Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watcgl!dmmartindale
From: dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Eastern Myopia
Message-ID: <653@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Dec-84 11:23:48 EST
Article-I.D.: watcgl.653
Posted: Tue Dec  4 11:23:48 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Dec-84 23:53:02 EST
References: <854@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 115

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