 |
| |
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
People are daft, what more can be said?
|
Actually they are not. people in small provinces are smart enough to know that without some power at the regional level, their interests hardly register on the "central" radar screen. As it stands, people in the smaller provinces already see their interests sacrificed for the central interest and they fear that this would be even more prevalent if even more power is in the hands of the central government.
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
quote:
It might be all fine and dandy to propose such schemes in New Zealand, where the entire country fits into Nova Scotia with some to spare, but it is another to put it into practice in a nation like Canada where the land is vast and changing, and the people who inhabit the land take on nearly as many characters as the land itself. |
Rhetorical nonsense. England is more diverse than Canada (excluding Quebec).
|
I call bullcrap on two levels
1. Hugeness matters. Even if every single Canadian was the same race ( I assume thats what you mean by diversity), the interests and concerns of the Torontonian differs greatly from the fisherman in NS, the ffarmer in Sask. or the logger in BC.
2. Even if England has more "diversity" as in more varied races overall consider the diversity of Canada
-- Newfoundland-- almost lilly white with racial minorities usually being in professional positions and a very small and isolated native population
-- Nova Scotia-- also very white but with very very significant black and Miqmaq populations
Alberta-- a lot of immigration from both within and outside Canada
BC-- An asian population that is huge and unlike any other part of the country
Canada is not only a diverse country in that overall there are lots of people from everywhere, there is also a huge amount of difefrence among regions
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starchild
The whining of our Scottish nationalists are nothing compared to what the Albertans or Quebecois do. |
I find it suprising that you would seem to equate Albertans with Quebec on the whining issue. To me, Quebec are the biggest whiners of them all. Alberta just fades into the regular level of whining against the feds that all the provinces do.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
Because most Canadians feel that losing Quebec would mean the failure of Canada. We are sentimentally attached.
The coat of arms bears the sayings "A Mari usque ad Mare" (from sea to sea) and "Desiderantes Meliorem Patriam" (they desire a better country).
Canada without Quebec (or any other province) would be considered by most to be broken, and certainly would not be better.
It seems to be easy to mistake the intensity of the debates about provincial authority for sentiments in favour of breaking the country apart. That usually isn't the case. |
Do you think those same canadians that would see the loss of quebec as a failure of canada would perceive the loss of texas as a failure of the US? A nations success should certainly not be measured by how geographically large it is, especially when part of that largeness consists of malcontents who constantly piss and moan about how they really should have been an independant country.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Geronimo
Do you think those same canadians that would see the loss of quebec as a failure of canada would perceive the loss of texas as a failure of the US? A nations success should certainly not be measured by how geographically large it is, especially when part of that largeness consists of malcontents who constantly piss and moan about how they really should have been an independant country. |
A) Short answer, yes.
B) Geographic size has little to nothing to do with it. Quebec has always - ALWAYS - been an integral part of Canada. It was one of the first pieces of the Canadian puzzle (albeit in truncated form) and has played a huge role in the entire history of the country. And it has always been predominantly French, although for a long time it was politically and economically dominated by the English minority within the province. So if we can't keep Quebec in Canada after all this time and for everything it's done you're damn right it's a failure.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:37
|
|
Nobody has mentioned the way federalism splits the risk either. In countries with federalism plenty of risky policies are first proven at the provincial level before they would ever have the support needed to try them on the national level.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kontiki
A) Short answer, yes.
B) Geographic size has little to nothing to do with it. Quebec has always - ALWAYS - been an integral part of Canada. It was one of the first pieces of the Canadian puzzle (albeit in truncated form) and has played a huge role in the entire history of the country. And it has always been predominantly French, although for a long time it was politically and economically dominated by the English minority within the province. So if we can't keep Quebec in Canada after all this time and for everything it's done you're damn right it's a failure. |
but if the price you pay to keep it in is even higher than the price of an original component going it's sperarate way isn't that an even greater failure?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Geronimo
but if the price you pay to keep it in is even higher than the price of an original component going it's sperarate way isn't that an even greater failure? |
But how do you put a price on either? And more to the point, part of the success of a country is to keep things from getting to that point. I would never advocate just throwing money or catering to every whim of the disaffected area, but I'd say it's a failure if you can't convince those people that they are better off as a part of Canada than alone, and that Canada as a whole is better off with them than without them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
quote:
And it's breaking apart, or what were those Scottish parliamentarians doing?
