Colby Cosh had some good points on the risks that Alberta took on to develop its oil industry, but ya think I can find them?

I'm just waiting for my Globe-reading, used-to-work-for-Stelco-as-a-metallurgical-scientist father-in-law to make some comments about Alberta's dumb luck with oil, at which time I will respond "yeah, it's just like steel - ya just dig a hole in the ground and up it comes. No brains required!"

"nature is cruel" HAHAHAHA damn that was funny, Kate. How vindictive of nature to deposit all that oil and gas in Alberta and abruptly end at the Saskatchewan border. You rock.

I wish knuckleheads like that would actually read the constitution before they start talking about it...just how many people in this country don't know that the Notwithsatnding clause only applies to the Charter?

Sheesh.

Just to give you an idea how extreme CBC panelist Alan Macleod the constitutional lawyer / "undecided" voter / "CBA Best Liberal Blogger 2004" is:

He recently proposed that Prince Edward Island should have their equalization funding cut for not moving fast enough to implement the Gay Marriage bill. He said this mere weeks after the passage of Bill C-38.

To repeat, provinces which do not step and fetch quickly enough to please Alan and his extreme gay marriage views - views which most Canadians and parliamentarins don't support - should have their equalization money taken away.

Alan is also quite famous among Charter geeks for literally inventing a human right out of thin air: he was the lawyer who got political affiliation "read into" the charter in one of his cases.

Another fine example of the CBC presenting "undecided" voters who are anything but.

Must have been greedy Albertans that surveyed that border 100 years ago!!!

Make no mistake--NEP2 is already in the works.

Headlines of the future, some good some bad, depending on your point of view...

"Heads roll at CBC, CTV, Globe and Mail, Liberal
graft, mail fraud cited."

"It turns out, Liberals Fabricated US/Canada Spat To Win Votes."

"Martin to parents, In fact, child care wait times have been reduced."

"18 years since Chretien cancelled helicopters, Martin says, next year ...for sure..."

"Martin's liberals in free fall."

"Martin's liberals receive funding from
Maurice Strong's china connections."

"Criminal charges pending, liberals jumping ship"

"Gomery insists, I did investigate PM Martin,
I just can't say what I discovered."

"Martin overheard, We can't give the money back,
there is no money to give back."

"Martin to taxpayers, there my ships and they
fly the flag, I damn well choose."

Martin on health care: "My approach is not
Socialism, it is in fact canadian"

"Maurice Strong arrested in NY, feds want to
talk to former canadian PM Paul Martin"

"Former PM Paul Martin has fled Canada, recently
seen in China."

"RCMP announce hundreds of liberals arrested,
Auditor General says it's about time."

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper announces, new
legislation trumping liberal get-out-of-jail
free cards, sweeping reforms."

"Charest trounces seperatists, Quebecers embrace
Harper's conservatives."

"Quebec likes new look senate."

It won't be long....!

Long live truth, justice
and the Stephen Harper way..!

...LoL...

Excellent post as usual, Kate.

I read the article you referenced by this wingnut Potvin calling for a military occupation of Alberta. Who in blazes is this raving lunatic who proposes that our national government invent an "emergency" over oil and throw anyone who opposes it in jail? I sincerely hope that this latter-day Stalinist's influence doesn't extend beyond a couple of trendy coffee houses in downtown Vancouver, or we're really in trouble.

On a side note, I have to wonder just where he would find the troops to engage in all this jackbooted thuggery anyway, given the sorry state of Canada's defense. But, like your typical Marxoid, I doubt that he sees any contradictions in his hate-filled ramblings.

Kate, just read your latest entry, and part of Marcie A.'s post on health care. If you've mentioned this previously, good, if not, highlight the great news yesterday about Alberta's successful pilot project on assembling 'crack' surgical teams to really cut into wait times for hip and knee joint replacements.

This is exactly the kind of thing Harper and the Conservatives are proposing (ie. dedicated surgical centres - like the Shouldice centre - delivered publically or privately, but FULLY covered by the public payer system). There's so much untapped potential, it just takes new thinking (ie. private MRI clinics that run 24 hrs instead of public ones that b/c of union restrictions only operate half the day or less, etc.).

This is a Canadian success story, and should be milked by the Conservatives for all it's worth.

I am one of the few born and raised calgarians currently in the city; I was essentially raised as a seperatist (because I was raised in the wake of the nep) but have tended to vote Reform / Alliance / Conservative because it is the best choice that we have.

At one point in time when you mentioned seperatism in Alberta 2/3 of people would assume that you're crazy or just reacting to Qubec; today I would say that 2/3 of Albertans have either accepted the need to seperate or are looking at it as the only option we will have left in the near future. I would honestly dare Paul Martin to try to revive the NEP, I'm certain it would be the straw that broke the camel's back.

Now that Ottawa has soured relations with both Washington and Edmonton, isn't it time for you Albertans to declare independence and apply for annexation by the US? As a Texan, I can assure you, it's been done before.

"Must have been greedy Albertans that surveyed that border 100 years ago!!!"

Actually it was greedy Liberals trying to divide the Western voice. That's on the record.

Same as always. Liberals first. Canada second.

If Haultian had won his fight to be the first premier of Buffalo (AB+SK) that oil/gas map would look different.

The West wants in? Even Scott Reid wouldn't be asking for Buffalo to blow him. ;)

Kate, as usual, you managed to raise my blood pressure, which is usually not that high. Well, you didn't, but that idiot Potvin sure did. My favorite quote:

"Oh, they’ll howl for awhile no doubt, and there will inevitably be those who actually start shooting or bombing and will have to be hunted down and taken care of. But for the sane majority, a deal can be offered: acquiesce to the complete appropriation of all energy resources by the federal government, or see the feds also seize all Alberta government accounts, including the rich Heritage Fund. It would only be gracious to give Klein a day to formulate his answer—and to surround the Alberta legislature with Canadian soldiers to help him see the one true path."

This guy is a complete idiot.

2/3? Source?

it would be interesting to have all energy resources - oil, gas, hydro converted to a common standard ( joules ?) and then see which province has the most, done the most.

My curioisity is about Quebec - is it the energy king province of Canada ??

Alberta now joins Quebec as a big crybaby province.

Potvin should invest in some history books before he decides to call for the army to invade Alberta as a pre-emptive strike for nationalization of energy. My bet is on the Albertans and the rest of us 'red-neck', 'gun-totin' Westerners to pull our unregistered guns from out of the barn. We'll see how many of the armed forces want to go up against real Canadians who are willing to fight for what they believe in. Potvin should be reminded that it was a hard fight to get French-Canadians into the last big one(WWII)"Conscription if necessary....". Most of them stayed home to defend their seigniorys. Let the government nationalize the James Bay Power Project before it comes knocking on our door again.

Very interesting indeed. And I'm not sure I can settle for a CPC minority government either. Good column Kate.

As for a future military occupation of Alberta in the event of a Liberal win, notice the changes made to our armed forces so that they can "best meet challenges within." Their words, not mine. This is part of the overall plan that also included the disarming of the Canadian populace, hence the gun legislation. A Liberal win at the polls will see the last few pieces fall into place. This will be a disaster because following the win will be another NEP and a virtual rebellion within Alberta. Albertans are not like Quebecers. Albertans will complain to a point, then they will act.

Woe to Canada. Does anyone really understand how close to the edge we are getting?

Look for a very interesting provincial election in Alberta if the Liberals win nationally or even if the CPC win a weak minority.

Could someone indulge a Yank for a moment? Since my paternal relatives migrated to the US in 1852 from NS, I have followed, from time to time, Canadian politics. This has intensified in the last year fueled by regular visits to Kate and several other Canadian blogs.

It is my perception that the Libs are getting a touch desperate and that things could go very ugly and possibly quite sideways in the election run up and possibly for sometime after.

As I read your Clarity Act, which is anything but clear, a province does not have the absolute right to secede but must negotiate a separation process. After that things get a little bit hazy.

Has anybody actually gamed out this situation? What would constitute a triggering event? Does anybody have a flowchart of the process delineating critical events? Is there a current threat of nationalization? Are separatists in Canada ready to "...screw (their) courage to the sticking place"?

From here it looks like there is about a 60/40 chance against the current government doing something really provocative in the area of dirty tricks but I never rule that out when the stakes get very high. And, the stakes for the Liberals look very high indeed.

Hungry Valley...Any advice you get in this blog is extremely one-sided. Do yourself the service of collecting a broad range of opinions from other sources before making any judgements.

I find it interesting that folks always refer to Western Separatism as being an Alberta thing. Come WEST, folks. Out here, on the edge, we're just as pissod off at the idiots in the Liberal Party as anyone. When, not if, when separatists in the Western part of Canada decide to go, it won't be pretty, but trust me, it'll be quick.

BC ain't going to be behind Alberta for too long with all our oil and gas reserves. There's plenty in the off-shore wells waiting to be dug out.

How about thinking in terms of B.C./Alberta/Saskatchewan/Manitoba and the NWT as a unit.

Freeze in the f***king dark ONTARIO.

