Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 01-18-2017, 02:36 PM
Bitumen Bullet Bitumen Bullet is offline
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 418
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrowan View Post
..As for any resistance to Canada's expansion into the west the only large event that comes to mind, besides opposition in BC that was met during the construction of the rail line, is the Red River rebellion. But that was more related to Canadian and Metis relations.
And that is exactly what Canada want's you to remember. They do not want you to know that in what is Manitoba today there was another colony, a successful colony with many businesses, including wind, water and the latest in technology Steam powered mills producing cloth and flour for use across what is today Western Canada.

They do not want you to think of the Riel family as French settlers with their own farm and mill living in a well established colony with all the rights of British Subjects. Nor do they want people to think of the international trade occurring in today's Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, or the thousands living and working in and around Manitoba's ocean ports. Work that included manufacturing, as well as shipping and logistics.

They want people to believe that there was nothing to see here, no truth to the stories that Canada was using it's military for force people, British Subjects, some French and Catholic into capitulation.

At the time the reason was clear. Confederation was tenuous. The image of forcing French Catholics off land that was rightfully theirs would not play well in Quebec. Best for Canada's PR to play on the racism of the day and tell Canadians the only people being killed by the military were savages and worst yet mixed bloods.

But the PR story continues to be told. We are still taught that there was no one here but a few Indians and violent Metis. Canada does not want it's history in the West known or talked about and for similar reasons.

If it was taught in classrooms that people had already settled in the West, that there were active and growing industries, that trade with the world was occurring through busy ocean ports employing thousands the people living in those areas today might start to ask questions.

They might ask what happened to the ocean ports after hundreds of years of regular use. They might ask what happen to the many mills in Manitoba, and they might learn that Canada had little interest in such supporting them. That Canada didn't want goods being shipped internationally out of the West, and brought in laws to make that illegal for many products, that all valuable products were to be shipped east, not north or south.

People might learn that the homegrown wheat and flour industry of Manitoba, ideally placed to grow from increased trade would become completely dominated by A.W. Ogilvie & Co. of Montreal. That Canadian companies were given preference over local companies, resulting in profits flowing east rather than back into local communities.

If people started looking they might come to learn that not only had a growing local business suffer while Canadian businesses were given advantage they might learn that even those wanting to start a business, or even get a loan for a new farm would be at a disadvantage thanks to a Canadian banking system that had only 11 banks all headquartered in the East. While the U.S. to the south had one bank for every 3,600 Canada had one bank for every 63,000 Canadians, staving the West of much needed capital.

They might even ask why Canada was in such a rush to build a railway.

Ancient history isn't ancient if you are still living with it.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-18-2017, 02:40 PM
Gray Wolf Gray Wolf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,217
Unhappy Sad

Its amazing what they don't teach in school these days
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-18-2017, 02:41 PM
couleefolk couleefolk is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 869
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by waterninja View Post
Just talking about a Western Alliance that included BC, AB and Sask would be a huge step in the right direction


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Have a little grace and please include Manitoba in that Alliance! It's been bad enough what the NDP has done to Manitoba without having to be a part of an Eastern Alliance.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-18-2017, 04:35 PM
Selkirk's Avatar
Selkirk Selkirk is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: In the shadow of the Valhalla Mountains, BC .
Posts: 9,174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tirebob View Post
Basically this... No need to separate from Canada, but we need a block of western provinces to get together and form a political party that is large enough to hold the parties in charge accountable to the west, much like the bloc does for Quebec. We will never have enough seats to hold the main seat in federal power, but enough combined that any party in that seat will require our votes to achieve anything. That is the point where we gain actual power rather than perceived power.
Been there ^, done that ^.

It was called The Reform Party.

The rest is history.

Mac
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-18-2017, 04:40 PM
Newview01 Newview01 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitumen Bullet View Post
And that is exactly what Canada want's you to remember. They do not want you to know that in what is Manitoba today there was another colony, a successful colony with many businesses, including wind, water and the latest in technology Steam powered mills producing cloth and flour for use across what is today Western Canada.

They do not want you to think of the Riel family as French settlers with their own farm and mill living in a well established colony with all the rights of British Subjects. Nor do they want people to think of the international trade occurring in today's Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, or the thousands living and working in and around Manitoba's ocean ports. Work that included manufacturing, as well as shipping and logistics.

They want people to believe that there was nothing to see here, no truth to the stories that Canada was using it's military for force people, British Subjects, some French and Catholic into capitulation.

At the time the reason was clear. Confederation was tenuous. The image of forcing French Catholics off land that was rightfully theirs would not play well in Quebec. Best for Canada's PR to play on the racism of the day and tell Canadians the only people being killed by the military were savages and worst yet mixed bloods.

But the PR story continues to be told. We are still taught that there was no one here but a few Indians and violent Metis. Canada does not want it's history in the West known or talked about and for similar reasons.

