Note to Conservatives:

[Fido]

Here is the original letter:

The famous Alberta “firewall” letter

Dear Premier Klein:

During and since the recent federal election, we have been among a large number of Albertans

discussing the future of our province. We are not dismayed by the outcome of the election so

much as by the strategy employed by the current federal government to secure its re-election. In

our view, the Chretien government undertook a series of attacks not merely designed to defeat its

partisan opponents, but to marginalize Alberta and Albertans within Canada’s political system.

One well-documented incident was the attack against Alberta’s health care system. To your

credit, you vehemently protested the unprecedented attack ads that the federal government

launched against Alberta’s policies – policies the Prime Minister had previously found no fault

with.

However, while your protest was necessary and appreciated by Albertans, we believe that it is

not enough to respond only with protests. If the government in Ottawa concludes that Alberta is a

soft target, we will be subjected to much worse than dishonest television ads. The Prime Minister

has already signaled as much by announcing his so called “tough love” campaign for the West.

We believe the time has come for Albertans to take greater charge of our own future. This

means resuming control of the powers that we possess under the constitution of Canada but that

we have allowed the federal government to exercise. Intelligent use of these powers will help

Alberta build a prosperous future in spite of a misguided and increasingly hostile government in

Ottawa.

Under the heading of the “Alberta Agenda,” we propose that our province move forward on the

following fronts:

• Withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan to create an Alberta Pension Plan offering the

same benefits at lower cost while giving Alberta control over the investment fund. Pensions

are a provincial responsibility under section 94A of the Constitution Act. 1867; and the

legislation setting up the Canada Pension Plan permits a province to run its own plan, as

Quebec has done from the beginning. If Quebec can do it, why not Alberta?

• Collect our own revenue from personal income tax, as we already do for corporate income

tax. Now that your government has made the historic innovation of the single-rate personal

income tax, there is no reason to have Ottawa collect our revenue. Any incremental cost of

collecting our own personal income tax would be far outweighed by the policy flexibility

that Alberta would gain, as Quebec’s experience has shown.

• Start preparing now to let the contract with the RCMP run out in 2012 and create an Alberta

Provincial Police Force. Alberta is a major province. Like the other major provinces of

Ontario and Quebec, we should have our own provincial police force. We have no doubt

that Alberta can run a more efficient and effective police force than Ottawa can – one that

will not be misused as a laboratory for experiments in social engineering.

• Resume provincial responsibility for health-care policy. If Ottawa objects to provincial

policy, fight in the courts. If we lose, we can afford the financial penalties that Ottawa may

try to impose under the Canada Health Act. Albertans deserve better than the long waiting

periods and technological backwardness that are rapidly coming to characterize Canadian

medicine. Alberta should also argue that each province should raise its own revenue for

health care – i.e., replace Canada Health and Social Transfer cash with tax points as Quebec

has argued for many years. Poorer provinces would continue to rely on Equalization to

ensure they have adequate revenues.

• Use section 88 of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Quebec Secession Reference to force

Senate reform back onto the national agenda. Our reading of that decision is that the federal

government and other provinces must seriously consider a proposal for constitutional reform

endorsed by “a clear majority on a clear question” in a provincial referendum.

You acted decisively once before to hold a senatorial election. Now is the time to drive the issue

further.

All of these steps can be taken using the constitutional powers that Alberta now possesses. In

addition, we believe it is imperative for you to take all possible political and legal measures to

reduce the financial drain on Alberta caused by Canada’s tax-and-transfer system. The most

recent Alberta Treasury estimates are that Albertans transfer $2,600 per capita annually to other

Canadians, for a total outflow from our province approaching $8 billion a year. The same federal

politicians who accuse us of not sharing their “Canadian values” have no compunction about

appropriating our Canadian dollars to buy votes elsewhere in the country.

Mr. Premier, we acknowledge the constructive reforms that your government made in the 1990s

– balancing the budget, paying down the provincial debt, privatizing government services, getting

Albertans off welfare and into jobs, introducing a single-rate tax, pulling government out of the

business of subsidizing business, and many other beneficial changes. But no government can rest

on its laurels. An economic slowdown, and perhaps even recession, threatens North America, the

government in Ottawa will be tempted to take advantage of Alberta’s prosperity, to redistribute

income from Alberta to residents of other provinces in order to keep itself in power. It is

imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an

aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction.

