News Why do countries nationalize their resources?

[rocketboy]

Two tier health care is unacceptable. Every individual should have the best possible access to medical care. It's a fundamental human right. To give the rich better access to medical care is hiearchical and inhumane. If one person gets the best, everyone should get the best.

So you're saying that if somebody can afford to save their own life by going to a private center to get treated, that they shouldn't be able to because some other people don't have that ability?

Life isn't about equality man...some people work hard, and can afford better things. Just because others can't doesn't mean these hard working people should be deprived of these better things. Take a scholastic example, should somebody with a 95 average not be allowed to have marks that good because another only has an 85? No, he/she worked for those marks and deserves to have better grades than the other person. Be realistic, society is not equal, never has been, and never will be.

Conservatism comprimises the poor for the benefit of the elite.

Compromises the poor for the benefit of the elite? That is quite a negative way to put it, in fact, they don't compromise the poor at all. In the case of a two-tier health care system, they would be simply providing more options. For some, public health care will remain their option...with less lineups because those who have the private option will be out of the waiting room. They are not sacrficing the poor.

The NDP wants everyone to be the elite. Though many leftist policies seem difficult to implement, they are possible to implement; therefore, we should be supporting leftist policies.

The NDP has a sheltered idea of a utopia that is so far from real life I'm surprised anybody takes them seriously. They want everyone to be elite...well sorry but that is never going to happen. There will always be a hierarchy. Even in an "equal" society, there will be those who work harder, or are better-liked than others. These people will automatically begin to form a new type of "elite". No matter how hard you try, no matter what situation you put society in, there will be a hierarchy, there will be those who are deemed as more "elite". It may not be money declaring it, but in some way people will rise the social ladder. The only way I can think of to make an "equal" society is to remove all emotion and individuality. Perhaps if society was composed of robots there could be equality. For robots do not think for themselves, they have no feelings/emotions, do not judge one another, do not strive to be better, they simply do what they are programmed to do.

We humans are not robots.
We humans have feeling/emotion, we strive to do better, we think for ourselves, we are unique and individualistic...WE ARE NOT EQUAL.


I would LOVE to know how you plan on implementing a system where social heirarchy is removed. Go on, do your best...describe to me, any system you can conceive in order to make society "equal". I have no doubt that it is impossible to do without removing what makes us human...and you wouldn't want to do that would you? That would make you "immoral".

-jonathan

 

[scorpa]

How is it an issue exactly? Canada has some of the most educated people in the world, one of the highest literacy rates, and incredibly low tuition rates. Do you know what a year of university costs in Alberta? NAIT's tuition is $3200, and the equipment there is top notch. Hundreds of computers, a few dozen gas chromatographs, a few liquid chromatographs, several mass spectrometers, and even a few atomic absorption/emission spectrometers (those cost more than $150,000 each). Class sizes are about 20 students per theory class and 10 students per lab class. I've also gone to University of Alberta with a friend and the story is about the same - 10 people per lab, 20 per theory class.

There is a lot of truth to what you just said. $3200 is definitely not bad, but I am currently pay over $5000 which I suppose still probably isn't considered that bad, I hear it is going to be going up about 12% next year. I am in a class right now that has over 450 students in it, and in two of my classes there aren't enough seats resulting in people having to sit on the floor in the aisles. The labs are a great size about 20 people, my smallest class is 40 (english) but all of my science classes increase rapidly from the smallest of about 250 which isn't to bad. I love my university and am really not complaining about it. My beef is with the junior and senior high schools...a lot of them are dirt poor, and are facing closure because the money just isn't there. I mean my school actually couldn't afford paper...that's bad.

 

[Treadstone 71]

CPC = Conservative Party of Canada

 

[ShawnD]

My beef is with the junior and senior high schools...a lot of them are dirt poor, and are facing closure because the money just isn't there. I mean my school actually couldn't afford paper...that's bad.