Liberal candidate denies pro-Islamic remarks

The Mississauga-Erindale federal Liberal candidate vehemently denies allegations he made pro-Islamic remarks during his victory speech at the nomination meeting earlier this month.

Omar Alghabra, 36, said the allegations were simply "not true" and were "false and inaccurate.

"I didn't say a thing about Muslims or Islam in my acceptance speech," said Alghabra, who took 488 of the 773 votes cast at the meeting Dec. 2.

"I don't agree with mixing politics and religion. Yes, I'm a Muslim, but I'm also a Liberal, a man and an engineer. The whole thing is untrue."

Mike...I'd rather freeze in the dark than read your horseshit. Do you really think happiness is measured in energy reserves? Moron.

Ron, I stopped listening and believing, small L, liberals down here forty years ago. I would prefer listening to a balanced, small and large C, conservative viewpoint anytime. I find that they are a lot more intellectually honest. A fact supported in recent academic research. No you won't get a citation from me. Not my responsibility. Use Google. It's free.

I also make it a point to ignore oppositional trolls in whatever forum I find them. Clear? Good. Then STFU.

No, I don't believe, as Ron implies, that happiness is measured in energy reserves. But, I do think that the Liberal mentality which believes that they should control evrything in Canada (and make sure it ends up in Ontario and Quebec) is totally wrong.

The attitude of the Liberals and their supporters are the biggest impetus to increased Western Separation.

the map is out of date. there are equal fields on both sides of the border. Its an economic demarcation line. Saskachewan needed 5$ gas to overcome their repressive royalty and marketing mechanism.

FREE THE WEST

Hungry Valley... You can't put balanced and conservative in the same sentence. Conservatism deals with extremes.

Could someone indulge a small L Liberal for a moment? As I read your Clarity Act, which is anything but clear...blah blah woof woof

Free the west indeed.

How about free this country from CCF/Social Credit/Reform/Alliance/Consrvative/Liberal/Bloc poiltics altogether.

yes , the splitting of the Northwest Territory into two in order to limit voting power is recorded.

the demarcation line predates oil in Turner valley by several years. It does not predate the discovery of gas at Medicine Hat. however , the main Medicine Hat accummulation is the same on the Sask side of the border. The gas at the Hat was regarded as an inconvenience at the time, they were looking for water and coal for the CPR and their wells kept blowing up.

If Albertans had been that greedy for the black stuff they would have asked for Norman Wells, it was drilled in 1928 but seeps were recorded by Alex Mackenzie in the late 1700s.

Plus there were no "albertans" at the time.

Now there are , and there are separtists too.

THE WEST WANTS OUT

Just re-read the Kevin Potvin article. Here are my observations.

Would it not be interesting indeed for Alberta to petition the UN for protection as it chooses its own path in the world?

Would it not be interesting indeed to see American Soldiers crossing the southern border at the request of the Alberta government for protection as Ottawa threatens to "send Canadian soldiers" to "surround the Alberta Legislature..."

Now, to get serious for a moment...

For an idiot like Kevin Potvin to threaten Alberta, even with tongue in cheek, with sending troops shows that he has no idea how this war will be fought. It will be fought in the courts Kevin, as there is nothing in Canadian Law that prohibits a province from "opting out" of Canada any time it chooses. Each province freely joined with other provinces to create Canada and each can freely choose to end the marriage. Of course there will be a settlement. This is what courts are for, not troops.

Take the tongue out of your cheek Kevin, pour yourself a cup of coffee, a strong cup of coffee, and try to write a decent column that addresses the real problems and the real issues. Perhaps look at it from both sides and list the difficulties for each should Alberta separate. You will need a long sheet of paper for the Canadian side because as soon as this issue is in the courts your money tree will stop shedding its leaves. Just think of it. All it would need is the filing of a single document in a provincial court.

Of course, you could also make a list of things that Ottawa could do to keep Alberta *in* Canada.

"An August 2005 poll published by the Western Standard pegged support for exploring the idea of forming a country at 42% in Alberta"

Getting a number like 2/3 all depends on the question you ask; if you ask "are you exploring the idea of Alberta forming a country independent of Canada?" you probably get 42% support, on the other hand if you ask "If the Liberals attempt to revisit the National Energy Program would you support the seperation of Alberta so that Alberta would become a country intependant of Canada?" I'm betting the results would be in the 80% range.

One thing I will never understand is why would anyone ever think the National Energy Program was a good thing; it destroyed the economy of Alberta and threw Canada into a Recession.

Dumb Luck Alberta
Canadian Broadcasting Company ^ | Dec 20, 2005 | Kate McMillan

Posted on 12/20/2005 1:11:39 PM PST by caveat emptor

Dumb luck Alberta
Kate McMillan

"Frankly, the Conservatives cannot shake the picture that they are a party centred on Alberta. That is not bad in itself, of course, but it causes a loss in translation. You can't claim for years that you are different and misunderstood and then expect everyone will get what you are saying when you ask for our votes. So much of that province's fortunes are tied to its blessings - the resource, the global price of the resource being well past the cost of extraction and the kindly division of powers that gives the province exclusive benefit to the resource - that holding it up as an example of anything for the rest of us is a bit of a leap. " - Alan McLeod [Canadian "left-center" blogger and contributer to CBC forums..CE]>>>
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1544192/posts

Ron: "Hungry Valley... You can't put balanced and conservative in the same sentence. Conservatism deals with extremes."

Ron, check the definition of Conservative at www.dictionary.com please.

If I dress "conservatively", I guess for you that means I wear a full dayglo orange leisure suit? Jackass.

I was at a Harper rally in London Ontario this afternoon. The turnout was very good, so good in fact that half of the people who attended could not see or hear Harper deliver his 10 speech (the rally was at a local pub with various room dividers etc). Then as quickly as he entered, he exited, and the buses were gone. It was nice to see such a show of support in a riding that has gone Liberal since '93 (London West), and I heard many people afterward talking about how much they liked Harper. I hope he keeps this up right until election day this time around.

If it's possible for a monkey to fool a pedigreed "expert" then how hard do you suppose it is for the Liberals to fool an entire country?

Not hard at all.

Art of the Chimp?

No Bob, I would say it's time for Alberta to declare independence and have disenfranchised U.S. states apply for annexation by Alberta (whatever her name ends up being) I would imagine there would be some interested.

As a Texan, you should be aware that the economy in Alberta should be on par with countries like Kuwait and already overshadows that of many U.S. states.

Canadian soldiers, for all their bravery, would be no match for gun-totin' rednecked Albertans.
C'mon, gimme a break.
Slingshots against guns?

nfld signed one of the most repressive agreements ever at Churchill falls. but it was with Quebec so that doesnt get to be revisited.

the resources of Alberta are targetted every couple of years by the feds.

Vive l'Alberta libre.

still hoping for a Martin victory and a split along the ottawa valley. if quebec can exit in less than a month I will be one happy guy.

how dare you compare us to the US.
our GNP per average province is less than Albama, excepting which is the only one higher than Albama.

PS Albama is nigh on bottom not the top.

show me the way to the next whiskey bar.
oh dont ask why.
I tell you this must die.
this Canada is a lie.

Ron:

"How about free this country from CCF/Social Credit/Reform/Alliance/Consrvative/Liberal/Bloc poiltics altogether."

Ah, Comrade...a kindred spirit!!! Let us join arm in arm as a mighty force to push bougouise capitalist pigs and opportunistic thieving scoundrels into the oceans! How they blind and confuse the proletariat. It is good, Ron, that you understand how much of a sickly sweet lie democratic ideals and individual freedoms are. Or how wrong it is to have the shelves of stores so full of overproduced goods... Or even how wasteful it is to have so many warm homes with hot water. After all, what use are comfortable workers with full bellies in serving Mother Kanada! Plough on, brave comrade Ron. Plough on!

Looks to me like a simple case of God knowing who deserved the oil and gas and who didn't.

"No Bob, I would say it's time for Alberta to declare independence and have disenfranchised U.S. states apply for annexation by Alberta (whatever her name ends up being) "

AlWyTana?

Great article Kate. I think your prediction has already come true, as in the Chinese curse. Times are interesting.

Kevin Potvin is playing with fire when bandies about phrases such as " can't even dodge lesbian-chucked cream pies"

He obviously hasn't had to pass by Kitsilano Park after the ladies fastball team has just lost a game. Sturdy gals with sensible haircuts. Can hum the ball at blinding speed without even losing the ash off the end of their smokes.

