Jump to content

Is it time to abolish the provinces?


maplesyrup

Recommended Posts

I think we should realign the provinces and make more of them, at the same time recognizing the importance of urban centres as follows:

I think we should realign the provinces and make more of them, at the same time recognizing the importance of urban centres as follows:

-Join mainland NS and NB together as one province

-Create another Nunavut type area out of Labrador and Norther Quebec

-Join PEI, the island of Nfld., and Cape Breton together as a province.

-Make metropolitan Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver provinces.

Split the rest of Ontario into S.West, Central-East, and Northern provinces.

-Split Alberta roughly into North and South portions with Calgary becoming capital of the South part.

-Split Vancouver Island off as a province of its own.

And why is that? To create more bureaucracy?

The Ten Provinces as they stand now are wildly divergent in size and capabilities.

My idea would upsize the smaller ones and shrink the larger ones. At the small end, this would improve efficiencies and bargaining clout. At the large end it would improve local responsiveness and involvement. And it would give the large urban centres the tools they need to prosper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The reason that Martin will not attempt to tackle the Constitution is the same reason that no other current or recent leader will or has. It's a career-ender. The fact of the matter is, if he has any further political aspirations, they're over if he touches the Constitution. You simply can't please everyone, and the status quo is much easier to defend than any changes are. Martin is smart enough to realize this.

The only people who would dare go there are men whose egos are too big to realize that their career is over when they finish. Men like Trudeau and Mulroney think they can bring everyone together and come out looking like a hero, but they can't. They piss too many people off in the process. It would take a truly great man under extraordinary circumstances to achieve something like that, and I don't see any truly great men on the current political scene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ms,as the great saviour of all that is left,you are promoting the European style of Canada,independant

countries rather than provinces with a common goal in mind.Are you willing to help out those less fortunate countries,or "provinces",now that they are a country of their own?Sounds to me like you want to rid yourself of unwanted baggage.This is what the left is really all about

though,divide,then conquer.Can you dispute why you think Canada should split up?Is it because you don't like high Canadian taxes,and therefore really don't like helping people,but use it as a front for your own personal interests?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's leave the provinces the way they are now, and work on making federalism work

Why?

It has been 137 years since some people started trying to make the experiment work, and it still does not work. A reality check is in order. Isn't it time to try something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see a stronger federal government. I am tired of our flip flop governments in BC. They keep changing; and everything changes. Hard to budget when you don't know what you will have to be forking out money for next year. It is expensive to taxpayers when we don't have a stable government. They keep getting out of whatever the other party involved us in.

We need more control of provincial politicians. Campbell had a four year mandate but has locked us into drastic changes for the next 75 years or more in a lot of cases. We need more referendums before any drastic changes can be made. They say what the public wants to hear when seeking election; then do whatever they want while in power.

I am very unhappy with the way this government is shipping jobs out of the province particulary the Ferries building contract and our medical data and other government data being contemplated to be sent to a USA company for processing. I do not think governments should be allowed to send any government records or our citizen's personal information to any foreign country; including the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Federalism has worked very, very, very well in this country.

I think Brown would still be spinning in his grave about voting parity in the house of commons, but I think he'd be quite pleased with the results.

As so should all of us.

Let's try to make it work.

We've already been down the unitarianist path. (1837-1867) and it didn't work.

If not federalism, then what else?

(Christian Theocracy isn't a valid answer, either)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

federalism, maybe but decentralized or asymetric like the ndp want.

Else, the government will have to force the province or jump over like they want to do by dealing directly with the city or stuff like that. But this way (statut quo or worst) we will end up breaking the country, and it could easily be as soon as in 3-4 years.

We can't force people in a democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think there'd be a need for Ottawa to help the cities if the provinces wern't doing their job?

Talk about the pot (the provinces) calling the kettle (Ottawa) black.

Alberta, Quebec, Ontario, and New Brunswick are four prime examples about how provincial governments discriminate against cities in favour of the rural areas.