Your school didn't have paper because it's not the school's responsibility. The extra paper you find in classrooms is paid for by the teachers, and it shouldn't be their responsibility either. It's the parents who are to blame if there's a lack of paper. Parents need to stop being idiots and just buy things for their kids already.
The other point is that schools are a provincial concern. Each province has a different school system, some provinces even have a different number of grades. I think it was Ontario that had 13 grades up until 3 years ago; Alberta has 12 grades. Are they different because of the federal government? No, they're different because schooling is under provincial control.

 

[rocketboy]

Anybody watch the leader's debate?

What did you think?

 

[revelator]

Here in my riding, and the neighboring ones as well, I see the most support (judging by lawn signs only) for Liberals , followed closely by the Conservatives . There's a few NDP, and even 1 or 2 Christian Heritage Party . Most of the talking heads I've been listening to are saying that a lot of the Toronto and surrounding ridings are going to go Liberal. Seems we have a leftist stronghold down here. I figure this is a result of Mike Harris and his Common Sense Revolution. It's his legacy that's screwed Conservative politicians in Ontario.
Also, for what it's worth, I've noticed in my riding (Mississauga-East) both the Liberals and Conservatives seems to be having a problem with having their signs defaced.

If the conservatives win the election, the other parties will support very few conservative policies. Remember, the bloc aligned for political reasons - not policy reasons. They are social democrats.

This is pretty much why I'm not worried about a Conservative win. They'll be impotent, considering the opposition is all left-leaning. Attempts at privatizing health care will be quashed easily, their attempt at turning around gay marriage laws will be quashed. Unless voters give the Conservatives a majority, they will be weaker than any of the other parties in a minority situation. They will likely be the shortest lived of any of the minority governments that could arise from the election.

 

[ShawnD]

They will likely be the shortest lived of any of the minority governments that could arise from the election.

Governments sometimes do get reelected you know.

 

[revelator]

Indeed they do. But if they ever hope to have a majority, they'll need to figure out a way to make themselves attractive to voters in Southern Ontario and Quebec.

 

[ek]

Scathing Liberal ads on tv tonight. Really tore Harper a new one.

I personally liked the "George Bush's best friend" one.

Good ads. Hopefully they turn the tide.

 

[revelator]

Gah, I'm reading the papers and the polls are showing a good lead for the Conservatives , with them gaining ground in Southern Ontario and Quebec!

In the last election, that ended up working against the Conservatives.

 

[revelator]

NEVER call Stockwell Day a fool in that degrading context. I met him in person at a conservative party MP gathering after the last election (I was working for MP Dale Johnston so I was invited). Let me tell you a story, which will hopefully depict why I get heated when people degrade him.

At this gathering, I met multiple MP's, I would go around introducing myself (15, almost 16 at the time) and talking to them. I went up to Belinda Stronach and introduced myself to her. She basically muttered hi, turned away and ignored me, as if I was some kid of unimportance not worthy of talking to her. I was shocked at her rudeness, and now that she's a Liberal it all becomes clear that her spot was never as an MP of the Conservative party...Liberals suit her much better.

So after that, I went up to Stockwell day to introduce myself. He greeted and shook hands with me, asked about what I did, conversed for about 5 before excusing himself to go talk to some other members. He didn't let the fact that I'm a kid prevent him from treating me as an adult, not only an adult, but with equal respect as he gave to other MP's. I respect him for that. He is a great man, and you cannot deny that he has the charisma everyone claims the Conservatives are lacking.

So I would be very interested in hearing why you see him as a fool...your comment was not supported, and from what you have said I see no reasoning behind your insult.

From your experience, I'd say he shows more consideration and politeness than do many politicians.

I call him a fool (just my opinion), mostly as a result of his creationist views, and the various stupid things he's said back when he was the Alliance leader.

During the 2000 election, Day makes a campaign stop at a high-tech firm in Ontario and gives a speech about the brain drain of skilled people from Canada to the US. Reporters quickly discover the owner of the company had moved from the US to Canada in 1992.

The very next day in Niagara Falls, Day makes another speech about Canadian jobs flowing south just like the Niagara River. Proving that Canadian news doesn't rely on the he-said-she-said "objective" journalistic style of the US, reporters take it upon themselves to point out that the Niagara River flows north.