Guys like Potvin are so daft as to be below my comprehension. There is a very simplistic notion floating around amongst the intelligentsia that you just poke a hole in the ground and you let the oil pour into a tank. When the tank is full, you drain it into a truck and haul it to a depot which refines it, or pours it into a pipeline which is happily connected to your local gas station or furnace. He would undoubtedly be surprised to find his beloved oil supply dry up without the expertise and hard work of thousands of Albertans who go to work every day and use their specialized skills to keep the oil and gas flowing. If about 50,000 of us quit work for about a month, shit would happen. Or, more correctly, stop happening. Half a dozen Red Deer based companies alone could cause a major disruption to the flow of energy out of Alberta. Wouldn't that be interesting? As for Saskatchewan, and its' paucity of oil revenues? Well, the fact is that Sask. has as much proven reserves as Alberta. Most people don't grasp that a lot of Alberta's oil wealth stems from the taxes paid by the oilpatch workforce and its' supporting economy. As the Western oilpatch matured, it became easier and easier to service wells all over the West from centralized locations. Thus, hundreds of millions of dollars are earned annually by Saskatchewan natives, working routinely in Saskatchewan, but based out of Red Deer because that's where they moved to 5,10, or 20 years ago. I know of Sask. sons who work over 150 days a year in their home province-100 nights of hotels and 50 nights standing shivering or swatting mosquitoes beside a frac sand or nitrogen pumper. I say just try and nationalize our oil. See what happens.

Cal2, I think you have to add Alberta's equalization payment back into it's total which will then put it past quite a few of the states.

Go easy on Ron, KRB. Forget about him thinking, as it's all he can do to try and stop his drool from staining his bib overalls, and typing must hurt his knuckles after they've been dragging on the ground all day.

Why is it every time that western separation becomes a topic everyone assumes that we would join the US. That is absolutely the most unpalatable idea I have ever heard - I'm all for separation but I'll be damned if I'd want my new country to join a nation that's been kicking me in the 'nads economically at every turn for the last 20 years!

I'm with you Bear. BRALSAMA, the TRUE North, Strong and Free.

40 Below Tory

Bear,
That's only because you're not part of the US--Duuuuh! So that means, YOU'RE THE COMPETITION.

And if their kicks hurt that badly, just imagine the benefits if you were a friend, or better yet, another state.

Isn't the economy of California larger than that of Canada total?

That's because of California's dumb luck to have so much nice weather.

I assume since Mr. Potvin writes for a Vancouver based paper that he is a BC'er. Obviously he knows little about BC's oil and gas industry. Here are a few interesting tidbits:

BC is one of few jurisdictions where the in-place reserves continue to climb as production increases.

Northeast BC has large volumes of undiscovered natural gas resources – between 32 and 54 trillion cubic feet (TcF) of natural gas has been found to date.

BC also boasts large untapped potential resources in both the Bowser and Nechako Basins with a combined total resource estimate of 16 Tcf of natural gas, 8.1 Tcf of coalbed gas and 7.6 billion barrels of oil.

Oil and gas royalty revenues are forecast to be $1.854 billion for 2004/05.

B.C.’s resource industries count for about two-thirds of B.C. exports - over $22 billion in 2004.

Oil and gas production is the largest single generator of direct resource revenue for the province.

http://www.gov.bc.ca/bcgov/content/docs/@235G1_0YQtuW/energy.pdf

Does he really think that BC would give up it's largest single generator of direct resource revenue without a fight?

Bear: Alberta should just pull the pin and see what happens for a few years. Tidy things up a bit, hang some curtains, cut the grass and see who comes knocking; smelling of fresh aftershave with a nice box of candy under their arm.

Cousin Saskatchewan would probably come around and knock, quietly on the back door. Half the left wing population of metropolitan BC would be pricing real estate in Bellingham WA or Ontario. Maybe you guys could put together a nice cozy little country. You'd probably have to be firm with some of the freeloaders to the north.

The US couldn't swallow you guys anyway. Our age of territorial expansion is over and our political system is more trade oriented these days.

Check out this story written in the Calgary Herald Dec/20
Alberta envy grows as wealth gap widens
Majority of easterners want province to share riches.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/story.html?id=b052185b-93a2-4f37-980b-8819956f39ab&k=49586

Asshats like Potvin and posters like Ron are easy to blow off as the light weights they are.

The real danger is Martin and the Liberals believe there own bullshit and would not hesitate to bring in NEP light via a carbon tax. One just has to see and hear there self righteous indignation concerning the biggest moonbat ripoff the world has yet to see. It's called Kyoto.

With the Kyoto accord in one hand and the sniveling Quebecers in the other. They would not hesitate to levy the tax if god forbid they had a majority government. Why you ask.

Since the Libranos got caught with there hands in the cookie jar that was to bribe Quebec with. They will now have to find a new source of funds to use as bribes while lining there own pockets and it will all be done under the guise of " equalization".

Kate, your post was dead-on. It's almost surreal to see your statements as reasonable as yours on the CBC. It's also amusing to contrast Marcie A's lost in space look to your direct and self-assured facial expression.

Alberta is not just lucky. My brother has already moved there (and is doing very well working on an oil rig), and I'm considering moving to Calgary in 2006. We're both Prince Edward Islanders - a province with fertile soil, amazing scenery and world-renowned-seafood products....and 10% PST, a GDP that's more that's more than 65% from government sources.

There's nothing wrong with our locale (which my brother and I are sad to leave) or the people here - it's the economic policies. Being jealous of Alberta's success, or ten thousand years of equalization and government programming will not improve the situation of "have-not" provinces.

Nobody ever asks what our equalization program would look like if Alberta was as socialist as PEI? Who would fund it?

Anqe by all means move you won't be disappointed it truly is the land of milk and honey IMO and it's people like you, who are not looking for a hand out, that made it that way.

Thanks Kelly! I am very determined and excited about moving there, especially as a recovering socialist.

Wouldn't you agree, Kate, that one can judge the significance of the contribution a writer makes by the responses they generate.

So I read with interest comments here that I was alerted to by one of your, ahem, readers.

"Asshats like Potvin ... are easy to blow off as the light weights they are."
"This wingnut Potvin calling for a military occupation of Alberta. Who in blazes is this raving lunatic..."
"That idiot Potvin..."
"This guy is a complete idiot..."
"For an idiot like Kevin Potvin..."
"Guys like Potvin are so daft as to be below my comprehension..."
"Obviously he knows little..."
"Like your typical Marxoid..."
"His hate-filled ramblings...."
"My bet is on the Albertans and the rest of us 'red-neck', 'gun-totin' Westerners to pull our unregistered guns from out of the barn...."

Nice bunch here. I'm guessing they are all self-identified Christians and Conservatives.

Not one of the comments referred to the gist of the article, and so I ask you all: name another country in the world where the national government does not control the energy resources?

The government of Alberta is not equipped with treaty-making powers, diplomatic contact powers, or international trade relations negotiating powers which are necessary now to deal in the international energy markets, especially with the whole world heating up considerably over all issues related to distribution of declining energy stores.

I understand Albertans historic resentments over energy policies. But this is a family squabble over desert while the whole neighbourhood outside is on fire.

If anyone has a comment directly about that point (instead of more juvenile name calling) I would be interested in reading it.

Kevin Potvin

"Canadian soldiers, for all their bravery, would be no match for gun-totin' rednecked Albertans."

Shit, I always knew there was a "hidden agenda" behind gun control

Biggie, you be sure to pass along your compliments to the Canadian Armed Forces next November 11, now, ya hear? Or better yet, why don't we email your post to those stationed in Kandahar right now?

Kevin Potvin, name another country where the national government controls what is constitutionally not theirs to control.

Martin Turns Down Debate with Duceppe
Josh Pringle
Tuesday, December 20, 2005 8:36 PM

Prime Minister Paul Martin has said he would debate Gilles Duceppe anywhere.

But Martin has turned down an invitation to debate the Bloc Quebecois leader face-to-face.

The T-Q-S television network says it invited Duceppe and Martin to square off on it's airwaves.

Last week, Martin said he would meet Duceppe on every street corner anywhere in Quebec to fight for federalism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Harper Willing to Debate Duceppe
Josh Pringle
Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:10 PM

Stephen Harper is willing to go one-on-one with Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe.

The Conservative leader's campaign team says it will contact a Quebec language TV station.

Prime Minister Paul Martin rejected an invitation by the T-Q-S network to debate Duceppe about federalism.

Martin had said last week that he'd meet Duceppe anywhere at any time.

Harper's team says if Martin refuses to stand up for Canada, Harper will. >>>

http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=2&nid=34979

Kevin, I hate to break this to you, but your article was selected for illustrative purposes only.

No one (rational) really cares to understand why you think the way you do and how you come by your conclusions. We''ve seen your type of rationale before - it's the mindset responsible for the economic miracle known as Cuba.

Vancouver magazine
Kevin Potvin, the workaholic, chain-smoking owner of The Republic, a lefty
bi-weekly newspaper published in East Vancouver, recently fired a columnist by ...
www.vanmag.com/0311/taming.htm - 21k -
>>>>>>>>>>>

One & the same? Or, one & the same? >>>

Kevin Potvin, the workaholic, chain-smoking owner of The Republic, a lefty bi-weekly newspaper published in East Vancouver, recently fired a columnist by the name of Karen Litzcke. For people unfamiliar with the small Commercial Drive publication, it might seem like just another unremarkable example of the internecine bloodletting favoured by Trotskyites and their obscure, rhetoric-driven broadsheets. But was it?>>>

Being Albertan Raised(and currently living in Ottawa), i can tell you the mere thought of taking alberta's hard-earned national resources gets some blood boiling. You take the oil, albertans will just stop pumping it for you. And i doubt with your silky smooth vancouver hands you will be out pumping it - might break a nail eh kevin?

