Unfortunately I can't reconcile this statement with the facts. There is only maybe 1 lens that Canon has IS on that the Nikon equivalent does not, the 17-55 2.8, and that lens is getting on almost a decade old now. There are also Nikon lenses out there that have IS that Canon do not- the 16-35 f/4 VR for example, so it goes both ways. Show me Canon's list of high quality, fast lenses with stabilization and beyond the 17-55 f2.8, all you will come up with are telephotos, just like Nikon.
Also consider the quality of the recent Nikon releases. The 24, 35, 85mm 1.4Gs are all class-leading optics, the 50 while not as legendary as the other 1.4 AFS primes, is still a worthy lens. As are the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 pro zooms all of which are generally viewed as equal and often superior to the Canon equivalents (especially the 14-24 and 24-70).
A 70-200 f/4 would be a nice option, and it is not a stretch of the imagination to say that there is a good chance that we'll see a 70-200/4 Nikkor equivalent this year. They have already started to fill out an f/4 line last year starting with the 16-35/4 and the 24-120 (both with VR I might add), so a telephoto option on the same line would seem to follow next. But frankly, even f/4 is not going to cut it in many low light situations, and VR won't stop subject movement, so even if one were available it would not really address that problem.
Your complaints center mainly around one specific lens among an entire lineup that lacks VR, another lens that you can't afford, and a third lens which in fact does have a nikon equivalent (Nikon has always had a 100mm macro, the latest one is the 105mm f2.8 macro VR, released in 2006- it's actually Canon who has played catch-up with the IS here). It's fair for you to say that there are one or two gaps in Nikon's product line that don't line up with your needs, but I don't see how you can conclude from these 3 isolated examples that Nikon's lens lineup as a whole is lacking in selection or quality.
Ruahrc