Game on
Dear Republic:
I honestly can't tell if you're just completely clueless or if your article is meant as a joke [Grab Alberta’s oil while the grabbing’s good, The Republic, issue 128]. I assume it is the former.
Either way, thanks for the laugh, I can't recall the last time I read such a ridiculous, hilarious article. Some of these were real knee-slappers:
"Before doing so, it would only be best for Albertans if Canada deployed the armed forces in huge numbers." Yes, our army is huge and to be feared! Albertans will shake in their cowboy boots!
"Who do you want inside negotiating our safe passage out of the line of fire? Those with some awareness of the outside world, the nature of those working in it, and its alarming goings on. . . . "
Oh yes, please give me those same Federal politicians who gave us NAFTA, selling out Western Canada's resources so that we (really only Eastern Canada) could have "free" access to the largest market in the world. Yes, perfect stewards indeed. Pfft.
I happen to be aware of the pending liquid fuels crisis. And if you have done any amount of research into the matter you'll know that this crisis will present itself initially as an economic crisis. But that crisis will be a bonanza in Alberta.
As your article so beautifully illustrates, Albertans need not worry about the Americans, the Chinese etc. We only need to worry about our closest neighbours whose envy has become so intense they openly talk of stealing it for themselves.
- Grant Jumaga, Calgary Alberta
Plan ahead
Dear Republic:
Your perspicacity is incredible, as usual. I have been thinking and saying the same thing [Grab Alberta’s oil while the grabbing’s good] for a number of years now. I just could not elucidate it as adroitly as you have done. I suppose that in a way, I have been afraid to put the idea out into the "cosmic consciousness" in case I was the only one thinking it. Nobody listens to me anyhow, they find me "gloomy" and "frightening."
The jig is up, I am afraid. I don't think that even deploying our military, the notwithstanding clause, or anything else will deflect the storm to come. The situation in Iraq is vastly different than our situation here in that Iraq has an inherent attitude against the "Great Satan," and it is not so difficult to institute a jihad against the interlopers. Canadians, on the other hand, are "polite" and "reasonable," and we have the gun registry. I do not advocate violence, and do not like guns, but if a foreign army is going to do us, or our families, harm, we will have no way to protect ourselves.
Perhaps the Gov't is more prescient than we credit them to be, and knew that this day would come. Perhaps that is the true basis of the registry, that they might confiscate arms before they institute the new National Energy Program.
Unfortunately, the corollary will be that there will be no resistance when the Chinese, Russians, Americans, and whomsoever walk in to seize our energy resources.
There are trying times ahead to be sure. I fervently hope that all of your readers take note of what you are saying, and spread the word. I have forwarded some of your articles to MPs and the PM in the past, and I hope that they have their hands on the switch (I'm afraid I don't think so . . .), and that at least a few of them have a clear view of the challenges ahead (but I don't think so . . . )
One last thing: I thought it too bad that you did not win a seat on Council, but have been privately relieved that your concentrations would continue to be focused on your wonderful publication, The Republic.
- K Smith. Vancouver, BC
Keep quiet
Dear Republic:
I just finished reading Kevin Potvin's article on oil in Alberta, and while I agree that it is time to make use of it, I feel that caution is necessary. While it is important to start drilling before our southern neighbours attempt to lay claim to it, we must be careful that we don't draw any more attention than necessary to our actions. As much as the American government would be interested in the oil already, if we were to rush to pump out as much as we can without a thought to their actions, we could draw even more attention, and it would doubtlessly cause more tension than would be the case if we continued at our current pace (or lack thereof).
I am not saying that inaction is a good thing, and I never wish to be accused of saying such, but rather, that we must carefully consider the best way to do the work while drawing a minimum of attention, instead of rushing in without a thought about protecting it as Canadian oil and Canadian land after.
- Sara Evans, Langley BC
Fuggetaboutit
Dear Republic:
Whether you like it or not, resources belong to the provinces under Section 92 of the Constitution Act (formerly the BNA Act). To change that requires under the constitution a majority of provinces with 70% of the population plus the Parliament of Canada. In 1996 Chretien had a resolution passed which committed parliament to veto any constitutional change on behalf of any of the five regions that wished them to. That resolution can be repealed but since that was the strategem used to give Quebec its precious veto it had craved since 1867 there isn't a federal government I could imagine that would go down that road. But suppose Martin did repeal that resolution. You would still be back to the 7 and 40 rule and since you can't get the job done without one or both of Ontario and Quebec onside, you would be asking Ontario to agree to turn over its mines, and Quebec its mines and water resources, to Ottawa.
Further down the scale you would ask BC to support turning control of its mines, oil and petroleum resources to Ottawa.
For Christ's sake, use your head! The position you take, however wise it would be, simply cannot happen in Canada. Even if you somehow did get such a constitutional amendment through, you would immediately split the country. This requires an elementary understanding of our Constitution, and the very weak cement that keeps us together.
When I was involved in the constitutional process for three years and God only knows how many conferences, meetings, get-togethers and the like, at no time did I hear anyone, not even Pierre Trudeau, suggest that the provincial rights over resources be tampered with. This was why Trudeau brought in his National Energy Act which ended up having Alberta restricting its production of oil for export to Ontario in retaliation.
I happen to agree that if oil had been what it is now in 1864 when the negotiations took place, resources might well have been otherwise allocated. On the other hand, you would never have got BC into Confederation and I doubt that Quebec would have bought in.
I enjoy reading you because you are provocative and you hold, fearlessly, feet to the fire. But when you betray such an appalling misunderstanding of our constitution, the Charter of Rights contained therein and, indeed, the foundation of the original constitutional deal and all deals since then you really have become like the clock that strikes 13—unreliable thereafter.
Your readers and supporters deserve better—at least they have a right to think that you have an elementary understanding of the things of which you speak.
- Rafe Mair, Lions Bay, BC
Look around
Dear Republic:
In his article, “Israel is no example” [The Republic, issue 128], Michael Nenonen writes that “Israeli propagandists have been reciting this story (the racist narrative of “civilization vs. barbarism”) for decades.”
Republic readers should also be aware of Israeli writers and historians who have countered this “narrative” by presenting some of the realities of Israel’s history, in particular the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians. These writers include the late Simha Flapan, author of The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities by Tom Segev, and Uri Davis’ Israel: An Apartheid State.
The existence of writers who present alternative views of their country’s history is important in any society. One wishes, in the case of Israel, that they were better known in North America.
- Carl Rosenberg, Vancouver, BC
Research
Dear Republic:
This story [“A different Tibetan Buddhism,” The Republic issue 123] is citing some of the most biased and academically irresponsible sources on the entire internet (and that is saying something). Tell your authors to do some real research before they write articles. This only serves to further the lies that a group of ideologues have put forward to debase the Tibetan culture and religion. I'm not claiming Tibet was the perfect country that some say it was, but it was nothing like your author or his sources claim. Here's a link to a site that has actual research and scholarship to it: studentsforafreetibet.org
I suggest you publish a retraction or new story that sets the record straight. To slander an entire people and their religion is despicable.
- Andrew Erlich
****
|