Once Alberta’s position is secured, only our imagination will limit the prospects for extending

the reform agenda that your government undertook eight years ago. To cite only a few examples,

lower taxes will unleash the energies of the private sector, easing conditions for Charter Schools

will help individual freedom and improve public education, and greater use of the referendum and

initiative will bring Albertans into closer touch with their own government.

The precondition for the success of this Alberta Agenda is the exercise of all our legitimate

provincial jurisdictions under the constitution of Canada. Starting to act now will secure the

future for all Albertans.

Sincerely yours,

Stephen HARPER, President, National Citizens’ Coalition;

Tom FLANAGAN, professor of political science and former Director of Research, Reform

Party of Canada;

Ted MORTON, professor of political science and Alberta Senator-elect;

Rainer KNOPFF, professor of political science;

Andrew CROOKS, chairman, Canadian Taxpayers Federation;

Ken BOESSENKOOL, former policy adviser to Stockwell Day, Treasurer of Alberta.

* This letter represents the personal views of its authors and not those of any organizations with

which they are or have been connected.

(As published in the National Post on Jan. 24, 2001, headlined “An open letter to Ralph Klein”)

[Guest FA_AC]

You do not appear to know what was said in the context of this 'quote'.

With most of your accusations you make the same slurs of inflamatory statements and misinformation.

I know exactly what was said. That's what made it a quote. It wouldn't have been one otherwise. My only comment on the quote was that it didn't much sound like a recipe for national unity. It still doesn't.

It's great when a person responds with a blanket "you make the same slurs of inflammatory statements and misinformation", but doesn't refute a single one of the arguments made. It's even better when comments like that come from the camp that would have us believe that every last Liberal Cabinet Minister and MP is corrupt and dishonest, but can't provide one shred of evidence to back their position. At least when I respond to what I see as an irresponsible accusation I can give reasons for my opinion.

[Fido]

I know exactly what was said.  That's what made it a quote.  ....

It's even better when comments like that come from the camp that would have us believe that every last Liberal Cabinet Minister and MP is corrupt and dishonest, but can't provide one shred of evidence to back their position.  ....

It does not appear that you have read the original letter, but instead have been swayed by other pundits giving their own slant to the article.

Where have I ever said anything about either the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Bloc, the NDP or the Greens that would suggest that I am in any camp? My comments were based upon your lack of knowledge about what the original letter said and your purported 'effect on National Unity'.

[Guest FA_AC]

Where have I ever said anything about either the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Bloc, the NDP or the Greens that would suggest that I am in any camp? My comments were based upon your lack of knowledge about what the original letter said and your purported 'effect on National Unity'

Oh were they? You wrote:

"With most of your accusations you make the same slurs of inflammatory statements and misinformation."

And in that you were talking only about my references to Harper's "Firewalls around Alberta" statement, were you? You refer to.....

1. Accusations.

2. Slurs.

3. Inflammatory statements.

4. Misinformation.

All that, and all I said was that what Harper had said sounded like a poor recipe for National Unity. It's still my opinion and I'm not sure where the slurs, accusations, inflammatory statements and misinformation are in that.

[Fido]

Oh were they? You wrote:

"With most of your accusations you make the same slurs of inflammatory statements and misinformation."

And in that you were talking only about my references to Harper's "Firewalls around Alberta" statement, were you? You refer to.....

1. Accusations.

2. Slurs.

3. Inflammatory statements.

4. Misinformation.

All that, and all I said was that what Harper had said sounded like a poor recipe for National Unity. It's still my opinion and I'm not sure where the slurs, accusations, inflammatory statements and misinformation are in that.

It wasn't "Harper's letter" as there were five other Albertans who signed that letter.

The five points in the original letter called for Alberta to exercise rights that are already enshrined in the original division of powers between Federal and Provincial governments and three of the points are powers that are already in the complete control of other provinces in confederation.

