[email protected]

Should the provinces of Atlantic Canada unite?

What if the whole country goes in the dumpster, will you still feel you are owed prosperity by the rest of the country? Yes, because it was promised as terms of Confederation.

Compare Atlantic Canada 2007 to Atlantic Canada mid 19th century. I'm sure you will find that prosperity has generally increased overall (though admittedly, such comparisons are very difficult to make). The only valid point here might be to assert that the prosperity of Atlantic Canada hasn't increased over this time period as much as the prosperity of other parts of Canada. To be fair, we have no idea how prosperous Atlantic Canada would be today had it not joined Canada. It probably is fair to say that it would be better off. Yes, Atlantic Canada in absolute terms is much better off than it was in 1867, but still it is an impoverished region, with a no-growth or decline future, dependent on the rest of Canada for its standards through handouts. There is something wrong here.

Sure, I'm all for assisting in regional development. Indeed, I should like to see a portion of the money wasted on subsidies used more productively or beneficially. Mailing cheques to non-fishing fishermen seems very silly. Unfortunately, this is a generally tough issue. Cutting off subsidies is really, really difficult. Just look at that Bathurst Steel company or the Cape Breton coal mines. Those were outrageous wastes of subsidies that did nothing but delay the inevitable. Newfoundland (for example) has more heavy equipment operators and hair dressers than they know what to do with. Why? Because these are job categories for which government subsidies for training are available. Similarly, Newfoundland has the highest concentration of public swimming pools in the country - again, more wasted subsidies on make-work projects are the cause of this. Do you have any suggestions about how the rest of Canada can assist Altantic Canada to increase their economic efficiency? I certainly don't, though I admit, I've never given the topic much thought. I should certainly like to do so. Here are a few quick ideas, It would be telling if the central government would undertake steps to show that the National Policy is truly a thing of the past, that is take substantive steps that favour this region OVER the central region. That would go a long way to demonstrate that Atlantic Canada does have a future in Canada. Here are some interesting ideas in that area: 1) Move the National Capital (with all the attendant industries) to Charlottetown, the cradle of Confederation. 2) Move three intended high-tech ‘nodes’ from Ontario/Quebec to NS, NB, and NFLD 3) Have Ottawa take over the provincial debt of the region and make Atlantic Canada a special industrial development zone with zero taxes and allow Atlantic Canada a moratorium on contributions to Canada. 4) Initiate a long term program to encourage industries to relocate from Southern Ontario to the region. 5) Move a number of Crown Corporations (Atomic Canada, National Film Board etc etc) from Ontario-Quebec to the region

Should your representative in the legislature\parliament always vote the party line?

Only one problem, Confederation was entered into by the provinces of Atlantic Canada with promises that it would be prosperous for Atlantic Canada. Should Atlantic Canada stop contributing to help develop the rest of Canada?

Refreshing to see such an acknowledgement. That being said, after Quebec, the Atlantic provinces suck up more subsidies from Ottawa than anywhere else (per capita basis). Quebec is the number one federal tax subsidy sucker in the country. Newfoundland is number two. NS and NB fight it out for the number three spot. Taxpayers in Ontario and Alberta have the honour and privilege of paying for these tax subsidies. Solution: Ween yourselves off this subsidy addiction. A subsidised economy will never prosper. Agreed. Should the national government create or help to create a prosperous regional economy in Atlantic Canada?

Interesting how the original statement claimed ALL subsidies/expenditures in natural sciences, engineering, social sciences and humanities. Now we see it is only the "R&D" portion of those subjects that you previously claimed as "all". A carefully cherry-picked statistic is mis-represented as the whole of the pie in order to convey a false impression of the issue for politically partisan purposes. No surprise there. My mistake, but R&D or not it doesn't alter the fact that Atlantic Canada is an afterthought in the national scheme of things.

It has everything to do with you assuming that those who didn't vote don't support the government and think the same as you. A presumptuous and pompous attitude IMO. Are you in favour of compulsory voting? If not, there is no way that any government could have a majority of eligible voters and with more than two parties, even then it is unlikely. Or would you just prefer a good old fashioned dictatorship where no one gets to vote? Lets then accept your position on non-voters. You still have a legitimacy problem. In a three way race where typically the the majority government is formed on 35 to 45% of the vote, that leaves 55 to 65% of 'people who voted' not supporting the majority government.

Should business subsidies be used to help under developed regions or go to those regions which are already prosperous?

