Guess where Quebec gets its oil?

105 posts / 0 new
Last post
epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

i want a refinery. others want a refinery. but potential allies are just focused on shut it down. fkn short sighted.

..it's the other way round. people are focused on shutting the pipeline down because there are no refineries at source. nor is there even the slightest prospect of one on the horizon to be allied to. certainly not the aberta ndp let alone what's coming in. certainly not the oil industry with all it's wealth who won't even fund the cleanup let alone a refinery.  

..this is not shortsightedness it's self defense. and we should all thank the indigenous folk who have been the only force able to halt the expansion of tm. we should also understand the reasons indigenous folk have taken their extraordinary position and ally with for those same reasons. this forever gets lost in the tarsands pipeline discussions. 

..those same forces that are fucking over indigenous folk are fucking the rest of us over. so environmentalists are blamed for no tm pipeline. but that's not accurate. it's the forces that are fucking us over that are lying, cheating, law breaking and can't even manage to conduct a meaningful consultation. the blame spiral shouldn't be going down but up. 

Pondering

quizzical wrote:
  

 

quizzical wrote:
 claim pipelines aren't more environmentally safe than railroads and quote 69 spills since 1961 as if it's some big amount. 

One is one too many and 69 is more than one a year. That you think that is okay is the problem. No one has claimed that rail is safer per barrel of oil moved. It just isn't true that the oil will move by rail if it doesn't move by pipeline. Excess moves by rail. The point of the pipeline is to triple production. Production will not be tripled based on the availability of rail.  Therefore, comparing pipelines to rail is immaterial.

quizzical wrote:
 like really, targeting AB and pipelines is way more easy than looking into the environmental damages because of 1000's of derailments. too much work. pipelines are low hanging fruit so people can say they care and appease themselves imv. 

Again, the same quantity of oil will not be shipped by rail instead of pipeline to be shipped off the east coast, or the west coast for that matter, therefore it doesn't matter that rail is safer.

quizzical wrote:
 people in AB do talk about refineries but being wrongly attacked, by people who could be allies, leaves no room for a nation wide action. 

Then stop talking and start doing. People are not opposing pipelines because they are "low hanging fruit" and the people of Alberta are not being attacked. We are refusing to allow Alberta to impose pipelines we don't need on us that threaten our land and water. The expansion of the terminal to export oil from Burnaby will not be built based on transporting oil by rail. The terminus to export oil from the east coast is also cancelled based on the lack of pipeline.

The claim that the oil will move by rail if it doesn't move by pipeline just isn't true.

quizzical

i think eastern Canada is fking us over and could give a rats ass about reality on the ground.

if there was a united voice across Canada about not shipping unprocessed resources we could do a lot and achieve it. but unless the processing is back east no support so i got no fkn respect.

i live right beside the pipeline and the rail line and know how much shipping by rail car has increased with plans to increase capacity.

don't tell me fk all pondering you don't know shit and are being condescending. i am on the ground in AB and here on the transmountain route and i call bs on the atlas shrugged mentality i see going on here.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:
 i think eastern Canada is fking us over and could give a rats ass about reality on the ground. 

We are not fking you over but you want to fk us over and we aren't going to let you.

quizzical wrote:
 if there was a united voice across Canada about not shipping unprocessed resources we could do a lot and achieve it. but unless the processing is back east no support so i got no fkn respect. 

Alberta doesn't need the rest of Canada to be unified to process oil within Alberta. The oil companies don't want it. They want to send the raw product elsewhere for processing in refineries they already own. There is certainly zero opposition in Quebec to Alberta processing its own oil. 

quizzical wrote:
 i live right beside the pipeline and the rail line and know how much shipping by rail car has increased with plans to increase capacity. 

Yes to cope with current production and projects already begun because they were counting on a new pipeline or three. If the oil were going to be shipped by rail instead of the pipelines then the terminals both east and west would still be under construction. They are not because the oil will not be shipped by rail. Production will not be tripled based on rail transport.

quizzical wrote:
  don't tell me fk all pondering you don't know shit and are being condescending. i am on the ground in AB and here on the transmountain route and i call bs on the atlas shrugged mentality i see going on here.

You have been condescending yourself. I am on the ground in Quebec. This is not an Atlas Shrugged mentality. You don't consider Quebec's or BC's concerns legitimate but that does not mean that they aren't. The courts have agreed that the government did not do due diligence which is why construction has been halted.

The federal and Alberta governments have acted like the pipeline is a fait acompli for years. They have broken laws to try to create facts on the ground like interfering with spawning sites on the assumption that they will be be beginning construction even though the court cases have yet to be settled.

It is the courts who determine vexatious litigation and when they determine it is they do not hear the cases . The courts only accept cases that have merit. The cases are not a delaying tactic. They are a valid attempt to stop the pipeline.

It is the governments of Alberta and Canada that have delayed the project through their constant attempts to cut corners and rubber stamp the pipelines. Consultations under Harper and Trudeau and the Alberta premiers were all a sham.

The NEB had a report stating the environmental threat to the west coast and instead of doing the responsible thing and doing further studies they tried to dismiss it.