(In terms of voting parity [gettymandering, gerrymandering, and delibera misappropriations] and in terms of finances.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think the province do all they can, in fact the city are provincial juridiction, and the federal government collect way too much taxes for what they need and should give back the money in taxes % to the provinces. Maybe in the rest of canada people don't really care about this but in quebec, we have a pretty much important provincial government and it reflect our society , our nation. We just hate it when the federal government that really doesnt understand us, take over the provincial government juridiction. What we want is the federal to give back the money to the province when we dont want to participate to federal program. Or when we already have our own like the childcare program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by give back?

I mean, only two provinces, Ontario and Alberta, give more than they get back.

So basically, by saying that Quebec and the other 7 have not provinces should be given 'back' more money, you're saying that Alberta and Ontario should give them more money.

No thank you.

Alberta and Ontario already give enough.

Here's a tip: why not reduce waste and all those patronage programs for rural quebec? That might free up some money. Unless of course, waste and patronage are reflective of the have not provinces.

It's always easier to be loose with other people's money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's always easier to be loose with other people's money.

Alberta should consider itself very lucky that resource revenues are so decentralized in Canada. In most countries they would go to the federal government for the use of all citizens of the country no matter their proximity to the oil in question or wheter or not an imaginary line divides them from it. Since Alberta has done nothing to earn it's windfall of oil revenues it should be cautious in being quite so possive of them and unwilling to share a percentage here or there.

Ontario has done well by the west. Shipping raw materials in and finished products out making the profit in the middle. It can also afford to share.

As to your connection between transfer payments and patronism in rural Quebec I am trying to find the correctly termed logical fallacy but have had no success (besides possibly red herring). So I'll make up my own, your connection between the two is irrelevant since it is no more relevant than whether or not too much money is spent on job training or welfare or government buildings (all of which have astronomically higher budgets). How the money spent is not related to the correctness of wealth redistribution by the federal government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when i say the federal should give the money back to the province i mean that:

if the federal wants to make a program like childcare but quebec doesnt want to participate since they already have one, then they shouldn't pay for that federal program.

its not easy to translate evrything i wanna say so here is what i should have said. The province should decide if they want or not to participate in the federal program. if they don't want then they don't pay.

As for your complaining about ontario and alberta paying too much, well they get their money back with federal subvention.

why not reduce waste and all those patronage programs for rural quebec? That might free up some money.

What patronage ? you mean the chretiens liberals patronage ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not just the Chretien Patronage (of which rural quebec and urban Quebec alike relished...go back and read some of the Statements by Members in 2002 about the grand prix funding clawbacks; the Bloc was complaining the loudest. If you check the editorial pages, you'll likewise see moaning.)

But patronage in the form of rural development scams, the paving of roads where roads need not be paved, job training scams designed to provide just enough employment so that these people qualify for EI for the rest of the year (and thus draw 1 dollar for every 25 cents they pay into it.)

Let's face it, most Quebeckers arn't mad about the sponsorship scandal itself, they're just mad that they got caught. And no, they wern't being bought with their own money. They were demanding money from Alberta/Ontario to fund their cultural events all along.

Now, let's address the frankly hillarious retort to my "it's always easier to be loose with other people's money" line.

To say that Alberta should be grateful that they have enough money to give to the have-not provinces to sqander (and BTW, it's to the tune of 4100 dollars per person, per year, whereas Ontario gets pumped for only 460 dollars per person per year), is simply disgusting.

How does the fact that one province earns more gives another province the right to take that money, and instead of spending it wisely on equalization of services, it's completely blown on such ridiculous paving scams as is the case in Prince Edward Island, or, to prop up dying rural communities...communities that need to suck up the fact that the natural resource is gone and it's time for them to move on..instead of leading a subsidized existance.

Exactly. It's a preposterous right. And worse, the right doesn't exist.

So, maybe it's time to wean the truly enfant terrible off the teet and start feeding on pablum.

It's time to work on confederation, and perhaps, if need be, Alberta/Ontario should have a greater say as to how their money is being spent in Quebec and the other have-not provinces.

