the national policy was only one of our problems. if we'd done what some european countries had done (sweden, germany, etc) we probably would have turned out fine.

   

The national policy was THE central problem which exacerbated the problems which would later face the maritimes. <br /> <br /> However, if we'd done what Germany did??

   

[QUOTE]Many experts see the solution to the problem of regional economic disparity in massive federal involvement but this can only be done, ultimately, at the expense of weakening provincial control over local economies and societies - in other words by undermining even further Canadian federalism.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> I think we must be a little bit forgiving--there was a British Empire at the time, and the west was sparsely populated, but thank you for posting this excellent study. It is eye-opening.<br /> <br /> I also agree that the provinces are sellouts, and only the feds can solve the problem, or the provinces will turn into quasi-countries.

   

[QUOTE BY= N Say] the national policy was only one of our problems. if we'd done what some european countries had done (sweden, germany, etc) we probably would have turned out fine.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> I'm not sure what you refer to, N Say. What did Germany and Sweden do?

   

Seems like the starting of a country from a central location Montreal - Windsor, worked!<br /> <br /> Dennis Baker

   

[QUOTE BY= Perturbed] [QUOTE BY= N Say] the national policy was only one of our problems. if we'd done what some european countries had done (sweden, germany, etc) we probably would have turned out fine.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> I'm not sure what you refer to, N Say. What did Germany and Sweden do?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> -- banks engaged in long-term lending (like in germany)<br /> -- the government didn't waste scarce cash on unnecessary infrastructure projects (eg railways in sweden)<br /> -- technological independence through invention of totally new things (like ball-bearings & dynamite) or modification of imported stuff (diesel engines)<br /> -- the desire to keep the armed forces independent of foreign supplies<br /> <br /> canada did none of these things, but sweden & germany did. it was generally because of a strong rural/agrarian influence that made countries follow the 'european system', especially with government spending & economic nationalism. if the settler farmers had more influence here like they had in other countries we probably would have followed the european system. there were a few reasons for this. at the time people who were 'nationalist' were considered by some to be disloyal but much more importantly there was the french/english, catholic/protestant tension was higher on the list of priorities. the ethno-national conflicts distracted everybody from the class-based issues. The farmers' movement was also weak because actual settlement of the prairies was delayed by ~20yrs by the disastrous railways policies of macdonald's government & the CPR. that's because farmer opposition was simply ignored by the people in ottawa. it made historian ARM Lower write in 1946 "Americans built railroads to develop their country; Germans for purposes of war, but Canadians apparently just for the fun of building them."

   

[QUOTE BY= N Say] [QUOTE BY= Perturbed] [QUOTE BY= N Say] the national policy was only one of our problems. if we'd done what some european countries had done (sweden, germany, etc) we probably would have turned out fine.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> I'm not sure what you refer to, N Say. What did Germany and Sweden do?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> -- banks engaged in long-term lending (like in germany)<br /> -- the government didn't waste scarce cash on unnecessary infrastructure projects (eg railways in sweden)<br /> -- technological independence through invention of totally new things (like ball-bearings & dynamite) or modification of imported stuff (diesel engines)<br /> -- the desire to keep the armed forces independent of foreign supplies<br /> <br /> canada did none of these things, but sweden & germany did. it was generally because of a strong rural/agrarian influence that made countries follow the 'european system', especially with government spending & economic nationalism. if the settler farmers had more influence here like they had in other countries we probably would have followed the european system. there were a few reasons for this. at the time people who were 'nationalist' were considered by some to be disloyal but much more importantly there was the french/english, catholic/protestant tension was higher on the list of priorities. the ethno-national conflicts distracted everybody from the class-based issues. The farmers' movement was also weak because actual settlement of the prairies was delayed by ~20yrs by the disastrous railways policies of macdonald's government & the CPR. that's because farmer opposition was simply ignored by the people in ottawa. it made historian ARM Lower write in 1946 "Americans built railroads to develop their country; Germans for purposes of war, but Canadians apparently just for the fun of building them."[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> The popular notion is that our railway really helped us...I do remember reading in a 1935 American plan to invade Canada that our railway was considered an impediment to successful invasion, and didn't our railway at least help the manufactuers in central Canada?

