Other Manitoba and Saskatchewan Developments

[Simplicity]

Well that is a feature of equalization program, is that it's not based on expenditures, its based on revenues allowing the provinces to continue administering the programs they see fit. Every province has different industries, resources and is autonomous when it comes the the creation and management of crown corporations, just as they should be.

That sentence was nonsense. When revenues decline, expenditures will have to. I get that you don't understand that concept, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. When the other provinces begin to create lower transfers, we'll get less. See how that works? Then we won't have the money to pay to keep our services at the level we've become accustomed to. Or the ones that you have. You sound like you're on disability.


I disagree with the "inherently unproductive" part, and tend to hold a higher brighter view of the picture, but do agree that the growth rate has been negative there for far too long.

I didn't use 'inherently unproductive' as an editorial comment. We're 9th of 13 provinces when it comes to per capita GDP. Only Quebec and a couple Atlantic Provinces are propping us up. If you think that Manitoba suddenly has it figured out, I applaud your positive outlook, but it's one that has no basis in reality or fact. In fact, the latest economic data shows Winnipeg in big trouble where our employment is concerned. Moreover, Moody's downgraded us from 'stable' to 'negative' because of concerns that the government was going to take on more debt. So, yeah.

So your concern then isn't about the health of the public sector but the susceptibility of the private sector? Well that is the nice thing about the stability of the economy there, while you didn't get the full benefits of $107/barrel oil, you are at an advantage to tap into the benefits of $50/barrel oil - there is a solid base of private sector manufacturing and transportation industry there, as well as a solid financial and cultural base so MB will fare just fine while AB, NL and SK struggle forging new books. I think it is most important for you MB folks to remember that you are not dependent on the large public sector, you have chosen to utilize it that way, and I personally find that very prudent.

This is a dumb argument. This is tantamount to the argument that the person at 7-11 should be happy working for minimum wage because it's 'stable employment'. That person would take a high paying job for 5 years to generate resources in order to reinvest elsewhere. Education, small business, wherever. Welfare is also stable. Always near the bottom, but always stable. Conflating stability with quality is something socialists love to do. And you've said this before, but enough with this cultural base nonsense like somehow the economic standard of living has anything to do with whatever nebulous idea of culture you have that will invariably differ from somebody else's. This is nonsense. Stick to the topic.

[drew]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

How is it society's responsibility to pay for someone's spawn? Why would someone with child want to work a low wage job at say McDonalds, isn't it the goal of every parent to provide the best for their child. Sadly this just isn't the case in Manitoba where more kids means more govt. dollars!

Why? Because if we can somehow allow a few of these kids to get our of the welfare cycle by subsidizing at least their basic necessities, then we all save money in the long run.

Investment in our youth is always dollars well spent. If you don't get that, that's fine.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by drew

Why? Because if we can somehow allow a few of these kids to get our of the welfare cycle by subsidizing at least their basic necessities, then we all save money in the long run.

Investment in our youth is always dollars well spent. If you don't get that, that's fine.

Theoretically, yes. But if these kids go home to parents and other families who aren't 'setting the right example', there's almost nothing that's going to change their outlook. That's why things like breakfast and after-school programs are effective. The longer you can keep them around decent mentors who focus their attentions in the right places, the better the odds.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Theoretically, yes. But if these kids go home to parents and other families who aren't 'setting the right example', there's almost nothing that's going to change their outlook. That's why things like breakfast and after-school programs are effective. The longer you can keep them around decent mentors who focus their attentions in the right places, the better the odds.

True, but they have to be a little older at that point. You still have to rely on the parent(s) and family 100% at least until the kids are into pre-school.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by drew

Why? Because if we can somehow allow a few of these kids to get our of the welfare cycle by subsidizing at least their basic necessities, then we all save money in the long run.

Investment in our youth is always dollars well spent. If you don't get that, that's fine.

The biggest hand-up is still a job. Personally my belief on subsidization of kids is that it should end at two children per household, you have three or four kids and your on welfare your paid the same amount as you would be with two kids. This belief that you can have as many kids as you want and somebody else will pay for them has to end. I think it's also pretty simplistic to think spending dollars on youth will always lead to good citizens later on.

[drew]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

The biggest hand-up is still a job. Personally my belief on subsidization of kids is that it should end at two children per household, you have three or four kids and your on welfare your paid the same amount as you would be with two kids. This belief that you can have as many kids as you want and somebody else will pay for them has to end. I think it's also pretty simplistic to think spending dollars on youth will always lead to good citizens later on.

Nobody said always.

And I would love to see evidence about how many 4, 5, 6 kid families are out there for the sole purpose of welfare abuse. Seems like a lot of effort for little financial reward.

In any event, once the kids are born, you cannot hold them responsible for their parents mistakes. At least not till they are old enough to know better.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by drew

True, but they have to be a little older at that point. You still have to rely on the parent(s) and family 100% at least until the kids are into pre-school.

Sure, you're right, but what do you do? If you're the child of a sixteen year old girl who has no parental support herself, who manages that child?

Or probably more commonly, what happens to the child who might live in a slightly nicer apartment in the same bad area but whose mother still doesn't care or just simply isn't equipped to?

Those years are formative. And since you can't take the kids - or at least not outside of the very worst situations - how do you manage those first few years of the child's life? You can put a kid in day care for 6 hours a day, but they're still going home.