Where is the attack on Canadian unity?

[Guest FA_AC]

Where is the attack on Canadian unity?

Where is the accusation of an attack on Canadian unity? I just said that Harper's comment doesn't sound like much of a plan for national unity. You do like to put words in my mouth.

The attack on Canadian unity will come from Harper's friends, the BQ, with whom Harper has been champing at the bit to bring the government down for ages.

[mrlupin]

The famous Alberta “firewall” letter

Yikes!!!

Harper wrote that??!!

Maybe the conservatives will do better once they get rid of Harper and get a someone from Quebec to lead their party.....

Now back to the bomb shelter....

Éric

[Fido]

Not putting words in your mouth but:

"Harper's desire for a "Firewall around Alberta" or however he put it isn't exactly a recipe for national unity either"

presumes to say that he has done something to hinder national unity. It is the people who have either not read or do not understand what was actually written nearly five years ago.

[Guest FA_AC]

My view is that Harper's comment wasn't helpful on the national unity front and that it might actually hinder it. The Liberals, despite the mess that they have made of the file, will still get some seats in Quebec. Will Harper?

[Guest rattler]

My view is that Harper's comment wasn't helpful on the national unity front and that it might actually hinder it. The Liberals, despite the mess that they have made of the file, will still get some seats in Quebec. Will Harper?

The Liberals will get some seats. The basic reason they will, is that Quebec already enjoys all of the items the "so called" Harper letter (count the signatures) asks for Alberta. Just a good example of what happens when one Province gains "rights" not granted to all of the others.....

[Fido]

...The Liberals, despite the mess that they have made of the file, will still get some seats in Quebec. Will Harper?

I do not care how many seats any party gets in any province except Alberta.

[Guest FA_AC]

I do not care how many seats any party gets in any province except Alberta.

Then you needn't get your nose out of joint about what I might have to say about Harper or his party.

You might want to work on King Ralph, though. He seems not to be that big on the idea of having Harper as PM--if he wanted the Conservatives to form a government he probably wouldn't have opened his trap as he did earlier this week.

[Guest woxof]

Have not read this whole thread but These quotes were on the first page.

It appears many in Ontario would rather associate with thieves which speaks volumes of their moral and ethical values.

and

How on earth can voters (particularily out east) reward corruption ? ? ?

So as as someone originally from Central Canada I am going to give the "westerners" an idea of what it takes to get the Conservatives in power.

The people of Ontario(which have a large number of seats) are just waiting and hoping to get a fiscal, common sense conservative government in power BUT there is one thing they will NEVER vote into power. Bible thumpers. And that is what the Consevatives are full of. Ontario voted in Mike Harris twice. But they see what is going on in the U.S. and it is not wanted I suspect in most of Canada.

As for preferring to associate with thieves. As long as I have been following politics, each government is full of corruption. Liberal and Conservative. So we get that no matter who we vote for. So purge the party of the bible thumpers. Support abortion, decriminalizing marijuana, euthanasia and even gay rights but have a fiscally conservative agenda instead of tax and spend that we now have and you will be on the road to power. Otherwise...enjoy the opposition.

This from someone who wants to vote Consevative but is planning to not vote.

[handyman]

Fido,

Don't bother with FA_AC. She likes Liberals, will vote Liberal and only because she doesn't like or trust Harper. She doesn't really know why she doesn't like Harper and frankly I don't think she cares. Apparently Harper is the Conservative party and no one else is there. He is a one man team going for all the marbles.

Drives me nuts when people vote for an individual or not because "I don't like his look" or "he scares me" or when you can't find anything wrong then "he must have a hidden agenda".

Yup, a whole lot of intellectual voters out there! Ya you too woxof!

[Guest FA_AC]

Don't bother with FA_AC. Apparently Harper is the Conservative party and no one else is there. He is a one man team going for all the marbles.

Drives me nuts when people vote for an individual or not because "I don't like his look" or "he scares me" or when you can't find anything wrong then "he must have a hidden agenda".

Yup, a whole lot of intellectual voters out there! Ya you too woxof!

