HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2014, 8:20 PM
VANRIDERFAN's Avatar
VANRIDERFAN VANRIDERFAN is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 5,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by drew View Post
Is the cutoff between MB and the rest of Western Canada simply politics?

I personally think no, and there are a lot more factors at play. Consider the economies of MB compared to AB and SK. Save for agriculture, there aren't a great deal of similarities there. Then BC is a whole different animal all together.

Personally I don't see how MB can get majorly intertwined in the resource buoyed economies of SK and AB and hope to offer anything reasonable in return.

Even just infrastructure. MB's long term strategic planning seems to amount to "call us when you plan on twinning a highway that crosses our border. We will twin our last (comically short) remaining length just fast enough to beat you to it".
By your comment I will guess you have no family or interests west of Headingly.
So cleaving off western Manitoba, a region that is actually more closely entwined physically, culturally and economically with SK and AB would be the better solution for the Winnipeg NDP. Then Winnipeg can wallow in its "Independence" of the resource and boom backwaters of Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Regina and Vancouver.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2014, 8:29 PM
drew's Avatar
drew drew is offline
the first stamp is free
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hippyville, Winnipeg
Posts: 7,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN View Post
By your comment I will guess you have no family or interests west of Headingly.
So cleaving off western Manitoba, a region that is actually more closely entwined physically, culturally and economically with SK and AB would be the better solution for the Winnipeg NDP. Then Winnipeg can wallow in its "Independence" of the resource and boom backwaters of Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Regina and Vancouver.
You didn't really address my post.

I didn't say anything about cleaving off parts of MB. Perhaps you could offer reasons why a partnership with MB is so important? What have they accomplished that MB is missing out on? What can MB offer?

You mention "resource boom", and I discussed the fact the economies of MB and the rest really don't match up. What I am really saying is MB has no high value resource to sell to match the revenues that SK and AB get to play with. I don't think it's some mystery as to why the SK economy has grown so much in the past 5 to 10 years, and why it is leaving MB in the proverbial dust.

We can argue the chicken and the egg thing all day long, but in any event, MB has no chickens or eggs that are high value enough.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2014, 9:13 PM
Arts Arts is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyro View Post
There is some talk of the these 2 provinces wanting to Import Manitoba generated electricity. How far along in planning I'm honestly not sure although Sask, did sign a minor agreement to import $100 Million form MB recently. Small potatoes but something thier apparently willing to go out of province for.
Manitoba is a net importer. As for its exports there are base metals, forest products, electricity, manufacturing, agriculture and processed foods (not to mention petroleum). The bulk of exports go straight south. China is the second biggest customer of MB exports, and Winnipeg is supposedly a transportation hub, however its mostly products moving east to west. It would seem appropriate to be in talks about transportation infrastructure, but how much $$ is MB prepared to allocate towards this cause, and what is the economic benefit? MB doesn't have stockpiles of raw resources in warehouses waiting to be shipped across the pacific - though it produces a consistent small stream. AB and SK HAVE to move product to keep their books balanced, MB has enough diversity that the status quo works.

Fact Sheet

Trade
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2014, 9:26 PM
Cyro's Avatar
Cyro Cyro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arts View Post
Manitoba is a net importer.
I was referencing Hydro Power, not the overall Manitoba Economy.
Well aware of the other statistics you linked to.


Manitoba Hydro Import Exports (Megawatt Hours)

2011 (Jan-Dec) 138,637 9,343,813
2010 (Jan-Dec) 295,986 9,071,355
2009 (Jan-Dec) 203,264 9,238,322

http://www.energymanitoba.org/exp-imp_can_hydro.htm
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2014, 9:42 PM
VANRIDERFAN's Avatar
VANRIDERFAN VANRIDERFAN is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 5,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by drew View Post
You didn't really address my post.

I didn't say anything about cleaving off parts of MB. Perhaps you could offer reasons why a partnership with MB is so important? What have they accomplished that MB is missing out on? What can MB offer?

You mention "resource boom", and I discussed the fact the economies of MB and the rest really don't match up. What I am really saying is MB has no high value resource to sell to match the revenues that SK and AB get to play with. I don't think it's some mystery as to why the SK economy has grown so much in the past 5 to 10 years, and why it is leaving MB in the proverbial dust.

We can argue the chicken and the egg thing all day long, but in any event, MB has no chickens or eggs that are high value enough.
The bolded part was my suggestion.

Also if Manitoba is to continue to grow, the last thing it needs is to cut itself off from the rest of Western Canada.
But is this really the prevailing attitude of Winnipeg? Shrug your shoulders and say "Gee, cannot see anything here that is of value. Might as well look inward and not strive for anything better." Wow, what a way to give hope to the next generation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2014, 10:03 PM
drew's Avatar
drew drew is offline
the first stamp is free
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hippyville, Winnipeg
Posts: 7,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN View Post
The bolded part was my suggestion.