1. Because Ontario taxpayers pay for them. 2. Because Ontario is home to the largest number of self-employed entrepreneurs that such programs are designed to give incentives to. The lack of such incentives going to the Atlantic provinces has NOTHING to do with politics and EVERYTHING to do with the complete lack of self-employed Atlantic region entrepeneurs applying for such funds. P.S. I'm still waiting for a data source for your assertions above. Sources: The Provincial distribution of Total R&D expenditures in natural sciences, engineering, social sciences, and humanities - Statistics Canada, table 358-0001 The provincial distribution of business subsidies - Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, report titled 'Subsidized to the Hill' September 2004

There is no if. Why do people who don't like the result always assume that the people who didn't vote agreed with them? That's presumptuous nonsense. When it comes to forming the government, if you don't vote, you don't exist because you sat on your ass and left the decision to someone else. Again this has nothing to do with non-voters.

No you have it backward. The majority is valid because the others dont care about voting. They simply do not count. It cannot be any other way. Either get off your arse and vote or shut up. It is that simple. Any reason not to go and vote is laziness....ok ok you can excuse those in hospital or other emergency concerns. This has nothing to do with non-voters. Even if everyone votes there is still a problem; eg in a three way race, majority governments are typically formed on high 30s to low 40s support, with the other 60 to 70% opposing.

Probably a very accurate view. It makes sense that Ontario would have a large majority of incentives. Even assuming it is pop distribution, why should Ontario receive incentives at all?

All excuses for laziness. If voters do not see any hope for their interests and concerns in the electoral process and decide their time is better spent elsewhere that does not make them lazy. That makes them frustrated. You don't think the system impacts people's attitude of the system?

All excuses for laziness. If voters do not see any hope for their interests and concerns in the electoral process and decide their time is better spent elsewhere that does not make them lazy. That makes them frustrated. You don't think the system impacts people's attitude of the system?

Either way the majority government did not have majority support, 3 out of 4 opposed if you include non-voters, 6 out of 10 opposed if non-voters excluded. The problem remains. Why is it a problem? A Canadian government elected by only a minority which is given a majority is a problem. Because such a majority government, with near dictatorial powers, will act in the interests of its supporters which is, by definition, not with or against the wishes of the majority.

Either way the majority government did not have majority support, 3 out of 4 opposed if you include non-voters, 6 out of 10 opposed if non-voters excluded. The problem remains. There is no way you can include non voters. If you can't be bothered to vote, you don't count. You just assume they don't support the winner. For all you know they might all have voted for the Liberals and they would have had over 80% of the vote. Your premise is nonsense. The problem is, even if what you say is true, although doubtful, the government cannot claim and appears not to have majority support.

And these six catagories too: 3) Are represented neither by the Liberal or Tory party 4) Who feel there vote will be wasted, that is, it contributes to no voice in the house 5) Who have given up on the political process 6) Those who do not vote or spoil their ballot as a form of protest against an entrenched political system 7) Among the limited choices presented see nothing that represents their views 8) Dislike voting for a PM and/or a party they dislike when voting for a rep. And remember more and more people are not voting. What is your solution?

Agree, that is why STV is better than pure PR, it allows voters to select their own reps.

Either way the majority government did not have majority support, 3 out of 4 opposed if you include non-voters, 6 out of 10 opposed if non-voters excluded. The problem remains.

‘Voice’ as in are able to express an opinion while debating a bill before the house, convincing other members or not, and being able to cast a vote yea or nay on it.

Great discussion! The national government currently spends billions each year in incentives, but look where it spends them Who gets business subsidies in Canada (1998 to 2000) Ontario/Quebec 62% Western Canada 31% Atlantic Canada 7% Who gets federal government spending on natural sciences, engineering, social sciences, and humanities (2001) Ontario/Quebec 78.6% Maritimes 2.6%

Your vote counts for something. You are simply upset that there are not enough Canadians who share your views living in your area. IOW - you want PR because you believe that it would give a minority parties that you support a disproportionate share of power. I think single issue extremist parties are a plague and have no place a responsible democratic government. PR encourages those kinds of parties. We agree with Saturn. Lets face it, under FPTP unless your vote is Liberal or Tory it usually does not count. Why should a very large number of Canadians have to share a view before it should count? That is elitist. PR or STV gives a minority parties a share of power (actually a voice) in proportion to their support, how is that 'disproportionate'? And if there is a large coalition government, who says they have a share in power? How can you decide who or what has a 'place' in democratic government? That is up to the voters to decide. The very last thing Canada needs is a system that discourages political parties and citizen involvement.

That would mean the Liberals only got 25% of the vote. They actually got almost 41%. In the election of 2000 there were 21,243,473 electors The majority party received 5,252,031 votes or about 24.7%