If it was taught in classrooms that people had already settled in the West, that there were active and growing industries, that trade with the world was occurring through busy ocean ports employing thousands the people living in those areas today might start to ask questions.

They might ask what happened to the ocean ports after hundreds of years of regular use. They might ask what happen to the many mills in Manitoba, and they might learn that Canada had little interest in such supporting them. That Canada didn't want goods being shipped internationally out of the West, and brought in laws to make that illegal for many products, that all valuable products were to be shipped east, not north or south.

People might learn that the homegrown wheat and flour industry of Manitoba, ideally placed to grow from increased trade would become completely dominated by A.W. Ogilvie & Co. of Montreal. That Canadian companies were given preference over local companies, resulting in profits flowing east rather than back into local communities.

If people started looking they might come to learn that not only had a growing local business suffer while Canadian businesses were given advantage they might learn that even those wanting to start a business, or even get a loan for a new farm would be at a disadvantage thanks to a Canadian banking system that had only 11 banks all headquartered in the East. While the U.S. to the south had one bank for every 3,600 Canada had one bank for every 63,000 Canadians, staving the West of much needed capital.

They might even ask why Canada was in such a rush to build a railway.

Ancient history isn't ancient if you are still living with it.
This is very interesting. Lately I have been reading some books about America discovering the West and expanding its territory. A lot of the encounters with what they called 'French fur traders' or 'Northwest Trading Company' and Hudsons Bay Fur' were less than pleasant. The folks in Canada seemed very aggressive and could have been some real competition if it weren't for the British monarchy the the 'elites' in the east at the time strangling and monopolizing the current trade and economy. Probably some of it still going on today..
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-18-2017, 04:51 PM
Wild&Free Wild&Free is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by qwert View Post
Neither the Canadian Government or the Bank of Canada has 'issued' (created) any 'currency' (money) since ~1973, that money creation (and profit 'making') function has been 'assumed' by the privately owned for profit Canadian Chartered Banks.

The failure of the Bank of Canada to perform this function is the root cause of the large increase in Canada's National Debt since ~1973, and of the increased tax load necessary to pay the resultant costs of interest and principal payments.
http://comer.org/
maybe if we say it over and over again people will clue in that it's not liberal spending or conservative balanced budgets we need but a rebuilding of our entire monetary system that is required.
__________________
Respond, not react. - Saskatchewan proverb

We learn from history that we do not learn from history. - Hegel

Your obligation to fight has not been relieved because the battle is fierce and difficult. Ben Shapiro
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-18-2017, 05:32 PM
qwert qwert is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,443
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild&Free View Post
maybe if we say it over and over again people will clue in that it's not liberal spending or conservative balanced budgets we need but a rebuilding of our entire monetary system that is required.
Not sure that a complete rebuilding is required,
but rather a return to the Bank of Canada's monetary policies that enabled Canada to fight a World War, build the worlds 3rd largest navy, the Seaway, sea-coast harbors, Dew Line, Trans Canada Hwy & microwave network, and hospitals, funded the Universities that educated the veterans and baby boomers and also world class medical and other research, designed and built the Candu Reactor, established Medicare and CPP, and much more that made us the envy of the world, all without incurring substantial foreign or domestic debt.

All that ended in 1973 when the Bank of Canada (at the direction of the BIS) abandoned its core function of 'money creation' as authorized and practiced since 1937. Canadians have a perfectly good Publicly owned Central Bank, all we need is the will to use it as it was designed and intended to do.

http://comer.org/
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-18-2017, 06:16 PM
wildbill wildbill is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Gods Country
Posts: 1,706
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwdrbrn View Post
What purpose is served by our Federal Gov't which is beyond the capability of a decent or skilled Provincial Gov't? I asked this question today at work, and believe it or not, no one could come up with anything. Thoughts and comments sincerely welcomed from all! Realizing far too late in life how little I know about so much😡
What kind of question is that? Next you'll be askin why a queen from another country is on all of our money, sheesh, this is Canada, don't remember the gun registry? Throwing hard earned tax money away is what we do!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-18-2017, 07:25 PM
CNP's Avatar
CNP CNP is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: WMU 303
Posts: 8,480
Default

Two pages of wallowing in a OP that isn't worth a rats patootie
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-18-2017, 07:49 PM
Bitumen Bullet Bitumen Bullet is offline
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 418
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by qwert View Post
...... Canadians have a perfectly good Publicly owned Central Bank, all we need is the will to use it as it was designed and intended to do....
Canadians do but not Western Canadians. As I pointed out the Canadian banking system was designed for and by Canada's Elite, a banking Elite who cares little about what is best for the Canadian economy.

Still if I was in Ontario I would say exactly what you said, but being in Western Canada I suggest we really do need to create a new monetary system, one that acts in our interests, or at the very least our own homegrown Elites.