And being in the reserves, i will be sure to do so...

"No one... really cares to understand why you think the way you do and how you come by your conclusions."
—Kate McMillan

And so we have a working definition of the conservative mind in Canada, if indeed your blog is popular. It certainly seems closely followed by those with a certain outlook on the world, or lack of one, to be more precise.

Kate, I only ask this: name another national government in the world that does not control its energy resources.

Then ask youself why it would be that everywhere else, energy resources are understood as a national concern.

Potvin . . just another Trotsky wanna be, a Fidel/Che/Mao/Lenin/Stalin loving hero worshipper who actually believes that communism is making a revival. Living dowm on Commercial Drive he is immersed in the Socialst BC homeland and like the rest of them there, very comfortable ignoring reality and drinking his own bathwater.

Humor him . . he needs his meds or mnedical help - or both

"And so we have a working definition of the conservative mind in Canada, if indeed your blog is popular. It certainly seems closely followed by those with a certain outlook on the world, or lack of one, to be more precise. "

Sounds just like the republican to me...

republic...

my mistake (and it was no freudian slip :)

"Then ask youself why it would be that everywhere else, energy resources are understood as a national concern. "
- Then why did Martin promise the proceeds in the maritimes? Granted, he went back on that in typical liberal fashion - but it seems its ok for them. Its ok to be jealous of good leadership when your province lacks it. Check out the debt and deficit numbers of alberta before klein. Oh and take a look at this kevin:
http://www.alberta-canada.com/economy/economicResults/fastestGrowingEconomy.cfm
- as you'll see, this is what good leadership did to the "oil dependent" Alberta.
Do your research before you begin writing

Ah, Kevin, now you are presuming that everyone who reads SDA is a conservative and/or Christian? Very presumptus of you.

And what's with this name one country bit? The resources are the responsibility of the province not the federalies. Canada is a confederation. Look up the definition.

Oh yes, this bit about Alberta not being equiped to negotiate foreign trade deals and such. Ever look at Quebec? Hell, they actually have their own immigration offices overseas let alone trade offices. And Ottawa lets them go on their merry way.

For a so called journalist you sure do have thin skin. Better listen to Kate, her points are valid.

just curious kevin have you sent your Christmas wishes to our troops in Afghanistan? or Haiti where retired Candaian civilians are being murdered? your world order agenda leaves a little bit to be desired

How come it is that "OIL" is the only "ENERGY CONCERN" That needs to be nationalized? What about Hydro? Nuclear? Coal?

I say we "nationalize" hydro profits from selling electricity to the US!

Two quick questions: when was that map created? How old are the data that were used to create that map?

hah! caught you ya rat! kevin "self identified" is pure unadulaterated Librano$ bullshit.

It is interesting, though, isn't it, when you sit back and note that no other big energy resource in the world is controlled by a junior level of government in place of the national level.

A provincial government cannot make treaties, including mutual defense treaties, secret or otherwise. Nor can a provincial government make formal representations to other foreign governments.

Both of those abilities would seem to me increasingly important in a world in which energy resources are under higher demand and lower supply, and in which all the major militaries are either actively at war or gearing up for it.

It may appear welcome to Albertans to be taken in by the US, as some here seem to suggest, but we only need to cast back to the afternoon of September 11 2001 to see what the umbrella of protection really means when the chips are down. On that afternoon, it was assumed that all intercontinental air planes currently in the air and headed for North American airports were potentially highly lethal missiles. They were diverted from US airspace on pain of being shot out of the sky. They were sent, these potential missiles, to Canadian airports and cities. There is in reality to umbrella of protection extending over Canada, as we see on the one day on which it was actually required.

Alberta would not likely become the 51st state if it chose to leave Canada. It would more likely come to inhabit some midling state of being like Puerto Rico, neither a country nor a sovereign entity.

I wonder why it is everyone assumes America would bring Alberta inside. No one has really asked them about that, have they.

Kevin

Unfortunately for Kevin Potvin he has neglected to discuss the 100 years of history behind the distribution of resource control from the feds to the provinces. Furthermore, to suggest that the province of Alberta is unable to recognize that the world has changed is at worst ludicrous and at best an uninformed opinion. The fact is that Alberta, and every other province are the ones best suited to administer there resources, economies and people.
It is contradictory for Kevin to suggest Alberta is unable to adapt to a 'different world' when people like Kevin cling to a centralist philosophy of fed control / intervention in provincial maters. Indeed the dictatorial, oppressive, strings-attached policies of our present federal system have indisputably inflamed talk of separation and caused untold political damage to federal provincial relations more then anything else in this country.

As for suggesting, even in jest, that force be used to take that which does not belong to you is called theft by any definition.

"Hungry Valley... You can't put balanced and conservative in the same sentence. Conservatism deals with extremes.

Could someone indulge a small L Liberal for a moment? As I read your Clarity Act, which is anything but clear...blah blah woof woof

Posted by Ron at December 20, 2005 04:54 PM
Free the west indeed.

How about free this country from CCF/Social Credit/Reform/Alliance/Consrvative/Liberal/Bloc poiltics altogether.

Posted by Ron at December 20, 2005 05:01 PM "

Perfect example of the old addage: "it is better to be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

Kate: I couldn't agree more with your point about the contrast between Alberta and Saskatchewan, which I have trying to make to my fellow Saskatchewanians for some time.

Kevin: Name another country in the world where energy resources haven't been used by their government to oppress their citizens and trample their liberties. Here's the list to choose from (2003 top petroleum exporters):
1. Saudi Arabia
2. Russia
3. Norway
4. Iran
5. Venezuela
6. United Arab Emirates
7. Kuwait
8. Nigeria
9. Mexico
10. Libya
11. Algeria
12. Iraq

(only one first-worlder in there)
I think Canada's and specifically Alberta's limited "government control" over energy resources is to its very great credit and is an enormous benefit to ALL its citizens.

Kevin, with regards to your "name another country" thing... Canada isn't just any other country. Want to see who is responsible for what in Canada's confederation? Just look up something called the BNA or British North America Act of 1867. Please read it, you might find it interesting although not in a socialsit left leaning moonie way.

Hint: Google British North America Act...

Kevin Potvin

Your article lacks intelligence and maturity. What exactly are you trying to say about Albertans?

A question for Kevin Potvin: Were you being satirical in proposing that the army be used to assert federal control over Alberta's resources?
Why have you not written any commentaries on the James Bay Hydro project in Quebec? Or a BC windmill farm. After all, hydro and wind power would be national energy resources under your definition.

Kate
Great rebuttal to Potvin.

Unfortunately he lives in a little world (commercial drive) out here in Van. and he is suffering from swelled head syndrome due to the adoration bestowed on him from his very limited and narrow minded minions he writes at (not for).

Tell you what Kate. I will ask some of the members from my Regiment here in Vancouver what they think about socialist boys willingness to have them deployed against other Canadians.
Let alone have them act as the instruments of illegal confiscation for the government.

I can say with confidence they would collectively wish they could shove a C6 up his ass and pull the trigger until the belt is done but they are wiser people than that, It would be a waste of good ammo (now watch, Potvin will call for a gun ban for the army).

What is even more worry some than Kevin writing and spewing his drivel are the people that read, agree with and think he is making sense.

Oh well such is the price one must pay for living in LALA land.

Calvert should be the one forced to "step aside" when it comes to energy concerns.

Kevin, FYI - There is a movement towards Independence in Alberta, not towards becoming part of the USA.

http://www.prairiecentre.com/pdf/cp_map.pdf

On the map it says 2001 Edition by Collins Barrow Securities

From thier website: http://www.cbsecurities.com/

"CB Securities is active in the Canadian oil and gas industry, specializing in oil and gas divestitures, mergers and acquisitions. We help clients design and implement effective marketing strategies that maximize disposition proceeds at the property level and maximize shareholder value at the corporate level. In addition to marketing oil and gas properties, we provide corporate fairness opinions and assist clients in structuring mergers and takeovers."

Looks to be a oil field legal services company.

I remember as a child growing up in one of those nameless small towns in western Saskatchewan in the mid - seventies. (A white area just east of that big green blotch). At the time there were seismic crews everywhere looking for oil. Some were so close to town that you could feel the ground shake when the explosion went off. Exciting times for a small town kid. I remember my Dad talking to one of the crew chiefs asking him if he found any oil. He said there was lots of oil all around my home town but it was something he called "heavy oil" and they were looking for "light oil". Allan Blakeney was re-elected on a campaign of nationalizing the resource sector with Sask-Oil, Pierre Trudeau with Petro-Canada. The next year seismic crews were gone.

mr potvin specificially said underground resources.

Section 92 of the BNA Act give control of the resources to the provinces, not the national government. If you don't like it, get the constitution changed. While you're getting it changed, remember to include anything and everything that even faintly smacks of a resource from every province.

When you're done with that, don't be too terribly surprised when you discover that Canada is missing a few provinces.