We live in a free society. Nobody can stop anybody from having kids they can't afford or aren't emotionally/mentally equipped to handle. The result of that is that we end up with kids in poverty and you can't save everybody. The idea that we can is well-intentioned, but society can't beat itself up over the results of certain freedoms it grants...

[DavefromSt.Vital]

Can we not move this to Western Expresso? This is the thread about Other Manitoba and Saskatchewan Developments.

[Stormer]

Belle Plaine, Saskatchewan's rural industrial hub. Next summer a new rail line will connect Belle Plaine to the New K+S Potash Mine near Bethune. When was the last time a new rail line was built in Saskatchewan?

There are lots of proposals for additional industry here. We will see.

[Stormer]

Giant 'crystallizer' will be travelling Sask. highways this week



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...week-1.2889973

[Stormer]

More negative talk about Jansen in the Aussie press and from London:

Potash hubris
Potash has the potential to be a fifth "pillar" for BHP, under management's simplification of the miner.
But Gait cannot understand why BHP has not yet shelved the Jansen potash mine – the last of the megaprojects – as it has its other two megaprojects, the Port Hedland Outer Harbour, and Olympic Dam open pit.
"The economics of the potash market will, we believe, continue to deteriorate for incumbents and hold absolutely no room for a new entrant, particularly one which will have the impact of Jansen", located 135 kilometres east of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
"But the real concern about Jansen is what it reveals about BHP's thinking around capital allocation, we have yet to encounter anyone, other than BHP, who thinks the investment makes sense and there is a word for this – hubris.
"However, there may be another reason for Jansen; it may be a stalking horse to facilitate an acquisitive entry into potash."
BHP could think it has the mandate for more large-scale acquisitions, with the obvious candidates being either potash (Potash Corp or Mosaic) or in petroleum (BG), Gait says.
But Gait's view is at odds with that presented by BHP management, who have all but ruled out acquisitions.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/minin...#ixzz3O9D364zb

[Treesplease]

speaking of Jansen, has anyone else heard rumours that the two current shaft projects have hit....obstacles and are delayed/stalled/having problems particularly with the blairmore formations?

[bomberjet]

http://www.progressiverailroading.co...-estate--43268

Rail News: Canadian Pacific
CP enters joint venture with DREAM Unlimited to develop surplus real estate

Canadian Pacific and DREAM Unlimited Corp. this morning announced an agreement to form DREAM Van Horne Properties (DREAM VHP), a joint venture designed to help the Class I develop its surplus real estate.

"Since mid-2012, CP has undergone a remarkable business transformation that has generated significant surplus real estate," CP Chief Executive Officer E. Hunter Harrison said in a prepared statement. "The formation of DREAM VHP is the result of a comprehensive selection process to find the right partner with the expertise and vision necessary to unlock the significant long-term shareholder value from those assets."

CP's portfolio of surplus real estate properties includes Schiller Park, a 75-acre site in Chicago; Obico, a 74-acre site near Toronto; South Edmonton Yard, a 92-acre site close to downtown Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; and Lucien L'allier, a 3-acre site in downtown Montreal.

"We believe that there is unlimited potential to work together to develop land that has benefitted from the growth of our cities," said DREAM Unlimited CEO Michael Cooper.

CP should get on it and redevelop their 450 acres of yard in Winnipeg! Although obviously way more expensive and likely less desirable land than some of these other redevelopments.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

CP should get on it and redevelop their 450 acres of yard in Winnipeg! Although obviously way more expensive and likely less desirable land than some of these other redevelopments.

"For sale: 450 acres of heavily contaminated former railway land in the most economically depressed and crime-ridden part of Winnipeg"

Line up to the right, gentlemen!

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by esquire

"For sale: 450 acres of heavily contaminated former railway land in the most economically depressed and crime-ridden part of Winnipeg"

Line up to the right, gentlemen!

Oh, oh, oh! [jumping up and down, hand in air]

[bomberjet]

lol! Yeah but it's the great divide segregating certain classes of people from the rest, right?! It's just soo easy to get the railway out and bring new, urban utopian life to Winnipeg.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

lol! Yeah but it's the great divide segregating certain classes of people from the rest, right?! It's just soo easy to get the railway out and bring new, urban utopian life to Winnipeg.

Winnipeg pretty much returns to a state of Garden of Eden-like bliss once we get rid of the railyards. Or so Pat Martin tells us.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

lol! Yeah but it's the great divide segregating certain classes of people from the rest, right?! It's just soo easy to get the railway out and bring new, urban utopian life to Winnipeg.

In fact, thousands of years of tribal association and societies of like-minded people gathering and settling in common areas is completely undone just by removing railyards.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

lol! Yeah but it's the great divide segregating certain classes of people from the rest, right?! It's just soo easy to get the railway out and bring new, urban utopian life to Winnipeg.

The neighbourhoods on either side of the CP yards are pretty much the same.

[bomberjet]

^Yes, I know. I was more poking at the whole rationale behind relocating the yards. It has been said many times the yards act/acted as this divide that separated the poor north end from downtown, and thus the rest of civilization.

My reason for posting the article was because I thought it was interesting and relevant to the somewhat ongoing talk of yard relocation. They come up every few years, with some seriousness every decade it seems. Also brings some scale to the subject. As you can see Winnipeg's yards are much, much larger than some of the other project that are always used as a comparison. "Well Regina and Edmonton can do it, so why not Winnipeg?!" kind of thing.