Paul Cellucci doesn't get it. How sad.

[Uzi]

@wolfstu

Uzi, I don’t know if you still stand by the argument that Ontario has already absorbed Alberta by virtue of having more votes in the House of Commons, but it seems kind of silly… The idea that federal politics which might favour Ontario is equivalent to Ontario having annexed Alberta is… quite a stretch, no?

Not really. Granted there are two separate governments and they have two different agendas at times. Take a look at oil revenues in the Newfoundland for example. The Federal government wanted those revenues for itself and only after much hue and cry did they relent. Why not just give them the revenues immediately? It would seem obvious that it would benefit a place like Nfld and maybe remove the dependence on transfer payments to that province. Yet, the obvious solution for the politicians was to keep it for themselves. As the largest block of voters in Canada is by far in the middle of the country then they effectively control the country and this reflects it. It is only by hue and cry do things change on the peripheral. If there was a time that Ontario was really pissed by Alberta then they could, using their power in the Federal government, change things to their advantage.

How far does that extend? For example:

• Why have provinces at all? Why have municipalities, or school boards?

I don’t know why there are municipalities when in large centers like Calgary they have a number of MLA’s representing them. Hire a manager for the city and have the MLA’s monitor them. School boards should be eliminated entirely and run by the Ministry responsible for Education. If you don’t like what is going on in your area you go to your MLA who then takes it to the Minister who is at his same level.

• Was the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (that split the Northwest Territories in two) a bad thing?

Dammed if I know. I don’t know enough about it. But, I see no reason for separating things in general, nor giving people large hand outs of cash in the process. I also don’t like a separation based upon cultural traits. Eliminate the cultural and all you have left is people who generally want the same sort of things from life. The only way I could justify a separation is for practical administrative purposes and if those cultural philosophies are so out of sync with each eg. Capitalism and Communism. Otherwise why separate people?

“What is your position on the absorption of Alberta by Ontario, to become a part of that province?”

I think I’ve answered this question many times already. To what purpose is it posed again? If you are attempting to catch me in some irregularity in my logic, then I’ll tell you now that the statements I have made in regards to this matter are what I think at the moment and not something that I’ll loose sleep over if proved wrong. At one time I was definitely an advocate for Alberta to separate from Canada as that would be the best thing for Albertans. It still would be the best thing for Albertans if I was only concerned with the welfare of Albertans. Where I work, tribalism is the norm. It not only creates division among neighbours, but hinders the government in trying to implement changes that would benefit all society. The worst part of it is the distrust between the tribes that in many cases leads to violence. Violence that wouldn’t occur if that tribal divide didn’t exist.
I think that arbitrary lines drawn on a map only make it easier to denigrate those people on the other side of that line. It pushes people apart rather than drawing them closer. The current model of government in Canada is based upon being able to managed regions in a time where communications between areas was difficult. That is changing. Those lines on the map should change with them.

[wolfstu]

@Uzi

Not really. Granted there are two separate governments and they have two different agendas at times. Take a look at oil revenues in the Newfoundland for example. The Federal government wanted those revenues for itself and only after much hue and cry did they relent. Why not just give them the revenues immediately? It would seem obvious that it would benefit a place like Nfld and maybe remove the dependence on transfer payments to that province. Yet, the obvious solution for the politicians was to keep it for themselves. As the largest block of voters in Canada is by far in the middle of the country then they effectively control the country and this reflects it.

I really don’t see the dispute over offshore oil revenues having anything to do with Ontario trying to get what it wants at the expense of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Seems to me the Feds wouldn’t mind a share of the revenue from a lucrative resouce, and so do those two provincial governments. I rather expect that any governmet would be looking to get as much revenue as it can to help it balance its books. The more you’ve got the more you can spend on your policies and initiatives. I seriously don’t see the Ontario members of the cabinet egging the PM on with “Go, Marty, steal from the poor and give to us.”

If there was a time that Ontario was really pissed by Alberta then they could, using their power in the Federal government, change things to their advantage.

