CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4661
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 8:58 pm
 


«Although Mr. Dion, on taking the helm of the Liberal Party, had expressed unease with the way the Atlantic Accord combined equalization and economic-development objectives, yesterday he pledged he would respect the deal.»
(CAMPBELL CLARK, Globe and Mail Update, August 28, 2007)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... caucus0828


I think Dion shows here that he doesn’t have much ambition. He doesn’t wants, it seems, to make the effort to explain to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia why his first negative stance on the Atlantic Accord was wiser then the one he adopts today. One argument we hear about the importance for the provinces to keep all the revenues from non-renewable resources is that, keeping the revenues better regulates the development of the regions. This is nonsense because with natural resource exploitation projects comes temporary movements of workers from all over the country.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6675
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:59 pm
 


That's not the only argument though. Much more persuasive is the idea of using oil revenues to encourage economic diversity.

The problem with that is the Alberta experience...almost all of the "diversity" is dependent on the oil patch under more careful scrutiny. The inflation caused by the oil industry actually discourages other industries from basing themselves there.

Still, a responsible provincial government could manage it differently.

That doesn't make anybody right or wrong in the Accord argument.

It does make Harper less than honest though. He said one thing, then did another. He's a lot like Trudeau, Mulroney, and Chretien. Let's spike him to a tree.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15030
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:31 pm
 


And light the tree on fire?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Philidelphia Flyers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 10843
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 7:19 am
 


and then piss on it, point and laugh?


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4661
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 7:39 am
 


Rev_Blair wrote:
That's not the only argument though. Much more persuasive is the idea of using oil revenues to encourage economic diversity.

The problem with that is the Alberta experience...almost all of the "diversity" is dependent on the oil patch under more careful scrutiny. The inflation caused by the oil industry actually discourages other industries from basing themselves there.

Still, a responsible provincial government could manage it differently.

That doesn't make anybody right or wrong in the Accord argument.

It does make Harper less than honest though. He said one thing, then did another. He's a lot like Trudeau, Mulroney, and Chretien. Let's spike him to a tree.


When the oil patch will be gone, the workers will not stay in Fort McMurray. Oil rents should be distributed through out Canada so that the country will be ready for a big movement of population.

The best argument though for redistributing revenues from natural ressources is that these revenues are undeserved and the appropriation of natural ressources should follow the Lockean proviso.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6675
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 7:53 am
 


Resources belong to the provinces though.

What I'd like to see is a provision where they get to keep the money if they can prove that money is going into economic diversification and job training, so when the oil patch goes bust again...and it always does eventually...there's something to fall back on.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4661
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 4:20 pm
 


Rev_Blair wrote:
Resources belong to the provinces though.

What I'd like to see is a provision where they get to keep the money if they can prove that money is going into economic diversification and job training, so when the oil patch goes bust again...and it always does eventually...there's something to fall back on.


The equalization formula dictates who will get the revenues of natural resources. When come the time to review the formula, negotiations should be enlightened by the Lockean proviso.

When the tar sands will be gone, a lot of workers will quit Alberta. So the diversification of Alberta will be useless.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4661
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:00 pm
 


The Lockean Proviso is a portion of John Locke's labor theory of property which says that though individuals have a right to acquire private property from nature, that they must leave "enough and as good in common to others."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockean_proviso


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 134
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:41 pm
 


Rev_Blair wrote:
Resources belong to the provinces though.

What I'd like to see is a provision where they get to keep the money if they can prove that money is going into economic diversification and job training, so when the oil patch goes bust again...and it always does eventually...there's something to fall back on.


if oil belong to provinces so it'll enlarged the differences between them & make others envious, by the way it add to them other problems like overpopulation.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4661
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:51 pm
 


ka3bour wrote:
by the way it add to them other problems like overpopulation.


«Overpopulation» is perhaps not a word hard enough, I would say a rush.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2879
PostPosted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:22 pm
 


If paul martin had a majority back when danny williams was asking for all this money he never would of signed this deal in the first place.

this deal was nothing more than an attempt to buy votes out east before the last election .

Dion is now only making noise about this issue becuase he thinks he can win the 3 conservative seats in newfoundland and it looks like dion is very desperate to find winnable ridings.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2926
PostPosted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 3:25 pm
 


Benoit wrote:
When the oil patch will be gone, the workers will not stay in Fort McMurray. Oil rents should be distributed through out Canada so that the country will be ready for a big movement of population.

The best argument though for redistributing revenues from natural ressources is that these revenues are undeserved and the appropriation of natural ressources should follow the Lockean proviso.


There are something like 200 billion barrels oil equivalent in the tar sands - that we know of and that are economically feasible at these prices. That's about 7 years of the entire world's supply, which is estimated at between 2-4 trillion boe. So maybe we'll have to worry about that in 100 years. Your scenario is more likely if oil drops to $40.

And natural resources belong to the provinces.

I still don't understand why, if Atlantic Canada has all this new found wealth, it shouldn't receive lower transfer payments? Someone want to explain that to me.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2282
PostPosted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 3:29 pm
 


LOL like we'd believe him. The liberal party has flipped flopped on the Accord since day one.

Let's be honest if Harper had of treated NSians with an ounce of respect we would of been happy with a ratified deal. As it stands now we get our cake and eat it to. However the accord is so generous we get to run around naked flinging cake at each other.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2926
PostPosted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 3:32 pm
 


Scrappy wrote:
we get to run around naked flinging cake at each other.


I'm all for this...


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4661
PostPosted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 5:39 pm
 


Toro wrote:
Benoit wrote:
When the oil patch will be gone, the workers will not stay in Fort McMurray. Oil rents should be distributed through out Canada so that the country will be ready for a big movement of population.

The best argument though for redistributing revenues from natural ressources is that these revenues are undeserved and the appropriation of natural ressources should follow the Lockean proviso.


There are something like 200 billion barrels oil equivalent in the tar sands - that we know of and that are economically feasible at these prices. That's about 7 years of the entire world's supply, which is estimated at between 2-4 trillion boe. So maybe we'll have to worry about that in 100 years. Your scenario is more likely if oil drops to $40.

And natural resources belong to the provinces.

I still don't understand why, if Atlantic Canada has all this new found wealth, it shouldn't receive lower transfer payments? Someone want to explain that to me.


Movements of population will not start in 100 years since workers who quit or retire will get out of Alberta, heading to their provinces of origin and be replaced by others from all over Canada. If Alberta keeps all the oil revenues, the infrastructures to allow theses country-wide movements will be let to crumble.

Natural resources belong to no one in the first place, they should be appropriated following just rules i.e. lockean proviso.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.