In March of 2003, Day and Harper co-wrote a letter to The Wall Street Journal in which they condemned the Canadian government's unwillingness to participate in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

I know that last one there only applies if your one of the folks who believes the War in Iraq is a terrible idea. I'll be happy to post reasons for my thinking Day is a fool, as I dig them up.

 

[revelator]

Some more Harper quotes that irk me..

Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society... It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.
(BC Report Newsmagazine, January 11, 1999)

I don't know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans.(Report Newsmagazine, March 25 2002)

On the justification for the war, it wasn't related to finding any particular weapon of mass destruction. … I think, frankly, that everybody knew the post-war situation was probably going to be more difficult than the war itself. Canada remains alienated from its allies, shut out of the reconstruction process to some degree, unable to influence events. There is no upside to the position Canada took.” (Maclean’s, August, 25, 2003)

"Universality has been severely reduced: it is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy…These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party…”
(Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994)

"You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)

"It was the Conservative party that urged the government to enter into negotiations with the United States on BMD in the first place. We supported the decision to be involved in missile defence through last summer’s amendment to the NORAD treaty."
(letter to the Ottawa Citizen March 04, 2005.)

 

[Dagenais]

Stephen Harper says he will the put the gay marriage issue to a free vote in the House. What he doesn't understand is that it doesn't matter how many people have a particular opinion if that opinion is fundamentally prejudiced and fundamentally wrong.

Fundamentally "wrong" depends on who you ask. There are plenty of people who think Harper's stand on gay marriage is fundamentally right.

Plus, he seems a lot more understanding this time around. He's realized his strict approach last year was what lost him the election.

I'm voting conservative this time around because I'm very strongly opposed to gun control.

Harper just made his announcement about gun controls on CBC a few days ago. His stand on gun control and violence involves more time in jail than Martin's (meaning, more money for us to pay for cells).

I can' bring myself to vote Conservative. One reason being is his willingness to drag us into America's wars.

Martin and the Liberals' unwillingness to support the USA, and their recent disparaging of Bush and his party is moronic. Insulting your #1 trading partner? Not smart.

That's exactly it. It's the "lesser of the evils" situation.

The "lesser of evils" according to the last election was Martin. Voting for him is what got us this corrupt(evil) Government, voting for him again will only prove to him that it's okay to be evil, because he'll just get re-elected again.

 

[ShawnD]

Harper just made his announcement about gun controls on CBC a few days ago. His stand on gun control and violence involves more time in jail than Martin's (meaning, more money for us to pay for cells).

I don't exactly support the increased jail time idea, but I do believe that more people having guns would curb crime at least a little bit.
When Britain passed a few laws making it virtually illegal to own guns, crime dramatically increased. Their gun ownership is dropping while their crime is increasing. On the othe side of the coin, America's gun ownership is continually rising while crime decreases. Since comparing two countries is hardly fair, let's throw a few more in. Australia's crime rate also exploded when guns were made illegal. One particularly scary statistic for Australia is that armed robberies increased 170% just after guns were made illegal. If gun ownership lead to problems, we would expect a country like Switzerland to have insane crime. Switzerland is the most heavily armed country in the world (the law basically requires every man to own a gun), yet Switzerland's crime rate is fairly low.

If we want to cut spending on jails, start by reducing crime. Citizens should be armed to the teeth.

 

[Smurf]

gah, I was beginning to like harper, but now it seems like everything I hear makes him more and more of a monster.

 

[Dagenais]

I forgot to add that another reason I'm voting for Harper over Martin is: Chinese redress.

Martin refuses to do it. Harper is pressuring him to do it.

 

[revelator]

The "lesser of evils" according to the last election was Martin. Voting for him is what got us this corrupt(evil) Government, voting for him again will only prove to him that it's okay to be evil, because he'll just get re-elected again.

Please don't get me wrong, I don't support the thieving Liberal Party.