Who’s “Ontario”? The Provincial government which has as many disputes with the Feds as anybody else? (In the last federal election, the Martin team pretty much told the Ontario premier to shut up and butt out.) The Ontario members of Parliament who might catch a whim to screw Alberta? The population of Ontario, who mght decide en masse to wish ill on Alberta and let their representatives in Ottawa know about it? Who’s going to get pissed, and how are they going to take out their frustrations on Alberta?

I don’t know why there are municipalities when in large centers like Calgary they have a number of MLA’s representing them. Hire a manager for the city and have the MLA’s monitor them. School boards should be eliminated entirely and run by the Ministry responsible for Education. If you don’t like what is going on in your area you go to your MLA who then takes it to the Minister who is at his same level.

I’d need more than this to debate, but I’ll suggest that there’s something to the “Subsidiarity Principle”, in which decisions are made at the lowest level reasonable, close to the citizen.

Dammed if I know. I don’t know enough about it. But, I see no reason for separating things in general, nor giving people large hand outs of cash in the process.

Two of the main arguments for the creation of Nunavut were, as I recall, the cultural, linguistic, and ethnic differences between the people os the Eastern Arctic and those in the West, and the impracticality of governing scattered settlements totaling a few tens of thousands of persons in some 2 million square kilometres of polar iceland.

I also don’t like a separation based upon cultural traits. Eliminate the cultural and all you have left is people who generally want the same sort of things from life. The only way I could justify a separation is for practical administrative purposes and if those cultural philosophies are so out of sync with each eg. Capitalism and Communism. Otherwise why separate people?

Cultural traits may not impress you, but they mean a lot to some people. It’s been a big force behind the nationalist movement in Quebec. A few years ago, Belgium broke one of its provinces in two because, in essence, the French and Flemish couldn’t get along. Just last year frantic negotiations failed to unite the divided island of Cyprus under even the weakest of centralized governments, prior to accession to the European Union. One side of the island if full of Turks, the other of Greeks.

Eliminate the cultural and all you have left is people who generally want the same sort of things from life.

Sometimes what they want the same is a homeland each their own. Sometimes what they want is self-government, rather than even the most benevolent assembly that feels far away. Heck, I’ve even read Alberta separatist essays complaining about the far-off Ottawa government and the ignorance of Alberta’s unique cultural character (every bit as distinct a society as Quebec, consarnit!).

I think I’ve answered this question many times already. To what purpose is it posed again? If you are attempting to catch me in some irregularity in my logic, then I’ll tell you now that the statements I have made in regards to this matter are what I think at the moment . . .

Some of us were under the impression that your claims were intended to be part of a coherent position on the matter at hand.

At one time I was definitely an advocate for Alberta to separate from Canada as that would be the best thing for Albertans. It still would be the best thing for Albertans if I was only concerned with the welfare of Albertans.

I’m not sure even the latter is true, but that’s a whole debate unto itself.

Where I work, tribalism is the norm. It not only creates division among neighbours, but hinders the government in trying to implement changes that would benefit all society. The worst part of it is the distrust between the tribes that in many cases leads to violence. Violence that wouldn’t occur if that tribal divide didn’t exist.
I think that arbitrary lines drawn on a map only make it easier to denigrate those people on the other side of that line. It pushes people apart rather than drawing them closer.

I’ll remember that next time I hear about how “the East” is out to gang up on “the West”.

The current model of government in Canada is based upon being able to managed regions in a time where communications between areas was difficult. That is changing. Those lines on the map should change with them.

That they are, and maybe they should. Maybe with some co-operation, they won’t need to. Redrawing the map, after all, would be quite a project.

[Uzi]

@wolfstu

I really don’t see the dispute over offshore oil revenues having anything to do with Ontario … I seriously don’t see the Ontario members of the cabinet egging the PM on with “Go, Marty, steal from the poor and give to us.”

Yet, that is the end result. It has given us things like the NEP. Very few things are done to the detriment of the largest voting blocks in the country.

Who’s “Ontario”?

That would be the largest voting block in the country. If they want something it will happen regardless of what others want.