I am 90% sure that BC will win. They don't have to argue theoretically. They have proof that federal systems are inadequate to protect the environment. Given the evidence how can the Supreme Court decide that a province doesn't have the right to do what the federal government has failed to do?

The fact that we need the courts to protect us is evidence that the oil companies and government can't be trusted to protect the environment.

quizzical

no pondering the exploitation of the west by the east is real.

and you didn't get a fkn thing i said about solidarity in resource production manufacturing being beneficial for all Canadians and the environment. 

 

Pondering

quizzical wrote:
 no pondering the exploitation of the west by the east is real. 

What exploitation?

quizzical wrote:
 and you didn't get a fkn thing i said about solidarity in resource production manufacturing being beneficial for all Canadians and the environment.  

We aren't talking about resource production in general or even oil production. The opposition is specifically against bitumen pipelines. Natural gas seems to be the new thing and poses less threat to the environment so is much harder to fight against. I'm terrified of natural gas. I am appalled that there are gas pipes crisscrossing the city. I'd rather see oil being delivered to tanks like when I was a child.

We do need solidarity in resource management, against the expansion of the fossil fuel industry in all its forms.  That doesn't seem to be the kind of solidarity you are promoting.

Quebecers haven't just rejected EE.  Even though it would have been lucrative for Quebec to allow fracking to recover our oil we passed a moratorium on it.  We aren't willing to risk our environment. Not for Alberta's oil and not for the oil under our own soil.

Alberta and Newfoundland decided it is worth the environmental damage to reap the financial rewards from oil. Morally I think Canada should prevent Alberta and Newfoundland from taking that path but because Canada is a federation of provinces that joined individually it is unwise to even try. Canada may or may not have the legal right to prevent all oil development but from a practical perspective both provinces would likely leave confederation if we tried.

Likewise provinces that don't want to take that risk have the right to reject oil projects they percieve threaten their land. In the case of Quebec the feds know we aren't bluffing.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

quizzical wrote:
 no pondering the exploitation of the west by the east is real. 

What exploitation?

LMAOROF  You have got to fucking kidding. If you aren't then read any standard text on Canadian history. Geez

quizzical

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

quizzical wrote:
 no pondering the exploitation of the west by the east is real. 

What exploitation?

LMAOROF  You have got to fucking kidding. If you aren't then read any standard text on Canadian history. Geez

you know i barely listened when mom would rant about this in respect to where cereal is made. "why after all are grains processed into cereal back east and not close to where the grains are grown in the west."

now i see it happening and see it for what it is. it happens on a micro level in BC too.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

quizzical wrote:
 no pondering the exploitation of the west by the east is real. 

What exploitation?

LMAOROF  You have got to fucking kidding. If you aren't then read any standard text on Canadian history. Geez

you know i barely listened when mom would rant about this in respect to where cereal is made. "why after all are grains processed into cereal back east and not close to where the grains are grown in the west."

now i see it happening and see it for what it is. it happens on a micro level in BC too.

I took Canadian history and there was nothing about the east exploiting the west.

What did the RoC force Alberta to do that they didn't want to do? Did Canada forbid the west from processing their own grain?

You seem to be interpreting not being able to tell other provinces what do with having your rights breached or being taken advantage of.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering I thought you were now an NDP'er? If you can't believe Tommy who can you believe? You are like many people privileged by a systemic advantage. When the people screwed by the system tell you about its effect you not only deny the systemic abuse but attack the victims.

And really where did you study Canadian history?

Canada is like an old cow. The West feeds it. Ontario and Quebec milk it. And you can well imagine what it's doing in the Maritimes.

Tommy Douglas

quizzical

pondering, no the prairie provinces were not allowed to process the grain into cereals.

 

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

pondering, no the prairie provinces were not allowed to process the grain into cereals.

Who prevented them and how? Did the federal government pass a law saying grain could not be turned into cereal in the pairie provinces? If so I would like to know more about that law. Link, name, year it was passed, anything you know about it would be welcome.

quizzical

you're welcome to look up the history of economic strangleholds on the west yourself.

 

 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering I thought you were now an NDP'er? If you can't believe Tommy who can you believe? You are like many people privileged by a systemic advantage. When the people screwed by the system tell you about its effect you not only deny the systemic abuse but attack the victims.

And really where did you study Canadian history?

Canada is like an old cow. The West feeds it. Ontario and Quebec milk it. And you can well imagine what it's doing in the Maritimes.

Tommy Douglas

No I am not an NDPer  nor was I a Liberal. I consider the platforms among other factors when choosing who to support. Every election my vote is up for grabs. In my opinion the Singh NDP beats the Trudeau Liberals. I don't think that will change but it could depending on the platforms. I'm assuming Singh will present a platform I can support.

I studied Canadian history in grades 6 and 9 or 10 similar to most Canadians I imagine.

The thing is you are not telling me in what way the centre is or was unfairly privileged over the west. You are claiming victimhood without naming the wrong.