 

[scorpa]

Ughhh the closer we get to the election, the worse everyone looks. At this point I am probably going to go conservative, but I really hate that they all suck so bad.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Harper is just as bad as Bush. I can't believe how many people are going to vote for the conservatives. Of course, those who warned them will be saying "I told you so" later, but I would still rather see the country not go to hell.

Libertarianism is one thing, but social conservatism is horrible. Voting for the conservative party shows that you care more about money than social justice.

 

[ek]

Many people used to think blacks were "fundamentally inferior". Some still do.

So just because some people believe something makes it potentially right? Or less prejudiced and morally reprehensible?

I don't think so. There are some issues in the world which are totally black/white, right/wrong.

It's like me saying Jews can't go to schools. Instead they must go to separate "Instructional Institutes". Does that sound right to you?

It blows my mind how people can still believe this right wing neo-con bull****.

 

[scorpa]

It's Monday night and it's looking like a conservative minority is almost a certaintly!

 

[Treadstone 71]

We're all screwed. This is a low point in the history of Canadian politics.

17% of votes went to NDP, but they only have 29 seats; while 10% went to BLOC yet they somehow have 50 seats. WTF?

 

[scorpa]

We're all screwed. This is a low point in the history of Canadian politics.

17% of votes went to NDP, but they only have 29 seats; while 10% went to BLOC yet they somehow have 50 seats. WTF?

I used to know why that happened, but now I can't remember. I'll have to try and find the reason again, or maybe someone on here can explain.

Personally I'm glad to see a conservative government, however the minority situation is unfortunate.

 

[DeadWolfe]

Well, I hope you're all prepared to go to the polls again in a year or two.

Man this sucks.

 

[scorpa]

I'm definitely not looking forward to that!

 

[ShawnD]

We're all screwed. This is a low point in the history of Canadian politics.

17% of votes went to NDP, but they only have 29 seats; while 10% went to BLOC yet they somehow have 50 seats. WTF?

This has always bugged me. I don't want the NDP to win, but at least give them a chance. A few years ago, I think it was 2001, I remember seeing some stats saying the liberals had about 40% of the vote, but they controlled 60% of the seats.

Minority governments generally don't lead to nonconfidence votes being passed. It just means they need to get other party support before they try to pass anything. Simply put, the government sits on its thumbs for a few years until a majority government is formed.

 

[Aneleh]

wow conservative minority... I supported NDP because of their candidate in my riding who has proved to be very competent (has been re-elected), but I wouldn't like to see an NDP government.. hmm I guess we'll just have to see how the Conservatives do, and hopefully the Liberals will get their act together in the meantime.

 

[SOS2008]

Since Harper was expected to move Canada to the right on issues, including social issues, you may find yourselves relieved if the Conservative’s victory margin is too narrow, thus making it difficult to get legislation through a divided House of Commons.

Let’s hope you will have your cake and eat it too—sending a message against corruption, but avoiding similar problems in the U.S. such as the culture war over Roe v. Wade. And it may prevent the world from ridiculing you for electing someone like Bush...it may...

Ah, the wonders of a multi-party system. Come on, cheer up. You’re still doing better then your neighbor (damn Yanks).

 

[revelator]

Personally I'm relatively happy with how this turned out. The Liberals have been unseated, which was vital, and the Conservatives have a short leash on them thanks to the minority.

I voted NDP but it didn't do much in my riding. Seems I'm living in a Liberal stronghold.

 

[DeadWolfe]

What exactly is it that you guys think the conservatives would do if they had a majority government?

 

[revelator]

Mostly I think they'd start gutting programs and cutting taxes, pull us out of Kyoto Accord, re-open the gay marriage debate. They'd probably go joining in on Bush's misadventures.

 

[DeadWolfe]

What's everyone's problem with pulling otu of Kyoto.

 

[Danger]

I think I'm going to be sick.
It never crossed my mind that we'd be stupid enough to put Harper into office. Despite him being such a raging homophobe, he'll be in bed with Bush before the dust has settled.
Effects of Harper in office (dependent upon leash length):
1) negation of gay rights
2) criminalization of abortion
3) Canadian troops in Iraq
4) teaching of ID in school
5) removal of common-law spousal rights
6) general fanatical Christian policies
Unfortunately, my Legion vows preclude the advocation of violent overthrow.

