New leader of the NDP - A Sepratist?

[Vineon]

Again not a Federation remember CONFEDERATION July 1, 1867? We are a confederation.

Saskatchewan can leave if they want to. However they would have to pay Canada back for the railroad they build, the oil and gas wells they drilled, the power lines they laid, Etc. It might take them 100 years to pay off such debts going back 250 years. Quebec the same thing.

That's retarded. It isn't as if Saskatchewan, Québec or any other province didn't contribute to the federal pot all these years. At the base, the federal gets its money from the provinces, which it then uses to redistributes however it sees fit.

No province owes anything whatsoever to the federal government. If a province leaves, it simply takes its due part of the national debt, that is the debt they leave with (along with the same % of national assets).

Edited August 12, 2011 by Vineon

[Vineon]

The other thing you don't understand is that Quebec does not exactly hold a lot of power in the event of separation. They have a massive provincial debt of over 120 billion, and a provincial budget deficit of around 4.2bil even after receiving almost 8bil in transfer payments, they have an aging population with not much growth. They would have no army, they would have no transfer payments, they would likely have junk bond rated debt after taking on their portion of Canada's debt. They would have absolutely no negotiating power.

While Québec is a more indebted province than most, it is also one with much more assets following nationalising efforts in the last 5-6 decades. That is worth a lot of money, there was even speculation that selling Hydro-Québec alone could probably be enough to clear the provincial debt. When assets are taken into consideration, that is by comparing net debts rather than gross debts, Québec, even with it's part of the Canadian debt included, fares better than the OECD average.

Québec does not receive 8 bils in transfer payments. It receives about this much in equalization, which is only a small part of federal transfer payments to the province. This is an amount on the decline anyway, not due to Québec getting richer but Ontario getting poorer, seeing as the equalization pot is fixed to a certain amount. Every transfer from Ottawa to the provinces and its constituants must be taken into consideration to draw decent comparisons : when Canadian taxpayers injected 5 bils into the Ontarian automobile industry, that is not something you would have noticed in the equalization column. Its certainly not any less Canadian money distributed to only one province. What Québec gets from Ottawa than it doesn't send to it is much, much less than 8 billions a year.

A seceding Québec is certainly without an army until Québec can seize its part of Canada's. Until that moment, I frankly can't envision how that is a problem. There is nothing in Québec for the Canadian army to invade, unless they really want to tarnish their great international image. There are no armed rebels to eliminate.

Last year's deficit, this 4.2 bils you spoke of, all things considered is a very low one. Unless you failed to notice, the world endured a recession and even resource rich heavy provinces like Alberta scored deficits (their first in I dont know how many years..). In comparison, Ontario's yearly deficit was about 25 bils.. and wasn't Canada's something like 60 bils? Québec is still planning a return to no-deficit budgets earlier than Ontario.

Edited August 12, 2011 by Vineon

[punked]

That's retarded. It isn't as if Saskatchewan, Québec or any other province didn't contribute to the federal pot all these years. At the base, the federal gets its money from the provinces, which it then uses to redistributes however it sees fit.

No province owes anything whatsoever to the federal government. If a province leaves, it simply takes its due part of the national debt, that is the debt they leave with (along with the same % of national assets).

That just isn't true we are a Confederation and have taken on debt and built resources as a country. If you want to leave the Confederation you must take your debt with you and pay for all the development the country has given to you. Those are the rules of the game and always have been.

[CPCFTW]

That just isn't true we are a Confederation and have taken on debt and built resources as a country. If you want to leave the Confederation you must take your debt with you and pay for all the development the country has given to you. Those are the rules of the game and always have been.

I'm surprised to see you arguing with a separatist but I agree. If this were not the case, why not have each province "seperate" from Canada and then unite to form a new country, called "CanadB", free of federal debt?

It's funny how unrealistic separatists can be.

[punked]

I'm surprised to see you arguing with a separatist but I agree. If this were not the case, why not have each province "seperate" from Canada and then unite to form a new country, called "CanadB", free of federal debt?

It's funny how unrealistic separatists can be.

I will argue federalism until the day I die, however every provinces in this country of ours has the right to opt out that is the deal we got into. In opting out though you got to pay for it end of story. I believe we are better together and there should never be a reason to opt out but NS can not tell BC what to do if they don't want to be part of this great country.

[Vineon]

I'm surprised to see you arguing with a separatist but I agree. If this were not the case, why not have each province "seperate" from Canada and then unite to form a new country, called "CanadB", free of federal debt?

It's funny how unrealistic separatists can be.

If any of you paid any attention to what I said, I did mention that a seceding province would take its due part of the Canadian national debt (along with the same % of Canadian assets). It is a simple transfer, not a new debt to the original host country. If Quebec seceded, it wouldn't owe Canada any money, it would simply relieve it of part of its debt. In theory, a seceding province wouldn't be more indebted after seceding than it was before, this 'new' debt was already it's own within the federation.