I really do want to know what the east has done to the west that is so terrible. Injustice abounds in Canada so I am not saying you don't have grievances I just don't know what they are. I'm not just going to take your word for it, nor Tommy Douglas' though I agree he was a great man and is the father of medicare.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

you're welcome to look up the history of economic strangleholds on the west yourself.

google brought me here. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/economic-history-of-we...

I see some old grievances. Nothing about preventing the west from making cereal. It does mention Alberta's plan to triple production in the oil sands. I don't know why or how you could even want that or not acknowledge the environmental cost.

Just slow down production and get a higher price for your oil. Refine it and get an even better price. Had the 4.5 billion been for a refinery I would have supported it. Instead Canada just bought an aging pipeline probably approaching end of life making us responsible for clean-up and removal because no one is going to buy the thing from us.

JKR

Hasn't making natural resources a provincial jurisdiction, rather than a federal jurisdiction, given an advantage to the West over the rest of Canada? It seems to me that without a provincial sales tax and with the lowest provincial taxes and highest provincial incomes in Canada, Alberta has been given an"Alberta Advantage." And hasn't putting equalization into the Constitution supported provincial equality?

Pogo Pogo's picture

Wow.  I just thought the funnelling of western resources through Ontario manufacturing and financial complex was a well known part of the Canadian history.  A good starting point would look at the history of the railways.

JKR

Doesn't it often make the most economic sense to produce goods and services close to the population that buys and uses them?

Pondering

Pogo wrote:

Wow.  I just thought the funnelling of western resources through Ontario manufacturing and financial complex was a well known part of the Canadian history.  A good starting point would look at the history of the railways.

While I don't remember it specifically it probably was part of history class in the sense that we were taught what each province's chief exports were. What I am asking is who did the funneling and why are you allowing it to continue if it is? Alberta is choosing to bow to the oil companies and export raw bitumen. I am fairly certain eastern factories said "hey, sell us some grain okay?" and western farmers responded with "sure".  And they are still doing it. There is nothing but ideology preventing Alberta from adding value to its resources. Instead Notley is threatening to buy a billion dollars of railcars and locomotives to ship out raw bitumen as fast as possible. Has Alberta even done feasibility studies on refining oil within the prairie provinces?

Quebec chose to nationalize Hydro and I wish we would nationalize more.  I think Alberta's oil industry should have been nationalized long ago. I think farmers should fight for the return of the wheat board. The west is making its own choices in the present day and in recent history.

6079_Smith_W

The trans-continental railway is the most obvious and arguably the most lasting element of what became known as the National Policy. It both served to deliver manufactured goods to captive markets in the West and acted as a critical element in populating the Prairies with colonists. Moreover, by the end of the century, the railway had demonstrated an ability to crush local industries in the far west by flooding the market with mass-produced central Canadian products.

https://opentextbc.ca/postconfederation/chapter/3-2-the-national-policy/

Pondering

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/railway-history

The second phase of railway building in Canada came with Confederation in 1867. As historian George Stanley wrote in The Canadians, "Bonds of steel as well as of sentiment were needed to hold the new Confederation together. Without railways there would be and could be no Canada." In fact, the building of the Intercolonial Railway was a condition written into the Constitution Act, 1867. Because of the grand scale of the new nation, and the fact that political considerations often overrode economic realities (e.g., in the circuitous routes the Intercolonial and other railways took to avoid American territory), government assistance was crucial in building the transcontinental railways. ....

On 21 October 1880, the government finally signed a contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) Company, headed by George Stephen, and construction began in 1881. The "Last Spike" was driven on 7 November 1885 and the first passenger train left Montréal in June 1886, arriving in Port Moody, BC, on 4 July. Completion of the railway was one of the great engineering feats of the day and owed much to the indefatigable supervision of William Van Horne and the determination of Sir John A. Macdonald. While Macdonald’s government was criticized for the generous terms offered to the company, it considered the railway crucial to the nation.

Though ostensibly a private enterprise, the CPR was generously endowed by the federal government with cash ($25 million), land grants (25 million acres), tax concessions, rights-of-way, and a 20-year prohibition on the construction of competing lines on the prairies that might provide feeder lines to US railways. Whether or not the country received adequate compensation for this largesse has been hotly debated ever since. However, the CPR was built in advance of a market and by a very expensive route through the Canadian Shield of Northern Ontario. Macdonald's controversial decision in favour of an expensive all-Canadian route seemed to be vindicated during the North-West Rebellion; how would the American government have reacted to Canadian troops moving across American territory? The CPR also had a profound effect on the settlement of the Prairie West, and new cities, from Winnipeg to Vancouver, were heavily dependent on the railway. Other western towns were strung out along the railway like beads on a string.

Sorry we financed a railroad to bring BC and the western provinces closer to the rest of Canada and helped those provinces develop?

Seriously if you have a beef spit it out because at this end of the country it seems like Alberta has a chip on its shoulder and thinks it has the right to build pipelines across other provinces. Alberta's politicians think they can bully or shame the other provinces into compliance and simultaneously appeal to economic greed. From my end that seems delusional.