Glad that you raised the subject, Glen. What makes Mr. Potvin believe that the PPCLI (assuming he knows what that acronym stands for) would follow their illegal orders? And it's so nice to see a "peace monger" admit that his only use for the CF would be as a tool of oppression used by the central government.

Kids, tone down the rhetoric referring to physical violence.

I have yet to hear any serious discussion about alberta becoming part of the states. at this point the seperatist movement in alberta is mere grumblings by people of an undervalued province. Give it some time, and further liberal mismanagement, and we will see what happens. But I certainly don't know a lot of Albertans looking to our southern neighbours (even though a lot of them don't harbour the irrational hatred towards them) for a new backyard to bunk in. I find it amazing that you are actually part of the media in this- wait, what am i saying, im not surprised at all. Its EXACTLY your type of incoherent babble, your fear-mongering that infuriates conservatives like myself on a daily basis... If you want the real perspective - move to a small albertan town for a couple years... if you're still so jaded, then maybe we'll listen.

Brad,

The date on the map is 2001. From looking at some of the areas on the map that I am familiar with I would say the information is no more than 1-2 years older than that.

I found this;

http://republic-news.org/archive/114-repub/114_potvin_mckay.htm

Possibly the most shameless piece of writing I have ever seen.

Gee whiz, while we were all trying to teach Kevin about the BNA our Kate has written another killer Roundtable article.

Once again a top notch column. Go get then Kate!

Errr, go get them I mean. Sorry

Hard to understand since Alberta supplies about 70% of the USA energy needs.Billions of US dollars supply the construction of the oilsands development..pretty much most of the money that comes to Alberta comes from New York city.I would say that American troops would land here first before any of this bullshit that's going around ever came to pass.When John Kerry was running for president he sent his sister to Alberta to woe the Americans that live here just in case the vote was close.Not sure on this one but i do believe that 100,000 Americans reside in Alberta.You would see American troops on the ground here...

Well this is interesting.

So we're asked in this whole discussion to refer to the consitution.

Here, at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/E-4.5/49804.html, in the Emergencies Act of 1985, which replaced the War Measures Act, is the following provision:

30. (1) While a declaration of an international emergency is in effect, the Governor in Council may make such orders or regulations with respect to the following matters as the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, are necessary for dealing with the emergency:

(a) the control or regulation of any specified industry or service, including the use of equipment, facilities and inventory;

(b) the appropriation, control, forfeiture, use and disposition of property or services;

Now, it would appear to me that all that is required for a constitutionally-legal taking of control of Alberta oil is a declaration by the federal government that an international emergency exists.

I would argue that such a state of emergency is nearly here. So much depends on oil (ambulances, army airplanes, hospital emergency generators) that if oil were to become prohibitively expensive in the global markets, that that would consititute an international emergency, thus allowing the feds to take control of that resource.

Does that hopefully satisfy those worried about the abrogation of the constitution?

Kevin

Kevin you forgot the most important point there.The USA was being attacked from inside their own country.That was the best decision that they made.Why let jets fly into the counrty..you make no sence .

Mr. Potvin: Your basis for government control seems to be based on some Hollywood movie of evil Americans grabbing the last barrel of oil. It won't come to that. Our whole civilization is based not on oil but on transportation. At the moment oil is the best and cheapest way to propel out various methods of transport. As oil becomes more scarce and rises in price, it will be replaced with other sources. Coal for one. At current rates of consumption of oil, we have 200 years worth of coal if converted to motive fuel. Will it be expensive? Yes. Will the Chinese attack us to get our oil? No. Will the Chinese buy the oilsands if we let them? Yes.

Horse sh*t. If the price of oil goes up it is a national emergency? Give us a break. The feds could instantly ease the situation by dropping their cut of cash from the pump. Would they, I doubt the Liberals would. After all, they still have a 1.5 cent tax to elliminate the deficit.

Now Kevin, name one country that has used the price of oil as a national emergency?

Texas Canuck:

"Now Kevin, name one country that has used the price of oil as a national emergency?"

The United States.

November 27 1973 was when Richard Nixon signed into law the Emergency Petrolem Allocation Act, authorizing price, production, allocation and marketing controls.

I think you are on a slippery slope in your definition of an 'emergency', although the ‘emergencies act’ is ambiguous enough that the issue would be tied up in court for some time.

I wonder if the 'not-withstanding clause' could be used by Alberta to invalidate seizure of assets based on the weak language of the emergencies act.

I know it's useless, but I would like to interject with a few facts.

a) despite the media claims, the price of oil had to break $80 a barrel to to the "all time highs" of the 1980's

b) recent price spikes were not due to undersupply of crude, but to inadequate refinery capacity.

c) Alberta supplies 70% of the US's energy needs? That's hard to believe, considering these rankings of top oil producers (2002)

1. Saudi Arabia 7.7 mb/d
2. Former Soviet Union 8.6 mb/d
3. USA 8.1 mb/d
4. Iran 3.7 mb/d
5. China 3.3 mb/d
6. Norway 3.4 mb/d
7. Mexico 3.6 mb/d
8. Venezuela 2.8 mb/d
9. United Kingdom 2.6 mb/d
10. Iraq 2.4 mb/d

Kevin- Firstly, I'm not a Christian. Secondly, there are several countries where the federal government doesn't control the oil. Great Britain and the United States are two. They sell the rights to drill for oil, just as here. Royalties are paid to the government for oil produced. Governments that have natioanlized their oil industries in the past have all failed spectacularly, because they almost instantly fall victim to over-bureaucratization of what is an inherently dynamic and fast moving industry. Why do you think that Russia's oilpatch is in such disarray? They chased out all the people who could help them develop it without making a big mess of the whole thing. Oil companies and service companies aren't stupid. If they're not wanted they'll leave, and then there is no one left to do the work. Some governments don't pay their bills. A Red Deer company sent some bottom hole pumps to China several years ago. They didn't get paid. The Chinese didn't get any more pumps. Lesson learned on both sides. I made some of those pumps, and you can't always just copy. I'm getting round about to a point. Sure, the feds can nationalize our oil. But, this time around, there will be a tremendous price for the simple reason that we have put up with 20-some years of Central canada looking down its nose at us while they spend the money we send it as loyal Canadians. My household gets to send over $15000 dollars in the form of equalization money (over and above the $20000 in federal income taxes) to Ottawa this year. Much of it is spent on ideals that the majority of westerners find loathsome. In the end, many of the other provincial governemts in this country are like a weasel brother-in-law. You know, the guy your sister married who is always borrowing a few hundred bucks that never gets paid back, and the day you spend your big raise on a "new" two year old pick-up, he's asking you if you're sure you can afford that. They don't have equalization in a nearby republic, and people move where the jobs are, or they don't. But, Monatana taxes don't go towards paying for government make-work deals in Maine. And, that federal government doesn't pit Texans against New Yorkers just because it's a smart election strategy. Hmmm...

Correct me if i am wrong . Income tax as we know it introduced about the time of WW1. Canadian Wheat Board started in WW2. They were supposed to be temporary measures. We're still stuck with both. An example of times the government of Canada did things in time of dire emergency. Constitutionally Provinces control resourses. Does Mr. Potvin propose to tear up our constitution? Does this include the charter? I'm sure he's a hugh fan of the charter. Be careful what you wish for.

I find it ironic that he spews off on conspiracy theories about GWB and oil - yet suggests canada do the very thing he is against. I understand kevin that you're a die-hard marxist, but really, how do you justify the double-standard? Do you honestly believe in a stalinistic over-taking of the provinces goods?

Just to clarify my comments: No Potvin, I don't buy your constitution arguement. The only time this could be used is in a time of war. To attempt to do so otherwise would cause a Canadian Civil War. In the event of any major world clash Canada won't have much say in anything. The ownership and use of our resourses included.

This is the Unites States National Energy Plan.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/National-Energy-Policy.pdf

In my reading of it, there is not much besides questions of scale that could not be said of Canada in here, by way of conditions and future forecasts.

Does Canada have a National Energy Plan? Not that I am aware of.

Does it seem "socialist" of the GBW White House to ensure government agencies actively involve themselves in the creation of more pipelines and production facilities, as it is clearly stated in this plan to be the administration's intent?

And look at why: to ensure the poor have access to energy; to keep prices from rising too high for manufacturers; to make sure the transportation infrastracture does not seize up for want of affordable energy; and so on.

The United States keeps an emergency reserve buried in the ground, and uses it to manipulate the market price of oil, usually to keep it from going too high in spikes, thereby cutting Texas oil companies off from profits one might argue are rightfully theirs. It seems prudent of the US federal government to do so. Why would anyone here suggest it is not so for Canada to do the same?

Kevin

Kevin Potvin:
Nice bunch here. I'm guessing they are all self-identified Christians and Conservatives.

Never mind the oil argument; this is supposed to be a democracy and dissenting views are allowed. You seem to dislike Conservatives and probably also, conservatives. Well that's OK too.

What deeply offends me is invoking the word "Christian." Why do you assume that a person's political views are an indication of their religion? Why is someone's religion an issue at all? What is wrong with being Christian?

You seem to be a bigot.

Kevin Potvin:

Deploying soldiers to surround the Alberta Legislature? Are you in possession of your faculties?

