Ignatieff has 'big' vision for Canada

[Smallc]

High-speed rail links between major cities. An east-west electricity corridor. Completion of a coast-to-coast, four-lane national highway system.

Even a national energy strategy (Not to be confused with the hated National Energy Program, he stresses).

Ignatieff has 'big' vision for Canada

I don't know how we'll pay for all of it...but...I like it. I think he really gets what we need....these would be very good things economically and collectively for Canada.

[Machjo]

Four lane national highway system? Have you ever driven across Canada on the Trans-Canada Highway? There's barely a car on the road half the time as it is, yet we have a small population tax base to pro up such a long highway.

As for the high-speed rail system between population centres in close proximity to one another might be more reasonable, considering that it would be focussed on parts of the contry that do have a population base to support it and not just blind idealism.

One point to make, based on the rality of our low population density, is that it would make sense to promote more integration between Via Rail and Amtrak. Both have a hard time, and for the exact same reason: low population density.

If we focussed on a few North-South railway lines, Canada would benefit by not having to build the silly highway system and so much rail line. And the US would benefit by having more Canadian passengers using its East-West lines. Let's amalgamae Amtrak and Via Rail. I can understand Canadian naionalism and all, but let's be rational here. North America has a low populaiton density. The only way for us to ever develop a high quality rail system like in Europe is for us to set our petty nationalisms aside and work together on this. Now that would be a vision.

[Machjo]

Another point. If the objective for this is to promote more national unity, I think Ignatieff is barking up the wrong tree. A Quebecer can easily board a plane for Vancouver already. The problem is, will he understand the locals when he gets off the plane? No amount of transportation infrastructure will fix that. The only thing tha can fix that is a co-ordinated and rational second-language teaching policy on the part of ministries of education across the country, based on the latest research in pedagogical cybernetics.

[Smallc]

Four lane national highway system? Have you ever driven across Canada on the Trans-Canada Highway? There's barely a car on the road half the time as it is, yet we have a small population tax base to pro up such a long highway.

Many parts should be improved and are being improved. This would speed up the process, a very good thing.

[Smallc]

If we focussed on a few North-South railway lines, Canada would benefit by not having to build the silly highway system and so much rail line. And the US would benefit by having more Canadian passengers using its East-West lines. Let's amalgamae Amtrak and Via Rail. I can understand Canadian naionalism and all, but let's be rational here. North America has a low populaiton density. The only way for us to ever develop a high quality rail system like in Europe is for us to set our petty nationalisms aside and work together on this. Now that would be a vision.

The whole point of this is to be self sufficient in as many ways as possible. We don't want to have to rely on the US. Nationalism isn't petty.

[Machjo]

Many parts should be improved and are being improved. This would speed up the process, a very good thing.

Why would we want to build a new Canadian four-lane highway system when the Trans-Can usually lies unused in most spots?

Should'nt we try to get more cars on the highway system we have now before buidling even more highway?

One possibility would be to accept more immigration. A low populaiton density is a big disadvantge for Canada on the world stage economically. Geographically we're huge, yet almost nobody lives here. We need to expand our population if we truly want to have a world-class trans-Canada transportation system tht we can afford. I'd be all for opening the floodgates; that might be one of the best things we could do to bolster the Canadian economy right now. It would also provide the tax base for a quality rail system.

But before a four-lane Canadian highway system is worthwhile, we'd need to expand our populaiton considerably just to get more cars on the roads we have now.

[Smallc]

Why would we want to build a new Canadian four-lane highway system when the Trans-Can usually lies unused in most spots?

Shouldn't we try to get more cars on the highway system we have now before buidling even more highway?

What? This is about making the Trans Canada 4 lane from coast to coast...and it is not unused for most parts. Northwestern Ontario is really the only place on the mainland with a low traffic count, and that count would increase with four laning fewer people would go through the US. It would also increase productivity by decreasing shipping times for goods moved by truck. You obviously have not traveled large portions of the highway.

[Smallc]

Another point. If the objective for this is to promote more national unity, I think Ignatieff is barking up the wrong tree. A Quebecer can easily board a plane for Vancouver already.