The bottom line is that people do not trust the oil industry to build anything responsibly. Shiny commercials about workers in the oil industry assuring us how much they care are not going to work. They are not going to work because the oil industry has proven over and over and over again that they can't be trusted. The pipelines aren't being stopped out of spite.People want the jobs generated by construction and the ripple effect that causes. They are being stopped because people are genuinely afraid of them.

The only way to alliviate that fear is for the major players to stop having oil spills is anywhere for a few years and we all know that isn't going to happen.

The NEB found TM to be a direct threat to the ocean environment so they decided it was beyond their scope so they could ignore it. That does not inspire confidence in the system. In fact it suggests that the reason they decided it was beyond their scope is because the risk is so great nothing can be done in which case the pipeline is out.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

The trans-continental railway is the most obvious and arguably the most lasting element of what became known as the National Policy. It both served to deliver manufactured goods to captive markets in the West and acted as a critical element in populating the Prairies with colonists. Moreover, by the end of the century, the railway had demonstrated an ability to crush local industries in the far west by flooding the market with mass-produced central Canadian products.

https://opentextbc.ca/postconfederation/chapter/3-2-the-national-policy/

Thank-you.

So central Canada didn't do anything. The west wanted that railway. It wasn't imposed on them. Flooding the market with cheap mass-produced was done by business not government and was a byproduct of rail. Whenever transportation is improved business takes advantage. It's called the free market. People in eastern Canada had no more choice in it than people in Western Canada. This is like Quebec still harping on the 1800s. Indigenous peoples and PoCs in North America still have a bone to pick because they really were persecuted and their communities are still suffering the effects of what happened in the 1800s. Everyone else needs to get over what happened in the 1800s.

It's being done on a grand scale now to all of Canada. We are flooded with cheap goods from around the world. Ironically if it were not for Alberta Canada would be farther left. The oil industry did cause dutch disease in eastern Canada. Even so neither of those things makes me think Alberta owes something over it nor does it have anything to do with pipeline resistance.

Rejection of the pipelines is rooted in self-protection. We owe no restitution for the sins of the 1800s. Even if we did owe restitution it wouldn't be sacrificing our land and water. Talk about a pound of flesh.

6079_Smith_W

This is drifting way off topic, but really Pondering, you aren't aware of what the Canadians actually did here in 1870?

What happened was nothing but an invasion so that Macdonald could ram his railway through in the hopes of bringing British Columbia into confederation. The end result was the suppression of the Metis Nation and First Nations people, the breaking of all the promises made bringing Manitoba into confederation, and eventually another invasion and war in 1885. That ended with the execution of Louis Riel, and the largest mass execution in Canadian history in Battleford. People here remember November 27.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1885_Hangings_at_Battleford

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Rebellion

Seriously, read a bit of history.

As for how free the market was maybe you should read the rest of the article, not just that one quote. Because it wasn't free at all. Canada ensured its domination of western markets by imposing steep tariffs on goods from the United States.

 

lagatta4

I'm certainly aware of that, but there are some people deliberatly conflating the "Golden Square Mile" (mostly anglo overloads located in a posh district in central-western Montréal) with the Québécois nation.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I think that when one looks at who screwed Canadians the most Lagatta has one of the main addresses. What you call anglo ovelords we would call eastern bankers. There is also no doubt that the labour of both the people of Quebec and the farmers on the prairies built those mansions.

6079_Smith_W

My point is that the notion that people here wanted it, or that it was for their benefit is absurd.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

This is drifting way off topic, but really Pondering, you aren't aware of what the Canadians actually did here in 1870?

What happened was nothing but an invasion so that Macdonald could ram his railway through in the hopes of bringing British Columbia into confederation. The end result was the suppression of the Metis Nation and First Nations people, the breaking of all the promises made bringing Manitoba into confederation, and eventually another invasion and war in 1885. That ended with the execution of Louis Riel, and the largest mass execution in Canadian history in Battleford. People here remember November 27.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1885_Hangings_at_Battleford

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Rebellion

Seriously, read a bit of history.

As for how free the market was maybe you should read the rest of the article, not just that one quote. Because it wasn't free at all. Canada ensured its domination of western markets by imposing steep tariffs on goods from the United States.

The west has had plenty of time to start treating FNs fairly. The French and British were invaders across the entire country. They just hit the east first and spread west. The government imposed tarrifs at the behest of business not the people and no province is operated more at the behest of business than Alberta.

The FN and Metis of the west have a gripe. They continue to suffer the ramifications of what was done to them in the 1800s and since. The rest of the population are the settlers that came on the railroad from the east. They and their descendents are not victims of the east. They are invaders as are the oil companies. The sins of the 1800s in terms of what white business men and politicians did is not relevant to the present. We don't owe Alberta anything over the injustices of the 1880s. In the present day the east is not putting unfair tariffs on products nor preventing Alberta from processing it's own resources.

Stopping pipelines is stopping the ruling class from further damaging Canada. It is not Canada victimizing Alberta. No benefit accrues to BC or Quebec as a result of stopping the pipelines.