The Central Bank or Bank of Canada should have provided loan capital, money used to build infrastructure and industries, money that has to be paid back. That isn't how the Bank of Canada has operated, particularly in Western Canada.

Instead they, and Canada's banking establishment work on the principle of equity investment, mostly from the USA. This is what they, Canada, means when they tell Western Canada that a low dollar is good for investment, good for jobs.

The problem with equity investment is jobs is all we get. With equity investments ownership transfers to the investors. The enterprise or industry becomes American (usually) owned and controlled and profits flow out of the province.

We, Western Canadians, cannot pay back the loan out of profits because we never got a loan, we just got the jobs, Ottawa gets our taxes. How the enterprise is operated, it's use of resources, the extent of processing in Alberta, the amount of research and development, even the decision to import technology from a foreign parent company or even to develop a network of sources in Canada are done by investors elsewhere, who usually decide on what is best for them and theirs.

IMO using the bank of Canada is not in the interests of a strong wealthy robust Western economy, even if they went back to 1973 practices.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 01-18-2017, 08:18 PM
CanuckShooter's Avatar
CanuckShooter CanuckShooter is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Quesnel BC Canada
Posts: 5,586
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tirebob View Post
Basically this... No need to separate from Canada, but we need a block of western provinces to get together and form a political party that is large enough to hold the parties in charge accountable to the west, much like the bloc does for Quebec. We will never have enough seats to hold the main seat in federal power, but enough combined that any party in that seat will require our votes to achieve anything. That is the point where we gain actual power rather than perceived power.

Maybe if we get NDP in all the western provinces it could happen. After all Ottawa has been ruled by either Liberals or Conservatives forever....
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-18-2017, 09:05 PM
amosfella amosfella is offline
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrowan View Post
Not to dampen your mood but our supreme court has already ruled that a province doesn't have the authority or right to negotiate a separation with just the Federal government. All provinces would need to be involved with the province leaving the country. Not only that but the House of Commons would probably have to vote to amend the constitution to allow the release of a province, which is unlikely to happen.

http://www.canadahistory.com/section...ion_ruling.htm
There's the Clarity Act.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-18-2017, 09:25 PM
amosfella amosfella is offline
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,221
Default

One very interesting point that has been neglected. Canada has never made a formal declaration of independence from Great Britain. All the other commonwealth countries have, even though some retain the Queen as a figurehead.

I believe that part of Canada doing that could be a very different matter in Parliamentary supremacy...
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-19-2017, 11:44 AM
CanuckShooter's Avatar
CanuckShooter CanuckShooter is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Quesnel BC Canada
Posts: 5,586
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newview01 View Post
This is very interesting. Lately I have been reading some books about America discovering the West and expanding its territory. A lot of the encounters with what they called 'French fur traders' or 'Northwest Trading Company' and Hudsons Bay Fur' were less than pleasant. The folks in Canada seemed very aggressive and could have been some real competition if it weren't for the British monarchy the the 'elites' in the east at the time strangling and monopolizing the current trade and economy. Probably some of it still going on today..

Have you ever wondered why the majority of Treaties in BC are still unresolved?? I don't think it was an oversight do you?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-19-2017, 12:07 PM
Bitumen Bullet Bitumen Bullet is offline
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 418
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amosfella View Post
..Canada has never made a formal declaration of independence from Great Britain. ....
But Britain made one for us with the Balfour Declaration (or Report) of 1926 in which Britain told Canadians to solve their own problems, that neither the UK government or the Queen would be dragged into our politics, we were on our own. That and 1982.

Depending on how the government handles the death of the Queen it could create a Constitutional crisis, one Alberta should be prepared to take advantage of (as we know Quebec is).

Of course Canada's Elite and the Liberals want to keep the Queen and GG because that creates a system of Royal Privilege which is a key mechanism though which the "right" people can be rewarded. The many Royal appointments and positions including the whole of the Senate is the main tool in giving the select few access to the tax trough and the life of privilege they honestly believe is deserved.

It would be a good time to remove the GG, have the Senate filled with an equal number of representatives from each province, selected by the provinces, and to increase the Supreme Court to 13, one from each province plus one selected by Territories.

But those benefiting from the currently corrupt systems want none of that and have made it clear they will fight, apparently to our death, to resist anything moving Canada towards being a republic.

Or removing the special status given to people of select races, ethnicity, location or languages.

Knowing that Alberta, and the West could take a page from the many lessons taught to us by Quebec and have more Federal powers transferred to us and less of our money transferred from us in exchange for not pushing for the end of Royal Privilege so many love so dearly.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-19-2017, 12:24 PM
Wolftrapper's Avatar
Wolftrapper Wolftrapper is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 948
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckShooter View Post
Have you ever wondered why the majority of Treaties in BC are still unresolved?? I don't think it was an oversight do you?
They are unresolved because the Natives are to difficult to deal with. They want all the cake and be able to eat it all so to speak.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-19-2017, 12:33 PM
Bigwoodsman Bigwoodsman is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 8,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigg View Post
I'd say you need both Prov and Fed to work together to clean out the pockets of the working people.