You clearly do not understand that fixed links are much more unifying than air links. This would make the west more accessible to easterners and vice versa. Language training in both French and English would also be a good thing though.

Edited April 18, 2009 by Smallc

[Machjo]

The whole point of this is to be self sufficient in as many ways as possible. We don't want to have to rely on the US. Nationalism isn't petty.

Let's not asume that self-sufficiency is always the best route. Don't you remember the battle for wheat in history class? let me remind you. When Mussolini came to power, Italy exported many highly valued agricultural products and imported cheap wheat.

Out of blind nationalism, Mussolini forced the farmers to scrap their highly valued cash crops and produce wheat, all in the name of autarchy. He did win that battle, but in the end, as it turned out, the farmers were poorer than they were before when they produced higher value products for export and just imported the wheat.

Let's learn from history and not make the same mistake. There's nothing wrong with inter-dependence whereby each country does what it does best and then exchanges for what it needs. All countries benefit from this.

And with this kind of collaboration, both Canada and the US would benefit. By not collaborating, both sides lose, all in the name of nationalism. Are we to grow our own bananas too? Let's not hurt ourselves just for the opportunity to beat our naitonalistic chests now and then.

And most importantly, let's not confuse patriotism and nationalism. They are two very different things altogether.

[Smallc]

And with this kind of collaboration, both Canada and the US would benefit. By not collaborating, both sides lose, all in the name of nationalism. Are we to grow our own bananas too? Let's not hurt ourselves just for the opportunity to beat our naitonalistic chests now and then.

We must have our own transportation infrastructure. That doesn't mean we stop collaborating. You are simply looking at this and taking it to extremes. This doesn't mean we stop working together with other countries, it means we will be improving our own country to our benefit.

[Machjo]

You clearly do not understand that fixed links are much more unifying than air links. This would make the west more accessible to easterners and vice versa. Language training in both French and English would also be a good thing though.

Sorry, you missed my point. I fully agree that fixed links are more unifying than airlinks. My point was that even with easier transportation, a Quebecer who doesn't know English still wont' get a job in Vancouver, maybe not even Ottawa, no matter how good the rail system.

I fully agree with upgrading our rail system if the objective is to create a more efficient transporation network. But if the objective is to promote a greater sense of unity, then its benefit woud be negligible compared to a simple restructuring of the second-language teaching policies of Canada's ministries of education, based on the latest research in pedagogical cybernetics, at a fraction of the price.

Of course I'm not saying that these objectives are mutually exclusive either, and we could always go both routes simultaneously to achieve both objectives simultaneously. But the article did mention that it would promote unity. I'm just pointing out that if that's the main objective, then a railway line would not be the most efficient means to that particular objective. I'm just saying that they are two separate objectives in need to two separate remedies.

[Machjo]

We must have our own transportation infrastructure. That doesn't mean we stop collaborating. You are simply looking at this and taking it to extremes. This doesn't mean we stop working together with other countries, it means we will be improving our own country to our benefit.

That I can agree with. But by implicaiton, it would also mean fully integrating the two systems.

[Machjo]

What? This is about making the Trans Canada 4 lane from coast to coast...and it is not unused for most parts. Northwestern Ontario is really the only place on the mainland with a low traffic count, and that count would increase with four laning fewer people would go through the US. It would also increase productivity by decreasing shipping times for goods moved by truck. You obviously have not traveled large portions of the highway.

I've traveleld from Ottawa, ON to Victoria, BC along most of the highway. In Manitoba and Saskattchewan it was empty half the time.

[Hydraboss]

Even a national energy strategy (Not to be confused with the hated National Energy Program, he stresses).

Please, plleeeaaassseee let him say this a few more times in the national media. NES. NEP. No difference in the eyes of those of us who remember or those who have been told.

Could not have asked for better.

[Smallc]

In Manitoba and Saskattchewan it was empty half the time.

It's already 4 lane save for 16kms in Manitoba. It is certainly not empty either.

[Smallc]

Please, plleeeaaassseee let him say this a few more times in the national media. NES. NEP. No difference in the eyes of those of us who remember or those who have been told.