Huh? I have actually had my say about quite a number of Harper's team. Rahim, the Grewals, Cheryl Gallant, Stockwell and others. I have never accused the Conservatives of having a hidden agenda, so I have no idea why you keep trying to attribute that view to me. You're confused. Please keep in mind, too, that you did ask me to comment. Maybe I should be flattered that you like to pick arguments with me.

Doesn't it just drive you nuts when people vote for a party or not because "they're all crooks and thieves" or "they're all corrupt" but when they can't find one scintilla of evidence to back any such claim about those currently running as candidates for the party they resort to "they have ties to organised crime"?

Yup, a whole lot of intellectual voters where you live! You have Governor Terminator and President GWB.

[handyman]

Huh? I have actually had my say about quite a number of Harper's team. Rahim, the Grewals, Cheryl Gallant, Stockwell and others. I have never accused the Conservatives of having a hidden agenda, so I have no idea why you keep trying to attribute that view to me. You're confused. Please keep in mind, too, that you did ask me to comment. Maybe I should be flattered that you like to pick arguments with me.

Doesn't it just drive you nuts when people vote for a party or not because "they're all crooks and thieves" or "they're all corrupt" but when they can't find one scintilla of evidence to back any such claim about those currently running as candidates for the party they resort to "they have ties to organised crime"?

Yup, a whole lot of intellectual voters where you live! You have Governor Terminator and President GWB.

I guess as long as you keep telling me I live in Arnieland you will be accusing the Conservatives of having a hidden agenda. Nothing like a little more misinformation out there!

[Guest FA_AC]

I guess as long as you keep telling me I live in Arnieland you will be accusing the Conservatives of having a hidden agenda. Nothing like a little more misinformation out there!

It was actually you who said that you lived in California. If that's misinformation, you put it out there yourself. I was only taking you at your word.

[handyman]

It was actually you who said that you lived in California. If that's misinformation, you put it out there yourself. I was only taking you at your word.

You must have me confused with someone else...never lived there and never said that I did!

[Guest FA_AC]

So you haven't also posted as cp_dude?

[Guest FA_AC]

You must have me confused with someone else...never lived there and never said that I did!

handyman

Members

Posted: May 12 2005, 09:22 AM

QUOTE (dozerboy @ May 12 2005, 08:52 AM)

How do you find the commuting by the way? Or do you live there? Is CX fairly flexible with the pilots and commuting?

Understand your frustration.

As for commuting, I commute to LAX and although commuting sucks, it has not been that bad. CX does not care where you live and how you commute. They just expect you to be there. If you attempt to arrive at your operating base 8-12 hours early then you should not have a problem if your bumped from a flight or two. If your not there for your duty, thats strike one and in CX's ball park, your out on two more times than not.

____________________

Then maybe I should instead have written "It was you who left the impression that you lived in California". Maybe what you meant, though, was that you're based at LAX but don't live there. If that's the case and if you wish, I'll be happy to go back an edit the other post to, "Yup, lots of intellectual voters where you work! You've got Governor Terminator and President GWB."

[handyman]

As for commuting, I commute to LAX and although commuting sucks, it has not been that bad.

"commute"

v 1: transpose and remain equal in value; "These operators commute with each other" [syn: transpose] 2: travel back and forth regularly, as between one's place of work and home [syn: travel back and forth] 3: change the order or arrangement of; "Dyslexics often transpose letters in a word" [syn: permute, transpose] 4: exchange a penalty for a less severe one [syn: convert, exchange] 5: exchange or replace with another, usually of the same kind or category; "Could you convert my dollars into pounds?"; "He changed his name"; "convert centimeters into inches"; "convert holdings into shares" [syn: change, exchange, convert]

I'm trying to remain civil here but your beginning to sound like an ex-wife!

[Guest FA_AC]

Please read my previous post. The offer to edit stands.

Btw, you're late with the month's alimony cheque. I hope you weren't thinking that by changing your nick from cp_dude to Handyman my lawyers wouldn't be able to track you down!

[Guest woxof]

Well there's a morning smile for me. I write a post on how(in my opinion) the Conservatives can get into power and Handy man says:

"Yup, a whole lot of intellectual voters out there! Ya you too woxof!"

