Alberta deserves much more than that. The whole West deserves better treatment than we have gotten since confederation.
Canada 51st State
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
Have you tried falling dwamatically on the floor and kicking your feet until you get a candy?
Ewwww. How do you know what might be on the floor. Anyway, candy's dandy, but liquor's quicker.
But you may be right. Quebec has had great success with that move.
You won't see me arguing that the West needs to be dealt with more fairly.
But a lot of the issues it has, it brings on itself, too.
Okay, so to take the question seriously, what do YOU think needs to be done by the "rest of Canada" to complete the "do something for Alberta" thing? Any suggestions? We won't even factor in the changes that are needed now thanks to the Orange Shitter in the US; just pretend he doesn't exist for a moment. What do you expect the rest of the country to do in 'repayment' to Alberta?
Stand on their own two feet , get their fiscal house in order and leave us and our money alone .
Yes, from 1957 to 1964, so those 7 years ending 60 years ago…& then…
Equalization payments in Canada - Wikipedia
It is not just Alberta, but the whole West. Start with lifting the ban on tanker traffic. Remove the no pipelines act. Remove the ban on drilling off the West Coast. Either fix or eliminate the Senate. Eliminate transfer payments. SUpply side management needs to be eliminated or made more fair. BC dairy farmers being forced to dump excess milk on the ground is a no go.
But that's what you said, so... *shrug*
I agree.
Why is there a ban to begin with?
Tanker ban bill: What it means, who is for and against it, and what’s next | Globalnews.ca
The so-called tanker ban bill, officially called Bill C-48 or the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, is one step closer to becoming law after the Senate rejected a recommendation to dismiss the bill.
globalnews.ca
"Transport Minister Marc Garneau, who sponsored the bill, said the reason the tankers would be banned from the specific region is that that “coastline abuts one of the last temperate rain forests left in the world.”
It aims to protect the region from potential oil spills.
Garneau also cited the “navigational hazards” of the region, which would make responding to an oil spill more challenging."
In that case, no, do NOT lift the ban on Tanker Traffic. From the sounds of it, it's too risky to actually allow more than 12,500 metric tons of oil into those waters. Considering the economical disaster that could happen if a lot of oil was spilled, and how dependent on the water the area is?
Figure another way to transport that works.
Pipelines are being built, just not as many as the US.
If Quebec doesn't want pipelines crossing it's borders, that's on them to be convinced otherwise.
That's up for the West Coast to decide.
Preferably fix it.
How about we look at redefining/fixing them, because as they are, transfer payments actually benefit everyone in some way.
Just be honest and say you want the West to be the Rich places and make all the decisions while those provinces who would normally need help are shit out of luck, and being so, populations would move out of that province, ballooning the West more, decreasing elsewhere...
Elimination of the transfer payments helps no one, and Canada would fall apart if it was gotten rid of.
Making the system more fair should be the focus.
How about not eliminate it and just focus on it becoming more fair?
Dumping the product shouldn't happen I absolutely agree. Turn any beyond quota milk into other products, like powdered milk, which can be held/stored longer.
That said, this isn't just a "West" problem, but an All Farms Across Canada problem. So is supply side management.
Good question. Why is there a Federal ban only on the West coast but not on the East coast? Or is this question inaccurate and misguiding?
Or can oil tankers travel up the Eastern Seaboard? Along the St. Lawrence Seaway? The Great Lakes?
I am really, not sure of the answers to the above and I’m assuming there’s gonna be some size restrictions for smaller waterways, etc…& I’m out here on the prairie, but just throwing the questions out there…
Yet oil tankers still deliver to the Queen Charlottes and VancouverIsland , but let’s not tell .
That is all bullshit from the anti oil liberals.
Federal law.
Transfer payments help no one from Manitoba West.
I don't especially care which one. Right now, it protects Ontario and Quebec farmers.
The locks limit the size into the Great Lakes. I believe Irving oil can accept Suezmax tankers. That is apparently is bigger than Panamax ships. I have never seen either one as far as I know. DOn't know what size can get to Trans Mountain terminal either, other than they are ocean going.
Oil tankers are banned on the North coast, but LPG ships, which are big are allowed into Kitamat, but the same size oil tankers are not. Alaska, which is only a few miles away, and uses then same basic route allows supertankers. Where we would not want supertankers is in the inside passage. Too narrow and busy. I have made a few trips through there, and PGS probably has as well.
The whole North Coast tanker ban was a political move to limit Alberta oil exports to keep them from getting too strong.
We don’t see too many of those tankers out here on the prairies, but I remember years ago, taking a picture out of a window in an airplane after leaving Cuba and I think I have seven or nine of these in the same picture in the Gulf of Mexico.
The inside passage is not ideal for those vessels but they can easily traverse the west coast as the Alaskan tankers do .