I sure as hell don't want my tax dollars to subsidize the lifestyles of people in Chicoutimi.

And no, I'm not Conservative, I'm simply a free market liberal.

Time to move to big city and get a real job, Pierre. Time to start paying full price to get into the Grand Prix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not just the Chretien Patronage (of which rural quebec and urban Quebec alike relished...go back and read some of the Statements by Members in 2002 about the grand prix funding clawbacks; the Bloc was complaining the loudest. If you check the editorial pages, you'll likewise see moaning.)

Why the bloc is complaining the loudest ? because its chretien's, patronage, you remember the liberal ? the one ontario is election years after years ?

But patronage in the form of rural development scams, the paving of roads where roads need not be paved, job training scams designed to provide just enough employment so that these people qualify for EI for the rest of the year (and thus draw 1 dollar for every 25 cents they pay into it.)

lol, whats that ? totally ridiculous.

Let's face it, most Quebeckers arn't mad about the sponsorship scandal itself, they're just mad that they got caught. And no, they wern't being bought with their own money. They were demanding money from Alberta/Ontario to fund their cultural events all along.

The sponsorship scandal was to make canada's flag more present evrywhere they could. And the liberal used it to give money to company that gave it back to the liberal party. The truth is tha tthe quebecers were tired of the liberal corruption.

Now, let's address the frankly hillarious retort to my "it's always easier to be loose with other people's money" line.

stop complaining like if each square meters of quebec is paid by ontario and alberta, its just ridiculous. Just take a look at the statistic canada and you will find that right after ontario and alberta there is quebec, yeah quebec is the 3rd in receiving the less federal transfer payment and it is the one who get the less federal subvention (more than 2 time less than the rest of canada). Actually the one you should be complaining about who gets more than the double of quebec in subvention and federal transfer are the atlantic provinces, saskatchewan and manitoba.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid not. In fact, all of the transfer payments received by Quebec, if you looked at the figures (which I don't think you have) is from Alberta. Ontario pays for the rest of Canada. Needless to say, Alberta is tired of paying for the Quebec lifestyle (especially through EI) and Alberta is tired of the attitude it gets from Quebeckers. It's a fact. I'm really not sorry that reality doesn't gel with your Quebec-Centric view of the world, but then I suppose you can do the Quebec thing and point back to some past injustice. What's the flavour of the week? Oh, I think I'll try, um, the JCPC decision on Labrador.

Next week? Why, it's going to be loud complaints about the 'night of the long knives'.

And the week after that? Let's return to our old standby, the injustices done by McDonald during his first term.

And the Bloc was in fact complaining when the Federal government was scalling back the sponsorship program prior to all the scandals. It was in fact quite loud.

-------------------------

On this next point. Ahem. Let me fill you in on how these job training programs work. The province of Quebec is responsible for welfare.

So anybody who is rural and out of work, or, worse, a seasonal worker who doesn't get enough hours to qualify for EI, goes on the province's purse.

So then, the province will coyly hire there people for a 'job training program', that lasts suspiciously, as long as it taks to 'fill somebody up' to the minimum number of hours required to qualify for federal EI.

In this way, they qualify for EI, and the province doesn't have to pay for them for the rest of the year (often, they go on EI for 30 weeks, work for 12, and do the government program for 10 weeks, thus bringing them to 22 weeks, and qualifying for EI.

It's a scam. Worse, it lowers seasonal wages in rural quebec.

Now if you don't agree with the concept of 'labour hoarding', you're at odds with 60 years of econcomics.

What's worse, is when supposedly educated Quebeckers refute these facts, and then failing to refute them, refer back to past injustices.

You know, it's happening in most have-not provinces, but it's the Quebec example that is the most gauling because they have a political party that is constantly demanding more money for EI and seasonal workers. And that's sick.

They only pay 25 cents in for every dollar they get out. Why should an Albertan have to pay a rural Quebecker because that Quebecker doesn't want to move to the big city and get a real goddam job and get off EI?