Also if Manitoba is to continue to grow, the last thing it needs is to cut itself off from the rest of Western Canada.
But is this really the prevailing attitude of Winnipeg? Shrug your shoulders and say "Gee, cannot see anything here that is of value. Might as well look inward and not strive for anything better." Wow, what a way to give hope to the next generation.
Who said anything about cutting off Manitoba from the rest of Western Canada? Prevailing attitude of Winnipeg? Quit twisting my words around please.

You started this thread, the least you could do is at least offer up some defend-able reasons why MB attendance at these meetings is so important.

All you do is twist the words of anyone offering an argument around to suit your own (obviously passionate) opinion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2014, 10:16 PM
Bdog's Avatar
Bdog Bdog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog View Post
It's great to see that our neighbours to the west take such an avid interest in the well-being of our province. If it is indeed genuine concern, and not some sort of thinly-veiled schadenfreude like it often seems, they'll be happy to follow those changes over the coming months and years.
VanRiderFan, in response to my comment a page back, you said that the former was the case - that you are genuinely concerned about the province's future well-being and prosperity. It sure doesn't seem like that's the case considering your tone in subsequent posts.

As Drew said, how exactly is joining the New West Partnership going to help usher in a new era of prosperity here in Manitoba? How does not joining show that we're content with the status quo, and aren't at all forward-thinking? What are the tangible results that your province has seen as a result of this 4-year old agreement? What do you think some of the benefits Manitoba would experience that make it such a high priority?

From my understanding, last week's "summit" ended with the 3 premiers asking for a Billion dollars from the feds to increase funding for transportation. Is this a lobby group, or an organization to reduce trade barriers between western provinces? It's hard to tell what exactly the mandate is, let alone the benefits. But maybe you have better insights that you could share, since it sounds like joining is the be-all end-all of western prosperity...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2014, 12:42 AM
VANRIDERFAN's Avatar
VANRIDERFAN VANRIDERFAN is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 5,149
Do you guys actually read my posts at all?

Here, I will speak slowly.

I AM FROM MANITOBA. MOST OF MY FAMILY STILL LIVE AND WORK THERE. THE WELL BEING OF THE PROVINCE IS CRUCIAL TO MY FAMILY'S WELL BEING.

That being said, the goal of the New West Partnership is to streamline services between the provinces and to breakdown barriers, be that investment, professional designations, labour accreditation and rules and regulations.
Will it be the panacea to fix all of Manitoba's ills? Not in the least, as my 10 day odyssey to change my SK car registration to BC proves that a lot of things have not yet been streamlined. But you as a province should not cut yourself off from a successful region that can help you. Is it not better that provinces cooperate and work together vice staying in their stovepipe and not looking outward?

With the implosion of the NDP there is a good chance of a conservative government in Winnipeg. I am pretty sure that there will be a change in attitude at 450 Broadway Ave.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2014, 3:23 AM
Danny D Oh Danny D Oh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 872
There are tons of "Western Canadian" initiatives which Manitoba has been a part of, up to this current decade.

From what I can glean on this "partnership" currently front and centre is that they are lobbying hard for pipelines and federal money. Don't really see what Manitoba has to do with either.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2014, 5:08 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 10,659
Manitoba is not more involved with the other Western provinces because Manitoba and Manitobans are very different socially/politically/economically from the rest of the West.

I think at one time Sask and Manitoba were quite similar but Sask has definitely veered away from Manitoba and now is very much in line with Alberta in those 3 categories.

The other provinces are still very much rare material exporters with little manufacturing and even less diversification. In the rest of the West, there is very much a gung-ho attitude towards economic development whether it's to sell your natural environment to the corporations like in AB/SK or sell your liveability and sense of independence to the highest real estate bidder like in BC.

Manitobans put a far greater emphasis on steady economic growth than the wild swings of the rest. Manitoba is also a far more cultured place that puts a great emphasis on it's history unlike the other provinces where they are viewed as a piece of land for exploitation or a historic structure is just a condo development in waiting.

In other words, Manitobans are not near as money hungry as the other 3 provinces. Not that Manitobans don't want jobs or wealth but unlike the other 3 provinces they are not willing to sell their soul to get it. BC maybe doing fairly well economically but at the same time it is very unequal and BC has the highest child poverty rate in the country, the smallest middle class, and largest gap between the rich and the poor.

With it's affordable housing, high standard of living, best historic stock of any of the other provinces, and cultural vigour that the other provinces could only dream about, Manitoba and Manitobans seem to put a higher emphasis on quality of live than on economic development for it's own sake.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2014, 8:06 AM
Simplicity Simplicity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
Manitoba is not more involved with the other Western provinces because Manitoba and Manitobans are very different socially/politically/economically from the rest of the West.