You are calling for Canadian soldiers to kill Canadian citizens so that the federal government may circumvent the constitution. You are calling for civil war. Be careful what you wish for.

1. The Emergencies Act is an extra-constitutional statute - meaning that it is not above the constitution, and if the federal government were to attempt to use it as a basis for overriding s. 92, the courts would get to have a go.

2. The only provision actually in the constitution that would allow the federal government to do as Kevin suggests, is actually the POGG power. Peace, order and good government is also open to interpretation by the courts, and they have done so in the past. Generally, the SCC is not friendly to the federal government completely overriding an established power under s. 92, so I don't even think that this will help Kevin's fantasy.

3. Contrary to Kevin's article, the notwithstanding clause CAN NOT be used to override anything in the Constitution. It is in the Charter, and in fact, only applies to ss. 2 and 7-15.

4. While provinces can not outright engage in the creation of treaties, it has become a standard to have province diplomats on such ventures. Also, for an international treaty to become law, insofar as it affects provincial rights, it must be ratified by the provinces. So, yes, the provinces have a role to play in international treaties.

Oh, and Kevin, yes, I am a self-identified Conservative, my religion is none of your business, and I am actually from Ontario and still believe that your vision is skewed.

Anyone heard of Tatarstan? Russian republic that has control of it's oil, in a trade off for it to remain under the Russian fold. Also happens to be the one of the most economically developed and stable republics in Russia.

It's not the oil wealth that has the ragged socialist hordes salivating for Alberta's revenues...hell, resource development and management takes guts, risk and marketing smarts... no, the fiddling socialist grasshoppers watching the ant's labors want none of that...they just want the benefits. In this case Alberta government's revenue "surpuses" are being eyed by spend thrift socialist governments from Ontario and Quebec.

After blowing their transfers on unsustainable social programs and vote buying goodies for provincial public service union patronage, the hungry brats are urging the nanny state to take more cookies from Alberta's "surplus" stack.

One of the things that is constantly ignored ( purposely) by the eastern media is that Alberta has "surplus revenue" BECAUSE IT HAS A BALANCED BUDGET AND NO DEBT!!!! Granted we have reaource revenue streams which are now profitable ( after so many down years)but those reveues are no longer feeding debt servicing and can be invested in Alberta's long term stability and sustainability. We Albertans tightened our belts and put the sholder to the tax burden for a decade without fancy welfare and social programs or even infrastructure development....so we would be debt free. Now we are, we have revenue surplus...this is the result of painful but responsible fiscal management....now we have the revenues to pay cash for our needs, the greed-head, spend-thrift debtor socialists who show no fiscal responsibility want to deny Albertans what we have suffered for a decade to acheive.

There is only one word to describe the type of malignant greed and self absorbed arrogance which would propose Albert's revenue wealth is anything but well earned and deserved. Belligerent "envy" comes to mind. And this greed and loathing in eastern elite circles displays to Albertans ( and westerners) just how dysfunction Confederation has become since amoral statist socialism infected Ottawa and Eastrn governing bodies with its inherent fiscal corruption. Just another incentive to cut political ties with Ottawa in the minds of many Albertans.

Kevin

A few bits of information that are lacking from your "emergency" theory:

1) Canada is a net EXPORTER of oil

2) We have huge reserves still in the ground

And it is in the best interest of the oil companies to NOT have wild fluctuations in the price of oil. You may want to educate yourself.

Hey Kevin Potvin,

NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Sound familiar? ;D

Kevin Potvin: ... so I ask you all: name another country in the world where the national government does not control the energy resources?

If by "control" you mean ownership, then the United States comes to mind. In the US, like Canada, oil is "owned" by whomever owns the subsurface mineral rights. The mineral rights could be owned privately or by state or federal governments. In Alberta's case the mineral rights for most of the land is owned by the provincial gov. This is no different than the US where in some areas (i.e. Alaska) oil is controlled by the state government.

Your article seriously proposes military intervention and the suspension of civil liberties to forcibly transfer oil ownership to the federal government. Can you name any country that has done this before? If so, are they a good example to follow? Exactly what problem is this military action supposed to solve?

All I'm saying is that the world oil situation is probably now an international emergency. And I suggest that, just as America did in 1973, production, price, allocation, and marketing of that oil should be made federal decisions under the ermencies act so that they are coordinated with the rest of national government policies as it navigates this newly tricky world. By national government, I don't mean Liberals, I mean whoever forms the leadership. This is well beyond partisan considerations.

For the federal government to go through the coming era with control of that key resource in the hands of a usually hostile junior government would be suicide--and criminally negligent to the rest of Canadians. How can anyone suggest the Canadian government not protect Canadians with the use of the powers that it was fairly granted by all Canadians for just this very purpose when their representatives voted for the Emergency Act? May I remind everyone that that act was passed by a Conservative regime with the Yea votes of many Albertans.

The business about deploying the army there was in anticipated response of some Albertans similar to what we see on this blog here: treasonous suggestings of getting illegally non-registered guns to shoot at Canadian federal armed forces deployed to maintain peace and order. No national government would allow such a thing, just as ours did not at Ipperwash, Gustaffen Lake, and Oka.

I ask you all to take a step back a moment and look at the world situation with oil and ask yourself if it would look sensible to you if you saw Washington or London hobbled on the international stage because Texas or Scotland had control over all matters to do with oil.

Kevin

The world hydroelectric situation is "probably" in an emergency. Shall we nationalize the James Bay hydro projects, and surround the Quebec national assembly with Canadian soldiers?

Kevin, you have called for Canadian soldiers to surround Alberta's duly-elected legislature. Would they be on shoot-to-kill orders? If not, then why have them surround the legislature?

Now that I think about it, the newsmedia situation in Canada is in a crisis. It is probably an emergency. Perhaps the Canadian soldiers should surround the offices of The Republic. After all, it isn't like you did anything to earn your wealth, you just sit down at the keyboard and the newspaper writes itself, right? Why should you be allowed to hog all that wealth when there are people in Toronto starving for news?

First off, anyone who can write a column suggesting that the Canadian armed forces should invade one of our own provinces is really in no position to complain that people aren't seriously addressing his arguments.

If we are seriously anywhere near using the Emergencies Act to nationalize energy production, then it can be used as an excuse to sieze power and resources from any province at any time. Hard to see the other premiers sitting still for that even of the SCC were to allow it. Would there be a bigger gift the feds could give the PQ?

Potvin's whole argument is predicated on the assumption that we are on the edge of a global energy crisis. Presumably that's that same crisis that certain groups have been predicting at least since the 1970s. Is there any real evidence to suggest that we're any closer to that now than we were 30 years ago?

Potvin, why do you only mention Alberta? What about the other provinces that have oil?

If there is such a national emergency, why is the oil off of BC still considered too "environmentally-fragile" to drill? Wouldn't the first order of business be to send the Forces to quell environmentalists' opposition to drilling that oil? After all, it is an emergency situation...

The republic? Isnt that the rag that I toss in the garbage every time I see it somewhere? Every time I go to Granville Island I end up throwing out about a hundred of them. Don't want normal people being polluted by this kinda commie BS!!!

Kevin

The world has seen the end of CHEAP oil. There is still vast reserves that are not as easy to get at, but are economical at higher prices. Ft Mac has enough potential to supply the WORLD for decades and more.

THERE IS NO INTERNATIONAL CRISIS FOR OIL!!!

Also, I'd like you to find ONE SINGLE MEMBER of the Canadian Armed Forces that would assist you in your siege of Alberta resources.

I assume that you would be on the front line???

AB, BC, and SK would make a nice sized independant country. Were it not for another Liberano in Wilfred Laurier, Fred Haultain would have been able to complete the sensible formation of Buffalo (AB&SK). Look at a place like New Zealand, pop. 3 million, very strong, very proud, very independant, I know I lived there! We should be thanking the Liberanos for incenting us to remove ourselves from this dysfunctional confederation while we still can. Let's be honest, on the Prairies we have felt like strangers in a strange land for a long time with little in common with QC / ON and Maritimes. The city of Calgary alone contains over 200,000 Saskies! We are already one, as we always have been. It is important as we form our new association that it represents the values of the people who inhabit it, unlike what Liberano Canada has become. It has taken us 100 years to fully realize it, the west is ready to throw off the shackles of eastern Canadian oppression. Oh and here in SK we are actually quite sophisticated politically and fully capable of structuring a successful country based on equality, respect and democracy....er I mean Yee Haw!

Absolutely brilliant piece Kate.

Cheers!

EPW

"The republic? Isnt that the rag that I toss in the garbage every time I see it somewhere? Every time I go to Granville Island I end up throwing out about a hundred of them. Don't want normal people being polluted by this kinda commie BS!!!
Posted by: FREE at December 21, 2005 02:32 PM"

The conservative mindset reveals itself again.

