Conservatives to deal with Fiscal Imbalance.

[blueblood]

When I speak of laying the groundwork for Canada to be self-sufficient, I meant functionally, not productively.

Functionally?

The costs of trucking oil, from the west as far as Ottawa and shipping/trucking from Hibernia for the eastern part of the country does make us functionally self-sufficent. Trucking such distances would still be cheaper than building a pipeline.

Yes, not all the oil consumed in Canada is produced in Canada. But that is for cost savings. In a time of war, the only real situation in which functional self-sufficiency comes into play, Canada could meet all of our oil needs.

Trucking are you serious, the roads in Canada are shit as it is. No throw the oil on a train and be done with it. You could barge it across the great lakes and up/down the St. Lawrence too.

[Remiel]

Thank you, Geoffrey.

[geoffrey]

Thank you, Geoffrey.

No problem.

I see people talking about the security of our supply in a time of war. Sillyness. Eastern Canada has considerable access to to tanker shipped oil from the North Sea and Norway... either area looks like they'd be into a big war anytime soon.

In the case of a WWII type situation, ok I see your point. But that's not happening. Security of supply from the US Gulf Coast is understandable, you never know what a crazy Congressman may propose. But we have plenty of other cheap sources. Pipeline construction is massively capital intensive (a new Calgary to Toronto line may run well over $15-20b in current labour and economic conditions). We simply don't have the money or motive to invest 1 or 2 percent of our national GDP in an oil pipeline when there is no real threat to stability.

[jbg]

Yes, I freely admit to frequent rambling. However, pay attention to what geoffrey is saying about where the East's oil is coming from. When I speak of laying the groundwork for Canada to be self-sufficient, I meant functionally, not productively. I know there is no pipeline from West to East, but have they at least made a solid plan of where one would be if it became necessary?

No, pipelines are the destroyers of governments.

St. Laurent would certainly agree.

[HoratioCaine]

But you've got all the provinces, especially oddly enough the have provinces, whining and complaining and the feds not doing what they should do: Tell them to shut the you know what up.

"Oddly enough"????

It seems that the "have" provinces are throwing a party. They should at least control the guest list, the choice of music, etc.

Unlike the States though Canada for the most part has a "lets help each other out" attitude when it comes to provincial relations as opposed to the individual states which are more along these lines:

Nevada: Help me my house is on fire!

California: Sure, I'd love to give ya a hand, but you're last water payment check bounced...

Canada recognizes that we're stronger together than we are apart. But I don't really blame the have provinces for whining, the rich have always complained they have to help the poor.

[tml12]

I really wonder if we are living in the same country.

The Canadian provinces are MUCH MUCH MUCH less likely to agree with each than the U.S. states and this represents not only a failed Canadian confederation but also the fact that Canada's national myths do not work nearly as well as other country's national myths do.

[geoffrey]

Unlike the States though Canada for the most part has a "lets help each other out" attitude when it comes to provincial relations as opposed to the individual states which are more along these lines:

Nevada: Help me my house is on fire!

California: Sure, I'd love to give ya a hand, but you're last water payment check bounced...

Canada recognizes that we're stronger together than we are apart. But I don't really blame the have provinces for whining, the rich have always complained they have to help the poor.

I'd love to tell Quebec to shove it when they come out with a new social program that they expect Alberta to fund. Your view of Canada is generally restricted to the GTA. Outside of that bubble, most people have far less consideration for other provinces. Even in the GTA there is a constant dislike of Alberta and those 'lucky people with oil.'

Quebec thinks they get screwed, the West does get screwed, the Maritimes think they get screwed.

That leaves Ontario. Which now with McGuinty in power, thinks it gets screwed the most out of anyone.

So really, where is this brotherly love? We all hate each other.

I really wonder if we are living in the same country.

The Canadian provinces are MUCH MUCH MUCH less likely to agree with each than the U.S. states and this represents not only a failed Canadian confederation but also the fact that Canada's national myths do not work nearly as well as other country's national myths do.

Bingo.

[HoratioCaine]

I really wonder if we are living in the same country.

The Canadian provinces are MUCH MUCH MUCH less likely to agree with each than the U.S. states and this represents not only a failed Canadian confederation but also the fact that Canada's national myths do not work nearly as well as other country's national myths do.

