Guest Derek L Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 Can't be done without also ending transfers from the feds to the provinces. Good luck convincing the provinces to support this. A Government couldn’t “scrap” the GST? Provinces Can’t already set their Provincial levels? As for transfers to the Provinces, by reducing the amount of tax revenue the federal government take in, by default, transfer payments will decrease……The money required to run the Hospitals, schools etc will have to come from elsewhere……I might also like the idea of reducing transfers down significantly………..I’d rather the majority of the ~130-140k my wife and I pay go to Victoria instead of Ottawa, and in turn allow Quebec to fund daycare………. Can you provide more details? My first reaction is it is impossible to settle ALL claims because some groups demand too much. I am also certain that charter.rights will tell you that it is too little given what (under his self-serving interpretation) the SCC has already given them. Readers digest version : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Native_Claims_Settlement_Act In the end, the settlement made for a very high standard of living for the various First Nations groups in Alaska today…….If not all the First Nations groups see the benefits of such a proposal, allow those that wish, to continue living in squalor with a much reduced department of Aboriginal affairs. Why? It is not like it costs us a lot. I don't see the stategic benefit. On the same token, I don't see the benefit of NATO after the “performance” of many of our “NATO allies” in Afghanistan, with all their national caveats that restricted combat operations and in turn their utility, I don’t know why Canada (And the United States for that mater) should be committed to a binding treaty to defend Europe……Let the French, Germans, Italians and Spanish take care of themselves. Quote
Scotty Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 You are touching on the real problem. We really don't have a free market because so many nations seeks to manipulate their currencies to their advantage - bond buying is part of that manipulation. By providing bonds to sell governments allow other countries an easy low risk way to 'balance the books' without causing their currencies to rise. The solution to this problem is to stop issuing bonds (a.k.a. debt). I think one of the difficulties of these kinds of discussions is so few people have much of an understanding of basic economics. I can barely remember my college economics courses from 20 years past myself, and at least I actually TOOK some. But quite aside from government borrowing, let me ask you this question. If the government budget was in balance, and the government did not need to borrow any money, do you believe there would be no issue with Canada running enormous trade deficits on a continuing basis? As if, for example, we had no oil to export? I mean, clearly we are importing almost all our manufactured goods. If we didn't have oil to counterweight that do you think that wouldn't cause us any problems? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
TimG Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 As for transfers to the Provinces, by reducing the amount of tax revenue the federal government take in, by default, transfer payments will decreaseIf your plan is to reduce or eliminate federal transfers to the provinces then you should state that as your plan. Simply saying you want to eliminate the GST makes it sound like you are clueless when it comes to economics.In the end, the settlement made for a very high standard of living for the various First Nations groups in Alaska today…….If not all the First Nations groups see the benefits of such a proposal, allow those that wish, to continue living in squalor with a much reduced department of Aboriginal affairs.No chance of that working here. Most aboriginal groups refuse to talk if 'extinguishment' is on the table (they insist on being able to extort more money in the future if things dont work out). They also want 100% of the land base (not a measly 10%) and trillions in compensation. Personally, I don't believe 'settling land claims' is remotely viable option given the current native leadership. They will only get settled if the SCC provides some judgements that clearly limit the scope of claims but I am not optimistic because the SCC keeps expanding the scope aboriginal rights and has no interest in making a negotiated settlements possible. Quote
Scotty Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 Oh, some ideas... the PM can't unilaterally do many things. Let's presume as PM we wouldn't so much "do" these things as promote them. Defend the Arctic and Northwest Passage as part of Canada's sovereign geography. Encourage the provinces to recommend Senators and make Senate appointments from those recommendations. Encourage the United States to legalize gay marriage, so we don't have to deal with the headaches we saw earlier this week. Appoint an MP that's actually from an indigenous background to be the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. If necessary appoint someone from a different party, if someone from my caucus isn't available. Reduce the number of cabinet positions substantially from the bloated Conservative cabinet. Replace Stephen Harper's personal photo gallery in the government lobby of the House of Commons with pictures of various former notable figures in Canadian political history, regardless of their party affiliation. Launch an inquiry into improving conditions on Reserves. Launch an inquiry into the impact of our aging population and whether or not our social services need to adapt accordingly Has it occured to you that nothing you advocate above is of any real importance or would have any real impact to the vast majority of Canadians? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) You are mixing up cause and effect. Any trade deficit has to be closed by currency valuation changes. If governments choose to issue debt they are giving their competitors an easy way to 'balance the trade books' without causing their currencies to rise. So you're saying that instead of issuing bonds all we need to do is allow massive deflation of our currency? I can see how that would encourage exports and discourage imports. But it would, given we manufacture almost nothing, also result in massive inflation, would it not? Edited January 16, 2012 by Scotty Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 What's so funny about what he said? I'm thinking he was being somewhat sarcastic... Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 Manipulations that are only possible because developed world governments run massive deficits. The root problem is the choice to run a deficit to fun social programs. So one could argue that lavish social programs are the root cause of the trade imbalances. Or low taxes. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 Look, I'm not one that thinks that this country should simply bend to the will of every immigrant, nor am I one that thinks it should be unwilling to bend in the face of them. Canada is a country of immigrants, made by them, and shaped by them. Are we really? For most of our history we were actually a colony of Britain. Therefore, most of the people who came here weren't immigrants at all. Ukrainians began to arrive in some numbers around the turn of the century (the 20th) and tended to settle in together in the prairies. I don't want to put down their contribution to the growth of the country but their numbers were comparatively small and their influence on the culture, organization and government of Canada was minimal. Other nationalities didn't really begin to arrive until the 20th century. Much has been said about Chinese immigration as well, but their numbers were never that large. Really, until the second world war, this was not a country of immigrants, by any means. It was a British colony. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
cybercoma Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 Has it occured to you that nothing you advocate above is of any real importance or would have any real impact to the vast majority of Canadians? The Prime Minister can't do anything that would have any "real" impact on the vast majority of Canadians. The bulk of what is being proposed are things that have to be passed by both houses and given royal assent, while my proposals here are actually things within the Prime Minister's control. I specifically chose not to discuss things that were outside the direct control of the PM. Quote
Scotty Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 The Prime Minister can't do anything that would have any "real" impact on the vast majority of Canadians. The bulk of what is being proposed are things that have to be passed by both houses and given royal assent, while my proposals here are actually things within the Prime Minister's control. I specifically chose not to discuss things that were outside the direct control of the PM. A PM with a majority in both houses, like Harper, can do just about anything he wants. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Guest Derek L Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 If your plan is to reduce or eliminate federal transfers to the provinces then you should state that as your plan. Simply saying you want to eliminate the GST makes it sound like you are clueless when it comes to economics. Of course my plan is to reduce federal transfers, sorry if my point wasn’t clear, but as you mentioned, per the constitution, equalization payments can’t be eliminated outright without the Provinces agreement……..To side step the issues, reduce the money the federal government has to give……..In turn the Provinces will be forced to increase taxes to pay for current programs and with an increase in Provincial revenues, under the current equalization formula, the “have not’s” would see a decrease in their allotment anyways. No chance of that working here. Most aboriginal groups refuse to talk if 'extinguishment' is on the table (they insist on being able to extort more money in the future if things dont work out). They also want 100% of the land base (not a measly 10%) and trillions in compensation. Personally, I don't believe 'settling land claims' is remotely viable option given the current native leadership. They will only get settled if the SCC provides some judgements that clearly limit the scope of claims but I am not optimistic because the SCC keeps expanding the scope aboriginal rights and has no interest in making a negotiated settlements possible. Well then most First Nations groups wouldn’t reap the potential benefits……….If those that choose this proposal see a dramatic increase in their standard of living, one would think those groups still living in poverty would start to question why they are in such a state………..And this would also have the added benefit of galvanizing public opinion against those groups the choose to maintain the status quo. Let them choose their future, with those choosing poorly gaining zero public sympathy. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 A PM with a majority in both houses, like Harper, can do just about anything he wants. No he can't. Quote
jbg Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 They will only get settled if the SCC provides some judgements that clearly limit the scope of claims but I am not optimistic because the SCC keeps expanding the scope aboriginal rights and has no interest in making a negotiated settlements possible. There is of course an alternative; for the Head of State and Parliament to declare that it will not obey any such judgment of the SCC. In the U.S. the Supreme Court, in the court case Worcester v. Georgia (link to article), the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1832 that "the Cherokee Indians constituted a nation holding distinct sovereign powers. Although the decision became the foundation of the principle of tribal sovereignty in the twentieth century, it did not protect the Cherokees from being removed from their ancestral homeland in the Southeast". Andrew Jackson, then President, wrote Brigadier General John Coffee: "The decision of the supreme court has fell still born, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate."The SCC needs to be taught that its unelected Justices cannot trammel Canada's sovereignty. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
prairiechickin Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 The SCC needs to be taught that its unelected Justices cannot trammel Canada's sovereignty. Here here! Quote
TimG Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) Well then most First Nations groups wouldn’t reap the potential benefits.But you resolve nothing by offering a deal that no one signs up for. As PM you would not have the ability to offer a 'take it or leave it' deal. Edited January 16, 2012 by TimG Quote
TimG Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 There is of course an alternative;What your missing is that "alternative" required a government willing to use violance against natives in order to force them into submission. This is not something that is considered acceptable today and would spark a never ending cycle of violance. Quote