   

[QUOTE BY= N Say] [QUOTE BY= Perturbed] [QUOTE BY= N Say] the national policy was only one of our problems. if we'd done what some european countries had done (sweden, germany, etc) we probably would have turned out fine.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> I'm not sure what you refer to, N Say. What did Germany and Sweden do?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> -- banks engaged in long-term lending (like in germany)<br /> -- the government didn't waste scarce cash on unnecessary infrastructure projects (eg railways in sweden)<br /> -- technological independence through invention of totally new things (like ball-bearings & dynamite) or modification of imported stuff (diesel engines)<br /> -- the desire to keep the armed forces independent of foreign supplies<br /> <br /> canada did none of these things, but sweden & germany did. it was generally because of a strong rural/agrarian influence that made countries follow the 'european system', especially with government spending & economic nationalism. if the settler farmers had more influence here like they had in other countries we probably would have followed the european system. there were a few reasons for this. at the time people who were 'nationalist' were considered by some to be disloyal but much more importantly there was the french/english, catholic/protestant tension was higher on the list of priorities. the ethno-national conflicts distracted everybody from the class-based issues. The farmers' movement was also weak because actual settlement of the prairies was delayed by ~20yrs by the disastrous railways policies of macdonald's government & the CPR. that's because farmer opposition was simply ignored by the people in ottawa. it made historian ARM Lower write in 1946 "Americans built railroads to develop their country; Germans for purposes of war, but Canadians apparently just for the fun of building them."[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> I should also ask, how much cash could Canada have wasted on our railway if we didn't pay the Chinese much at all?

   

re: railway policies, in the US, specific land was given to their railways companies, & the farmers got to pick & choose what land they would get. in canada, since the CPR was the conservative party's pet rail company, the CPR got more land than US rail companies, got to choose what land they got granted from the government, and the settlers didn't get grants. they had to BUY their farmland. here's what william van horne (CEO, CPR) said about the situation: "we sell practically no lands at all to people newly arrived in the country, our sales being almost entirely to people who have already made a start on Government lands & who wish to add to their holdings" (the farmers thought the same thing & this was the criticism that ottawa ignored)<br /> <br /> re: government waste on railways in britain at the time (1850s) the capitalists had more money than they knew what to do with so they spent it all on expensive extravagant railways. it didn't matter much though because britain is/was fairly densely populated. canada, on the other hand, is/was sparsely populated but the government had the british philosophy of first building an expensive/"skookum" railway that would last, and also guaranteed private railway loans from the government. so the railway party started in the 1850s; after then canada's debt was $54,000,000 but in the US which had 15 times as many people, had a debt that was only 50% more. our debt was so big that the government could barely pay the interest & took decades to pay it off. there were so many lines duplicated & the lack of planning was complemented by the british rail building methods. the US philosophy, on the other hand, was to build a cheap, bare-bones railway that only had to move things from place to place, and to upgrade it from time to time as revenues allowed. the rail line north of lake superior was totally unnecessary at the time. before it was built, grank trunk had the most extreme plan, to go through chicago, north to manitoba & then west. the (macdonald) conservatives wanted the other extreme, which was to build the all-canadian route that we got. the liberals, though, said a north-of-superior line would have to be built <I>eventually</I>, & in the meantime we should use great lakes shipping in the summer & US lines from sault st marie to manitoba in the winter, which would have been just like the short line going through maine to new brunswick. so there wasn't any big hurry to build the north-of-superior line, especially the government was building the line in BC to keep them happy at the same time. that's one example, & there are more, mostly to do with duplication of lines, totally redundant lines, etc