I remember people were stirred into a frenzy a few years ago thinking a corporate tax cut would help the middle class because new jobs would be created and all that fun stuff.
Then I specifically asked myself: Where is that lost portion of the pie going to be made up? Heyyyy Carbon Tax anyone??
We keep electing governments to clean out our pockets. What would happen if no one voted in any election. No one would get elected, what happens then!

BW
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-19-2017, 12:42 PM
jrowan jrowan is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Calgary
Posts: 361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitumen Bullet View Post
And that is exactly what Canada want's you to remember. They do not want you to know that in what is Manitoba today there was another colony, a successful colony with many businesses, including wind, water and the latest in technology Steam powered mills producing cloth and flour for use across what is today Western Canada.

They do not want you to think of the Riel family as French settlers with their own farm and mill living in a well established colony with all the rights of British Subjects. Nor do they want people to think of the international trade occurring in today's Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, or the thousands living and working in and around Manitoba's ocean ports. Work that included manufacturing, as well as shipping and logistics.

They want people to believe that there was nothing to see here, no truth to the stories that Canada was using it's military for force people, British Subjects, some French and Catholic into capitulation.

At the time the reason was clear. Confederation was tenuous. The image of forcing French Catholics off land that was rightfully theirs would not play well in Quebec. Best for Canada's PR to play on the racism of the day and tell Canadians the only people being killed by the military were savages and worst yet mixed bloods.

But the PR story continues to be told. We are still taught that there was no one here but a few Indians and violent Metis. Canada does not want it's history in the West known or talked about and for similar reasons.

If it was taught in classrooms that people had already settled in the West, that there were active and growing industries, that trade with the world was occurring through busy ocean ports employing thousands the people living in those areas today might start to ask questions.

They might ask what happened to the ocean ports after hundreds of years of regular use. They might ask what happen to the many mills in Manitoba, and they might learn that Canada had little interest in such supporting them. That Canada didn't want goods being shipped internationally out of the West, and brought in laws to make that illegal for many products, that all valuable products were to be shipped east, not north or south.

People might learn that the homegrown wheat and flour industry of Manitoba, ideally placed to grow from increased trade would become completely dominated by A.W. Ogilvie & Co. of Montreal. That Canadian companies were given preference over local companies, resulting in profits flowing east rather than back into local communities.

If people started looking they might come to learn that not only had a growing local business suffer while Canadian businesses were given advantage they might learn that even those wanting to start a business, or even get a loan for a new farm would be at a disadvantage thanks to a Canadian banking system that had only 11 banks all headquartered in the East. While the U.S. to the south had one bank for every 3,600 Canada had one bank for every 63,000 Canadians, staving the West of much needed capital.

They might even ask why Canada was in such a rush to build a railway.

Ancient history isn't ancient if you are still living with it.
If you could provide the name of the colony in Manitoba that would be great.

Interesting read on the history of the Red River settlement: http://www.lordselkirk.ca/the-settlers/
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-19-2017, 01:20 PM
jrowan jrowan is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Calgary
Posts: 361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitumen Bullet View Post
Canadians do but not Western Canadians. As I pointed out the Canadian banking system was designed for and by Canada's Elite, a banking Elite who cares little about what is best for the Canadian economy.

Still if I was in Ontario I would say exactly what you said, but being in Western Canada I suggest we really do need to create a new monetary system, one that acts in our interests, or at the very least our own homegrown Elites.

The Central Bank or Bank of Canada should have provided loan capital, money used to build infrastructure and industries, money that has to be paid back. That isn't how the Bank of Canada has operated, particularly in Western Canada.

Instead they, and Canada's banking establishment work on the principle of equity investment, mostly from the USA. This is what they, Canada, means when they tell Western Canada that a low dollar is good for investment, good for jobs.

The problem with equity investment is jobs is all we get. With equity investments ownership transfers to the investors. The enterprise or industry becomes American (usually) owned and controlled and profits flow out of the province.

We, Western Canadians, cannot pay back the loan out of profits because we never got a loan, we just got the jobs, Ottawa gets our taxes. How the enterprise is operated, it's use of resources, the extent of processing in Alberta, the amount of research and development, even the decision to import technology from a foreign parent company or even to develop a network of sources in Canada are done by investors elsewhere, who usually decide on what is best for them and theirs.

IMO using the bank of Canada is not in the interests of a strong wealthy robust Western economy, even if they went back to 1973 practices.
OK, the Bank of Canada (BoC) does not create jobs, or loan out money for infrastructure spending.

The purpose of the BoC, and pretty much any central bank, is to manage inflation, and be the lender of last resort.

The BoC manages inflation (with a target of 2%) primarily by changing the overnight interest rate it charges banks for borrowing money and pays on money deposited in to the BoC overnight.

