acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) (12/03/84)
I see that can.politics has again slipped into a coma, not that some of
us on the West coast haven't tried to prevent it from happening. Over the
last several weeks Jim Robinson and I have posted several articles concerning
such things as oil prices, tax policies, value added taxes, who is government
for and free trade. The response, to say the least, has not been overwhelming.
Yes, two or three other people have expressed opinions but they hardly provided
enough material to spark a debate.
Unfortunately, I see this as being a symptom of what is partly wrong with
Canada. The disease is Eastern (central) Canada myopia and it regularly rears
its ugly head in politics, business, the media and now it appears to have
attacked the average citizen in those regions. The disease results in the
victim refusing to acknowledge the existence of the other parts of Canada.
If they do acknowledge the existence of Canada beyond the borders of Ontario
and Quebec, they view it as an area that is suppose to serve the every command
and whim of this central region.
How do I know the disease exists? That is the easy part. All one
has to do is look at what happens in politics. Western Canada makes requests
of Ottawa and nothing happens, we are just ignored. We repeat the requests
and are again ignored. The same happens on the net, we in the west express
concerns about issues that are important to us but there is no response.
I interpret this as meaning the issues aren't important to me so I won't
discuss them and that is exactly what happens in politics. The power
belongs to the MPs of Ontario and Quebec thus if the issue is not of political
benefit to them it is not discussed. When the issue does become important to
them (ex price of oil) then they are willing take action, but as usual the
action is at the expense of the West.
Another example of this, as pointed out by Jim Robinson, is in the area
of trade. Nearly every commodity that the West produces is traded on the world
market and subject to world prices. Examples of this are wheat, coal, minerals,
lumber and pulp and paper. The markets for these products would expand even
further if Canada would lift its tariffs off manufactured goods. An example
of this occurred last year when BC negotiated a deal with Indonesia (I think)
to increase lumber exports there. The deal, however, was conditional on
Indonesia being allowed to sell some of its products, namely textiles, in
Canada. The Canadian government, controlled by Ontario and Quebec, of course
refused to allow this to happen because that would have meant that the
textile industries in those provinces would have had to compete for a change.
The net result is BC loses millions of dollars in lumber sales and consumers
continue to pay needlessly high prices for government protected and subsidized
products.
You might say that protected the jobs in those industries and I say
to you "Does that mean the a job to someone in eastern Canada is more important
than to someone in the West?". From the politicians point of view it obviously
is. That above action even goes one further, it says that it is more important
to protect jobs in industries that aren't competitive then to create jobs
in areas that are competitive in the unprotected world market and will continue
to sustain themselves without government aid either in the form of direct
subsidies or tariffs.
Oil pricing on the other hand works in the opposite way. The West would
like to sell its product at a higher price by simply allowing the price to
approach world levels. But no, that would cost consumers in the East money
and that could reduce a politicians vote count in the next election. So, the
West is forced to sell at a lower price and to pay a tax to subsidize the
oil bought on the world market for eastern Canada. What would higher prices
do? It would increase exploration for oil and research into oil extraction
methods for tar sands, it would (heaven forbid) create jobs and more wealth for
western Canadians and it would encourage Canada to become self sufficient
in energy.
If these latest comments don't spark some discussion then I don't
know what will.
