Lisa Raitt says Jim Prentice.
Alberta PC MLAs [have been told to] say Michael Ignatieff.
(It's probably a good thing these came out after this meeting)
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
who's more oilsands friendly?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"...Dave Cournoyer isn't some obscure fat frat boy with a sticky-up haircut." - Neil Waugh (Edmonton Sun)
this blog has moved to a new address: daveberta.ca
Please update your RSS, bookmarks, and links to http://daveberta.ca.
this blog has moved to a new address: daveberta.ca
Please update your RSS and links to http://daveberta.ca.
Posts
informer.
The opinions expressed on this blog represent my own and not those of my employer or any organization I may be affiliated with.
In addition, my thoughts and opinions change from time to time. I consider this a necessary consequence of having an open mind. This blog is intended to provide a semi-permanent point in time snapshot and manifestation of the various ideas running around my brain, and as such any thoughts and opinions expressed within out-of-date posts may not the same, nor even similar, to those I may hold today.
In addition, my thoughts and opinions change from time to time. I consider this a necessary consequence of having an open mind. This blog is intended to provide a semi-permanent point in time snapshot and manifestation of the various ideas running around my brain, and as such any thoughts and opinions expressed within out-of-date posts may not the same, nor even similar, to those I may hold today.
twitter.
recent posts.
about the author.
I can be reached by email at: daveberta.ca@gmail.com.
facebook.
daveberta.ca on Facebook
web 2.0
updated blogs.
blogs.
alberta blogs alain saffel / alberta education / albertosaurus talks /albertaviews blog / alex abboud / andrew mcintyre / atypical albertan / berry patch perspective / better edmonton / big block of cheese / bill given / both barrels / brittney leblanc / calgarygrit / calgary rants / capital notebook / chris labossiere / colby cosh / darryl raymaker / david climenhaga / diversions and happenstance / djkelly.ca / don iveson / earl j. woods / ed-vocate / enlightened savage / five of five / four strong winds / gauntlet.ca / grandinite / idealistic pragmatist / jeremy klaszus / ken chapman / kevin powell / the kory story / medhat blog / mark wells / mastermaq / murgatroyd blog / mike soron/ phendrana drifts / politicalgary / pseudo psyence / pt is my homeboy/ revmod / right on course / river city writer / rob breakenridge / the rurban fringe / six meetings / straight outta edmonton / sue huff / summer's daydreams / terahertz / searching for liberty / the story girl / this is just to say / trevor scott howell / u of a law blog / under the hood / unpopular dissent / voice of grant / who's left and who's leaving
blogs from elsewhere abandoned stuff / born with a tail / bow. james bow. / darren barefoot / david akin / desmogblog / huffington post / idicula.ca / james laxer / john gushue / jordan cooper / the hook / laurence miall / michael geist / partisan hobo / peterborough politics / progressive right / pundits' guide / sean shaw / the first drop / we move to canada / west of the fourth / woman at mile 0
guest contributors.
- jason ragan: progressives versus conservatives.
- shannon sortland: a reasoned defence of rural representation.
- chris henderson: how i became a former john mcain fan.
articles elsewhere.
- oct 1, 2009: the cult of king ralph still spins alberta
- sept 17, 2009: ndp convention puts kibosh on cooperation
- june 4, 2009: who cares about local tv?
- june 1 2009: citizen bloggers
- dec 11, 2008: leadership races of the past
- oct 9, 2008: lots of talk, not a lot of decisions
- july 17, 2008: out-side the 10-second box
- may 1, 2008: energy minister wrong about sierra club support
- feb 21, 2008: no clear winners
- feb 14, 2008: shaking off 1971
- oct 10, 2007: out-of-the-box development
- oct 9, 2007: it's about a plan
- sept 25, 2007: voters shouldn't be afraid to 'go shopping'
more daveberta.
smith v. board of education part 1 / part 2 / part 3 / part 4
alberta and greenpeace claims of political interference / it's about site security / tourists at home and abroad
governing myself accordingly: edstelmach.ca premier stelmach threatens to sue alberta blogger over edstelmach.ca / day 2 / the daveberta conspiracy / day 3 / day 4 / day 10 / day 23
alberta election 2008: constituency profiles calgary-buffalo / calgary-currie / calgary-mccall / calgary-varsity / cardston-taber-warner / edmonton-calder / edmonton-castle downs / edmonton-meadowlark
2007 edmonton municipal election non-race for mayor / ward 1 / ward 2 / ward 3 / ward 4 / ward 5 / ward 6
daveberta: the box set.