I think at one time Sask and Manitoba were quite similar but Sask has definitely veered away from Manitoba and now is very much in line with Alberta in those 3 categories.

The other provinces are still very much rare material exporters with little manufacturing and even less diversification. In the rest of the West, there is very much a gung-ho attitude towards economic development whether it's to sell your natural environment to the corporations like in AB/SK or sell your liveability and sense of independence to the highest real estate bidder like in BC.

Manitobans put a far greater emphasis on steady economic growth than the wild swings of the rest. Manitoba is also a far more cultured place that puts a great emphasis on it's history unlike the other provinces where they are viewed as a piece of land for exploitation or a historic structure is just a condo development in waiting.

In other words, Manitobans are not near as money hungry as the other 3 provinces. Not that Manitobans don't want jobs or wealth but unlike the other 3 provinces they are not willing to sell their soul to get it. BC maybe doing fairly well economically but at the same time it is very unequal and BC has the highest child poverty rate in the country, the smallest middle class, and largest gap between the rich and the poor.

With it's affordable housing, high standard of living, best historic stock of any of the other provinces, and cultural vigour that the other provinces could only dream about, Manitoba and Manitobans seem to put a higher emphasis on quality of live than on economic development for it's own sake.
In other words: blah, blah, blah, nonsense.

"Not willing to sell their soul"

"Money hungry"

"Cultural vigor"

"Quality of li[f]e" (fixed that for you)

"Economic development for it's [sic] own sake"

My god, man. This isn't first year poli-sci. You spent probably 500 words and said almost literally nothing.

I mean, you aced idealistic socialist bingo, but if there's an educated point in there, it's well hidden.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2014, 3:15 PM
Arts Arts is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simplicity View Post
In other words: blah, blah, blah, nonsense.

"Not willing to sell their soul"

"Money hungry"

"Cultural vigor"

"Quality of li[f]e" (fixed that for you)

"Economic development for it's [sic] own sake"

My god, man. This isn't first year poli-sci. You spent probably 500 words and said almost literally nothing.

I mean, you aced idealistic socialist bingo, but if there's an educated point in there, it's well hidden.
If you read the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement that the New West Partnership is founded upon, and gave it some critical thought, you'd probably see that it really accomplishes literally nothing too. It is supposed to be about streamlining costs of trade between the province and reducing restrictions, but all it really does it increase overhead in regards to provincial matters and decisions. It is promoted by those who particularly value political posturing.

If anyone thinks the NWPTA is necessary, or even good, then what would you say about all three provinces amalgamating into one giant province? Why stop there and just eliminate provincial level governments entirely?

TILMA and the NWP as a negotiating block for Western interests may work well for these three provinces but only until it doesn't. Should AB want to deploy some policy change that affects SK livestock, or SK wishes to promote some kind of reinvestment in forestry which affects producers in BC, then you have all the provinces seeking "dispute resolution" (ie suing each other) which essentially undoes the advertised value of this agreement.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2014, 3:20 PM
VANRIDERFAN's Avatar
VANRIDERFAN VANRIDERFAN is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 5,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arts View Post
If you read the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement that the New West Partnership is founded upon, and gave it some critical thought, you'd probably see that it really accomplishes literally nothing too. It is supposed to be about streamlining costs of trade between the province and reducing restrictions, but all it really does it increase overhead in regards to provincial matters and decisions. It is promoted by those who particularly value political posturing.

If anyone thinks the NWPTA is necessary, or even good, then what would you say about all three provinces amalgamating into one giant province? Why stop there and just eliminate provincial level governments entirely?

TILMA and the NWP as a negotiating block for Western interests may work well for these three provinces but only until it doesn't. Should AB want to deploy some policy change that affects SK livestock, or SK wishes to promote some kind of reinvestment in forestry which affects producers in BC, then you have all the provinces seeking "dispute resolution" (ie suing each other) which essentially undoes the advertised value of this agreement.
This sounds a lot like talking points from the MFL or even SGEU.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2014, 3:25 PM
Arts Arts is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN View Post
This sounds a lot like talking points from the MFL or even SGEU.
What is MFL? (public union?) as for SGEU's opinion on it, I have never taken the time to read what they say, but if you have any links I'd be interested in seeing.

edit: mfl = Manitoba Federation of Labour, (duh I was brain dead for a sec, never have heard the abbreviated term, pardon my stubble jumping mistake )

Last edited by Arts; Nov 12, 2014 at 3:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2014, 4:18 PM
Simplicity Simplicity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arts View Post
If you read the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement that the New West Partnership is founded upon, and gave it some critical thought, you'd probably see that it really accomplishes literally nothing too. It is supposed to be about streamlining costs of trade between the province and reducing restrictions, but all it really does it increase overhead in regards to provincial matters and decisions. It is promoted by those who particularly value political posturing.