Being the lender of last resort means that when at the end of a day a bank doesn't have enough money to cover outflows, since the days transactions may not balance out and transactions are usually not really processed after , the BoC loans the bank money at the set overnight rate. Banks with surplus funds at the end of the day either loan the surplus money to other banks to settle their accounts.

Lender of last result example:

You bank with Bank A, your utility company with Bank B
1) You deposit $100 cash into Bank A
2) You pay your $10 utility bill
3) The utility company happens to take out a $100 loan from the bank
4) The day ends and the banks look at their day end balance
5) The BoC's overnight rates are 5% paid on deposits and 10% owed on borrowed money (in reality this band is much closer hence the single number used to report the overnight rate)
6) Bank A has surplus money, but doesn't want to get 5% from the BoC because it can lend it out at 9% to another bank if it can find a Bank that needs money and undercut the BoC
7) To save money Bank B borrows from Bank A at 9% overnight
8) Rinse and repeat with different outcomes each day and the banks are able to cover everything but don't really loose any money since they make money by charging interest on money borrowed that will cover their operating costs, overnight losses, and then some for profit.

Bank A
1) +$100
2) -$10
4) $90
6) offers $90 at 9% overnight

Bank B
1) +$10
3) -$100
4) -$90
7) borrows $90 at 9% overnight from Bank A

BoC
5) 5% deposited, 10% borrowed
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-19-2017, 02:25 PM
Bitumen Bullet Bitumen Bullet is offline
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 418
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrowan View Post
Interesting read on the history of the Red River settlement: http://www.lordselkirk.ca/the-settlers/

Yep that's the colony, founded on Red River by Lord Selkirk in 1812. Canada prefers terms like settlement, hunter/gathers, Indians, Metis anything that helps people not identify with those living in what would be come Western Canada, or to think that they had rights as British Subjects, or any property of any significance. It was best if for Canadians to think there were only a few trappers with a couple gardens.

Also if you read those sites you'll notice that the term "Metis" (French/Indian) is used even when the more accurate for the time term "Mixed Blood" to (Scottish/Indian) should be used. That's a whole other post about terms used to prevent people, in particular the English protestants in Ontario from identifying with those being colonised by Canada. I first noticed that in references to people at YF called Mixed Blood by HBC and Metis by Canada.


Here's a link with yet more search words. http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/mb_history...rmilling.shtml I was looking for a site that had some quotes from John A on the colony and how they were to be treated, didn't find it but that one from the MHS talks about the mills.

It is recorded that John A knew the people Canada had purchased had rights. John A made it clear that they would be deceived, kept down violently when needed, until they could be completely disenfranchised by mass waves of immigration from Canada.

By 1881 Manitoba had 19,125 residents who were born in Ontario, which was more than the 18,020 born in Manitoba.

Interestingly the immigrants from Ontario did not like the treatment they got in the West from their own government. As the original inhabitants became swamped and displaced their complaints became easier to ignore but not the rising complaints from Canadian immigrants.

Canada had hoped the next massive wave of Immigrants from outside of Canada would help that but they too had issues with their treatment by Canada, and so on to even today over 100yrs later.

The foundation of the issues that lead to the original question in this thread dates back to Canadian colonisation. Westerners are still asking why they send so much of their treasure to Canada and get so little in return.


In the past asking that question too loudly came with very real risks. Does it today? Maybe a new thread for those that think the answer to this one is yes time to end or dramatically change Alberta's relationship with the Federal Government.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01-19-2017, 02:37 PM
Bitumen Bullet Bitumen Bullet is offline
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 418
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrowan View Post
OK, the Bank of Canada (BoC) does not create jobs, or loan out money for infrastructure spending.
Very true but that is what our Banking establishment, of which the BoC is an integral part of, does, provides capital, money. To quote a site I was recently pointed to "Banks are just financial intermediaries" and in Canada are operated to the benefit of a few elite.

As you point out the money doesn't really exist until a loan or debt is created but there has to be some money to begin with which Canada has. My contention is that Canada has money. We do not need equity investment. Equity investments are the worst of all investments for a resource based nation that needs profits to be reinvested in the country, not send out in wagons full of cash.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-19-2017, 03:27 PM
sluggun sluggun is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 35
Default

Interesting discussion

In November, I had this same conversation with one of my coworkers. We could not think of one good thing that has ever come out of Ottawa.

The Feds are supposed to be responsible for:

Defense (Canadian defense is underfunded and we rely upon the United States)

Monetary policy (The Bank of Canada sets interest rates according to the US Federal Reserve. If there were much difference in interest rates, there could be capital flight. All that being said, I don't see how anyone at either the BoC or The Fed have any idea what the future will bring and their setting of interest rates is just a guess. It would be better, in my opinion, if banks set their own rates rather having a "big brother" influencing their rates, the banks would have an automatic incentive mechanism for responsibility, thus, no need for a "bank of last resort")

Trade (Why do I want a government telling me what I can buy and from whom? If I want to buy widgets from China, what business is it of any politician or bureaucrat)

Immigration (Don't make me laugh. Justin the stupid is importing thousands of un-vetted immigrants from a part of the world where there is a common world view that is completely antithetical to Western Democracy.)