For the crime of expressing a contrary opinion, something this blog site's owner is celebrated for doing, I have been threatened with violence: “. . . shove a C6 up his ass and pull the trigger until the belt is done . . .”, torture: “. . . might break a nail eh Kevin? And being in the Reserves, I will be sure to do so . . .”, and lawlessness and treason has been so easily bandied about with nary a correcting comment: “ . . . pull our unregistered guns from out of the barn [and] see how many of the armed forces want to go up against real Canadians who are willing to fight for what they believe in.”

And now just straight out crime in the form of removing my papers and throwing them in the garbage--a comment, again, that has received no correction from anyone here including the owner of this blog site.

I thank you all for providing me pretty good material and quotes for an upcoming article about where the mind of the prairie conservative movement is these days. It's not a pretty picture. But, hey, I'm not making any of it up.

Kevin

Over and out. Thanks Kate for letting me work here.

Another good column Kate.

As for Kevin Potvin, I ALMOST feel sorry for the guy. LOL.

What a dipstick.

Sorry Kevin, but when a marxist has to stoop to using Richard Nixons 1973 price controls as a good idea to back up his half assed arguments you just KNOW he is in way way over his head.

Kevin knows little or nothing about commodities, serving in the military or IMHO, hard work.

Keep on typing Kevin, you and those who are similarly ill informed are the Conservatives best friends in this fight.

When I was a child my father told me that the only good commie was a dead commie. The idea of putting scum like fidel or martin in change of anything is crime against humanity. Socialism is the communist way of sneaking in to control the only fre place left on earth. We MUST STOP THEM AT ALL COSTS. When I was in the military I volunteered to put myself in harms way to protect freedom and democracy not martin and his socialist dictatorship.

Typical socialist, other people's property should either be shared or stolen by the state, for the endless "needs" out there, but someone disposes of his property in the trash & he suddenly recognizes the concept of "mine". Just like most socialists I've observed, all for sharing except when it comes to what they consider their own. My guess Kevin, old buddy, is that "Free" only posted that to piss you off, most conservatives have more respect for property than those of your ilk.

Quite frankly you do seem like a bit of a wimp, you suggest the Armed Forces should be used against Canadian citizens, which most people would assume to imply to be a threat of using force, & yet you moan & complain when others mention a similiar treatment used against you. However from the posts I've read there have been no threats, but more along the lines of - "would collectively wish ... but they are wiser people than that",, that's not the same as saying I'm going to...", "I will...", still I would agree that it is stronger language than what should be used in dealing with someone, especially someone as powerless & ineffectual as yourself.

I am amused by your somewhat tired usage of linking conservatives with Christians, there's a quite a number of Catholics I know that vote Liberal (& NDP). I happen to be an atheist myself, and while quite happily heterosexual still support the legalization of gay marriage, but wouldn't consider supporting the Left under pain of death (& that's literally, not figuratively). There's a lot more intellectual freedom on the right than there is on the Left, it's your side of the political spectrum that are more prone to march in lockstep, and there's nothing more funny than than marching sheeple!

Richard Nixons price controls were not nearly as oppressive as the NEP, took us 5 years to dismantle the mess. 10 years to overcome it and thankfully 20 years later we dont forget .

FREE the WEST.

This one's about run its course, but just let me hazard a guess about your view on Iraq, Kevin P: "No war for oil!", right?

Yet you'd put Canadian soldiers on the streets of Calgary to seize the Albertan oil fields "for Albertans' own good".

I DEFY you to find a Canadian soldier who'd follow that order, who'd ever actually open fire on a fellow Canadian. They're made of far more honourable stock than you, it would seem.

Interesting as Lorne Convert sits by the most succesful economy in Canaduh that he directly invites the communist chinese to invest. circuvnenting the whole leasing system in sask.

a province of nutters.

Its why they all move west and right.

to Alberta
and stop before BEECEE

Eh, I can't resist. I've got my new issue of my newspaper off to the printers (oh yes, I actually invest real money, and raise real money through advertising, in my work) and my store (oh, did I forget to mention I'm a small business entrepreneur also, with a 12-year-old retail store that employs five people?), and I'm feeling like more entertainment, since I am also a father and hence I don't get out at night much, being exhausted from a campaign (oh, forgot to mention, I also ran for city council, just to put myself on that particular line--and got over 10,000 votes in a losing effort).

Let's see: started two successful businesses, writes for two newspapers and occassionally for several others, employs five people, runs for public office, volunteers in my community extensively, consults with many business projects gratis, and father also who gets up every wednesday at 5 for hockey practice and saturday at 7 for games. I'd say that I sound a lot like you, except I know that instead I sound a lot like your fathers instead.

And that, after working for years as a stevedore, barge clearner, seaman in the Arctic, hydro-electric line crewman, taxi-cab driver, concrete form builder, and so on in five different provinces and three different territories.

Look, I'm not a socialist, I'm a small businessman for cyring out loud, I'm more of a capitalist than any of you. I never attacked anyone here personally. There's no need to name-call or make personal threats or put words in my mouth. (Anyone googling me will find I have plenty enough of my own words.)

I started my paper (the place where the original offending article appeared) out of a real genuine and deep concern for the state of our media and leadership. Like Kate here, I found the media did not represent anything close to what I or anyone I knew thought or said.

My paper, which I've pounded away at for five years with no subsidy or hidden money (by principle) has a pretty substantial readership here. And apparently this blog of Kate's also has a wide readership. Surely some of you at least can give credit where it is due: I have put my money where my mouth is. I live a rather impoverished life because I invest it all in this paper which one of you thinks to throw away, an act another of you thinks is some kind of proof that I am a leach. Go figure. I am concerned for the future of this country. Disagree please, its' what conversation is all about. But destroy it? What the fuck is that?

So I am left asking myself: we don't like what we see in the media or in leadership, and yet, Kate and my readers are so incredibly far apart. People here threaten me with physical violence. (I know you people might dismiss it, but you try to go into some "enemy territory" like I have here, and see how it feels to have people threaten to come find you and ram guns up your ass. It's a bit scary, you know, and this is coming from a person who doesn't think twice about going down to Vancouver's downtown eastside for an interview.)

About the whole point of this thread: what do you people suppose is going to happen? Every time there is a significant oil-related event, the price of the barrel jumps up threefold and stays there. The '73 embargo took it from 2 bucks to about 6 bucks when it finally settled. The 1980 Iranian revolution took it from there to about 20 bucks. The Iraqi war has taken it to 60 bucks. Three times the previous price each time.

So we are one more event (a tanker bombing, a nuke in tel aviv, and iranian war, who knows?) from oil going to 180 bucks per barrel.

Ask Alberta farmers: can they make food with oil at that price? Can Calgary-based transport companies stay in business at that rate? Can Alberta mineral mining companies afford that?

Put aside the current elected board at Ottawa for the moment. Does it seem that there should be a national strategy that ensures that our food, transport, mining, and other industries stay in business while the global price of oil, determined by crazy wild events in the Middle East that none of us understand or have anything to do with, goes completely haywire?

Why should it be that a bunch of mullahs and rabbis fighting over desert half a world away determines that those who live in Alberta get bonus cheques from elevated oil prices while farmers, workers, family people, dads moms and kids, struggle with layoffs because the price oil companies can charge industries goes very high?

Is it not more Canadian to deal with this global nonsense in a united way?

Here we are squabbling, some goof throwing my papers in the garbage, others accusing me of Marxism (boys, it's the fucking 21st century, for god sakes, get caught up with the times, neither I nor anyone you have ever met has ever read Marx, you idiots), while oil companies take your oil and BC gas in service to explicitly-stated US national government dictats. They are robbing us all. And we bicker at each other about who has been robbed more, flakes from Vancouver, or red necks from Calgary.

I feel it is necessary to forge a new national unity. Would you or would you not be opposed to a Stephen Harper-led Conservative government negotiating for the federal control of a critical international tool like energy resources?

Does it not make sense to play the game that is there on the fucking table? Why do you people insist on getting a 21 when the game calls for a royal flush?

I am an urban Vancouver guy. Your Kate is some rural Saskatchewan gal. We sound different. But are we not saying the same thing???

The future is at stake.

Kevin, since you have never read Karl Marx, I think you may be what Lenin referred to as a "useful idiot".

As we ALL know, capitalism is the idea that has kept millions of people from poverty.Your description of your own daily affairs just confirms it.

I believe in the USA there are 3 things that have brought blessings (sorry Kevin) to its citizens.

1)National Sovereignty.

2)Freedom of the individual.

3) Freedom to own property.

As for the definition of a Yankee to many, many Americans it means someone who fought for the Union.

Kevin - you have absolutely no understanding of the oil industry, nor its internal workings. I can accept your strategy, but only under the circumstances that the gov't seizes ALL means of production, from all provinces (you know, communism). What you're proposing is lowering oil prices in canada only? what are you thinking!? You're talking about the limited and diminishing supply, so we'll go bargain-basement on it in canada??? use it up before the americans come take it from us?? What world do you live in!? You publish this "newspaper", which from the articles I have read(I spent a good couple hours yesterday), contain little to no news. You tout your opinion on events and radical ideals as news, but its not. Its opinion.
"Why should it be that a bunch of mullahs and rabbis ..." - does this constitute news???