Strong arguement. Here is my rebuttal.

There is one crewmember that I fly with who is very religious and has been very vocal about the gay marriage thing. That's fine if he is opposed to it, although who likes political talk in the cockpit. I'm not particularly for it, but I'm not worried about it. But the bible thumpers are vehemently opposed to it like it is the end of the world. Harper went on about it all summer, over and over while we don't hear nearly as much about terrorism or hospital wait lists. What is his higher priority I wonder? Much more important in my opinion.

But what this crewmember said to me was very important for everyone out there to understand. He said:

"Just because the majority of people out there support something, doesn't mean it is right"

This is an extremely important statement. I believe this opinion is similar with much of the religious political types. It doesn't matter what the majority of Canadians want. What matters is what the Bible or their version of the bible says and if they are in power, they will impose their religious beliefs on all of us because that is what is right. It won't matter if the vast majority of Canadians disagree with that particular social policy. Watch the American news and see what happens when people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell get political power. From threatening the life of a foreign leader to predicting apocolyptic disaster for a small town for rejecting intelligent design teachings in their school to harrassing judges that they don't agree with. Not in this country if Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes have anything to say about it. And they do.

[handyman]

There is one crewmember that I fly with who is very religious and has been very vocal about the gay marriage thing. That's fine if he is opposed to it, although who likes political talk in the cockpit. I'm not particularly for it, but I'm not worried about it. But the bible thumpers are vehemently opposed to it like it is the end of the world. Harper went on about it all summer, over and over while we don't hear nearly as much about terrorism or hospital wait lists. What is his higher priority I wonder? Much more important in my opinion.

But what this crewmember said to me was very important for everyone out there to understand. He said:

"Just because the majority of people out there support something, doesn't mean it is right"

This is an extremely important statement. I believe this opinion is similar with much of the religious political types. It doesn't matter what the majority of Canadians want. What matters is what the Bible or their version of the bible says and if they are in power, they will impose their religious beliefs on all of us because that is what is right. It won't matter if the vast majority of Canadians disagree with that particular social policy. Watch the American news and see what happens when people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell get political power. From threatening the life of a foreign leader to predicting apocolyptic disaster for a small town for rejecting intelligent design teachings in their school to harrassing judges that they don't agree with. Not in this country if Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes have anything to say about it. And they do.

First of all, I agree that the cockpit is not the forum for such a conversation unless mutually agreed upon and even then caution should be taken.

One statement that stands out for me is "Bible thumper". What is it? Is it ANY Christian person who discusses the Bible or religion for that matter? Is it a person who admits to going to church? Is it simply just a person who opposes gay marriages and abortions? Why is it if you’re opposed to these issues and you admit to going to church, you must be some radical, Bible thumping idiot?

I used to believe a Bible thumper was someone who knocked on your door or stood at the street corner holding a Bible telling people that they would go to "hell" if they didn't submit to the Bible and God's word. I believed it was people who aggressively convicted individuals for not following their interpretation of the word of God.

I don't see Harper as an overly religious person. He may believe in God and go to church now and then but so does the openly Catholic Martin. So what is the difference? I think perception either real or not which has been spun by special interest groups and eagerly transmitted by news hungry media types.

Think about it, all of our opinions are created by the news. Both Liberals and Conservatives have problems but the media has made more progress developing the pro-Christian Conservative platform with a "hidden agenda" then the currently popular but probably short lived ad scam story. Unfortunately, fear is our worst enemy and the fear of the unknown or "hidden agenda" by a so called Pro-Christian Conservative party is too much of a match for an openly corrupt and despicable Liberal party. We the people are truly weak and easily we jump or scare from propaganda spun and reported by our so-called unbiased media. Get a grip people and convict those that are found guilty. Punish those that are responsible and don’t fear the unknown.

[handyman]

Please read my previous post. The offer to edit stands.

Btw, you're late with the month's alimony cheque. I hope you weren't thinking that by changing your nick from cp_dude to Handyman my lawyers wouldn't be able to track you down!

Lady, I never knew what real happiness was until I got married and by then it was too late.