g_bambino Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 The SCC needs to be taught that its unelected Justices cannot trammel Canada's sovereignty. I'm almost certain they're aware of that already. Why would they think they can "trammel" the source of their own authority? Quote
jbg Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) Here here! Agreed. What your missing is that "alternative" required a government willing to use violance against natives in order to force them into submission. This is not something that is considered acceptable today and would spark a never ending cycle of violance. You can be sure that Canada can muster a greater amount of force, since it has the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. I'm almost certain they're aware of that already. Why would they think they can "trammel" the source of their own authority? Because up till now they've gotten away with it.In the U.S. there is a good body of thought that the Supreme Court has usually understood its limitations the Cherokee decision referenced above being an exception. In the famous case Marbury v. Madison the Court, which had been appointed during the Federalist mandates of Washington and Adams, was being asked to issue a mandamus to force Madison, then Secretary of State, to deliver an ambassadorial commission to Marbury, one of Adams' "midnight" appointments made on the eve of leaving office. Put simply he wanted to saddle Jefferson with unwanted employees, as a result of the hatred that had developed between those two former (and later) friends. The Supreme Court recognized that Jefferson would refuse to obey a contrary order, so he the Court held the statute authorizing such a mandamus writ was unconstitutional. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution was there authority granted to the Supreme Court to declare anything unconstitutional. So its approach was a "thread the needle" solution to the problem of not wanting to invite disobedience and irrelevance. Similarly, the odious Plessy v. Ferguson decision, which legalized segregation under a "separate but equal" system was the result of the infeasibility of mandating integration, which the U.S. simply wasn't ready for. Even when Brown v. Board of Education overturned this with the directive to integrate schools, the order was to be implemented "with all deliberate speed" since scrambling school attendance on a moment's notice, albeit over a summer, was impractical and would have lead to violent resistance. Similarly, in Canada, the political branches can and should make clear that there are lines that should never be crossed in a democracy. Edited January 16, 2012 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Smallc Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 Your points are not bad ones. But as far as official languages it needs to cut both ways. Quebec should be as bi-lingual as the rest of the country is forced to be, I'm not sure I understand your point. Only one province is bilingual. They have to be, but that's because they decided they should be, and made it into part of the constitution. Quebec is just as bilingual as Alberta. . Quote
Smallc Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 Really, until the second world war, this was not a country of immigrants, by any means. It was a British colony. Really, no. Canada has always been made up of diverse populations. The Irish, Scottish, and French and even the English were all looked upon the same way many people look upon immigrants (who come from all regions of the world) today, with the same pointed fingers and accusations. Quote
jbg Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) I'm not sure I understand your point. Only one province is bilingual. They have to be, but that's because they decided they should be, and made it into part of the constitution. Quebec is just as bilingual as Alberta. . The practical problem with Quebec not being bilingual, at least in certain areas, is that resident Anglophones, of whom there are still plenty, are persona non grata. In Alberta there are maybe a few French-speaking communities in the north, similar to Boniface in Winnipeg. Montreal, by provincial legislation, does not have bi-lingual highway signs. To my mind the rights of resident Anglophones are being violated.Correct me if I'm wrong, but prior to 1977 street and highway signs in Montreal were in both languages. Edited January 16, 2012 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Michael Hardner Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 Really, no. Canada has always been made up of diverse populations. The Irish, Scottish, and French and even the English were all looked upon the same way many people look upon immigrants (who come from all regions of the world) today, with the same pointed fingers and accusations. You are correct. This is the key to understanding Canada. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
eyeball Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 Here here! I have to say the case jbg uses to justify the supremacy of Parliament over the supreme court is a pretty sick one. It should never be legal for elected representatives to just invade and dispossess anyone they feel like whenever they feel like it. This is exactly why I would do every thing within my power if I was PM of Canada to require a super-majority of 75% of the electorate before sending Canadian troops into other people's jurisdictions. You'd have no issues with some political party using an ersatz majority like the one our present government enjoys to decide to invade, oh lets say Iraq, for arguments sake? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Smallc Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 Correct me if I'm wrong, but prior to 1977 street and highway signs in Montreal were in both languages. Probably, and I don't necessarily approve of what was done....although the street names are still easy enough to recognize. Still, Quebec is as bilingual as it has to be (it must provide certain government services in English), and as bilingual as at least the two most western provinces. Quote
prairiechickin Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 I'm not sure I understand your point. Only one province is bilingual. They have to be, but that's because they decided they should be, and made it into part of the constitution. Quebec is just as bilingual as Alberta. . New Brunswick is officially bilingual as well, or is that the one to which you referred? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.