- April 2010 (10)
- March 2010 (17)
- February 2010 (18)
- January 2010 (21)
- December 2009 (22)
- November 2009 (25)
- October 2009 (29)
- September 2009 (38)
- August 2009 (18)
- July 2009 (25)
- June 2009 (37)
- May 2009 (30)
- April 2009 (33)
- March 2009 (41)
- February 2009 (25)
- January 2009 (33)
- December 2008 (32)
- November 2008 (28)
- October 2008 (50)
- September 2008 (58)
- August 2008 (24)
- July 2008 (26)
- June 2008 (25)
- May 2008 (29)
- April 2008 (36)
- March 2008 (48)
- February 2008 (54)
- January 2008 (38)
- December 2007 (25)
- November 2007 (31)
- October 2007 (51)
- September 2007 (39)
- August 2007 (29)
- July 2007 (8)
- June 2007 (28)
- May 2007 (24)
- April 2007 (23)
- March 2007 (18)
- February 2007 (16)
- January 2007 (22)
- December 2006 (27)
- November 2006 (38)
- October 2006 (28)
- September 2006 (39)
- August 2006 (29)
- July 2006 (33)
- June 2006 (43)
- May 2006 (27)
- April 2006 (34)
- March 2006 (24)
- February 2006 (25)
- January 2006 (55)
- December 2005 (47)
- November 2005 (50)
- October 2005 (49)
- September 2005 (42)
- August 2005 (38)
- July 2005 (46)
- June 2005 (60)
- May 2005 (33)
- April 2005 (30)
- March 2005 (27)
- February 2005 (17)
- January 2005 (9)
14 comments:
Lougheed may have been right in a legal (that is, constitutional) sense, but I doubt that he was right in a moral sense when we are talking about strategic national resources.
"We have to understand when there are resources like oil, gas and timber, they don't belong only to the people who had the fortune to be born there." --- Peruvian President Alan Garcia.
Just a thought.
Hmmmm...will you be quoting Karl Marx next?..."from those according to their ability, to those according to their need"? On my one unfortunate visit to the BC ledge in 1999, I actually heard an NDP MLA say that quote in question period. My guliver imploded.
Back to the question at hand, all that really matters is the 'constitutional sense'. I'm not a big fan of shaving my head, putting on a toga, giving away my worldly possessions, and dancing around a fire chanting Kumbaya. The law is the law, and it serves us well. By us, I mean Albertans and Canadians.
Lougheed rightly points out that oilsands corporate influence over our government is endemic. As with all things in law, the spirit of the law matters more than any technicalities. WE are the owners, not Suncor or Syncrude. They may develop the resource on OUR terms.
Danny Williams, of all people (being a Conservative), played serious hardball with Newfoundland's oil developers. Why can't we do the same?
Lougheed was right about so many things. We need him back, or at least, people like him.
Let's look at his governments accomplishments:
1. Established Heritage Savings fund
2. Started the 'government owned' Alberta Energy Corporation...later to become Encana
3. Started the 'government owned' Pacific Western Airlines....later to become Canadian Airlines.
4. Stood up to PET's NEP and got us the 'least of all evil' deals.
5. Repealed 'eugenics sterilization' laws of previous government.
6. Repealed the 'Lord's Day act' which forced closure of major stores on Sunday's
7. Made 'Alberta Government Telephones' a national force to be reckoned with....later to become Telus
8. Worked 'co-operatively' with federal Liberals to start oilsands.
9. Built major arts facilities for universities and the public.
10. Made the biggest capital investments in post-secondary education EVER.
11. Supported bids for '78 Commonwealth Games, '88 Olympics, '83 Universiade.
If you ask me, he was a little bit of NDP, Liberal, and Conservative rolled into one.
