California let's worry about every other thing except infrastructure!

[chuckChuck]

It was wet all spring right from the start and they held back releases from Rafferty and Alameda to prevent flooding earlier. Then 2-6 Inches of rain fell in the souris basin in June on already saturated soils and all hell broke loose. Had they dramatically dropped the reservoirs in the winter they might of had a chance. But that is hindsight.

BTW there is a US and Canadian board that oversees the management of the river and flows and they were involved in the decision process.

It was a 1 in 500 year flood event and when it is seriously wet dams can make the situation much worse.

For more backgroud read this:
http://www.gov.sk.ca/adx/aspx/adxGetMedia.aspx?mediaId=1506&PN=Shared

[tweety]

Well, SK3 if it is so simple I challenge you to tell us exactly what you would cut. If it is so simple, give us a list of the "feel good projects" you feel should be defunded and how much each would save. Should not be to difficult if you go to the Public Accounts to find what is spent on each program.

And to make it even simpler, forget the US and just tell us what is to be defunded in Canada. Remember Canada looks to have a 30 billion dollar deficit this year so please, just find 30 billion in savings that the feds are now spending and lets put that 30 billion into our crumbling infrastructure. I am not even asking for a balanced budget.

If it is so simple, you should have no problem in finding just 30 billion in savings in federal government spending. Or are you simply all talk?

1. Stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. Spend the EXTRA 4 billion on Renewable energy research, disregard all of SF3's cuts.

SF3, Do you realize most of your cuts that actually involve real money just transfer expenses from one area of government to another?

But i'm sure you'll just go off on a tangent and not actually read point#1.

[sawfly1]

i am sure there are lots of places to cut spending,
quite simple to cut welfare for failing a drug test.
or cut retraining and education ,funds .

so now they have no money and are on drugs, no skills

some might clean themselves up , a lot will just go to crime.
then you need more
police , more prisons, courts ( of course they are all cheap)
razor wire around your property. surveillance . etc. etc.
then if they eventually get out , you still have to fix them

That sounds so much cheaper . right

[bucket]

Regina didn't need a billion dollar bypass...had the city planners kept the development away from Victoria east it would have been an adequate route.....


Everyone can find the stores without being on a main highway....does anyone ever notice the interstates are clear....if you need something you take an exit and the services are a mile off....

[SASKFARMER3]

On farm insurance that they pay half that is a good joke!

Insurance makes the province money most years it's insurance.

Cut the Ag invest subsidy if you want if it's their we use it.

All goes to large farms I laugh my ass off.

To others who think my way of deep cuts won't work, yes it will bull shit programs do no good they create paper pushers that do joking for the country.

Yes drop all oil subsidies I ageee.

Get the liberals and all others with off shore tax havens I Believe a regina boy has a big one.

[grassfarmer]

Other than Supply Management Canadian ag does not get as many subsidies as some other countries....

Supply management Is Not a subsidy!!!!

Definition of subsidy - "a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive."

Supply management pays NO money to producers and opponents of SM always claim it keeps the price of the product too high, not too low.

Supply management works by ensuring through Government intervention that processors of SM products have to pay a fair price to the farmer producing them, to allow him/her to make a secure living and thus provide continuity of supply to consumers.

On that topic I was pleased to hear Rona Ambrose yesterday urge Trudeau to defend the Supply Management system - just a pity she didn't urge her former boss to do the same before he decided to hamstring it before getting turfed.

[chuckChuck]

Agreed, supply management is not a direct subsidy. I support supply management and so do many conservative farmers who otherwise oppose government protection for other industries.

At one time we had a 2 price wheat system that required processors to pay a higher price for domestic wheat. Another form of domestic farmer protection that was let go.

But the supply management lobby was much better organized at supporting their industries. But it is ironic that many Conservative voting farmers continue to support a socialist protectionist marketing program for poultry and dairy products.

[Braveheart]

Grassfarmer and Chuckchuck, you are both wrong re supply management. Supply management is called a subsidy equivalent as the border protection and quota production creates an artificially high domestic price. The only difference from a direct government subsidy is that the government provided protection leaves consumers paying the difference. A subsidy is still a subsidy whether government direct or forced on consumers.

[binthere]

consumer extortion is somewhat applicable

[checking]

Well said, Braveheart, but it went right over the gas and cc. heads.

[sawfly1]

brave heart is right , it is a subsidy, it really does not matter if it comes from tax dollars
or consumers.

the same as blocking our access to the generic drugs and Ag chemicals is a subsidy to the manufacturer's, tariffs on tires too , same thing.

letting professional , groups like pharmacists ,doctors , dentists, lawyers regulate themselves is a subsidy.
they can control the supply , supply management . thus increase their own worth. and our costs.

all these measures have pluses and minuses.

do you want a dairy industry in this country.

or do you want a giant dairy corporation to run our dairy farmers out of business.
once that is done ,
, just jack the prices to consumers up again. and less to producer.

you see how chem co.s compete, (not) you get 2 big dairys
why would they be any different.


do you want a tire industry in north america ( i do not even know if we have a tire factory in canada) but we pay tariffs on tires.

there are a million other things that are supply managed , but the only one that comes up is dairy.
why , because the big corp.s want that one too.

[grassfarmer]

Supply management is called a subsidy equivalent as the border protection and quota production creates an artificially high domestic price.

Artificially high relative to who? the heavily subsidized American dairy sector that gets bailed out with taxpayer money every time it crashes and burns? A more global comparison below but remember that historically US dairy prices have at times been higher than Canada's despite the SM system.