 

[Zlex]

Personally I'm relatively happy with how this turned out. The Liberals have been unseated, which was vital, and the Conservatives have a short leash on them thanks to the minority.

I voted NDP but it didn't do much in my riding. Seems I'm living in a Liberal stronghold.

I think most are happy with the outcome, I don't think there could have been a better one.

I for one welcome the new Conservative MINORITY government.

I can live with a Harper led guv, as long as it's minority.

 

[Treadstone 71]

A minority government usually lasts an average of 18 months. I give Harper that much time before the Conservatives fall.

 

[fourier jr]

I think most are happy with the outcome, I don't think there could have been a better one.
I for one welcome the new Conservative MINORITY government.
I can live with a Harper led guv, as long as it's minority.

yeah me too. I'm going to keep in mind the following winston churchill quotation: "the greatest argument against democracy is a 5min conversation with the average voter" maybe not all the people who voted conservative (if they're poor ppl, minorities) will end up liking them.

i had to vote ndp because i can't stand either faction of the business party & the ndp is closest (among any party that has a chance) to my ideal party. i doubt that a party i would REALLY support would get elected anytime soon. they'd have to be for creating a national power grid & getting the govt involved in the economy. in other words banning exports of raw materials & steel/aluminum/etc, cutting back foreign ownership/control, creating indigenous industries rather than branch plants, nationalizing oil/gas, putting premiers like ralph klein & gordon campbell in their place, etc.

 

[revelator]

I think I'm going to be sick.
It never crossed my mind that we'd be stupid enough to put Harper into office. Despite him being such a raging homophobe, he'll be in bed with Bush before the dust has settled.
Effects of Harper in office (dependent upon leash length):
1) negation of gay rights
2) criminalization of abortion
3) Canadian troops in Iraq
4) teaching of ID in school
5) removal of common-law spousal rights
6) general fanatical Christian policies
Unfortunately, my Legion vows preclude the advocation of violent overthrow.

The opposition is too strong for any of those things to pass. No point worrying about any of these things under the current government.

I for one welcome our new Conservative overlords

 

[SOS2008]

The opposition is too strong for any of those things to pass. No point worrying about any of these things under the current government.
I for one welcome our new Conservative overlords

Learn from the U.S., and hang on tight to that leash. Monitor everything they try to do and be sure your voice is heard (petitions, contacting you reps., etc.) – don’t be complacent.

The religious right in the U.S. drowns out all other voices, so it looks like Alito is about to be confirmed. I fear for the power that may be transferred to the executive, and loss of rights for American citizens.

 

[ShawnD]

i had to vote ndp because i can't stand either faction of the business party & the ndp is closest (among any party that has a chance) to my ideal party. i doubt that a party i would REALLY support would get elected anytime soon. they'd have to be for creating a national power grid & getting the govt involved in the economy. in other words banning exports of raw materials & steel/aluminum/etc, cutting back foreign ownership/control, creating indigenous industries rather than branch plants, nationalizing oil/gas, putting premiers like ralph klein & gordon campbell in their place, etc.

In other words, stockpile resources and eliminate all trade?

 

[subodei]

yeah me too. I'm going to keep in mind the following winston churchill quotation: "the greatest argument against democracy is a 5min conversation with the average voter" maybe not all the people who voted conservative (if they're poor ppl, minorities) will end up liking them.
i had to vote ndp because i can't stand either faction of the business party & the ndp is closest (among any party that has a chance) to my ideal party. i doubt that a party i would REALLY support would get elected anytime soon. they'd have to be for creating a national power grid & getting the govt involved in the economy. in other words banning exports of raw materials & steel/aluminum/etc, cutting back foreign ownership/control, creating indigenous industries rather than branch plants, nationalizing oil/gas, putting premiers like ralph klein & gordon campbell in their place, etc.

You quote Churchhilll..

I wonder if you know what he would think about your ideas on trade?

