Government needs to focus on rural areas: Senate report

[Leafless]

The federal government should send thousands of its employees to live and work in rural Canada, says a Senate committee studying the issue of rural poverty.

In a sweeping report with 68 recommendations aimed at revitalizing rural Canada, senators also said a new Department of Rural Affairs ought be created; that financial support for a host of rural programs should be increased; and that hedge funds and commodity traders be investigated to see what, if any, role they are playing in driving up fuel and energy prices.

They also recommend that FedNor, the federal government corporation set up to spur economic development in northern Ontario, take responsibility for economic development in the entire province.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...39-890f3d933ccc

Does this Senate committe not realize it is contributing to a direct conflict of interest by potentially forcing federal government to cater to the political whims of the local population who harbour federal employees.

This has already happened in West Quebec, in Gatineau, that is home to many federal departments, where the local population will not support the Conservatives for fear they will eliminate bilingualism in the federal government.

Decentralization contributes to political chaos.

Also suggesting that FedNor take economic development of the entire province is a step closer to state control.

[eyeball]

The federal government should send thousands of its employees to live and work in rural Canada, says a Senate committee studying the issue of rural poverty.

Just send the jobs. The last thing we need is more city-slickers.

[Leafless]

Just send the jobs. The last thing we need is more city-slickers.

Sort of discriminating isn't it.

Maybe if you can make your rural language official, that would be a possibility.

Other than that, the onus is on you to relocate to where the jobs are.

[eyeball]

Sort of discriminating isn't it.

No, it just seems that simply relocating employees will do little if anything for jobless people that already live in rural areas.

Other than that, the onus is on you to relocate to where the jobs are.

I'd say the onus is on the government to get out of the way of rural people. There are plenty of natural resources available in my rural region that people could be using to create employment opportunity's with. The government however has done just about everything it can do to disenfranchise local people from any access to them. On top of that the government has also divested itself of its airports, docks, lighthouses and just about any and all infrastructure that costs it money.

I notice its still raking in millions from the park it created for itself however. It must be nice to have soverignty.

The provincial government is about as absent a landlord as the feds I might add.

Edited June 18, 2008 by eyeball

[Remiel]

I for one must say that I am shocked that Leafless would turn his back on some of the very areas that are the greatest bastions of his precious majority culture! Shame on him!

[Michael Hardner]

eb,

Just send the jobs. The last thing we need is more city-slickers.

I'm not sure why you use that comical and out dated term. Are you trying to make fun of city folk or ... anyway...

On this thread:

Good Policy....

...you made a similar type of claim. The city slickers from the government wanted fisherman to be monitored for overfishing, it seems.

I'm intrigued by these example because whatever incident(s) you speak of seem to have given you the idea that democratic reform means tagging public officials with ankle bracelets and microphones.

If you care to explain the incidents more clearly, I'd like to discuss where the current system might be improved to address the problem.

[Fain]

City Slickers are a more cultured lot.

[Remiel]

If you mean by cultured more arrogant and condescending, then I guess that is true.