I’d need more than this to debate, but I’ll suggest that there’s something to the “Subsidiarity Principle”, in which decisions are made at the lowest level reasonable, close to the citizen.

How about leaving the decisions to the people themselves by removing government as much as possible. Can’t get any lower than that. But that is another debate, I’m thinking.

[QUOTE]
Cultural traits may not impress you, but they mean a lot to some people…QUOTE]

And in all those cases the difference in cultures is far greater than between the typical Canadian and the typical American.

Sometimes what they want the same is a homeland each their own. Sometimes what they want is self-government, rather than even the most benevolent assembly that feels far away. Heck, I’ve even read Alberta separatist essays complaining about the far-off Ottawa government and the ignorance of Alberta’s unique cultural character (every bit as distinct a society as Quebec, consarnit!).

In other words people want to feel in control of their own lives? Again better accomplished by removing government from their lives than by duplication of same.

Some of us were under the impression that your claims were intended to be part of a coherent position on the matter at hand.

I don’t know where you got that idea from?
My argument is:
Canada and the US should merge because we are more alike than not.
-The answer was no this should not occur because we are different.
My argument is:
Then if difference is all that matters then why should Alberta be part of Canada? And as another brought up, North and South Alberta. You can break it down to the smallest common denominator if you want to.
-Everyone agrees, I’m pretty sure, that this is ridiculous.
My argument is:
If differences are not the determining factor for not doing something then what is? If it is as you say that people want to have government closer to them then there should be something demonstratable that this gives them a benefit vs. just spending more on bureacrats and politicians.

I’ll remember that next time I hear about how “the East” is out to gang up on “the West”.

I’m the first to not claim perfection in my actions and my thoughts. As this change in my thinking is relatively new, I am still thinking through some of the contradictions and arguments. It has been something I’ve been going through having worked overseas for these last 4 years. Whether my philosophy is workable in the real world is another matter entirely. It is always easier to break things apart than to join them together, it seems.

That they are, and maybe they should. Maybe with some co-operation, they won’t need to. Redrawing the map, after all, would be quite a project.

If people want to then all it takes is an eraser.

[Gorsnak]

Jeez this is ridiculous. I start this thread because I’m annoyed that the US is trying to steamroll Canada. Now Uzi takes exception to this because it’s fine for the US to steamroll Canada, but he’s pissed that 25 years ago “The East” steamrolled Alberta. Give it a fucking rest, already. Pierre’s dead. And if you can be pissed off at Trudeau 25 years after the fact, surely I can be pissed at Cellucci a week after the fact.

[Uzi]

@Gorsnak

Jeez this is ridiculous. I start this thread because I’m annoyed that the US is trying to steamroll Canada. Now Uzi takes exception to this because it’s fine for the US to steamroll Canada, but he’s pissed that 25 years ago “The East” steamrolled Alberta. Give it a fucking rest, already. Pierre’s dead. And if you can be pissed off at Trudeau 25 years after the fact, surely I can be pissed at Cellucci a week after the fact.

Well, if you think some US bureaucrat is in a position to ‘steamroll’ Canada by voicing his opinion then by all means, feel free. Not that you need my permission, of course.

PS. The attitude that gave rise to the NEP is still alive in the attitude of the Federal government. The same Liberal party that was in power back then. See Nfld’s and Nova Scotia’s battle to get the rights to the oil in their backyard. Another party may have addressed the issue completely differently.

[Gorsnak]

A US ambassador making veiled threats and generally acting like a bully certainly is trying to coerce us, even if he lacks the political ability to do so in a decisive fashion. I can bloody well pit him for his behaviour if I want to.

As for your whining on about events a quarter century past, why don’t you start your own thread lamenting how western Canada is mistreated by Ontario, okay? I promise not to barge into it and start bitching about something completely unrelated, like, say, the injustice of conscription being imposed on Quebec in WWI when they were hugely opposed to it.

[Uzi]

@Gorsnak

A US ambassador making veiled threats and generally acting like a bully certainly is trying to coerce us, even if he lacks the political ability to do so in a decisive fashion. I can bloody well pit him for his behaviour if I want to.

