FALSE! FALSE! FALSE! How many times must this be said before you get it: Quebec sends money to Ottawa. Ottawa sends money back to Quebec. But on net, Quebec gets more (a lot more!) from Ottawa every single year.
Destruction of Alberta's wildnerness
- Thread starter mass1965
- Start date
FALSE! FALSE! FALSE! How many times must this be said before you get it: Quebec sends money to Ottawa. Ottawa sends money back to Quebec. But on net, Quebec gets more (a lot more!) from Ottawa every single year.
Kepler, can I give you a word of advice? Don't bother trying to get into a discussion of the facts with JH Fan when it comes to history or politics. Like most separatists, he isn't interested in the truth and couldn't recognize it if it jumped up and bit him in the ass. He probably believes that Canada would owe Quebec money if separation were to ever happen and that transfer payments from Ottawa would continue after separation.
And can I ask how this thread started to be about Quebec instead of the tar sands environmental disaster? Guess what, JH? Neither the world or Canada revolves around Quebec and things do happen in Canada that have absolutely nothing to do with this province. Believe it or not.
And can I ask how this thread started to be about Quebec instead of the tar sands environmental disaster? Guess what, JH? Neither the world or Canada revolves around Quebec and things do happen in Canada that have absolutely nothing to do with this province. Believe it or not.
Here is where you still don't get it :
We send money to Ottawa. Ottawa sends it back to Quebec.
You get a FED gov. in Quebec like captain crunch and they go right ahead and screw people around.
Now I'll tell you why I'm still proud of Canada despite all these stupidites.
I'm proud because of the people. The real ones. The ones who really care about all nations and specially for people around us.
Right now in Mtrl on CTV you have a movie on one guy who is not french, he's not a native but he is one the best there is and ever was in Canada as a role model.
An I'll give you a hint. His middle name is the same as the cup we all want in Hockey.
You wanna talk about Alberta ? My great uncle is the one who went there, sent from Quebec to establish Ft. McMurray building a trading post, a school and a church.
I'll give ya another hint : his last name is Begin
Alberta is not alone in providing cash to this country, nor to have it's wilderness destroyed and lastly, they didn't do it all by themselves only.
So have fun believing whatever you want to believe.
Ha ha ! I'm not even a separatist Techman !
See... Tu crois encore au bonhome sept heure mon homme !
In that case I offer my sincere apologies to all separatists for trying to pawn you off on them. So you aren't a separatist and you obviously aren't a federalist, and you really have no idea of how government works, so what are you?
LOL, you're probably right about that. I remember opinion polls around 1995 saying that a huge percentage of "yes" voters thought they would keep their Canadian passports.
As for the diversion of topic, I think it was my fault. I was trying to make the point that we in Quebec (and most provinces) can't afford to stop mining the tar sands because we need the money.
But my main point was that we need nuclear power. It's the only solution that can get us carbon free power in the quantities we need. It has some problems, but nothing compared to the problems caused by fossil fuels. Thankfully it seems the message is catching on in the last two years and (finally!) new plants are on the drawing boards.
So you're for the Nuc industry and you believe it's the right solution.
Wow ! very good jugement.
I still have reservations about nuclear power. Disposing of nuclear waste is still a serious problem, especially as we can't even trust companies to dispose of industrial chemical waste properly. And like everything else, nuclear power plants are built with costs as the primary concern and safety second. I hope that the new plant designs take both these issues into consideration. Either way, I certainly wouldn't want a nuclear power plant anywhere near where I live.
so what are you?
Le bonhomme sept heure ! bouhou !!!!
Remember the : 'If you aren't with us then you're against us ' ?
Now that's a fine piece of a real wisdom thinking !
Bravo !
The sad reality is that Canada can not afford to continue to allow the minning of the oil sands. When the mining is done and no more profit can be made the comapany doing the mining will go bankrupt claiming they cannot afford to clean up (or at least attempt) the mess they made. That will leave the Government to spend countless billions in the attempt to clean this up.
Even if the land is restored there will be the problem of the heavy meatals in the ground water, soil and surface water. The plants will contain heavy metals and they will be concentrated in the animals theat eat them and concentrated further in the animals that eat the animals. This area will become uninhabital. Just think about how toxic that one pond has to be to kill 1600 ducks so fast. Thats the future of this area. The native people will be forced to move so you can have your oil money.
It would be much better to stop now before there is more damage. Sure there will be so adjustments needed in the Gov but I cannot believe this is so large a part of the Canadian budjet.
I doubt Harper would be so much of a deficit hawk without the Petrodollars Alberta is bringing in.
I understand California is looking to legalize pot, which means the balance of the US is not far behind. This would be another serious blow to the direction of cash.
Between that and retrofitting our commercial buildings for energy conservation, the US might make begin to make some headway here.
Unfortunately, the tar sands aren't exactly going to be mined out in our lifetime, or the next few generations' lifetimes either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_oil_sands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_oil_sands
Your concerns are reasonable, but I'd say new plant designs in the last decades have addressed them. You can take France as an example, which generates 80% of it's power from nuclear in a very safe maner.
The question always comes to "Nuclear vs... what?" In most of North America, it's nuclear vs. coal. And coal is infinitely worse than nuclear. Shockingly, coal even puts more radiation in the air than nuclear: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
Thankfully, many environmentalists are shifting in favour of nuclear.
This short TED debate sums it up pretty well: http://www.ted.com/talks/debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy.html
And this podcast is also a good source of info: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4092
Last edited:
No one disagrees that tar sands mining is tough on the environment. But if you want to stop it, you must provide a viable alternative to (1) the money, and (2) the energy.
We need the money for our social programs, and unless we invest in many more nuclear plants, we need the energy to power our society.
It is not enough to oppose the tar sands, you must propose a realistic alternative.
Anyone who cares about damage to the enviroment in Canada has never travelled very far in the Country. You can slash and burn and mine and dig and drill for another 10, 000 years before we even have to worry about it. I only wish the goverment would stop with this hippy shit and open up the wheels of industry. If anyone has ever layed eyes on these sands it is quite a dirty scene. But I would turn the entire province of Alberta into a refinery in order to keep our way of life. Its not like anyone would miss Calgary or anything...
Similar threads
