wrong.... no surprise though. Check out the Constitution and specifically what falls into Provincial and what falls into Federal jurisdiction.
Ah, what the hell, here's a BIG hint. Resources are Provincial NOT Federal.
Oil Sand Myths
- Thread starter Redmonton_Rebel
- Start date
wrong.... no surprise though. Check out the Constitution and specifically what falls into Provincial and what falls into Federal jurisdiction.
Ah, what the hell, here's a BIG hint. Resources are Provincial NOT Federal.
power is like oil,it needs something to transport it,they dont make a line big enough to power all of north america from one spot but if they did it would be about ten feet in diameter.
The 250 kv 3 phase lines I worked on the last 3 years cost millions to build and just one will power say the city of Cranbrook and some of the coal mines in the elk valley.
So a line that big is not just impossible but not feasible.Most communities in western Canada can access power from 2 sources,you have to do this when you do maintenance or rec out a line and Alberta and B.C. are set up good as power can flow both ways on the lines and grid.
The 250 kv 3 phase lines I worked on the last 3 years cost millions to build and just one will power say the city of Cranbrook and some of the coal mines in the elk valley.
So a line that big is not just impossible but not feasible.Most communities in western Canada can access power from 2 sources,you have to do this when you do maintenance or rec out a line and Alberta and B.C. are set up good as power can flow both ways on the lines and grid.
Last edited:
You ever hear of the CROW freight rate? How about milk quotas in BC to protect dairy farmers and cheese makers in Quebec? Or my favorite: The FEDERAL tax on marine fuel that only applies to the west coast. Odd way of helping the west.
nep........I live in the crow when im not working.
Moved here from....Ontario,called Cooksville at the time,now missisauga
Born in winterpeg,moved to toronto,moved out west and I now have a house in Alberta and sask.Dad made the right choice to move west back in the 60's.
We came by train.
Can you not read what I wrote? I gave you the Constitutional position. The Prairie provinces did not exist and they were given resources on their creation to enable them to be self supporting.
If you want Constitution, check all the Constitutional documents out. Thos provinces were provided with a per capita payment from Ottawa after their creation until they could become self sustaining.
Where do you think the money came from?
They were "given" the resources? How the hell was that managed? Where was the oil and oil sands BEFORE Alberta and Sask joined confederation?
Of course I have "heard of" those, but I do not see what sort of argument that makes. I do not think you are correct about marine fuel, btw, If you are, I would like to see something that says so.
Again, try to read with comprehension. The oil was where it is now, but before the provinces were created the whole thing was Canadian territory. The provinces were created and the control of resources was turned over to them.
So much BS in this post I wouldnt even know where to start,I think Alberta was still a territory when they found oil at Waterton park.
Which tax is that? There's a Federal excise tax on marine fuel on the East Coast. Sounds like a provincial tax.
Many people here have asked to see anything from you to support your arguments... Ironic in that you make such a demand at this point.
.... And?
You're now saying that because those provinces that spent the time, effort and money to develop those resources - you now want to get on board by nationalizing it to help the failing mfg sector in Ontario?
Sorry bud, but Canada isn't one of those banana republics that you apparently aspire to.
No federal money has been spent or credits given to help develop the oil sands? You mean 100% of the money was provincial?
100% of the money was private... And no, no direct fed (or provincial) cash went into the pot.
FYI - Tax breaks aren't cash
I don't know if it is still in effect but it was about 15 years ago because the tug boats were in a big flap about it. Can't remember all the details but this one did not apply on the east coast or the lakes. It interested me because at the time I was spending around $50000 a year on barging and $10000 on towing logs depending on just where I was working.
Cabagehead: You obviously don't know what the Crow freight rate was or you wouldn't make such a stupid comment. Basically what it said was that manufactured goods shipped West had one freight rate while Manufactured goods shipped East had a different HIGHER rate. This was just to give manufacturers in Ontario and Quebec a competitive advantage over anyone in the West. For many years much of grain was forced to go to the great lakes instead of BC for shipping as well.
Don't swallow Oliver's mythology and the Harper government's new assault on any group that might offer criticism to its pretense at economic policy. Of course they are not funded by outside sources.
That is another of this government's demonising tactics.
Fascist scapegoating.
You do, at times, show intelligence. That makes the above unworthy of you.
And where did that privare mpney come from?
'Sharing' is a 2-way street.
Getting in at the kill is disingenuous, especially when there was huge risk associated with this multi-decade endeavor.
Risk capital
Something else you know little about. The Crow freight rates had, arguably, negative effects in the long term but not those that you think. They caused the shut down of some grain elevators and the abandonment of some spur rail lines. But, they succeeded in one of their main purposes. That was to move the goods through Canadian rail and not the American lines that were aggressively being built closer to the Canadian border.
They also ensured lower fright rates for Prairie farmers Such that, when they ended, a one time payment was made to farmers to compensate for the future higher rates.
By the way, I did not demand a link for your claim about Marine fuel as Cap'n alleged. I thin that you were wrong. It is as simple as that. If you want to prove otherwise, that is up to you.