WWWTT

The reasons behind this whole debate so far from my perspective revolves around corporate greed. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering the lack of understanding of Canadian history that you display is astounding. None of the settlers on the Prairies prior to the railroad being built were asking for it. In fact if you took a little time to study history you would find that almost all the Western communities that existed prior to the CPR became nearly instant ghost towns. That's because the CPR would not put a station anywhere near previously settled land because they made their fortunes on selling the free land they were given. The building of the CPR was a British initiative just like Confederation. The railroad ensured that Western commerce went East and West not North and South. It made MacDonald and his buddies very wealthy. I think you will find out about that little gem if you google Pacific Scandal.

In BC no one on the Coast was demanding a railroad however our own crooks and scoundrels, not to be left out off the action, came up with schemes like the E&N Railway that gave the richest man in BC 2 million acres of land on Vancouver Island supposedly to build a railroad. By the way that is more land than the province of PEI and the railroad was never finished. Currently I can see clear cuts growing above my Village because the Wall Street hedge funds who now own those Land grant lands are not subject to the same logging rules as Crown land. After a 100 years we are still getting screwed and you think we asked for it. Tell me do you think our skirt was too short?

In the 1870s as part of its commitment to “connect the seaboard of BC with the railway system of Canada,” Canada agreed to contribute $100,000 annually towards the construction of a railway. BC later agreed to grant about two million acres plus $750,000 to the company that constructed a railroad on Vancouver Island.

Only a select few well-connected people reaped the bulk of the windfall. The man behind the E&N deal was coal baron Robert Dunsmuir. Dunsmuir was both the richest man in BC and, with a seat in the provincial legislature, influential in political circles.

Dunsmuir had little interest in railroads; what he wanted was the land, and with it control of the great reserves of coal and other minerals. He used his economic and political influence to secure the contract to build the railway.

The Esquimalt & Nanaimo Railway Company immediately began subdividing the grant into parcels and selling it off, making Dunsmuir and his colleagues millions. In 1905, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CPR) paid just over $1 million for the E&N and $1.25 million for the remaining 566,580 hectares of land not yet sold. In 1910, Dunsmuir sold his coal mining interests in the granted lands for $11 million.

Today, the Hul’qumi’num call this scandalous transaction “the great land grab” because it effectively privatized about one third of their territory. Robert Morales, chief negotiator for the Hul’qumi’num, said recently, “Dunsmuir and the government stole our land…and for the last hundred years their descendants particularly logging companies have been getting rich, while locking us out.”

The legacy of the E&N privatization is upsetting treaty negotiations. Even though Canadian courts have recognized Aboriginal title and rights on private lands, and directed the Crown to resolve the land disputes honourably, the government will not negotiate private land or compensation at the treaty table. Morales says the Hul’qumi’num are taking action because, “international laws say that if aboriginal lands are illegally confiscated, the lands need to be returned, or we need to be compensated.”

https://watershedsentinel.ca/articles/vancouver-island-land-grab/

Sean in Ottawa

I think there is some confusion in this thread about the reasons for Confederation. It is true that the railway project in the Maritimes was popular there. The reasons most cited for BC, in the history that I have read, are different:

1) The BC government was in debt (as were many of the colonies as the British Empire milked colonies and left them indebted generally.)

2) The British government offered "local" government from Ottawa as an alternative to rule from London England (The colonies leaders were local but selected by the government in London). There was no real plan on the table for responsible (locally accountable) government in BC or Vancouver Island. Important to remember that Upper and Lower Canada got Responsible government in 1848. BC and Vancouver Island had to join Confederation to get anything like what was given to the Canadas. (Note: Vancouver Island and BC were merged only 5 years before the colony entered confederation in 1871.)

3) There were security concerns vis a vis the US expansion and presumption that the Canadian government would prevent annexation to the US. The railway, was argued to be a big part of that protection. The commercial aspects, were not part of the railway argument in any major way -- at least in any readings I have read, unlike the Maritimes.

As for the strangling of the West's economy, I am unfamiliar with the tariffs as a significant factor. As I understood it the main culpret was the Crow Rate which went from the 19th century to thirty-some years ago. I remember the debates towards the end as this was in my lifetime. This allowed for subsidies for farmers to get food to the East and manufacturing to come from the East. It was meant to feed the East as cheaply as possible and deliver a market for manufactured goods to the East. It prevented the west from competing in a number of respects -- first it screwed any growth into manufacturing in the West. Secondly, it put such an economic advantage to Eastern ports for Western farm products that Western ports were at disadvantage. It was cheaper to ship to central Canada than to a closer destination to process. It was instrumental in organizing the market to ship from farmers to processing in the East at lower cost than to Western destinations where processing could be done there.

There was no question that the Crow Rate that lasted 3/4 of a century was an extremely devastating low to the development of a Western Canadian economy. It was designed to profit the East and preserve a reliance of the West on the East. It was designed to create unity by making it impossible for the West to consider anything else.

Pre-confederation the economy was really more North-South. While there was no significant desire to become American, there was a desire to trade with them. The National government from the 19th century sought to stifle that.