The gist of my rant is, we would be better off without Ottawa. We already have our provincial governments looting our bank accounts and have little to show for it.

Last edited by sluggun; 01-19-2017 at 03:28 PM. Reason: spelling mistake
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-19-2017, 03:27 PM
jrowan jrowan is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Calgary
Posts: 361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitumen Bullet View Post
Yep that's the colony, founded on Red River by Lord Selkirk in 1812. Canada prefers terms like settlement, hunter/gathers, Indians, Metis anything that helps people not identify with those living in what would be come Western Canada, or to think that they had rights as British Subjects, or any property of any significance. It was best if for Canadians to think there were only a few trappers with a couple gardens.

Also if you read those sites you'll notice that the term "Metis" (French/Indian) is used even when the more accurate for the time term "Mixed Blood" to (Scottish/Indian) should be used. That's a whole other post about terms used to prevent people, in particular the English protestants in Ontario from identifying with those being colonised by Canada. I first noticed that in references to people at YF called Mixed Blood by HBC and Metis by Canada.


Here's a link with yet more search words. http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/mb_history...rmilling.shtml I was looking for a site that had some quotes from John A on the colony and how they were to be treated, didn't find it but that one from the MHS talks about the mills.

It is recorded that John A knew the people Canada had purchased had rights. John A made it clear that they would be deceived, kept down violently when needed, until they could be completely disenfranchised by mass waves of immigration from Canada.

By 1881 Manitoba had 19,125 residents who were born in Ontario, which was more than the 18,020 born in Manitoba.

Interestingly the immigrants from Ontario did not like the treatment they got in the West from their own government. As the original inhabitants became swamped and displaced their complaints became easier to ignore but not the rising complaints from Canadian immigrants.

Canada had hoped the next massive wave of Immigrants from outside of Canada would help that but they too had issues with their treatment by Canada, and so on to even today over 100yrs later.

The foundation of the issues that lead to the original question in this thread dates back to Canadian colonisation. Westerners are still asking why they send so much of their treasure to Canada and get so little in return.


In the past asking that question too loudly came with very real risks. Does it today? Maybe a new thread for those that think the answer to this one is yes time to end or dramatically change Alberta's relationship with the Federal Government.
Where are you getting those numbers for population in 1881? Stats Canada has the population at 62,260, yet the total you have is 37,145.

Either way the settlement had no authority over the land due to HBC's domain over the land. At best settlers were leasing the land from HBC, since prior to being bought by Canada HBC essentially governed the entire area and had a monopoly on anything produced inside of Ruperts Land which meant whatever HBC was going to pay you for grain was what you were going to get. Yes, people were upset with the federal government when the gov. bought the land from HBC (without consultation or involving the settlement) and sent a surveyor to re-jig how the land was segmented into a grid pattern that is common in AB and other provinces. Instead of deciding to plow through opposition the Federal government agreed to and established Manitoba and the provincial government there, and they accepted federal rule. Perhaps a compromise from both parties since the Federal gov could have if they wished wiped out the settlement.

So what happened to the settlement after it essentially became Manitoba and the Feds came in? Was it razed to the ground? Did it become a ghost town? No, it became Winnipeg.

Not only that but the Feds put the money up for the CPR Rail, sure it was for BC but it certainly didn't have to go through Winnipeg. They could have made the red river settlement a ghost town by putting the rail line farther south (happened to some settlement established between when the first route was published and when the route was finalized). Suddenly the people who were there prior to the HBC sale had a voice in decisions that governed their lives, a railway that gave them access to markets east and west of them, and were freed them from a closed market.

Would it have been better if the US bought Rupert's land? Probably not, Alaska was annexed in 1867 and received statehood in 1958. The states still has territories that can't even vote for POTUS.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-19-2017, 03:53 PM
pwdrbrn pwdrbrn is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 72
Default

I haven't brought this question to the forum with the intent of suggesting a division of our wonderful country. Farthest thing from my mind, actually. I'm merely asking if thirteen siblings could co-operate on mutually beneficial terms, managing their inheritance after the demise of their parents. I am looking at this from the standpoint of improving and strengthening our country by learning from our past, not dividing our country over squabbles and disagreements which have been magnified by the bumbling and corrupt behaviour so rampant in Ottawa. This is not an attempt to start a movement. Purely a question to generate discussion on the merits or lack thereof brought to the table by the machine of Parliament/Senate which consumes so much from 'the country' which in reality exists in its citizens, not in the federal government.
__________________
Can't "teach" our kids logic and common sense...but we can sure lead by example. Let's get the ball rolling for a better future.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-19-2017, 04:58 PM
sluggun sluggun is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 35
Default

Hey pwdrbrn

Unfortunately, perhaps fortunately, you phrased things such that the discussion went in what I consider the logical directing given the current political and economic climate.