If you say England, just England, then you are simply being silly. Pure and simple silly. |
I think the Scottish Parliament is a waste of time to tell you the truth.
And you are full of it. Within England there is far more cultural diversity than Canada, even though it's smaller. That's just a fact. Apart from Newfies, Anglo Canadians are almost all the same. It's quite boring. You even talk the same.
But you still haven't responded to my actual argument. Basically, it shows that you're all talk. |
you haven't exactly been jumping to respond to posts explaining merits of federalism yourself for that matter.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
[ Apart from Newfies, Anglo Canadians are almost all the same. . |
Do you actually expect people to take such statements seriously??
Wow -- talk about blanket generalizations.
Oh and Canada is far from made up by only "Anglos"
quote:
Ethnic make-up: One-half of the population report British, French or Canadian ancestries
The Ethnic Diversity Survey examined the ethno-cultural backgrounds of Canada's non-Aboriginal population aged 15 and over.
Of this population of about 22.4 million, nearly one-half (46%), or about 10.3 million, reported only British Isles, French and/or Canadian ethnic or cultural origins. The largest proportion - 21% of the total population aged 15 years and older - was comprised of those of only British ancestry. An additional 10% of the total population reported only French origins, including French Canadian; 8% reported Canadian origins; and 7% had a mix of British, French and/or Canadian origins.
The next largest proportion of Canada's population was comprised of the descendants of other Europeans. About 4.3 million people, or about one-fifth (19%) of those aged 15 and over, had only European ancestry (other than British and French origins).
People of non-European descent accounted for 13% of the population aged 15 and over, or 2.9 million. The most frequent origins were Chinese and East Indian. (Non-Europeans have origins in places such as Asia, Africa, Central and South America, the Caribbean, Australia and Oceania.)
In addition, 22% of the population aged 15 and over, or 4.9 million, reported other mixed ethnic heritages, or did not know their ethnic ancestry.
|
Source http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/030929/d030929a.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
[
What merits? Federalism goes against the very point of having a government. The point of a government is to avoid separation of powers in the Federalist sense. Federalism creates perverse incentives for both the Federal and Provincial governments. |
hmm I see some problems with federalism but frankly I fear in a more centralized system the interests of a less populated region will be forgotten if not ignored. This is a greater problem in a bigger country where people are not as aware of the concerns of people that live thousands of miles from them.
Even in non federal states, there is often problems between the central government and municipalities as they try to approtion responsibilities and revenues. Not everything can and should be done at a single central level.
Last edited by Flubber on 02-03-2005 at 04:36
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
To continue the problems with a central government hit home when I was trying to help a client naviagate a federal income support program that was put in place when the Atlantic cod fishery collapsed. The program was known as TAGS and you would not find a person in the province of Newfoundland that was not very very familiar with it.
Yet when talking to people in the department of Fisheries I found person after person who was totally unaware of the program and what it did. This may speak to the competence and interest level of government officials government considering their unawareness of a huge program administered by their own department . . . But it also said something to me about how much interest there was in this very major regional issue.
Perhaps the Canadian division of powers could have been done better. Historians believe that the drafters did not forsee provincial powers such as education and health becoming so large. However, I can see value in regional government for the simple reason that it can be more responsive to regional concerns
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Geronimo
Do you think those same canadians that would see the loss of quebec as a failure of canada would perceive the loss of texas as a failure of the US? A nations success should certainly not be measured by how geographically large it is, especially when part of that largeness consists of malcontents who constantly piss and moan about how they really should have been an independant country. |
The geographical part of it is important, but not nearly as important as the idea that Canada's policies of multiculturalism and pluralism would be diminished by a failure based on an ethnic divide.
In that sence I don't see Texas and Quebec to be equivalent, and no, I would not see the US as having failed if Texas went it's own way.
As Kontiki indicated, but I would go further, Quebec is the original Canada.