Of which I answered a person who felt threatened because of the US and their ambassador as to a possible solution for their fears. That was in keeping with the original bitch of this thread. Others responded to those comments and not to yours. Yet, I think because you agree with their ideas and not mine, you seek to blame me for the derailment.

So a resounding fuck off to you, my ‘not’ friend. I feel no happier of the derailment than you do, but I understand once released from the mind of its owner a thread has a life of its own. So, learn to deal with it.

[Gorsnak]

Goodness but you’re an unpleasant fellow.

For the record, I don’t feel threatened by Cellucci. I think he’s an asshole. He pisses me off. Which, if I’m not mistaken, is exactly the sentiment which can be found in the OP. I don’t see how the US annexing Canada would be a “solution” to Paul Cellucci’s being an asshole. In fact, I don’t see how it’s relevant to my original complaint at all.

Now, you are of course completely within your rights to continue this inane and irrelevant hijack concerning dead Liberals. I can’t say I wouldn’t understand if you did. Harbouring so much resentment for so long must take a lot of effort, and so I can see how you’d need to bitch about the NEP in forums like this, just so that you could witness again how non-Albertans just don’t give a fuck about it, and you can buff your resentment up to a brand new shine. So go ahead. Prove to yourself that you’re misunderstood and unfairly dismissed. I hope you find deep and lastly satisfaction and personal fulfillment in successfully nursing your grudge.

:wally

[Uzi]

@Gorsnak

Goodness but you’re an unpleasant fellow.

For the record, I don’t feel threatened by Cellucci. I think he’s an asshole. He pisses me off. Which, if I’m not mistaken, is exactly the sentiment which can be found in the OP. I don’t see how the US annexing Canada would be a “solution” to Paul Cellucci’s being an asshole. In fact, I don’t see how it’s relevant to my original complaint at all.

If there was no ambassador from the US then there would be no need to listen to Cellucci. One way to accomplish this is to join with the US, not be annexed as wolfstu was worried about. Yes, I am unpleasant with people who can’t think past their noses.

[The_Tooth]

If we were to join with the U.S., we’d be part of nuclear proliferation program much of the population of Canada wants no part of. This is somehow a solution to the U.S. ambassador’s criticism of our not wanting to be part of it?

Wha?

[Uzi]

@The Tooth

If we were to join with the U.S., we’d be part of nuclear proliferation program much of the population of Canada wants no part of. This is somehow a solution to the U.S. ambassador’s criticism of our not wanting to be part of it?

Wha?

Or, being part of a combined Canada/US would give you influence enough to stop that which you don’t like. You’d certainly have more influence as a citizen of that combined nation than you do now, don’t you think?

Also, you’d better watch it because Gorsnak will be blaming me again for derailing his thread by answering questions like this.

[The_Tooth]

@Uzi

Or, being part of a combined Canada/US would give you influence enough to stop that which you don’t like. You’d certainly have more influence as a citizen of that combined nation than you do now, don’t you think?

No, not a bit. Not regarding a missile defense system. I don’t recall a referendum on the subject being held in the States.

If you don’t like the way the East treats the West, and by extension you, why don’t you head East? That would seem to be the equivalent solution to your problem with the way the West is powerless before the mighty juggernaut Ontario.

[Gorsnak]

@Uzi

If there was no ambassador from the US then there would be no need to listen to Cellucci. One way to accomplish this is to join with the US, not be annexed as wolfstu was worried about. Yes, I am unpleasant with people who can’t think past their noses.

You seem to be under the illusion that I am pissed off that the US has an ambassador to Canada. This, however, is not the case, as may be inferred from the last bit of the OP, where I suggest (albeit somewhat scornfully) that the solution to Mr. Cellucci’s problem of being a complete jackass is that he learn some tact. I have no problem with the US ambassador lobbying for the interest of the US. I just want him not to be an overbearing asshole about it. That you appear to be compelled to view my rant as somehow anti-American demonstrates only that it is you who can’t think past your nose. Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

[Uzi]

@Gorsnak

That you appear to be compelled to view my rant as somehow anti-American demonstrates only that it is you who can’t think past your nose. Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

Well, if you’d get over yourself long enough to realize that, as I stated in about a half dozen posts before this one, that I was originally responding to wolfstu’s worries and concerns, not yours. Fer cryin’ out loud, dude! Lol!