Not a single separatist has ever claimed Québec could secede without taking a chunk of the Canadian debt with it, but this happens to be something Canadians like to believe in their efforts to convince themselves that secessionist aspirations can only be explained by ignorance.

[Wild Bill]

They would surrender.

How could they? France always surrenders first!

[punked]

If any of you paid any attention to what I said, I did mention that a seceding province would take its due part of the Canadian national debt (along with the same % of Canadian assets). It is a simple transfer, not a new debt to the original host country. If Quebec seceded, it wouldn't owe Canada any money, it would simply relieve it of part of its debt. In theory, a seceding province wouldn't be more indebted after seceding than it was before, this 'new' debt was already it's own within the federation.

Not a single separatist has ever claimed Québec could secede without taking a chunk of the Canadian debt with it, but this happens to be something Canadians like to believe in their efforts to convince themselves that secessionist aspirations can only be explained by ignorance.

No that is not how money works. The country of Canada has invested in that province and if you want out you got to pay for it. That means paying back all the money invested in your province through time with interest. Believe me the West has had A LOT of investment through time and the interest on that would be pretty big. Not only did Canada build many of the oil wells it built a huge amount of grain elevators when it built the railroad. You got to pay for those, fair is fair.

[Newfoundlander]

I'm so happy we have punked here to educate us all!

[Wild Bill]

No that is not how money works. The country of Canada has invested in that province and if you want out you got to pay for it. That means paying back all the money invested in your province through time with interest. Believe me the West has had A LOT of investment through time and the interest on that would be pretty big. Not only did Canada build many of the oil wells it built a huge amount of grain elevators when it built the railroad. You got to pay for those, fair is fair.

You are making an abstract argument for real world stuff! How on earth could anyone put a value on over a century of investments?

What's more, the federal government would only have claim on money THEY invested! How many of those grain elevators were put up by private companies. Should Saskatchewan have to pay for those?

And who says private industry didn't drill all those oil wells? If you are claiming that the feds did it, please make some attempt to prove it!

[punked]

You are making an abstract argument for real world stuff! How on earth could anyone put a value on over a century of investments?

What's more, the federal government would only have claim on money THEY invested! How many of those grain elevators were put up by private companies. Should Saskatchewan have to pay for those?

And who says private industry didn't drill all those oil wells? If you are claiming that the feds did it, please make some attempt to prove it!

When a province separates it must enter into negotiation with the Feds as to what they owe. Who puts a value on that stuff? Well both governments do then they come to a table to discuss the matter and come to some sort of agreement.

[Vineon]

No that is not how money works. The country of Canada has invested in that province and if you want out you got to pay for it. That means paying back all the money invested in your province through time with interest. Believe me the West has had A LOT of investment through time and the interest on that would be pretty big. Not only did Canada build many of the oil wells it built a huge amount of grain elevators when it built the railroad. You got to pay for those, fair is fair.

What you obviously arent interested to understand, is that Ottawa gets its money FROM the provinces. It isn't money that magically appears and belongs to Ottawa which in a swing of generosity give to the provinces but money it collects FROM them and then redistributes. The Québécois HAVE paid their share of taxes since the start on those 'investments' you speak of. Now every single province is responsible for the Canadian national debt and should any of them leave the federation, they will take their share of it. If Québec's population equals 23% of the original country, it's a fair bet they'll leave with 23% of the Canadian debt. That however also means that it leaves with 23% of all Canadian assets, for example 23% of everything that was spent in its military. This is how you break an union.

Don't put the "west" on such a high pedestal, for decades leading to the oil boom, the prairies were very poor. Yet still today when oil is extremely profitable, it still gets subsidied by the Canadian government. The CN railway to the pacific was paid heavily by eastern Canada. There would have been no west without it. I can even go as far back as saying the union of Upper and Lower Canada had for one objective to help pay Upper Canada's huge debt with Lower Canada's money. Now what would be interests on those tens of decades later? None of this will actually be part of the negotiations.

Leaving with our part of the Canadian debt IS "paying back the money invested in the province" because Ottawa pumps its money from its constituant provinces, not from anywhere else.

Edited August 13, 2011 by Vineon

[punked]

What you obviously arent interested to understand, is that Ottawa gets its money FROM the provinces. It isn't money that magically appears and belongs to Ottawa which in a swing of generosity give to the provinces but money it collects FROM them and then redistributes. The Québécois HAVE paid their share of taxes since the start on those 'investments' you speak of. Now every single province is responsible for the Canadian national debt and should any of them leave the federation, they will take their share of it. If Québec's population equals 23% of the original country, it's a fair bet they'll leave with 23% of the Canadian debt. That however also means that it leaves with 23% of all Canadian assets, for example 23% of everything that was spent in its military. This is how you break an union.

Don't put the "west" on such a high pedestal, for decades leading to the oil boom, the prairies were very poor. Yet still today when oil is extremely profitable, it still gets subsidied by the Canadian government. The CN railway to the pacific was paid heavily by eastern Canada. There would have been no west without it. I can even go as far back as saying the union of Upper and Lower Canada had for one objective to help pay Upper Canada's huge debt with Lower Canada's money. Now what would be interests on those tens of decades later? None of this will actually be part of the negotiations.

