PCs in Alberta have done a terrible job. That's why there are only three million people there. After 50 years of massive oil revenues, pretty much all Alberta has to show for it is a bunch oil rigs."

[KrazyHorse]

You've turned every Can. political thread I started into one about Alberta, including the one I started about Quebec's language law and its relevance to the debate in the US regarding Spanish/English services. Turnabout's fair play.

[Asher]

I talk about Alberta because that's what I know.

I don't know much about Quebec, because I don't care about Quebec. All I know is more money goes into that province than leaves and because of them I have to deal with two languages on my cereal box. They can go away.

I do know about Ontario -- but so does everyone. Noone argues about Ontario, because nothing of interest happens in Ontario.

[notyoueither]

Actually Asher...

Quebec could go away, we'd still have to deal with the 'French fact'. Canada's constitutional history, going all the way back revolves around the presence of the French.

The French will still be here if Quebec leaves. just not as many of them. In fact, many might opt to stay with Canada and ditch Quebec if the separatists ever get their way.