You may feel an "attachment" to "Canada", but, many of us do not have this same attachment.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-19-2017, 06:52 PM
CanuckShooter's Avatar
CanuckShooter CanuckShooter is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Quesnel BC Canada
Posts: 5,586
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolftrapper View Post
They are unresolved because the Natives are to difficult to deal with. They want all the cake and be able to eat it all so to speak.
Malarky.....so all the other natives back in the day were just too easy going?? It was very deliberate to leave the province without the surety of a signed treaties. And it's still going on. Seriously it takes over 200 years to work out an agreement??
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-19-2017, 07:28 PM
amosfella amosfella is offline
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitumen Bullet View Post
But Britain made one for us with the Balfour Declaration (or Report) of 1926 in which Britain told Canadians to solve their own problems, that neither the UK government or the Queen would be dragged into our politics, we were on our own. That and 1982.

Depending on how the government handles the death of the Queen it could create a Constitutional crisis, one Alberta should be prepared to take advantage of (as we know Quebec is).

Of course Canada's Elite and the Liberals want to keep the Queen and GG because that creates a system of Royal Privilege which is a key mechanism though which the "right" people can be rewarded. The many Royal appointments and positions including the whole of the Senate is the main tool in giving the select few access to the tax trough and the life of privilege they honestly believe is deserved.

It would be a good time to remove the GG, have the Senate filled with an equal number of representatives from each province, selected by the provinces, and to increase the Supreme Court to 13, one from each province plus one selected by Territories.

But those benefiting from the currently corrupt systems want none of that and have made it clear they will fight, apparently to our death, to resist anything moving Canada towards being a republic.

Or removing the special status given to people of select races, ethnicity, location or languages.

Knowing that Alberta, and the West could take a page from the many lessons taught to us by Quebec and have more Federal powers transferred to us and less of our money transferred from us in exchange for not pushing for the end of Royal Privilege so many love so dearly.
while what you said is true, we stil have it on the books that Her Majesty can over rule any statute given Royal Ascent within 2 years of the GG giving royal ascent.

Canada is a real morass of constitutional problems. There is a report filed with the US Treasury that Canada does not have a Constitution.

Truth be told, Canada's so called constitution is merely and act of British parliament. So, how is that independence if we still rely on a British act???

Also, we still have a Queen that is more than a figurehead. She's an active part of the government...
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-20-2017, 08:11 AM
Bitumen Bullet Bitumen Bullet is offline
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 418
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amosfella View Post
Also, we still have a Queen that is more than a figurehead. She's an active part of the government...
Real and agreed issues Canadians should be talking about.

It only appears that we are ruled by the Queen. We had that made very clear by a GG who pointed out pretty much what you pointed out. The PMO had to take her aside and explain that isn't how it works and that it was best she just follow the orders of the person and office who really selected and appointed her.


The very real morass of constitutional problems that confuses even GG's, is by design. It enables Canadians to be ruled by telling different stories to different Canadians, in different contexts, giving special status and money to select groups and individuals while telling the majority there is equality, freedom and good government for all.

Manning, Harper and others have been elected to change it, or even improve it just a little and have completely failed. Far too much profit being made by the powerful to allow any real change.

Which is a shame because the goal was to become independent, to rise in the rank of Nations, not continue Royal rule or to become a protectorate.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-20-2017, 09:27 AM
Bitumen Bullet Bitumen Bullet is offline
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 418
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrowan View Post
Where are you getting those numbers for population in 1881? Stats Canada has the population at 62,260, yet the total you have is 37,145.....Would it have been better if the US bought Rupert's land? Probably not, Alaska was annexed in 1867 and received statehood in 1958. The states still has territories that can't even vote for POTUS.
Your response is very Canadian. If I was in Ontario would also attempt to dismiss any rights those in Ruperts Land claimed. I would even claim that Riel was insane, the land contained only employees of HBC and Savages (I use that term because it was shockingly common in the Canadian records and shows how differently they though about people). I certainly wouldn't make any references to local manufacturing or industry or operational ocean ports through which global trade had been taking place for generations. The land was empty, asking for, needing colonisation by Canada.

I would also suggest that posts like mine be ignored because "look he got a number wrong". I wouldn't have to hope that people notice I wasn't trying to post that number. It was a comparison between two groups to show massive immigration from Ontario was having the designed and desired effect. I wouldn't have to hope because I know people rarely read anything. I suspect less than 10 people got this far in our conversation.

Notice I'm not attacking your position, I've argued it myself. Canada bought the lands and if the people there didn't like it they were rebellious and should be put down (now I think that was the term in the John A quote I was looking for). Best if all Canadians just accepted the story they were told in school and got back into the fields.