[Grey]

@Uzi

Or, being part of a combined Canada/US would give you influence enough to stop that which you don’t like. You’d certainly have more influence as a citizen of that combined nation than you do now, don’t you think?

Also, you’d better watch it because Gorsnak will be blaming me again for derailing his thread by answering questions like this.

We did this a while back. Ah here we go.. Basically Canada would have as much influence as California. At a provincial/state level, Alberta would have less influence that Virgina. That might give Uzi as few more states to feel oppressed by of course, but it’s hardly a solution to the overwhelming hammer blows of Ottawa. :rolleyes:

[Uzi]

@Grey

That might give Uzi as few more states to feel oppressed by of course, but it’s hardly a solution to the overwhelming hammer blows of Ottawa. :rolleyes:

Whatever. You obviously are the typical Canadian who says they ‘love’ Americans but if someone suggested that you join them you’d act like you just stepped in dog shit.

[Grey]

@Uzi

Whatever. You obviously are the typical Canadian who says they ‘love’ Americans but if someone suggested that you join them you’d act like you just stepped in dog shit.

No I’m the uniquely Grey Canadian that quite likes the Americans and their system of government, is related to a bunch of them yet finds intrinsic value in running our own little social experiment in democratic federalism up here.

[Kimstu]

Uzi: You obviously are the typical Canadian who says they ‘love’ Americans but if someone suggested that you join them you’d act like you just stepped in dog shit.

Huh? Why should the two reactions be mutually exclusive? I can think of a bunch of countries whose people I love (on the whole), but I sure wouldn’t want to merge my borders and national governments with theirs.

As a USAn, I don’t see anything contradictory at all in a Canadian liking us but not wanting to be officially part of our country. “Stepped in dogshit” is IMO not at all too strong a negative reaction to the prospect of relinquishing your national sovereignty, no matter how fond you are personally of the people whose country you’d be joining.

[RickJay]

@Uzi

PS. The attitude that gave rise to the NEP is still alive in the attitude of the Federal government. The same Liberal party that was in power back then. See Nfld’s and Nova Scotia’s battle to get the rights to the oil in their backyard.

Oh, what a load of horseshit. Newfoundland doesn’t just want “oil rights.” They want to keep the oil money AND STILL GET HANDOUTS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT - even after the oil money makes Newfoundland a “Have” province. In other words, they want to keep all the money and be paid handouts as if they’re not keeping any money. It’s exactly akin to someone saying “Give me welfare cheques now, and keep giving them to me even after I get a good paying job.”

And with respect to Americans, yes, I think they’re great, and I still wouldn’t want to join them in a zillion years. I work with Americans fifty, maybe a hundred days a year, and they’re the nicest folks on earth. I have defended them from various assholes on this board - we’ve had Canadians say things like “all Americans are greedy” and other such lies - and will continue to do so. But I still prefer Canada and want it to be independent. I like Japan, too, but I don’t want Canada to join Japan. I love my best friend but I don’t want to move into his house. I like my job but I don’t want to sleep in my office. It’s absurd to think those sentiments are mutually exclusive.

And I’m still curious as to why it is, if Ontario does whatever it wants, we still end up paying our money to other provinces.

[Grey]

@Grey

No I’m the uniquely Grey Canadian that quite likes the Americans and their system of government, is related to a bunch of them yet finds intrinsic value in running our own little social experiment in democratic federalism up here.

Though to be fair I’ve often wondered if Canada would benefit from a union with the US in a manner similar to that of Scotland when it submitted to the Act of Union. I’m currently on the no side of that debate but I’ve raised some nice objections to my points and I might be able to persuade myself to switch.