It is also worth noting that while there may be malcontents in Quebec, as there are elsewhere, they are not the majority and never have been. Treating Quebec poorly due to the vocal minority of sovereigntists would simply be doing their work for them. Sort of like cutting off a nose to spite the face.
That being said, I am not in favour of federalism by bribery. Funny enough, I don't think a majority of the people of Quebec are any happier about it than I am currently. Unfortunately, the Dominion of Canada was founded with liberal doses of patronage as key ingredients and things have not changed much in that regard since. But it's never too late to try. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:37
|
|
Rebellion?
http://winnipegfreepress.workopolis...?section=Energy
quote:
Provinces rebel over offshore agreement
Equalization compromised, Ontario says, while B.C., N.B. want their own side deals
BRIAN LAGHI, MURRAY CAMPBELL
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Printer Friendly version
OTTAWA, TORONTO -- A countrywide revolt over equalization is growing as several provinces react to the multibillion-dollar deal on offshore royalties that Prime Minister Paul Martin will sign on Monday with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.
The latest salvo came yesterday, as Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty suggested he will undertake a "strong campaign" to persuade the federal government that its tinkering with the program is hurting Ontario's economy.
Mr. McGuinty's remarks place him among at least four provinces to complain about the offshore deal, but also put him at odds with governments that want side deals similar to those reached with the two Atlantic provinces.
The remarks come as Mr. Martin flies to Newfoundland and to Nova Scotia on Monday to sign the historic deals.
Mr. McGuinty reiterated yesterday his criticism that the offshore energy deals are unacceptable and unilaterally alter the principles of the equalization scheme under which poorer provinces are subsidized by wealthier jurisdictions, chiefly Ontario and Alberta.
Mr. McGuinty said that his government accepts its role in this program but that he remains concerned that Ontario contributes $23-billion more to the federal treasury than it receives in transfer payments. He said this fiscal imbalance hinders his province's ability to maintain the strong economic performance that sustains Canada.
"We are the goose that lays the golden egg," the Ontario Premier told reporters. "It's important that we remain healthy."
Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have been promised $2-billion and $830-million, respectively, in upfront payments over the next eight years as Ottawa ends a controversial clawback of non-renewable offshore energy revenue. The energy revenue is clawed back from provinces that receive equalization payments.
Yesterday, officials in two other provinces that receive equalization said they will seek similar deals.
"By having this one-off deal, the feds have opened the door for all other provinces to come and negotiate side deals," said Chisholm Pothier, a spokesman for New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord. "New Brunswick is definitely wanting to do that. We have had our royalty payments for non-renewable resources calculated in the past, so we will definitely want to be discussing that."
Mr. Pothier said his province has non-renewable resources in mining and other areas, and believes it should be allowed to keep 100 per cent of its share of the revenue.
Officials in British Columbia have also said the province will look for a similar deal when and if it develops its offshore energy projects.
"What's good for the goose is good for the gander," a B.C. source said.
Their voices are added to those of Saskatchewan's Lorne Calvert, who has asked that his province's oil and gas revenue be protected from federal clawbacks should Saskatchewan slip back into the recipient category and once again qualify for equalization payments, something that could happen if the price of fossil fuels were to fall dramatically.
Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe has also requested that Quebec's hydroelectric power get the same treatment as Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.
Finance Minister Ralph Goodale has responded by saying the request should be sent to a special panel that is being developed to change the way equalization is paid.
The deal with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia entitles those provinces to receive all of the equalization payments to which they are currently entitled plus 100 per cent of their share of oil and gas revenue for at least eight years.
Previously, the federal government clawed back all but 30 per cent of the offshore revenue.
Mr. McGuinty came to office in October, 2003, promising to mend Ontario's relations with Ottawa after years of tumult under the Progressive Conservative government of Mike Harris.
He has consistently maintained that the $23-billion "gap" in transfer payments is a serious issue but this week he has taken his rhetoric to the next level.
On Wednesday, he said that the deals signed last month were "patently unfair" because they allow Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to draw from the equalization scheme even though the billions of dollars of oil revenue they will receive in the next eight years will increase their per capita fiscal capacity beyond that of Ontario.