But a Western Canadian wondering about changing their relationship with or agreeing to abolishing the Federal government is going to want to look at what that relationship is and how it came to be. There are babies and bathwater and then there is the tub, as they say.

When they do ask they will see the flaws in the story they have been told and some of the reasons Western Canada is treated as a colony of Canada even into the 21st century.

The counterfactuals in Canadian history are indeed fascinating. How different if the Greenlanders had been able to establish a permanent Viking presence in Newfoundland and on Baffin Island, or what if the Inuit had not "displaced" those before them, what if the Spanish built on their West Coast presence. What if Canada's elite instead of settling for being Baron rich had wanted to be Emperor rich and used the massive Canadian empire to achieve that. Canada could be a superpower, or a territory of the USA.

What if the Manitoba resistance had succeed, what if they instead joined the USA? Now there's a rabbit hole, one sure to distract from the topic but I like distractions, so my response, to quote my long lost dog, is "SQUIRREL!"

Joining the USA was a very real option. When the resistance to Canadian Colonisation without consultation saw the formation of a government to deal with Canada the American's did respond. The headquarters of the American party was set up in a hotel in Winnipeg (Fort Garry at the time) in the fall of 1869 (yes it could have been the spring of 1870 if one wants to jump and say yet another fact wrong as if that changes the narrative).

The American Party raised the Stars and Stripes over the hotel to show they were there, supporting and offering annexation. The Governor of Minnesota arrived promising money and military backing. Lots of money and more than enough men to deal with the 100 Canadians in Manitoba and the whole of the Canadian army should they be mobilised.

Fenians, frontiersmen, left over soldiers from the civil war began marching north. The American government began mobilizing it's massive and experienced military. And the Stars and Stripes continue to fly over the American Party HQ in Manitoba.

The future of Canada as we know it was never more tenuous.

In real life the Manitoba Provisional government eventually had the Flag removed, the American Party newspaper shut down, sent their General Lepine with 200 well armed provisional soldiers or "enforcers" to arrest, disarm and escort the American's back across the border.

The Americans had lost their invitation and while they could much easier than Canada take the lands by force (as Canada would) doing so could result in War with Britain the largest superpower at the time.

BUT lets say Riel could see the future, see the thanks he would get for kicking out the American's, see the treatment that awaited Western Canada and instead accepted the invitation.

First off Canada would have had no real military recourse. They would have appealed to Britain, the American's would point out that the people living in Ruperts land had rights as British Subjects and a settlement likely would have been had with the American's being given the purchase. Money wasn't an issue, Canada had paid less than 2 million dollars for Ruperts Land and the USA had already ear marked $4M to assist the Manitoba government of 1869/70.

Would Western Canada, in particular Manitoba been stripped of it's industry, not been developed, not be given Statehood in 1889 with the Dakota's? That seems very unlikely. Manitoba would not be an Alaska. They have much easier to get resources, better location (closer to Chicago) and an already established industry and trade routes including valuable ocean ports.

But in that "what if" there would be no Canada. If Manitoba or Riel had accepted the invite Manifest Destiny would have prevailed. Joining then would have meant Statehood, and every greater wealth for Americans and Canadians.

Today as suggested accepting such an invite means the installation of a puppet government and Territory status at the very best. Unless we have very good negotiators and maybe a President that wanted to make his mark in history, wanted to make American great again. Uhmmmm
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-20-2017, 09:40 AM
Bitumen Bullet Bitumen Bullet is offline
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 418
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwdrbrn View Post
I haven't brought this question to the forum with the intent of suggesting a division of our wonderful country. Farthest thing from my mind, actually. I'm merely asking if thirteen siblings could co-operate on mutually beneficial terms, managing their inheritance after the demise of their parents. I am looking at this from the standpoint of improving and strengthening our country by learning from our past, not dividing our country over squabbles and disagreements which have been magnified by the bumbling and corrupt behaviour so rampant in Ottawa. This is not an attempt to start a movement. Purely a question to generate discussion on the merits or lack thereof brought to the table by the machine of Parliament/Senate which consumes so much from 'the country' which in reality exists in its citizens, not in the federal government.
I'd say sorry but obviously like these discussions so I say thank you.

One of the flaws in the idea of 13 siblings is that no one in the Canadian Confederation thinks like that. Ontario and Quebec see themselves as parents and all others children (colonies or regions) that should be working the land making the parents ever richer.

The demise of the Parents or Federal government is the demise of Ontario and Quebec, who really are Canada.

That said your question gets people thinking, talking, and that's a good thing. There is support for making Canada better, better for Alberta, better for all but not in Ottawa who want as little change as possible. In that case those siblings should start looking out for themselves. There comes a time when the fruit ripens, the children leave home, the baby bird must fly.......
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.