Answer: He would think you are an argument against democracy.

Churchhill was not only rightwing and a brilliant leader, but he was well aware of the simple fact that free trade is the foundation of prosperity in the west. If Canada took your advice, they would be a third world country in a matter of years.

This whole thread is somewhat ridiculous - if Canada's rightwing believes in universal healthcare, childcare subsidies, wealth redistribution, tax cuts for the poor, and so on.. Canada is not in bad shape at all.

Comparisons to Bush are totally unfounded as Stephen Harper is STILL more liberal than John Kerry, Howard Dean, Ralph Nader and Noam Chomsky.

American liberals are still not as liberal as Canadian conservatives.

On top of that, Bush is not even indicative of conservative movements worldwide, since generally conservatism is based on principles of economic freedom and Bush has expanded government more than any President since FDR - to name just ONE issue. Bush is an anomaly and remains the shame of all Americans. His failure transcends party lines and certainly doesn't reflect on non-American conservatives.

 

[fourier jr]

In other words, stockpile resources and eliminate all trade?

i don't know what ever gave you that idea.
re: raw materials even the United States was a mere resource-exporting colony at one point. remember? they exported cotton to industrialized britain, when manchester manufactured most of the world's textiles. even british columbia, from time to time, has banned the export of raw logs to other parts of the world, presumably to keep other logging-related jobs in the province. in the late 1800s sweden was in roughly the same situation Canada is in right now, except all their industries were owned by british & german industrialists. then their politicians noticed & finally did something about it. check out "open for business" by gordon laxer & "not for export" by glen williams

re: national grid many studies have been done on the benefits of a national power grid, starting with the diefenbaker government in the late 1950s. most recently, premiers gary doer (manitoba) & danny williams (nfld & lab) have expressed interest in a national grid. doer in particular said that he would prefer to export power to ontario rather than the USA but the infrastructure doesn't exist for it. ontario energy minister has also said that he's interested in a national grid. ontario sure could have used whatever extra electricity they could get last summer couldn't they? their grid was severely strained due to their heat wave. the definitive book on this is "white gold" by a sfu sociology prof who also worked for bc hydro for ~15yrs, karl froschauer.
http://www.cbc.ca/manitoba/story/mb_dam20040930.html

"I really think Canadians need to focus on the need for an east-west grid, and that we need to begin to really talk about energy self-sufficiency and energy security. I hope that Canadians will turn their attention to this and understand that we have a remarkable opportunity. My hope is that governments can come together and find ways that all of us can benefit" -- dwight duncan

http://www.electricityforum.com/news/aug04/onengrid.html

"Premier Williams said there are many options which have yet to be fully explored including selling power to Ontario, facilitating the sale of power through an Atlantic Canada route via an underwater cable, and evaluating how the province’s untapped hydroelectric potential could fit into a National Energy grid. Serious consideration must also be given to exploring all options for using Lower Churchill power to generate economic development within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador"

http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2004/exec/0920n05.htm

re: oil/gas a recent cibc study just came out saying that Canada could potentiall yhave the largest reserves of oil & gas in the world by 2010, even bigger than saudi arabia's. it will also be one of the only parts of the world also allowing private investment in the oil industry. why? why are so many other countries nationalizing their oil & gas? we should look at the obvious benefits of the liberals' national energy program (given in "canada & the reagan challenge" by stephen clarkson) to see what that could for us.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/01/10/canada.oilsands.ap/ (for example)

The Canadian Press said Monday a Leger poll suggested 49 per cent of respondents want petroleum resources nationalized while 43 per cent said they would like to see the same fate for gas companies

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/09/05/leger_gas_poll20050905.html

 

[subodei]

You said you wanted to ban the export of raw materials

That would destroy the Canadian economy, as we make an extremely large amount of money off those exports, and we don't need those materials ourselves. So by banning the export of raw materials we would be stockpiling raw materials and deriving no benefit from them whatsoever.

Nationalizing the power grid is a totally separate issue.