"The federal government has unilaterally altered the principles that have supported equalization for some time now," he said, referring to the scheme begun in 1957 that is now worth $10.8-billion.
Ontario began digging in its heels last fall, when equalization-receiving provinces fought to have the kitty substantially increased.
Mr. McGuinty noted that his government, which is dealing with a large deficit while trying to invest in health and education, is receiving no new investments from Ottawa.
He declined to speculate why Mr. Martin negotiated the deals with the Atlantic provinces, "but I can tell you that we are at the very beginning of a strong campaign launched against the federal government where we seek to strengthen Ontario so that we can in turn strengthen the country." |
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/ind...federalism/&c=1
quote:
The Hill Times, February 21st, 2005
NEWS STORY
By Angelo Persichilli
'Part of federalism is broken,' says Sorbara
TORONTO--In the escalating battle over equalization payments, Ontario Finance Minister Greg Sorbara who says "part of federalism is broken," is putting public pressure on the 74 Ontario Liberal MPs "to correct the imbalance" and is asking for a new financial deal with Ottawa.
Queen's Park is looking at Ottawa to help cope with an aggressive provincial Conservative opposition that smells Liberal "red" blood.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, who faces a $5.6-billion debt, recently said the deals with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, in which the provinces will receive offshore royalties without clawbacks of equalization payment, are unfair because they violate the principle of equalization. Mr. McGuinty said Ontario actually receives $23-billion a year less in federal spending than its residents pay in taxes.
Prime Minister Paul Martin (LaSalle-Émard, Qué.) has responded that Ontario is receiving 40 per cent more in federal transfers than it did five years ago.
It's an increasingly boisterous political situation brewing on the political scene and Mr. McGuinty is not alone. The leaders of Saskatchewan and New Brunswick are also saying similar offers should be given to all provinces that share revenue from their natural resource industries with the federal government.
Declared Mr. Sorbara: "We want Ottawa to invest more in Ontario. From my perspective, it is certainly important to the Ontario Liberal government that the federal Liberal government do the right thing for the people of Ontario. And this should also be important to the 74 Liberal Members that represent Ontario in the federal Parliament."
In an interview with The Hill Times, Mr. Sorbara said, "it simply doesn't make sense for Ontario to be confronting a budget deficit when, at the same time, a federal government has a large surplus."
He is waiting for this week's federal budget to prepare his own budget, most likely to be released at the end of next month. |
http://www.canadafreepress.com/wordpress/?p=36
quote:
Liberal Trips Over Reality, Unsure What It Is
Filed under: The Media, Ontario Provincial Politics — Victor @ 9:49 pm
There is nothing so amusing as watching Liberals try to explain away, and then get out of the hole they’ve dug themselves into. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, unable to make good on most of his expensive election promises, notices that his counterparts in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and of course, Quebec have struck side deals with Ottawa for extra cash. McGuinty turns on his pals in Ottawa, demanding that Ontario gets its share. Meanwhile, the Toronto Star’s editorial board is shocked! – shocked I tell you – that the federal Liberals’ redistributionist policies have screwed Ontario.
Clearly, the fiscal arrangements, which underpin Confederation, are out of whack. They have lost their connection to the principles on which programs such as equalization or true federal-provincial partnerships in health care and post-secondary education were originally to be based
Out of whack? You don’t say.
Where do we start. Let me try to explain this in terms even a liberal, like let’s say a Toronto Star editor or an Ontario premier might understand. I’ll go slowly.
1) Stuff costs, you know, like money.
2) Money has to come from somewhere.
3) A common place to get money is from people who have it. The more they have, the more you can take. Conversely, people who have little or no money, aren’t good places to get it.
Am I going to fast for you, Mr. Premier? How about you, Toronto Star wizards? No? Good, because here is where it gets tricky.
4) If you keep taking lots of money from the people who have it, they no longer have as much as they used to. If you take away too much, those people can’t pay for things they need or want.
5) This makes them sad.
Any questions?
I find it incredible and hypocritical for the Star, faithful Liberal mouthpieces, to complain about the inequity of federal equalization policies. Remind me, what party established, built and maintained our national system of equalization? Were you awake during the last dozen or so elections? While you were shilling for the Grits, what exactly did you think they were promising? Did you not notice that the Liberals routinely pledge to spend billions and billions on all sorts of regional development boondoggles sinkholes projects? Were you too lazy to read their election brochures?