Right...I'm sure people are too stupid to realize the difference.

[Molly]

There's a lot more to 'energy' than oil, Hydraboss, and the national government has a big role to play.

[Hydraboss]

Yes, there is more to energy than oil. There are four main sources in Canada. Nuclear, coal, hydro and oil/gas. Alberta has two.

There is almost zero input or regulation required from the federal government. It is a matter of provincial jurisdiction and should remain that way. We have our own power grid along with our own source of generation. So do other provinces. If they don't, they can pay.

[Smallc]

There is almost zero input or regulation required from the federal government.

That's really a matter of opinion. There are many things the feds could do in terms of infrastructure standards, environmental standards (they already do some of that), emergency standards, efficiency standards, etc. They could work with the provinces to achieve this through cooperation.

[Molly]

That's the usual 'every province for itself/every man for himself'. Typical.

A random, piecemeal approach isn't exactly efficient, especially when you consider the potential scale of energy projects.

It was, for instance, federal involvement that built the pipeline to Sarnia to provide a market for Alberta oil, back when the world wasn't so thirsty for it as it is now. The federal government also has quite a bit to do with nuclear power generation, and needs to have a great deal to do with green energy programs. Any new large hydorelectric projects would likely use a great deal of federal money and organization and be built on federal land... The feds have a big hand in R&D, and even consumption standards....

Be that as it may, just the question of assured energy supplies, and what environmental and lifestyle price we are willing to pay to have it means that some serious thought ought to be put into it-- nationally, not piecemeal provincially/locally.

[Hydraboss]

Molly, the pipeline to Sarnia is actually for natural gas not oil. Just wanted to clarify.

Short of National Parks, there is really no "federal land" in Alberta. It's "crown land" and is under the jurisdiction of the province not the federal government.

Be that as it may, just the question of assured energy supplies, and what environmental and lifestyle price we are willing to pay to have it means that some serious thought ought to be put into it-- nationally, not piecemeal provincially/locally.

I agree with the environmental and lifestyle statement. If people from other parts of the country want to "go green" because of the "great and powerful global warming scandal", then they can choose where their power comes from. I suggest Kwebek because it's hydro. Stay away from Alberta's electricity...it's from dirty oil and coal.

California will buy it. Canada's federal government need not apply or offer funds. We can do it by ourselves.

[Smallc]

Stay away from Alberta's electricity...it's from dirty oil and coal.

Oh, but in that case, the environmental impacts are a federal jurisdiction.

Edited April 19, 2009 by Smallc

[Molly]

I'm no darned expert on pipelines, but I believe you are mistaken, Hydraboss. Yes, western gas comes this way, but yes, western oil comes this way, too. In fact, if the line connecting Montreal and Sarnia is reversed again, as Enbridge was proposing, then Ontario runs the risk of being almost entirely dependent on western oil in general, Alberta oil in particular.

I wouldn't stake my life on that understanding, but I'd put a fiver on it.

Google time.

[Hydraboss]

Oh, but in that case, the environmental impacts are a federal jurisdiction.

Alberta has been producing power this way for a very long time. If they want to try to stop us, let them.

Until they're prepared to, they can go bug someone else...

[Hydraboss]

I'm no darned expert on pipelines, but I believe you are mistaken, Hydraboss. Yes, western gas comes this way, but yes, western oil comes this way, too. In fact, if the line connecting Montreal and Sarnia is reversed again, as Enbridge was proposing, then Ontario runs the risk of being almost entirely dependent on western oil in general, Alberta oil in particular.

I wouldn't stake my life on that understanding, but I'd put a fiver on it.

Google time.

There are lines running east from Alberta, but the majority are gathering lines (small diameter). The whole idea of the Alliance was to move "lots" of oil south in one main collector line in exchange for the US sending a predetermined amount north to eastern Canada. Cross-Canada lines exist, but no one has the capacity and therefore the maintenance cost, etc are ridiculous.

And I thought Ontario didn't need Alberta's oil? Dependant on us? Time to raise the price.