 

[fourier jr]

You said you wanted to ban the export of raw materials

That would destroy the Canadian economy, as we make an extremely large amount of money off those exports, and we don't need those materials ourselves. So by banning the export of raw materials we would be stockpiling raw materials and deriving no benefit from them whatsoever.

Nationalizing the power grid is a totally separate issue.

no we wouldn't be stockpiling our resources, we'd be using them in our own industries rather than giving them to the US, etc to use in their industries. Canada would produce finished products rather than bits & pieces. we could have aircraft, shipbuilding, farm machinery, auto industries, etc. Canada is capable of creating all of those.

 

[ShawnD]

the United States was a mere resource-exporting colony at one point. remember? they exported cotton to industrialized britain

Why spend a bunch of time doing something yourself when you could just order products to meet your low demands, and do it at a lower cost? It's part of the "buy what you need, sell what you don't" mentality that most countries and companies go by. Look at any company and you'll see they don't make most of what they use. Miller makes beer; they do not grow hops, or barley, or yeast, or sugar. They buy all of those things, put it together as beer, and sell beer. On the flip side, a farmer does not make beer; he grows barley. He sells that barley to Miller, and he may even buy back his own barley in the form of Miller beer. In the end, both the farmer and Miller benefit by focusing on what they do best - growing barley and making beer. The United States had lots of cotton, so they sold cotton.

why are so many other countries nationalizing their oil & gas?

Those countries have dictatorship governments. Iraq has insane amounts of oil, and it's nationalized. Do the people benefit from it? Saddam was a billionaire while his country was rather poor, so no. Iran? Same thing. Saudi Arabia? Again, the same thing. USSR sold its oil because that was basically the only thing anybody wanted from the soviets, and most soviets were still poor. That country is just now getting back onto its feet since private investment and greed have returned.
As for the east-west power grid, why the hell would you want that? Power loss in wires is directly proportional to the length of the wires, and you're thinking of running wires across more than 5000km of land? Why don't we just save time and set our oil reserves on fire. That way we can waste the energy right now instead of waiting until the infrastructure is built.


What you need to keep in mind about those nationalization surveys is who are they asking? Alberta controls the vast majority of Canada's oil, but Albertans are the ones most in favour of keeping oil and gas privatized. Your link even states that, with Alberta being the least in favour of nationalization "Forty per cent of respondents on the Prairies and 36 per cent of Albertans were in favour."
Now ask yourself, why would Albertans, the people with oil, be the least willing to give it to the government? The answer is very simple - Alberta thrives as long as that energy is private. It means the money is held by corperations, and that money goes to people who work for those companies, which is then leaked into the local economy. Fort McMurray is a great example of this. It's a town sitting on lots of tar sand, lots of money. Workers get paid lots, land value is extremely high, everything is expensive, and everybody is rich. If that tar sand were to be nationalized, the money would no longer belong the corperation centralized around that town; it would belong to the government located thousands of kilometers away who couldn't possibly care less about Fort McMurray. It wouldn't be a situation of Albera works, Alberta prospers. It would be Alberta works, rest of Canada steals from Alberta.
It may seem greedy for Alberta to want to stay prosperous without sharing any of it, but ask yourself this: what has the rest of the country done for Alberta? We lost billions and billions of dollars to Trudeau's stupid ass national energy program which forced us to sell oil to the rest of Canada at below market price. Do we get trees from BC below market price? How about fish from the maritimes? Or Manufactured goods from Ontario? Dream on. We're getting screwed. It'll be a cold day in hell when Canada takes our oil away from us.

 

[shmoe]

17% of votes went to NDP, but they only have 29 seats; while 10% went to BLOC yet they somehow have 50 seats. WTF?

The block's support is localized in Quebec (obviously), the NDP's is spread across the country. This makes it easier for the bloc to win seats with a given amount of the popular vote as these votes aren't spread around in ridings they have no chance at all of winning. Overall popular vote means little, winning seats is what counts.

Let's make an extreme example with three parties A, B and C, and there are 308 ridings. In each of the ridings 1-155, A gets just over half the votes in each riding, B gets just under half and C gets none, so A has just won each riding and has a majority government. In ridings 156-308, A gets no votes, B gets just under half in each, C gets just over half in each, so C wins all these.