Ok, I guess you misunderstood (or maybe I didn't explain it the way I intended)

What I meant was federally the spirit is to help each other. I know Alberta or Quebec don't give two s**ts about any other Province else in this country. (And I'm talking about the governments not the people) What I'm saying is the federal policy is to take from our strengths to address our weaknesses. The difference between us and the U.S. being in the U.S. states are much more autonomous, I would say to a detriment of the country as a whole, than the Provinces are here in Canada.

[jbg]

I really wonder if we are living in the same country.

The Canadian provinces are MUCH MUCH MUCH less likely to agree with each than the U.S. states and this represents not only a failed Canadian confederation but also the fact that Canada's national myths do not work nearly as well as other country's national myths do.

To be fair, the US has many interstate metropolitan areas, such as the New York area, covering large chunks of New York New Jersey and Connecticut. Given the limited role of the US's federal government, cooperation among states is required on a practical, day-to-day basis. I don't know of any interprovincial metropolitan areas in Canada, aside from Lloydminister, AB and SK. I do believe that Old Crow and/or Mayo, Yukon, are close to the NWT border, so maybe its suburbs spill into another jurisdiction. Aside from that, there isn't much occasion for multiprovincial operation of transit or other joint facilities as there is in New York, wher rails, highways and bridges cross state lines.

[tml12]

I really wonder if we are living in the same country.

The Canadian provinces are MUCH MUCH MUCH less likely to agree with each than the U.S. states and this represents not only a failed Canadian confederation but also the fact that Canada's national myths do not work nearly as well as other country's national myths do.

To be fair, the US has many interstate metropolitan areas, such as the New York area, covering large chunks of New York New Jersey and Connecticut. Given the limited role of the US's federal government, cooperation among states is required on a practical, day-to-day basis. I don't know of any interprovincial metropolitan areas in Canada, aside from Lloydminister, AB and SK. I do believe that Old Crow and/or Mayo, Yukon, are close to the NWT border, so maybe its suburbs spill into another jurisdiction. Aside from that, there isn't much occasion for multiprovincial operation of transit or other joint facilities as there is in New York, wher rails, highways and bridges cross state lines.

Much of it jbg is also Canadian federalism. The American Founding Fathers debated federalism in The Federalist Papers. What was the jurisdiction of the states vs. the federal government was discussed and debated to a great extent in 1787...the Constitution gives the States a lot of powers and yes, I agree that a lot of that stems from the fact that this is required on a practical, day-to-day basis.

Canada never seriously addressed these debates. Canada's founding principles are "peace, order, and good government." The Canadian Supreme Court, created by an Act of Parliament, and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Britain were designed to "maintain peace between governments." Thus, Canada has always had a very uneasy federal partnership. It is also why we have all kinds of sovereignty movements in this country at this time.

[geoffrey]

What I meant was federally the spirit is to help each other. I know Alberta or Quebec don't give two s**ts about any other Province else in this country. (And I'm talking about the governments not the people) What I'm saying is the federal policy is to take from our strengths to address our weaknesses.

Its not addressing weaknesses anymore. It's a structured removal of money from Alberta and give it to Quebec program. Ontario gets lumped in there because they are unfortunate enough to be rich in a country of otherwise 2nd worldism. You must be from one of those have-not provinces, because I can tell you I'm frankly quite sick of paying for other's programs that I don't even receive in Alberta.

The problems aren't being addressed. If they were, 43% of Canadians wouldn't be supporting the rest of the country. When are we supposed to start expecting results for equalisation, or have we concided that most of Canada is unable to ever do anything and Alberta and Ontario should just carry the load forever?

I wouldn't mind equalisation if it were a hand up, not a hand out. But some of these provinces have structured their economies, taxes and union policies (like Quebec) so that they couldn't ever be a have province. And then have the nerve to ask for more.

Canada is quite possibly the most regionally divided excuse for a country in the western world.

The difference between us and the U.S. being in the U.S. states are much more autonomous,

I disagree with this in principle. Canadian provinces have alot of power that US States don't have. Essientially control over health care and education... both of which are more federally based in the US. Bush's no-child-left-behind thingy would be unconstitutional in Canada.

The unfortunate thing is that the Federal government overstepped it's bound IMO with the Canada Health Act and their clever concept of taking all the money, and only handing it out with conditions.

[tml12]

What I meant was federally the spirit is to help each other. I know Alberta or Quebec don't give two s**ts about any other Province else in this country. (And I'm talking about the governments not the people) What I'm saying is the federal policy is to take from our strengths to address our weaknesses.