If anyone thinks the NWPTA is necessary, or even good, then what would you say about all three provinces amalgamating into one giant province? Why stop there and just eliminate provincial level governments entirely?

TILMA and the NWP as a negotiating block for Western interests may work well for these three provinces but only until it doesn't. Should AB want to deploy some policy change that affects SK livestock, or SK wishes to promote some kind of reinvestment in forestry which affects producers in BC, then you have all the provinces seeking "dispute resolution" (ie suing each other) which essentially undoes the advertised value of this agreement.
Oh, I'm not taking a stance on the topic at hand; it's too long a discussion, to be honest. I'm just pointing out that nowhere in that entire crafted response was a reasonable point about anything; it was just somebody projecting their fabricated ideals on the topic.

Just look at this line:

Quote:
"With it's affordable housing, high standard of living, best historic stock of any of the other provinces, and cultural vigour that the other provinces could only dream about, Manitoba and Manitobans seem to put a higher emphasis on quality of live than on economic development for it's own sake."
None of that is even true. Manitoba doesn't forgo economic opportunities in the interest of keeping the economy suppressed so housing can be slightly more affordable. And what the hell does 'cultural vigour' have to do with anything? Is there a correlative effect where thriving economies depress culture? And what is 'economic activity for its own sake'? This is one of the dumber things I've read around here. Is employment and productivity now somehow detrimental to the well-being of our community? And are people from Alberta and Saskatchewan somehow worse off for the increased employment opportunities and related economic spin-off?

This is all just so dumb. Frankly, I can't see why Alberta, BC, or Saskatchewan would want anything to do with Manitoba so I'm not surprised to see them carrying on without us.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2014, 4:30 PM
VANRIDERFAN's Avatar
VANRIDERFAN VANRIDERFAN is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 5,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arts View Post
What is MFL? (public union?) as for SGEU's opinion on it, I have never taken the time to read what they say, but if you have any links I'd be interested in seeing.

edit: mfl = Manitoba Federation of Labour, (duh I was brain dead for a sec, never have heard the abbreviated term, pardon my stubble jumping mistake )
Quick Google search.

Against
http://mfl.ca/why-new-west-partnership-bad-idea

For
http://cwf.ca/commentaries/keystone-...ls-out-of-loop
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opi...161407655.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2014, 5:33 PM
Jammon's Avatar
Jammon Jammon is offline
jammon member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Posts: 659
Politically, Manitoba has always aligned itself moreso with Ontario than with the Western Provinces. No matter how much economic development goes on in the west, Ontario is still the largest province with all of the political pull. Until that landscape changes, I believe we should keep ourselves aligned with them. After all, we do share a major border with them.

As a regulator, I can tell you that TILMA is a bad agreement. While it ensures that labourers can move freely to work in each province, it also creates a dangerous precedent when a labourer in a regulated profession who may have conditions or have had conditions on his or her license is allowed to move and work. There is a well documented case under the TILMA dispute where a Social Worker (I believe) wanted to work in BC after moving from Alberta. BC rejected the application because of past conditions that had been placed on his license. BC won the dispute with Alberta and upheld the decision that was made in BC. While this decision was, in my opinion, fair- it does create a dangerous precedence when all labourers are able to move freely without some regulatory mechanism to protect the public. The TILMA agreement makes it more difficult for regulators to conduct their own assessments, i.e.) assessment of good character and make decisions that might contradict the TILMA agreement.

Finally, since we already have the AIT which allows regulated professionals to work across Canada, it somewhat renders TILMA pointless. As a regulated health profession; i.e.) Registered Nurse, I can move to any province and work under the AIT. It just seems redundant to me. Just my two cents.

Last edited by Jammon; Nov 12, 2014 at 5:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2014, 7:21 PM
Cyro's Avatar
Cyro Cyro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,197
--------------------NWPTA http://www.newwestpartnershiptrade.c...lic_entity.asp

The New West Partnership Agreement was supposed to make business easier in Western Canada
But was it just idle political talk?

http://albertaventure.com/2012/06/th...estern-canada/

Quote:
“Starting from here, and for the next two to three years, is the period where we’ll see if the partnership is going to keep going. If things haven’t changed by then, it will stay at the level of rhetoric.” – Robert Roach, vice-president of research, Canada West Foundation
I was curious how proponents and those familiar with the partnership feel since it's inception. Other than the most obvious benefit. Dealing with Oil and Gas issues among the 3 provinces involved.

Last edited by Cyro; Nov 12, 2014 at 7:54 PM. Reason: Broken Link
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:46 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.