End result
A 155 seats, about 25% of the popular vote, majority government
C 153 seats, about 25% of the popular vote, the official opposition
B 0 seats, about 50% of the popular vote, political obscurity.

It could look worse if C had some votes in ridings 1-155, party A could have a majority government with something like 17% of the popular vote. There's lots of other strange scenarios you can come up with. the point is, a high popular vote percentage isn't nearly as important as having these votes in the right ridings. It does no good to have 100% of the votes in a riding, you only need to win it, no crush it.

Admitedly this is extreme, but it's what happens to the NDP compared to the bloc and the other parties. I think the NDP still push a system of proportional representation which is designed to kill off some of this popular vote vs #of seats discrepency (also used in New Zealand and Germany I think?). Other 'fringe' parties would have a chance under a system like this, the green party would surely get some seats, but so might the communists, or a heroin party, or the rhinos.

 

[iansmith]

Admitedly this is extreme, but it's what happens to the NDP compared to the bloc and the other parties. I think the NDP still push a system of proportional representation which is designed to kill off some of this popular vote vs #of seats discrepency (also used in New Zealand and Germany I think?). Other 'fringe' parties would have a chance under a system like this, the green party would surely get some seats, but so might the communists, or a heroin party, or the rhinos.

Not to go off track too much but Germany has mix system. Half the seats are based on ridings and the other half are based on proportional representation. So when you vote, you vote once for an MP and a second time for a party. For example I am in Alexa McDonough's riding, I would vote for her as a MP but I can give my party vote to the liberal party or any party that I like best. There is also a minimun requirement to get seat from PR. It is 5%. I personnaly like this system but when hear the politician talking it is not going to happen soon. John Manley was saying that the Canadian are not used to coalition and making the parlement work with minority government.

So based on the German system, we would roughly get 121 conservatives, 43 BQ, 43 NDP, 100 liberals and 1 independent. The green party would not get any seats because they did not reach the minimun 5% required. The excess seats are basicly divided amongs parties based on their total votes. so with this system the block would lose some power and the NDP would win some. Conservative and liberal would be the same.

 

[shmoe]

So based on the German system, we would roughly get 121 conservatives, 43 BQ, 43 NDP, 100 liberals and 1 independent. The green party would not get any seats because they did not reach the minimun 5% required. The excess seats are basicly divided amongs parties based on their total votes. so with this system the block would lose some power and the NDP would win some. Conservative and liberal would be the same.

That it mostly helps the NDP, and not those currently in power, is a huge roadblock for getting a system like this adopted! I'd be betting the Greens would get more votes if we had a system like this, there's less worry that your vote is 'wasted' so they'd likely pass the 5% fringe safeguard (they were around 4% this time I believe), but this is just idle speculation.

 

[quantumcarl]

Canadians vote for a party, not for a person.

they may vote for a party because of the lily person who will be elected by the party, but that is as close as it gets to US style elections.

I found it odd at first when my Canadian friend told me about it, but now I wish we had a more parliamentary kind of system... seems that more accountability is present in the system.

Thanks dude. Its kind of a cool system.

You don't see your prez on the floor with the rest of his house members defending a policy by screaming like a kindergarten kid at the opposition.

Its almost like hockey.

And not much gets done.

Hmmmmm

America, the beautiful! eh?

 

[iansmith]

That it mostly helps the NDP, and not those currently in power, is a huge roadblock for getting a system like this adopted! I'd be betting the Greens would get more votes if we had a system like this, there's less worry that your vote is 'wasted' so they'd likely pass the 5% fringe safeguard (they were around 4% this time I believe), but this is just idle speculation.

That would not help those in power and that is why we should expect any change with our federal voting system even if the NDP comes to power.

The advantages with the german system is that strategic voting actually work. I always laugh when people try to vote strategically with our system.

 

[Treadstone 71]

Our system was designed before even the invention of the telephone. It's time for a reform.