Donald Actonpeterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (12/04/84)
Without commenting on all your other comments, I'd think it would be risky to treat net apathy as an indication of general Eastern apathy, particularly at this time of year as people are struggling to meet deadlines. Not afraid to be provocative :-), p. rowley, U. Toronto
hody@dalcs.UUCP (Reg Hody) (12/04/84)
> Canada. The disease is Eastern (central) Canada myopia and it regularly rears > to you "Does that mean the a job to someone in eastern Canada is more important > approach world levels. But no, that would cost consumers in the East money > oil bought on the world market for eastern Canada. What would higher prices Why not just use "Central" instaed of "Eastern". I don't dispute your points, but I find it REALLY irritating when the Atlantic provinces are lumped in with the Central Canadian power elite. (and I do appreciate the (central) in the first referance to Eastern Canada). -- reg Reg Hody, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia. B3H 4H8 (902-424-6501) {allegra,decvax,decwrl,floyd,ihnp4}!utcsrgv!dalcs!hody or... dalcs!hody@dartmouth
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (12/04/84)
The article that this references seems to show just a bit of paranoia. > I see that can.politics has again slipped into a coma, not that some of > us on the West coast haven't tried to prevent it from happening. Over the > last several weeks Jim Robinson and I have posted several articles concerning > such things as oil prices, tax policies, value added taxes, who is government > for and free trade. The response, to say the least, has not been overwhelming. So a few people post opinions, and nobody finds them immediately stimulating enough to post a reply. And this is the fault of the readers? Most newsgroups are like that. As for myself: I don't read net.politics at all - I'm just not interested in long arguments that really get nowhere, which seemed to be the bulk of what it contained when I unsubscribed. If a roaring argument gets started here, I'll unsubscribe too. I am interested in comments on Canadian politics from all parts of the country, but I am rather uninterested in someone from one part of the country baiting people elsewhere. > If they do acknowledge the existence of Canada beyond the borders of Ontario > and Quebec, they view it as an area that is suppose to serve the every command > and whim of this central region. Rubbish. People everywhere are selfish. So what? In any area of Canada you will find people who think their area is poorly-off and who want things improved there, even at the expense of other areas of Canada. > Another example of this, as pointed out by Jim Robinson, is in the area > of trade. Nearly every commodity that the West produces is traded on the world > market and subject to world prices. Examples of this are wheat, coal, minerals, > lumber and pulp and paper. The markets for these products would expand even > further if Canada would lift its tariffs off manufactured goods. An example > of this occurred last year when BC negotiated a deal with Indonesia (I think) > to increase lumber exports there. The deal, however, was conditional on > Indonesia being allowed to sell some of its products, namely textiles, in > Canada. The Canadian government, controlled by Ontario and Quebec, of course > refused to allow this to happen because that would have meant that the > textile industries in those provinces would have had to compete for a change. > The net result is BC loses millions of dollars in lumber sales and consumers > continue to pay needlessly high prices for government protected and subsidized > products. The net result would be a large loss of jobs in the textile industries. Isn't this evidence of western canada myopia? :-) Now, I would prefer that trade were more open. However, it is easy to see how the politicians were thinking: If they made the change you suggested, there would be a large number of people who blamed them (the politicians) directly for the losses of their jobs, and another (perhaps smaller, perhaps larger) group of people who might be slightly grateful that the government was benign enough to let the trade deal go through and thus create jobs. No, wait, the people in BC would probably think that it was simply their due to be allowed to export the lumber, and thus wouldn't even be grateful. So, it's pretty clear that making a visible change like this would have a largely negative political effect - lots of people hate you, a few are slightly grateful - and so there is the incentive not to make the change. Why do you consider this specifically anti-west? > You might say that protected the jobs in those industries and I say > to you "Does that mean the a job to someone in eastern Canada is more important > than to someone in the West?". From the politicians point of view it obviously > is. You are jumping to conclusions with insufficient basis. I claim that protecting an existing jobs is more important politically than creating a new one, for the reasons expounded above. What evidence do you have that jobs in the east are more important than jobs in the west per se? Your example has not demonstrated that, since there are equally-likely other explanations. > That above action even goes one further, it says that it is more important > to protect jobs in industries that aren't competitive then to create jobs > in areas that are competitive in the unprotected world market and will continue > to sustain themselves without government aid either in the form of direct > subsidies or tariffs. You're probably right about that. Sad, but for things to be otherwise would require a populace that was concerned about the overall long-range good to the country as a whole, rather than just what is good for themselves. > Oil pricing on the other hand works in the opposite way. The West would > like to sell its product at a higher price by simply allowing the price to > approach world levels. But no, that would cost consumers in the East money > and that could reduce a politicians vote count in the next election. So, the > West