I really did not think that politically aware people in Canada were not familiar with this since it was one of the biggest political stories of the 1970-1980s. These shipping rate subsidies really determined what was sold in Western Canada and what could be produced there. Since they were brought in before a natural economy really took off, they effectively defined to the disadvantage of the West (and advantage of the East) the kind of economy that could grow.

This is why, altering the economy of Alberta to the pleasure of the rest of the country would need to come with a significant offer to rebuild the economy in a different direction. Now that the East dislikes the kind of economy that exists in alberta and seeks to restrain it, they accept no historic responsibility for making it that way - or any responsibility to replace what came out of what they imposed.

Yes, Pondering, this was an Eastern policy that was designed to do this and it was no accident.

My argument here is not that the West was not screwed, it very clearly was, but that not every person in the East today is responsible for this or agrees with it.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
 Pondering the lack of understanding of Canadian history that you display is astounding.

It shouldn't be. I know more than most people on those occasional quizs on TV and in papers.

https://o.canada.com/news/one-in-four-canadians-dont-know-sir-john-a-mac...

Twenty-eight per cent of Canadians don’t know the year of confederation, and 44 per cent don’t know Canada turns 150 years old in 2017....

Only four provinces in the country have mandatory Canadian history classes in their curriculum, meaning there are large swathes of the country with very different takes on the same history.

In 2008, 42 per cent of Canadians couldn’t identify Sir John A. Macdonald as Canada’s first prime minister.

Pretty sure the west stresses very different history than the east but even without that it's not like all the people who knew Macdonald was our first prime minister know history to the level of detail you do. I probably know 1% of what you know, or less.

Think hard about that. In 2008 42% of Canadians did not know that MacDonald was our first PM. This isn't because it isn't taught in school. It's because stuff people learn in school is quickly forgotten unless it's of particular interest. I'm not going to study history and neither are most people like myself.

Your expectations are guided by the assumption that people know way more than they actually do both of history and current events. Even people who say they follow the news usually mean they follow the California wildfires and might be vaguely aware of the postal strike, the pipeline fight, refugees and that Trudeau is at some big meeting and met with Trump, maybe.

Conservatives know this and plan their political strategy with that in mind.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
 In BC no one on the Coast was demanding a railroad however our own crooks and scoundrels, not to be left out off the action

In other words the crooks and scoundrels across Canada arranged things to their satisfaction. Not the people. The crooks and scoundrels are still running things.

Maybe everyone should know history better but it isn't the reality. Maybe more people should be following political news. That isn't the reality either.

People like myself and those who know less than I do are the people you need to persuade to your side.

Pogo Pogo's picture

History is written by the victors. When you look at railways there is of course the generous land grants at the time of building, generous to the point of obscene.  You also have to look at the freight rate schedules which were as much politically driven as they were market driven.

Pondering

Thank you Sean and Kropotkin for making the effort to summarize that period of time in Canada.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Sean you forgot to add two things in the BC deal that are never emphasized but one is now at the center of our politics. That is the ability to set the voters roll provincially so that immediately after joining Confederation they could bring in race based elections unlike the norm in the Empire which was property based.  The second and more important historically is that BC was allowed to sign on without settling its outstanding land claims unlike the Prairies.

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean you forgot to add two things in the BC deal that are never emphasized but one is now at the center of our politics. That is the ability to set the voters roll provincially so that immediately after joining Confederation they could bring in race based elections unlike the norm in the Empire which was property based.  The second and more important historically is that BC was allowed to sign on without settling its outstanding land claims unlike the Prairies.

Sorry-- forgot to include the second and I was not well aware of the first. Can you explain the first a little more?

NDPP

Here's something else in this history that is never emphasized: Constitutional Fraud. This is how BC purported to 'settle its outstanding land claims'. 

Section 91 (24): A Shield, Not A Sword

https://dissidentvoice.org/2016/01/section-9124-a-shield-not-a-sword/

"...To ensure that the Provinces did not jump the gun and regard reserved Crown land as Public land available for disposition prior to treaty, the Constitution Act, 1867, included section 90 to permit the federal government to disallow provincial legislation. That power was exercised by federal Order in council dated January 23, 1875. British Columbia had enacted a Crown Lands act that did jump the gun. It treated all Crown land as available for disposition.

The Attorney General Telesphore Fournier drafted an opinion that said the provincial legislation had to be disallowed. He cited the royal proclamation as still in force and section 109 that confirmed provincial title to unceded Crown land is 'subject to' the Indian 'Interest' in the land...The disallowance was in fact implemented by federal order-in-council dated March 16, 1875. British Columbia then enacted, also in 1875, the 'Free Grant Act'. 

It defined all ungranted land in the province as held by the province 'in fee simple' (free and clear of any Indian interest), thereby evading the reason for the previous disallowance based upon the royal proclamation and section 109 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Rather than disallow this fresh act for the same reasons, the new attorney general, Edward Blake, decided to leave the new provincial act in operation because 'great inconvenience and confusion might result from disallowance."

Once the PTB made the decision to go with this constitutional fraud to steal and appropriate Indigenous lands,  a further genocidal Indian Act of 1876 was necessary to knock the Indigenous nations out, criminalize their resistance and facilitate 'winning the West.' This continues with courts without any foundation of legal jurisdiction making rulings to perpetuate the usurpation-as-genocide. 