Tell me, why should the Albertan subsidize that Quebeckers way of life.

EI is insurance. It's not a program to prop up economically dead communities.

I'd like to see you refute those principles without refering to any past, grave, injustice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what does farmer do in alberta, saskatchewan, manitoba in winter ? The same fucking thing the quebecers do, theire is no difference.

Why does evrytime you see a french speaking complain you thing they are wrong and that they dont have the right. Im sick of that racism.

I'd like to see you refute those principles without refering to any past, grave, injustice.

have i complained about past injustice ? no sir.But your complain is so much ridiculous its not even funny...

Im tired of the people that say we cost too much and complain when quebec want to separate. Whatever happens, we are always the one to blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You confuse the term 'farmer' with 'seasonal worker'.

I'm talking about people in resource communities who refuse to move once the resource goes dry.

I'm also talking about resource communities where wages used to be high enough to keep people there. What happened was that people started abusing the EI system. They got greedy. And then wages fell because of labour hoarding.

Are seasonal workers in Quebec and the Maritimes to blame?

You're damn right they are.

Moreover, I'm french, so I'm certainly not racist. Why is it that when you say how it is in rural Quebec, you get called a bigot?

A spade is a spade.

It's always Quebec who is the first to demand more money from the EI fund, even though they get one dollar out for every quarter they put, in spite of that, they still demand more money.

So tell me, why should a worker in Calgary, who moved from his homeland to come work in Calgary, have to pay money to subsidize the lifestyle of somebody who refuses to do the same?

Tell me, what makes those seasonal workers and those dead communities entitled to my EI money?

(And why an Albertan can't access EI when they need to use it, but when it comes to a Quebecker, well, the rules are totally different, because, well, you're from Quebec and you're special because you've been hard done by.

And by the way, Alberta wasn't even a province when those things were done to Quebec, an inconvinient fact for you, no doubt.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You confuse the term 'farmer' with 'seasonal worker'.

aren't farmer seasonal workers ?

Tell me, what makes those seasonal workers and those dead communities entitled to my EI money?

(And why an Albertan can't access EI when they need to use it, but when it comes to a Quebecker, well, the rules are totally different, because, well, you're from Quebec and you're special because you've been hard done by.

Ok i understand your frustrated about that program, maybe it touch you directly ?

but why do you say when it come to quebecers the rules are different ? I really doubt the rule are different in that case. And im sure the bloc is not working for special laws for quebecers.

And by the way, Alberta wasn't even a province when those things were done to Quebec, an inconvinient fact for you, no doubt.)

When those things were done ? what things ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the rules are different for Quebec.

The number of weeks you have to work in order to qualify for EI varies from province to province.

In alberta, it's 45 weeks. In urban Quebec, it's 25 weeks (if I can remember correctly, it's around 25).

But in rural quebec, the rule changes, just for them and Newfoundland. In those regions, the provincial unemployment rate isn't the standard that's used. Nope. Just for them, it's based on some formula determined by some (read: Quebec) minister.

So, they only have to work 16-18 weeks to qualify for EI benefits for the rest of year.

What a great deal! And we have the spectre of seperatism to thank.

So, I repeat, why does a lumberjack or a fisherman in Quebec deserve to get, year after year after year, paid out 1 dollar for every 25 cents they put into the system.

Does being Quebecois or Newfoundlander make you entitled?

Because it sounds like you feel as though their entitled to that treatment.

-----------

Farmers are seasonal workers, but generally do not qualify for EI.

Lumberjacks, fishing industries, some mines, are also seasonal.

There are also whole communities which, after the mine closed, they're kept alive through EI subsidies, and other scams, when the market should have cleaned out the town.

Again, what makes dead communities in Quebec more special than those in albert?

Where does this sense of entitlement come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If its true then i totally agree with you. If there need to be a different system for each province then it should be a provincial issue, not a federal issue.

or if quebec or alberta doesn't agree with the federal system then they should be able to remove themselves from the program to create there own program.

thats what decentralization is all about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...