is forced to sell at a lower price and to pay a tax to subsidize the > oil bought on the world market for eastern Canada. What would higher prices > do? It would increase exploration for oil and research into oil extraction > methods for tar sands, it would (heaven forbid) create jobs and more wealth for > western Canadians and it would encourage Canada to become self sufficient > in energy. Do you see that this is a case of the oil-producing provinces saying "I want more profit" at the expense of the non-producing provinces? True, it would have the benefits you mention, but the bottom line is that, right now, a certain number of people in the producing provinces would become wealthier, and more people would be employed there, while a (larger) number of people in the other provinces would pay more for energy or lose jobs. So, again, the political benefit is negative. Let me ask you a question: Who owns the western and artic oil? "Owns" in the sense of who has the right to benefit from being able to determine the price and taxation of that commodity? Is it a resource that belongs to the oil company, who should be free to see it any way they see fit with no interference or taxation by either provicial or federal government? Or do the people of the province in which it is found have a right to some benefits, and thus are entitled to tax the production, set up Heritage Funds, and so on? Or does it really belong to the people of Canada as a whole, and thus should be taxed and distributed for the maximum benefit of all? I am interested in rational justification of your answer, not just opinion and flaming. Dave Martindale > If these latest comments don't spark some discussion then I don't > know what will. > Donald Acton
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (12/05/84)
You have hit the nail on the head. If the government interfered less in our economic lives, then nobody would be able to lobby the government to take money from one side and give it to the other. I seem to recall a big business about westerners demanding rediculously cheap rail rates to ship their grain west through the crow. Nobody's innocent here. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) (12/09/84)
In article <653@watcgl.UUCP> dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) writes the following in reply to an article of mine. >The article that this references seems to show just a bit of paranoia. At least if I am truly paranoid about the lack of concern shown for the West by the politicians then I am in good company. In the August 27th edition of Time Mordecai Richler says the following of the west: "Out there, beyond the Rockies, they <meaning BC> look upon Ottawa as distant and uncaring. The fulminating west feels, with some justice, that it remains an internal colony, the National Energy Policy's sacrificial goat." On my comment about a lumber deal being worked out between BC and Indonesia the reply was: >The net result would be a large loss of jobs in the textile industries. >Isn't this evidence of western canada myopia? :-) From my point of view anything that results in freer trade is hardly myopia, failure to move towards free trade is truly long term myopia. The textile industry has been protected and supported for years by the federal government. Every time the government talks of changing this the textile industry lobbies the government and convinces them that with just a few more years of quotas and price supports they would modernize and be able to compete with the rest of the world. Unfortunately, it never happens and they just ask for more protection. It is about time we said enough is enough and removed all trade restrictions, that would do more to force them to modernize then anything else. >It is easy to see >how the politicians were thinking: If they made the change you suggested, >there would be a large number of people who blamed them (the politicians) >directly for the losses of their jobs, and another (perhaps smaller, >perhaps larger) group of people who might be slightly grateful that the >government was benign enough to let the trade deal go through and thus >create jobs. No, wait, the people in BC would probably think that it >was simply their due to be allowed to export the lumber, and thus wouldn't >even be grateful. So, it's pretty clear that making a visible change >like this would have a largely negative political effect - lots of people >hate you, a few are slightly grateful - and so there is the incentive not >to make the change. Why do you consider this specifically anti-west? That was just the point, the decision was based solely on how many votes somebody could save and had little to do with the merits for or against letting the deal go through. So it appears that the basis for this decision, as you so readily point, was political expediency and such decisions can hardly be in the best long term interests of Canada. About exporting lumber, isn't it our due to be allowed to export it? The steel makers of Ontario think it is their right to be able to export steel in an unfettered manner to the US. Now that the US is talking restrictions they are lobbying the government hard to put pressure on the US to have Canada exempted from any restrictions. The government is of course obliging, all in the name of free trade. Doesn't it seem only fair that similar treatment be afforded BC when it tries to develop and sell its resources or does free trade only exist in one direction, to other countries? Actually, steel isn't a very good commodity to talk about with respect to free trade since the Japanese would be very happy to supply cheap <as in low price, high quality> steel to the BC market but they are prevented from effectively doing so by quotas and tariffs. By the way, if Japanese steel is government subsidized, I still think we should buy it, after all if the Japanese taxpayer wants to pay part of the cost of the steel for me I may as well let them. >I claim that >protecting an existing jobs is more important politically than creating >a new one, for the reasons expounded above. Once again a decision based solely on political