Sorry! I was misinformed on the Lord's Day act:
"Hello and thank you for you question regarding the Lord's Day Act of Alberta.
Upon researching the Lord's Day Act, I found that in 1985 the act was found to be unconstitutional based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, stemming from the Big M Drug Mart's challenge. Therefore the Lord's Day Act is no longer a current statue and is not available online."
Joe Lougheed, is that you?
Nice to see Peter Lougheed speaking out and making Albertans think about the hfct we are the owners of the oilsands. As a result we have duties - not the least of which is to ensure our government developes them in a responsible and sustainable manner. Here is a link to my post on Lougheeds leadership. http://ken-chapman.blogspot.com/2009/06/lougheed-confirms-albertans-own.html
Fantastic.
Suggestion that strategic resources rejoined by equating the idea that strategic resources are somehow national is somehow Marxist.
Anonymous is as anonymous does, I guess.
If all you think matters is the Constitutional sense, how do you think they Constitution should read?
The law and politics answers to morality, whether you like it or not.
No...law and politics answers to voters, and voters are fickle.
'Morality' is a personally subjective beast. I certainly don't want judges interpreting law via their own morality. George W Bush DOES believe in this. We cannot.
Constitutions and bills of rights should be technical documents conveying a spirit of intent. Interpretation should be based on precedent and logical insight.
Sigh. You entirely missed the point. I suggest beginning with Aristotle. Hobbes and Locke next. Then Kelsen, Hart, and Dworkin.
Morality is no more subjective than is mathematics; it's simply far far harder to get the correct answers since there's almost always more than one right answer.
If you think mob-rule is what constitutes good government and good law, I refer you to John Stuart Mill.
I was making a foundational point, not a superficial 'media-style', one-off point.
I guess I'll leave you to it then.
The rest of the country already plunders a sizable portion of our resource revenues, ownership or not.
A larger concern should be intergenerational equity. By using resource revenues to fund program spending we are selfishly using up all of the benefits today and leaving future generations with nothing but bloated government and public debt. The large majority (or better yet, ALL) resource revenue should go directly to an investment fund which then pays out dividends to the people of the province (the owners).
Actually the Feds got a copy of the memo two weeks before the press did, so Prentice knew what was on the mind of the Province before the conference.
"the people are the owners" is the sort of sloganeering that does not make for good policy development.
Fact is, the biggest problems with the New Royalty Framework were not related to the oil sands but to conventional gas.
If this sloganeering actually meant something, then why hasn't the Stelmach govt being taken to task for reversing itself 110% on what it campaigned for? The royalty framework has changed again and again (as business left the province and Stelmach made it more business friendly) and where was the pushback from the "people" with each of these changes?
Once it is out of the ground, is it still the "people's"? Yes? Well then normal business considerations don't apply to upgrading either, I suppose. Do normal business considerations EVER apply? Every stage of production of everything is ultimately a value added from when the product was a rock or a tree.
Functionally, royalties are seen as the same as corporate and investment taxes from the perspective of the energy companies. If there is an intelligent policy argument for higher corporate taxes, fine, but if there isn't, sloganeering does not create one.
If the resource is truly owned by the people, then I would be getting a direct dividend on a regular basis instead of seeing the royalties go into government revenues to be spent on projects that benefit only some Albertans.
I might add that there is a gigantic "is therefore ought" fallacy behind the argument. Energy IS legally Albertans, therefore it OUGHT to be? Had the federal govt not transferred its interest in 1930, it would be Canadian not Albertan. If there is a moral argument for why it should be Albertan instead of Canadian, simply pointing to the current state of the law does not make that argument.
I called my MLA and he said he'd never seen this memo. Has anyone seen it?
Post a Comment