You bring up a really important point though kevin - your newspaper shouldn't be thrown in the garbage...

Thats what recycling bins are for.

“. . . might break a nail eh Kevin? And being in the Reserves, I will be sure to do so . . .”
- i think you need to re-read that post kevin. The being in the reserves part was about this comment of yours:
"Biggie, you be sure to pass along your compliments to the Canadian Armed Forces next November 11, now, ya hear? Or better yet, why don't we email your post to those stationed in Kandahar right now? "
I even inserted a break!! You can't pick and choose parts of posts to create threats.
And the break a nail part was implying something entirely different! i'm not sure who said it, but they were right - guys like you really are a conservatives' best friend..

Kevin Potvins says "while oil companies take your oil and BC gas in service to explicitly-stated US national government dictats. They are robbing us all."
BC Gov't says "Oil and gas royalty revenues are forecast to be $1.854 billion for 2004/05."
I don't believe oil companies are "taking" anything and I don't feel as though I'm being "robbed".
Kevin, I feel because you failed to mention the rest of the oil and gas producing provinces in your article and instead choose to take dead aim at Alberta the whole gist of your article was nothing more than an expression of your utter contempt for Alberta and Albertans. You may attempt to argue otherwise but I'm not buying it.

And it worked. The socialist mind, what a small closed thing. Yes yes its OK to think whatever you want as long its been reviewed and authorized by the proper committee.

Poor poor Kevin

You threw rocks at a bee's nest and now you got stung! If you had said from the start that you wanted to 'negotiate', not surround Calgary with armed forces, I'm sure this conversation would have proceeded differently.

So an olive branch instead of slinging more mud. It sounds to me like you are broke. I can get you a job operating oilfield equipment. No experience necessary, starting near $80,000 per year including bonuses! You can work a shift that allows you to commute.

Why should we pay you a cheque to stay home when there is a huge shortage of workers needed here?

Also, what stops you from investing on the open market in oil companies or oilfield service companies?

Keep the fucking government out of our pockets, or dont you get that part kevin. I sold advertising for years and i know how many ads are in your manifesto disguised as a newspaper and they dont even cover the cost of the ink. So dont feed us any more commie lies. Whos is really covering your costs? The NDP? The COMMUNIST PARTY? The Chinese government? You really should try using truth.

Kevin,
Just to allow a little more reality to intrude:
Under the terms of NAFTA, we can not sell any Energy Resources internally for less than we sell to the US.
So, how is it that the price at the pump in the US is so much lower than in Canada?
Well, maybe it is because of all the additional taxes that are layered on by various levels of government. Federal, Provincial, Federal (the "temporary" deficit tax), Civic (in Vancouver, to pay for the transit service?), Provincial (PST), Federal (GST).
As for your contention that this resource is being "taken" out of the country, that does not seem to square with the fact that all of these companies pay royalties based on the amounts of hyrocarbons produced. Even when the company actually owns the land and the subsurface rights (generally, these are held by Canadian companies, such as EnCana) they are still obligated to pay royalties to the government. Keep in mind that the cost to drill a well ranges from about $1,000,000 to $50,000,000 in western Canada, and about 25% of the wells drilled are unsuccessful. If the well is successful, then the government collects royalties. If the well is unsuccessful, the government still gets money (licensing fees, taxes paid by the workers, etc.)
And then there are all of the taxes paid by the Oil and Service companies, and all of their employees.

Finally, with respect to your comment:
"Does it seem 'socialist' of the GBW White House to ensure government agencies actively involve themselves in the creation of more pipelines and production facilities, as it is clearly stated in this plan to be the administration's intent? "
Both the Federal and Provincial governments are already quite active in this area, and co-operate fairly well at the local level (that is, the feds that operate from Calgary and Edmonton tend to see eye-to-eye on most issues with their provincial counterparts; the same can not always be said when talking about the feds operating out of Ottawa).. In fact, this has been the case for quite a while and is referred to in several US Dept of Energy (DoE) publications (for example, this "Canada accounts for virtually all U.S. natural gas imports because natural gas is generally cheaper to transport via pipeline, and Canada has an extensive and growing gas pipeline system that is integrated with the U.S. pipeline system. " in ).
Oh, and with respect to your (much) earlier request to name a country that has not nationalized their energy resources, here: (Google is your friend...)

Like you, I have wife and kids (I assume you have a wife, although you did not explicitly mention one in your last post), a company, and a position in the community.

Oh, and, yes I live in Alberta.
No, I am not a "Christian", although I was raised as a Catholic, and I do think that has had some bearing on my feeling that one must be man enough to take responsability for their actions. I hope that I have been able to instill that same ethic in my children; I wish that Paul Martin Sr. had been able to do as much with respect to *his* children.
No, I do not own a gun, however after PM's idiotic "ban" of handguns, I'm tempted to become a gun owner just to show my disdain for that particularly spectacularly pointless bit of political grandstanding. (It's a bit like what happens when I tell my teen-ager not to do something - I may as well be standing in front of a bull, waving a red flag...)
And yes, I would definitely become a gun owner if the federal government followed *your* advice.
And, no, I don't work for an oil company...

I've been reading all these comments carefully. My original article obviously struck nerves, but in the opinion-writing business, that's what you're supposed to do. What do you think would happen if Kate's articles showed up in my commentary to my readers? Same thing. So I apologize for making people upset (but not for writing it--that would be hypocritical).

I apreciate Sean's comments above very much. But I really still need to understand the frame of mind I see here.

So allow to run a scenario, and I’d really appreciate it if those who wish to comment could keep the focus on the idea here, and knock it off with the personal attacks. What I would like to know is, which of these steps is wrong? I will space them out so you can pop right in where you see a mistake.

Every time a major geopolitical event happens, the price of oil jumps up then eventually settles down at a new plateau about three times higher than before the event.

It now seems to have settled at roughly $55, after having been at about $20 at the previous plateau.

The next event would probably therefore leave oil settled down at around $150. We don’t know when there will be an event or what it might be, but certainly looking out at the world, we certainly know that there will be an event again of some sort soon enough. (Iran war? A nuke in Tel Aviv? A tanker explosion at the LA port?)

If oil were to rapidly go up to $150, this would cause a lot of problems. Even if the federal government were to reduce the tax at the pump to zero, oil at that price would probably mean gasoline priced at least as high as $2 per litre at the pump, and potentially far higher.

It makes prudent sense to think about what those problems might be and to think about what plans we can make now to mitigate the worst case scenario.

First of all, the transportation sector, both commercial and private, would be devastated. Private food-trucking companies would be faced with bankruptcy. These trucking companies bring food a long distance everyday to stores in cities, where more than 80% of Canadians live now—and where there is absolutely no stock of extra food nor the means to make it. If they were to go bankrupt quickly, we would not have food in our stores in all cities within two days.

There a number of other industries not only where the consumer needs the product everyday, but where the producer needs the income from sales as well. The entire retail sector would be unable to stay in business past one month if trucks stopped bringing in products for sale. All our producers of all things would stop making sales and getting paid too.

Farming itself now requires a lot of oil, not just for equipment, but for the nitrogen that is pumped into the soil making it productive. Within months, farming would be in general bankruptcy.

So many sectors of the economy (airlines, retail, trucking, manufacturing, farming) would be in catastrophe inside half a year if oil were to triple in price again.

Also, most workers would be faced with personal problems, since most now travel extensively by car to get to work from outlying suburbs.

Even some towns, like Hay River, in NWT, generates its entire electricity supply from oil-fired generators.

So. If some or all of these things follow from a rise in oil brought on by another geopolitical event, we have a few choices. Which do you prefer?

1. Do nothing. Oil goes up in price, all these industries and the workers and families in them, shut down, and we just let that happen. (Of course, that would mean foreclosures and joblessness and homelessness through the roof, at a time when government revenues to deal with policing, jailing, and so on, are very depleted as well.)

2. subsidize the affected industries: pay trucking firms, airlines, and so on, in some way to make up for their big losses due to much higher energy bills. (Again, with the economy taking a hit, though, government revenues will be down at a time when all this new demand on their money would be coming up).

3. Legislate a lower price for oil (which, as a producer and a buyer, is possible here, but not in any other country where they import most of their oil—because you can’t legislate a company outside your country to do anything).

To my mind, choice 3, though fraught with risk, is the best choice. Since everyone was happy enough when oil fetched $55 a barrel, clearly, the much higher price it fetches at $150 represents no extra cost of production, but rather just huge new profits for the companies. So, though we don’t want to hurt profitability in the private sector, compared to the other two choices above, it’s the least evil.

But of course, with memories of the NEP in Alberta, such a plan would be met with howls of protest. It isn’t at all certain that the Alberta legislature, backed by popular masses in protest, would support the plan either. We know the premier has had secret meetings with Dick Cheney, author of the largely still secret US national energy plan. It might be that Alberta might choose to try to make a deal with America rather than see its oil legislated at a lower price to Canadian farmers, citizens, and industries. If that were to be the case, then the scenario in choice one would happen by default: a general and huge economic and social crisis.

If we wait until after the event happens to make a move on legislating prices on oil after it has already jumped up to