expediency and not what is in the best long term interests of the country. >Let me ask you a question: Who owns the western and artic oil? >"Owns" in the sense of who has the right to benefit from being able to >determine the price and taxation of that commodity? >Is it a resource that belongs to the oil company, who should be free >to see it any way they see fit with no interference or taxation by either >provincial ,or federal government? Or do the people of the province in >which it is found have a right to some benefits, and thus are entitled >to tax the production, set up Heritage Funds, and so on? Or does it >really belong to the people of Canada as a whole, and thus should be >taxed and distributed for the maximum benefit of all? > One of my favourite topics the pricing of oil and natural gas. First off as far as I know there are no commercially viable finds of oil in the arctic (note the spelling), not that the oil companies haven't been trying. It seems that just about every time they drill a successful hole they find natural gas instead of the oil they are looking for. My position is as follows. Natural gas and oil are resources just like coal, iron ore, uranium, asbestos and nickel etc. The latter named resources are all under provincial control as spelled out in the BNA Act. The act gives control of all the minerals and natural resources found in a province to the provincial governments. What is so different about oil and gas? Nothing except that they are currently in high demand. About 15 years ago there was no question as to who owned the oil and natural gas because non-Canadian oil was cheaper and eastern needs were filled by offshore purchases. The people of western Canada used, without a government compensation tax, their own more expensive oil. Now that the situation has reversed many people, especially those not in western Canada, seem to think that the West should sell *its* oil at prices considerably below the world market value. Thats right, our <meaning those of us living in western Canada> oil, the oil and natural gas contained within the borders of the western provinces belongs to the citizens of those provinces. As such the citizens of the West, as represented by their duly elected provincial governments, can set the pricing format for their resources however they see fit. The proceeds will, hopefully, be used to the benefit of the majority of the citizens in the province. I believe that the oil and natural gas found in the arctic and in non-inland waterways belongs to the federal government and as such I would hope that they would manage it for the benefit of all Canadians. If they really wanted low oil and gas prices they could develop these reserves and sell them at lower than world prices assuming the cost of deliverying the product would allow it. This would force the producing provinces to supply the oil at the same price or leave it in the ground. Governments really don't seem to be in the competitive market so it is more likely that they would collaborate and fix prices then engage in a bidding war. My viewpoint that the oil and gas found within the borders of a province belongs to the province is held by the western provinces and one must assume partly by the federal government. If you recall a couple of years ago the federal government had its eyes on natural gas revenues and was going to claim a royalty on natural gas. The producing provinces strongly objected to this and launched an action in the Supreme Court of Canada, the federal government quickly backed down. I think it is reasonable to assume that if the federal government felt that it had a leg to stand on it would have pursued the matter, given the amount of money they could have gotten for the sorely depleted federal coffers. One final question what have you got against paying fellow Canadians, the producing provinces, the world price or nearly world price for oil? We could just as easily leave it in the ground and let the rest of Canada buy their oil on the world market at world prices. Some people seem to have a really strong objection to money leaving Canada as profits to foreign companies while at the same time they think nothing of sending Canadian money chasing after world oil instead of keeping it in Canada. Donald Acton I'll push my car a hundred miles before I buy gas from a Petro Canada station.
wjafyfe@watmath.UUCP (Andy Fyfe) (12/12/84)
In article <874@ubc-cs.UUCP> acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) writes: >About exporting lumber, isn't >it our due to be allowed to export it? The steel makers of Ontario think >it is their right to be able to export steel in an unfettered manner to the US. >Now that the US is talking restrictions they are lobbying the government hard >to put pressure on the US to have Canada exempted from any restrictions. >The government is of course obliging, all in the name of free trade. >Doesn't it seem only fair that similar treatment be afforded BC when it >tries to develop and sell its resources or does free trade only exist in >one direction, to other countries? When you talk about exporting lumber, what, beyond cutting down the trees, is being done in BC? At least with the steel industry, the iron ore is mined, refined, and (from what I understand) shipped to the US as a finished product. If the government were fighting for the East's right to export iron ore, then I'd be worried. The last figures I saw for the rate of disappearance of Canadian forests were quite scary. Are you sure exporting lumber is in BC's LONG term interest? (I live in a part of the country where you have to look hard to find a real forest!) I'm much happier if we can export a finished product, rather than the means for someone else to make it for us (to import later, no doubt!). Remember, the lumber deal was give and take. "Not only does BC have the right to develop its trade, it has the right to change the current rules of the game (right or wrong as they may be) in the rest of the country in order to get what it wants." Is that what you mean when you ask that BC be given its due? Now that doesn't sound at all fair. What did BC (or anyone else) have to give up to protect the steel industry? (The US response was to those counties that export cheaper, government subsidized steel, something Canada doesn't do.) May as well fuel the fire... Andy Fyfe, U of Waterloo
acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) (12/15/84)
In article <10346@watmath.UUCP> wjafyfe@watmath.UUCP (Andy Fyfe) writes: >When you talk about exporting lumber, what, beyond cutting down the >trees, is being done in BC? I guess you fail to see the distinction between lumber and trees. Lumber is the finished product that has been run through a sawmill and perhaps a planner mill. This would consist of things like 2x4s (I guess it is OK to use imperial measurements now that it appears mandatory metrification is being scrapped) posts, beams and that sort of thing. In some instances it might also include plywood. From this point of view it is just as much a finished product as steel. In both cases further work is needed to turn the semi-finished product into something useful like car bodies or house frames. Since BC lumber exports are primarily softwoods, like douglas fir and hemlock, they are more likely destined for construction use then furniture building so I don't imagine they would be returning as finished products. Other types of wood such as red and yellow cedar could possibly return as finished products if the raw logs had been exported. BC does export raw logs and there is much controversy and discussion on how much of our timber should be exported in this fashion. >Are >you sure exporting lumber is in BC's LONG term interest? (I live in a >part of the country where you have to look hard to find a real forest!) (and trees. By BC standards the stuff that passes for trees in the rest of Canada would be considered scrub :-) ) The point you raise is a very important one and the province is engaged in a lot of discussion (not always friendly either) on what should be done. No doubt you have heard of the controversy surrounding South Moresby and Meares Islands. Should these stands of virginal timber be logged or should the areas remain as ecological reserves? Other questions being discussed concern whose responsibility is it to replant logged areas, the governments or the forest companies? Likewise, whose responsibility is it to finance and engage in sliviculture research? How should stumpage be calculated and at what rate should we be logging? >What did BC (or anyone else) have to give up to protect the steel >industry? (The US response was to those counties that export cheaper, >government subsidized steel, something Canada doesn't do.) Supporting total free trade I can think of lots of things that were given up; the extra money to by the more expensive product, non-Canadian steel, freedom of choice and maybe even jobs. How many construction projects would have proceed if the materials had been cheaper? The artificially high price of Canadian steel affects the industries concerned with the manufacture of tractors, farm machinery and cars and makes them more uncompetitive then they need be. Notice how all these sectors of the economy also have quotas and tariffs placed on the foreign competition. How can these industries compete effectively in the real world if they are handcuffed right off the start by having to use a raw materials that are over priced? Donald Acton
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/17/84)
>Supporting total free trade I can think of lots of things that were given >up; the extra money to by the more expensive product, non-Canadian steel, >freedom of choice and maybe even jobs. How many construction projects would >have proceed if the materials had been cheaper? The artificially high price >of Canadian steel affects the industries concerned with the manufacture of >tractors, farm machinery and cars and makes them more uncompetitive then >they need be. Notice how all these sectors of the economy also have quotas and >tariffs placed on the foreign competition. How can these industries compete >effectively in the real world if they are handcuffed right off the start >by having to use a raw materials that are over priced? > > Donald Acton If Canadian steel is so overpriced, why do the Americans have to resort to various mechanisms to prevent it competing with their steel? Canada sometimes gets exemption for steel on the grounds that the Canadian steel industry is fair in pricing, but even that doesn't prevent the introduction of US regulations like requiring imported steel pipe to be engraved (or impressed) with the country of origin. (This dramatically increases the susceptibility of the pipe to corrosion, and effectively prohibits its use). Without knowing any of the figures, these US reactions make me sceptical about the allegedly high price of Canadian steel. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) (12/21/84)
In article <1284@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: > >If Canadian steel is so overpriced, why do the Americans have to resort >to various mechanisms to prevent it competing with their steel? American steel must be even more overpriced then Canadian steel is. Both Canada and the US place restrictions on imported steel, thus if the steel industries were truly competitive they would not need protection. As an example consider the Canadian forest industry which must compete on the world markets without the "benefit" of protectionist tactics. According to articles in the Vancouver Sun last night the Canadian forest industry is producing in record amounts, they are doing it (in BC anyway) with 20% fewer people and they are selling these products at break even prices. Why don't the steel and auto industries adopt these sort of practices instead of screaming for quotas and restrictions that result in the average person needlessly subsidizing these industries. Arthur Laffer (Ph.D. economics, author of the Laffer curve and according to George Bush advocate of voodoo economics) estimates that the average North American car is overpriced by $2000 due to restrictive trade practices. Merry Christmas everyone, and see you in the new year. Donald Acton