Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watcgl!jchapman
From: jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: High Duties => Increased Competitiveness?
Message-ID: <2649@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 15-Oct-85 09:30:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: watcgl.2649
Posted: Tue Oct 15 09:30:49 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 16-Oct-85 04:52:49 EDT
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 95

.
.
> >In my ideal Canada, Canadian citizens would travel free on any carrier
> >(e.g. mostly Newfoundland businesses).  If we, as Canadians, want Newfoundland
> >to belong to Canada, we should give them the same opportunities that
> >Central Canadians enjoy.  The same applies to the Far North.  I think
> >that the charges to individuals and businesses should increase with distance
> >within Canada, but only slightly, and the real cost excess should be
> 
> 	The point is that in an artificial situation like this you
> 	destroy the country by stagnating the long distance
> 	communications and transportation industries.  Without a proper
> 	profit incentive, people aren't going to go out searching for
> 	ways to make these things more efficient.  This is the usual
> 	result of quick-fix interventionist solutions.  With an artificial
> 	fixed rate, people don't go out and invent things like communications
> 	satellites and fiber optics.  What's worse for Canada, when we have
> 	an artificial structure and the USA does not, these things get
> 	invented in the USA.  And then all we can do is complain about
> 	brain drain and having to import our high-tech.  Enforced monopolies
> 	have a *very strong* vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
> 	True innovation normally only comes when there is the big bucks
> 	incentive.

 I don't know if it's the result of government intervention or not but
 it seems to me that we already have communications/travel costs that
 vary only slightly with distance (once you get into distances of more
 than a couple of hundred miles or so).  You can get a bus ticket to
 just about anywhere in canada a bus can go for $99.  The difference
 in air fares from vancouver to toronto and vancouver to fredricton (sp?)
 is slight (I've been told the cost during a flight is incurred by the
 takeoff/landing).  Once you get into out of province dialing the rates
 don't vary that much (although it is cheaper for me to call LA than
 Vancouver).

> >paid by the taxpayer in the interests of Canadian unity (much like the
> >infamous Crow's Nest Pass rates, which did not work as fairly as my
> >suggestion).  Non-Canadian businesses and non-resident individuals
> >would pay normal costs for long-distance travel in Canada, to prevent
> >them from taking advantage of the subsidy for the benefit of the USA.
> 	How could they take advantage of a subsidy in shipments from Whitehorse
> 	to St. John to help the USA?  Why should we wish to punish our
> 	foreign neighbours?  Is it because of their nationality?  To me
> 	that's not much different from doing it because of the colour of
> 	their skin.

Why should we, in general, subsidize the air fares of foreign nationals
Brad?

> >This logic applies equally to the Post Office, since all mail starting
> >or stopping in Canada is for the benefit of Canada.
> 	What is this "Canada" but its people?  Why not let the people
> 	decide instead of having you (or your bretheren) get together
> 	and decide what is good for "Canada"

Martin is just putting forward, and giving some justification, for his
opinion Brad - I don't think he's planning a coup.

.
.
> >can't accept that you want Canada to continue, and at the same time want
> >to have the users pay the true and full costs of communication over
> >long distances.  Those positions are incompatible.
> 	Perhaps some people don't want your vision of Canada to continue.
> 	There is no reason your vision should get special status.
> 	For most people, the definition of Canada is "the country I
> 	live in."  or "a free nation devoted to peace, order and good

Actually I'm tempted to agree with this although I think we might be
(hope we would be) surprised by the amount of thought people give to
"Canada".  Certainly any adult who has emigrated to Canada probably
has particular reasons for choosing it rather than any other country.

> 	government."  All this other stuff has been made up by various
> 	pressure groups and it certainly isn't *my* vision of Canada.
> >Martin Taylor
> >{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
> >{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
> 
> 
> -- 
> Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473


Personally I agree with Martin's idea.  I think the US has a stronger
sense of national identity partly because of their dense and almost
continuous population, and partly because of national symbols such
as the contstitution and flag which have intense emotional power for
them.  I don't see how Canada could help but benefit from a stronger
national identity and it certainly is necessary to be able to travel
to and/or communicae with your (national) neighbours to feel a sense
of unity.


john chapman