 

1875 Duty of Disallowance

http://sisis.nativeweb.org/clark/oic1875.html

 

Pondering

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/04/12/two-thir...

Two-thirds of American millennials surveyed in a recent poll cannot identify what Auschwitz is, according to a study released on Holocaust Remembrance Day that found that knowledge of the genocide that killed 6 million Jews during World War II is not robust among American adults.

Twenty-two percent of millennials in the poll said they haven’t heard of the Holocaust or are not sure whether they’ve heard of it — twice the percentage of U.S. adults as a whole who said the same.

Canadian numbers are probably better but not by that much.

Kropotkin was surprised I didn't know any of this stuff even a little bit.  I am surprised some of you know so much. Why do you know this stuff? Surely it can't just be from high school.

I don't know Quebec history either other than the high points like the Plains of Abraham and courier de bois and I remember a line drawing of Indians burning a missionary at the stake. People educated in the Catholic system would know more but only about the major events to be bitter about. I know there was a war in 1812 that we won with the help of what were then Indians. The reason I know about confederation is because of Expo 67. I know Sir Wilfred Laurier is important but not why. Duplessi was bad, did stuff to orphans. I have more knowledge of art history. Given a multiple choice test I would get a lot more but off hand that covers pretty much everything I can think of off hand. I know about residential schools because that is current events. What happened in the 70s, 80s and 90s is pretty much a blur other than the 1995 referendum.

I did learn about the Holocaust and that Canada entered WWII before the US. I do know what Auschwitz was and that we stormed the beaches at Dieppe. Hitler was the leader of Germany. Sir Winston Churchhill was the PM in GB. That's about it. I don't know who our PM was at the time. Given multiple choice I might guess. I know that after the war Germany was split and that it was very exciting when it came down. I think some guy whose name starts with a W was the catalyst but I think he was Polish so maybe I am mixing up two different big events. Oh, Elvis Presley was in the war and that is how he met Prisilla who was a young teen at the time.

What people are taught in high school vanishes within a couple of years. Heck I forgot stuff the day after the exam.

Anyone else here that leans at least a little towards my level of knowledge?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean you forgot to add two things in the BC deal that are never emphasized but one is now at the center of our politics. That is the ability to set the voters roll provincially so that immediately after joining Confederation they could bring in race based elections unlike the norm in the Empire which was property based.  The second and more important historically is that BC was allowed to sign on without settling its outstanding land claims unlike the Prairies.

Sorry-- forgot to include the second and I was not well aware of the first. Can you explain the first a little more?

Here is a summary of the BC side of the Confederation debate.  First Nations and Chinese people were disenfranchised in 1874. Someone also mentioned that BC did not have responsible government until Confederation but in fact that happened in 1864. Note that it is a wagon road at that point and not a transcontinental railroad.

On 14 September 1868, a meeting of 26 Confederation League delegates from across the colony was held in Yale. The delegates passed 37 resolutions, nearly all of them outlined possible terms for a union with the Dominion of Canada. Delegates agreed that Canada should pay down the colony’s debt, that the province should have a responsible government, and that a wagon road should be built to link British Columbia to the east. Delegates also wanted assurances that the province would have control over immigration, First Nations affairs, land grants, education and settlement policy.

JKR

"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it."

- George Santayana

NDPP

Or condemn others to...

Pogo Pogo's picture

Pondering wrote:
Kropotkin was surprised I didn't know any of this stuff even a little bit.  I am surprised some of you know so much. Why do you know this stuff? Surely it can't just be from high school.

To be fair Kropotkin knows far more than most. However most people know this from around the table.  Whether it was a family gathering or the lunchroom at the sawmill it was common knowledge that Canada was designed on a modified colonial blueprint. Much of it comes from asking stupid questions like: why does the railway own so much of our island forests that are no where near the railway?

Pondering

JKR wrote:
"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

Earlier someone mentioned history is written by the victors, I will add and the victors are men. If we need to know all of history then we are indeed doomed because that becomes more impossible with every passing year.

I don't think we need to know history in general, or lists of facts and wars. We need to know patterns and they never teach those. History is taught as individual events. All the weeping and wailing over the Holocaust has made no difference other than become an excuse for the duty to act.

The most repetitive history of all is how the wealthy always end up exploiting everyone else through influencing politics. It's a permanent worldwide phenomenon.

I'm not saying knowing history isn't important. I think it is important for some people to know it. For the general population I think it is more important to know how we are being screwed over now and who is doing it.

We can't even get our world leaders to take climate change seriously and surely most of them know quite a bit of history.

JKR

Many world leaders are probably aware of the history of mass extinction events. It might be helpful if the masses were more aware of the history of mass extinction events! I guess the dinosaurs weren't interested in history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Major_extinction_events

Pondering

JKR wrote:
Many world leaders are probably aware of the history of mass extinction events. It might be helpful if the masses were more aware of the history of mass extinction events! I guess the dinosaurs weren't interested in history.
">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Major_extinction_events...