Where did you think the money was going to come from? East coast fishermen or autoworkers from Oshawa? James Bay fur trappers or Bay Street lawyers? After years of failed policies, scams, useless projects, all frittering away huge pots of cash, why are you suprised that Ontario’s part of the tab is in the $20 billion range?
And which newspaper was routinely the biggest cheerleader for the Liberals and their endless promises to put a chicken in every pot, not to mention subsidies for Quebec’s chicken farms, and the plan to move the Federal Ministry of Pots call centre to Summerside, PEI at a projected cost only $139 million, revised to $297 million, finally completed for $713 million?
Why, it was The Toronto Star. Funny, isn’t it.
Canada’s biggest daily newspaper, the one that reaches and influences millions in voter-rich Southern Ontario, has for decades tirelessly worked to make sure that Liberals remain in power and in control of the ever-increasing sums of money hoovered out of taxpayers’ pockets.
And now the Toronto Star is upset? Oh but wait. The deep thinkers at the Star have a plan to solve everything.
What Canada needs is a whole new deal that meaningfully reconfigures the federal-provincial sharing of taxes to match the real needs of Canadians, wherever they live. It is time for a Royal Commission to study federal-provincial relations in all their ramifications, including equalization payments, before Canada moves much deeper into the 21st century.
Yes, yes! Of course, why didn’t I think of that. A Royal Commission! That solves everything. Royal Commissions are the WD-40, the duct tape, of Canadian politics. There is nothing they can’t fix.
Let’s see, a year or two of coast to coast public meetings, a year to write the report, a couple of months of non-stop special reports on CBC’s The National leading up to its release, a couple of days of breathless coverage when it is released, about 12 hours for the first province to start *****ing about about how they are getting screwed. Yup, I’d say after about three and half years and God knows how many millions of dollars, whoever is in power in Ottawa will be able to shelve it. Then they can continue winging it, as usual. Sort of like the Romanow report and healthcare.
No matter how you slice it, more money is always going to leave Ontario (not to forget Alberta, by the way. They get screwed on a higher per capita basis than Ontario) than is going to come in under the equalization program. If the money is funding some projects, maybe many projects, of dubious value, don’t you think that, maybe, just maybe, lots of money is being wasted? Capice?
Maybe we should just get rid of the whole unwieldly, money-sucking contraption. Yes, I know that will be difficult to do. Too many people, in ALL parts of the country have a vested interest in keeping it clanking along. So many government programs seemed to be designed merely to buy votes. It will take a government with a lot of courage. It will mean that voters nation-wide no longer wished to be bribed with their own money. I am not holding my breath.
Anyways, I have tried to explain these facts to my liberal friends and acquaintances. I get four different reactions, which break down like this:
About 1% of them say “Victor, you are right. It is shameful and inexcusable the way our nation’s finances have been handled with such incompetence. I will have to very seriously consider voting for an alternative to the Liberals.”
About 5% of them say “Victor, you are right. It is shameful and inexcusable the way our nation’s finances have been handled with such incompetence. I will however continue voting for the Liberals. I just heard that Stephen Harper has signed a secret deal with Anderson Consulting and Halliburton to build concentration camps for gay people if the Conservative Party ever gets into power. No really, I heard it this morning on The Current.”
Around 36% just become silent. They hold their heads, and rock slowly back and forth. A look of uncomprehending terror, like that of an autistic child startled by a falling leaf, comes across their face. Next election, they vote Liberal.
The rest? Their eyes narrow and the spittle begins to fly. “You heartless rightwing bastard! What you really mean is that you want to force single welfare mothers from the Gaspe Peninsula to fight in Iraq! So Exxon can pump oil directly into the oceans and then Dick Cheney can give The Carlyle Group the contract to clean up all the beaches!! You want to sell the Great Lakes to Wal-Mart!!! So the nuclear aircraft carriers built with money diverted from the healthcare system can………..!!!”
Ehh, you get the picture. |
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-03-2005 15:32
he must be joking
|