Its not addressing weaknesses anymore. It's a structured removal of money from Alberta and give it to Quebec program. Ontario gets lumped in there because they are unfortunate enough to be rich in a country of otherwise 2nd worldism. You must be from one of those have-not provinces, because I can tell you I'm frankly quite sick of paying for other's programs that I don't even receive in Alberta.

The problems aren't being addressed. If they were, 43% of Canadians wouldn't be supporting the rest of the country. When are we supposed to start expecting results for equalisation, or have we concided that most of Canada is unable to ever do anything and Alberta and Ontario should just carry the load forever?

I wouldn't mind equalisation if it were a hand up, not a hand out. But some of these provinces have structured their economies, taxes and union policies (like Quebec) so that they couldn't ever be a have province. And then have the nerve to ask for more.

Canada is quite possibly the most regionally divided excuse for a country in the western world.

The difference between us and the U.S. being in the U.S. states are much more autonomous,

I disagree with this in principle. Canadian provinces have alot of power that US States don't have. Essientially control over health care and education... both of which are more federally based in the US. Bush's no-child-left-behind thingy would be unconstitutional in Canada.

The unfortunate thing is that the Federal government overstepped it's bound IMO with the Canada Health Act and their clever concept of taking all the money, and only handing it out with conditions.

Not only the Canada Health Act but the recently cancelled Court Challenges Program...these things all cleverly designed by the federal government to indirectly control provincial autonomy.

[jbg]

Much of it jbg is also Canadian federalism. The American Founding Fathers debated federalism in The Federalist Papers. What was the jurisdiction of the states vs. the federal government was discussed and debated to a great extent in 1787...the Constitution gives the States a lot of powers and yes, I agree that a lot of that stems from the fact that this is required on a practical, day-to-day basis.

The federalism debates were hardly the last word on the subject. It's been a messy but effective evolution (scarred by a major war). To paraphrase Stephen Harper, the US is a country that works in practice, but not in theory.

[Riverwind]

The Canadian provinces are MUCH MUCH MUCH less likely to agree with each than the U.S. states and this represents not only a failed Canadian confederation but also the fact that Canada's national myths do not work nearly as well as other country's national myths do.

Canada's problem is it has too few provinces which gives the provinces an inflated view of themselves. It is a lot harder to think your province/state is special when it is one of 50 instead of 1 of 10.

[madmax]

Not certain if this is a promise kept, or one kept one broken with regards to the fiscal imbalance.

The federal government is "sacrificing" Western Canada's resources to gain favour in Quebec, Saskatchewan's government charged Tuesday after word leaked about a solution to the so-called fiscal imbalance.

Saskatchewan Finance Minister Andrew Thomson called the proposal "a betrayal." "It's clear that what they're trying to do is to buy Quebec votes with western oil," said Thomson. "It is not a good way to build national unity."

Media reports from Monday indicated that a proposal in the upcoming federal budget would exempt half a province's revenues from non-renewable natural resources, such as oil and gas, from the formula used to calculate federal equalization payments to the provinces.

That position is supported by Quebec, but is a far cry from the 100 per cent promised to Saskatchewan.

"The Conservatives campaigned hard on saying they would remove natural resources from the equation," said Thomson.

"If this is the fact, that they are going to move forward with this, this is an absolute betrayal of what their election promise was."

Did Harper Promise 100% to Sask.?

[tml12]

Much of it jbg is also Canadian federalism. The American Founding Fathers debated federalism in The Federalist Papers. What was the jurisdiction of the states vs. the federal government was discussed and debated to a great extent in 1787...the Constitution gives the States a lot of powers and yes, I agree that a lot of that stems from the fact that this is required on a practical, day-to-day basis.

The federalism debates were hardly the last word on the subject. It's been a messy but effective evolution (scarred by a major war). To paraphrase Stephen Harper, the US is a country that works in practice, but not in theory.

America's national myths are a powerful, unifying force in that country. Freedom, Old Glory, Remember the Alamo, the Bald Eagle, the Grand Experiment in Democracy, the First Republic, etc.

I could go on...certainly, the federalism debates were not the last point on the subject. The U.S. works in practice because it's unifying myths are very powerful. Canada does not have those kinds of unifying myths. Canada's myths are provincially-based, with the possible exception of Ontario. Indeed, in all other provinces but that one Canadians have said they consider themselves members of that province first and Canadians second. Essentially, what keeps Canada together is the feeling among Canadians that they are not American, based on what is taught early to Canadians in school. The irony, of course, is that while the U.S. could technically exist without Canada, unless Canada develops new myths Canada would have a hard time defining itself without the U.S.