We are all aware. What are we doing about it? I recycle, I go to protests, I vote. Even if I vote NDP or Green there isn't going to be some mass disruption in the way we do things. Look at Notley. What are you doing about it?

People are preoccupied with day to day survival and things they do have power over. Pretty much nothing comes of watching or reading the news daily. What difference does it make if I know about the California wildfires? What difference does it make if I know about Israel and Palestine? Or North Korea? It makes less difference than knowing how to sew or cook, things I can do something about. Knowing about current affairs is a social thing so you can talk around the water cooler unless you are into it like being into sports in which case it is still mainly a social thing.

Most people here are on the NDP team or no team because the NDP is slightly left of the Liberals. The BC NDP is better than the BC Liberals, the Ontario NDP is better than the Ontario Liberals, but only by enough to differenciate themselves. To be fair the population is centrist so that is where parties have to go to win but even so it still means all we have from a practical perspective is centrist choices when we get to the ballot box.

There is no genuinely populist party ready to declare war on oligarchs. Occupy happened. The opportunity was there. (Cue Magoo "who are the oligarchs?")

I am not blaming "the left" or "activists" for anything. I'm just saying this is the reality.

Earlier in the thread you said something to the effect that you didn't have the expertise to have an opinion on Alberta refineries. Nobody turned a hair. Dinosaurs have been big with children for a long time. Blockbuster movies and all. People know about extinction. You know about extinction. Just like you, many people feel they don't have the expertise to know who is right or wrong on a particular issue in terms of the path forward.

Widespread opposition to pipelines isn't happening because people know about climate change or about history. It's happening because people know about oil spills and fear them in a more immediate sense.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I have known about climate change for virtually all my adult life and it has always guided my purchases, to some extent.  I like to tell people that "we" invented recycling. I like many others fought long and hard to get programs instituted in municipalities.  The MSM is the message and the message is consume, consume, consume. I have fought in the trenches and at every turn just when you think the status quo politicians are listening they quietly do nothing of substance. That is why we have no real ability to get off the tread mill we are on. The only thing to do is huddle together and support your local economy, especially the food growers.

Held in Stockholm, Sweden from 5 to 16 June 1972, the UN Scientific Conference, also known as the First Earth Summit, adopted a declaration that set out principles for the preservation and enhancement of the human environment, and an action plan containing recommendations for international environmental action. In a section on the identification and control of pollutants of broad international significance, the Declaration raised the issue of climate change for the first time, warning Governments to be mindful of activities that could lead to climate change and evaluate the likelihood and magnitude of climatic effects.

https://unchronicle.un.org/article/stockholm-kyoto-brief-history-climate...

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I have known about climate change for virtually all my adult life and it has always guided my purchases, to some extent. 

You are not the average. there is a thing now about not using plastic straws. That is like using a thimble to empty a sinking boat. Overpackaging is rampant with no apparent laws on the horizon to discourage it. Recycling was a means to monetize garbage. Compost and paper isn't why landfills are toxic.

We have "ecocentres". They are being advertised. We are being told not to put batteries and florescent light bulbs or electronics in the garbage or recycling. I don't have a car. I'm not going to bring all that stuff to an ecocentre. It generally collects for awhile. I don't want to put it in the garbage. My brother-in-law mentioned that recycling centres have to dispose of it appropriately. So I package it carefully to be sure it is visually identifable and then it goes in the recycling.

Advertisements telling people not to do it are useless. Even people with cars won't all do it. I had to pay a 25$ eco fee when I bought my TV but I am supposed to find a way to dispose of it. For 25$ they can pick it up.

In some places stores have to take back all products like batteries and lightbulbs if they sell that class of products. That would be easy. In fact my local IGA does have a box for spent batteries that I use. Computer shops will usually take laptops back and I assume they dispose of the parts responsibly.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Finding a way to dispose of things even if they are partially recycled is classic closing the barn door after the horse is gone.  Our central priority is to drasitically reduce our consumption in general.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

In the '70's another thing I was against was planned obsolescence. Bill Gates became a billionaire employing it.

Pondering

Not to mention Canada Post aka Canada flyers. On top of that there are the newspaper style sale papers on a rack next to the mail. They put a recycling box there. Most flyers go straight from the mail box to the bin. I get some that are menus for 20 or 30 restaurants and they come at least every month. I personally waste very little paper.

I'd like to see all flyers relegated to racks in stores. That way if people want to pick them up they can.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Bill Gates became a billionaire employing it.

OK, but how does that relate to recycling and the environment?

Quote:
Not to mention Canada Post aka Canada flyers.

You don't have to love flyers, but if nothing else they're a huge part of CP's revenues.  I'm always surprised when I see people with "NO FLYERS" on their mailbox.  I assume those people won't mind losing home delivery some day, so long as they don't have to drop an unwanted flyer into a blue bin.

Quote:
I'd like to see all flyers relegated to racks in stores. That way if people want to pick them up they can.

It's the flyer that makes shoppers want to stop at that store.  Once I'm there, I can see ALL of the prices of things, not just the sales.

 

Pages