Leaving with our part of the Canadian debt IS "paying back the money invested in the province" because Ottawa pumps its money from its constituant provinces, not from anywhere else.

No I get where the money comes from but that is the agreement the provinces entered into with Confederation. Your argument is moot because the provinces have agreed to this system fair or unfair that is the way it is.

[cybercoma]

Ottawa doesn't get its money from the provinces.

[Tilter]

Ottawa doesn't get its money from the provinces.

Gee--- don't the people who live in the provinces send money to Ottawa? How about all that GST money--- does that come in from the ocean? How about the royalties on the Natural resources--- do all the trees grow in Ottawa?--- or the mineshafts all lead to Ottawa?--- don't all those border crossings reside in provinces??? What about the Excise taxes we pay on Cars--- do all car sales in Canada get signed in Ottawa?

To get back to the question about NDP separatist Templeader--- The NDP without Jack is like Reno without slots, or divorcees or drunks--- It ain't going anywhere but [size="7"

]

D

O

W

N

[/size] and don't put any money on Jack's return.

Sadly, you'd lose it

Edited August 14, 2011 by Tilter

[Oleg Bach]

What leader of the NDP - once Jack is gone - NDP is gone and all that is left is the block a few commies -seperatists and a hand full of corrupt union bosses..but no real NDP - It was weasily of Jack to have taken that route to get the positon of offical oppostion...It would be having a civil war in Canada and you get Columbia - and China to back you up - then you die and all that is left are your allies - which is NOT what the Canadian people expected - what the NDP did is paramount to fraud.

[jbg]

Ottawa doesn't get its money from the provinces.

Does Ottawa have its own productive powers?

[wyly]

Conservative Transport Minister Denis Lebel was until 2001 a BLOC member...Maxine Bernier was a political aide to Quebec premier Bernard Landry of separatist PARTI QUEBECOIS! :lol: :lol:

[cybercoma]

Does Ottawa have its own productive powers?

"The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation," "the borrowing of Money on the Public Credit," and ANY powers not specifically granted to the provinces in section 92 are exclusive powers of the federal government of Canada. There are provincial taxes, but they may only be used for provincial purposes, according to s92(2). So, Ottawa raises their own money through their own taxes. The provinces don't transfer money to the federal government because it would be against the Constitution for the federal government to demand it. Any provincial tax must be used within the province. Tilter's argument is ridiculous because one could just as easily say that those people, resources, and tolls that go to the fed exist within counties or municipalities as well. So it must be municipality money. It's utter nonsense. The federal government raises its own money through its own methods without the provinces transferring money over to them.

[jbg]

The federal government raises its own money through its own methods without the provinces transferring money over to them.

My point is that governments themselves produce nothing. They take money from people, usually for legitimate purposes that benefit the common good. But in no commonly understood sense are they producers of wealth.

[cybercoma]

My point is that governments themselves produce nothing. They take money from people, usually for legitimate purposes that benefit the common good. But in no commonly understood sense are they producers of wealth.

No one's arguing that they do. Although one could argue that they could make society more productive through things like a national daycare program that would allow single mothers to work full-time hours and know that their child is cared for if they have very little support from family or friends.

Edited August 14, 2011 by cybercoma

[punked]

My point is that governments themselves produce nothing. They take money from people, usually for legitimate purposes that benefit the common good. But in no commonly understood sense are they producers of wealth.

Yah governments laid the power lines, the sewage systems, the telecommunication system, dug the wells, built the ships, laid the roads, built the schools, Universities and pays for the medical care........etc. Need I say more. Your argument isn't only wrong it isn't even close to correct.

Edited August 14, 2011 by punked

[CPCFTW]

No one's arguing that they do. Although one could argue that they could make society more productive through things like a national daycare program that would allow single mothers to work full-time hours and know that their child is cared for if they have very little support from family or friends.

please tell me that no one actually argues this.

No, actually paying daycare teachers 50k plus pension so that the kids' moms can go make 30-40k will not make us a more productive society. I can't believe I had to say that.

[jbg]

Yah governments laid the power lines, the sewage systems, the telecommunication system, dug the wells, built the ships, laid the roads, built the schools, Universities and pays for the medical care........etc. Need I say more. Your argument isn't only wrong it isn't even close to correct.

I make allowances for common good type expenditures as cited in portions of my post you quoted. What I mean is that the government frequently allocates money earned by others for the common good. That is OK. What I'm saying is that the government is not producing that wealth, people are.

[jbg]

No, actually paying daycare teachers 50k plus pension so that the kids' moms can go make 30-40k will not make us a more productive society. I can't believe I had to say that.

That's beyond some people's brain power.

For example Obama's new gas mileage standards. Cars will become even more unaffordably expensive, to save a few dollars a week on gasoline.