Stephane Dion Takes on the NDP

[Newfoundlander]

It is happening, although Quebec is trying to undermine it by saying they will give NS the same power for the same rate as Newfoundland will. They aren't saying upgrading the power line in NS will cost the same or more as the Underwater cable which NS will actually make money. Most in NS aren't falling for it but the Liberals there are and are pushing to scrap the cable.

Aren't the NDP in Nova Scotia still reviewing it themselves?

[punked]

Aren't the NDP in Nova Scotia still reviewing it themselves?

The NDP in NS doesn't have as much control over its power operations because the Cons sold the power company off. So NSP is pushing it hard because they will get basically an interest free loan to expand its infrastructure making the company worth more. In the end the NDP gets to say yes or no but it will be up to NFLD because the NS NDP can't tell the power company what to do. It becomes less of a political decision in NS and more of a economic one because of this.

It is a very complex thing the Liberals are saying "don't do it NSP get cheap power from Quebec." While NSP is saying "We can cheap power from here and own it along with infrastructure and chance for a new relationship for the same cost or we can go with Quebec and the power rate will go up when the cable is off the table." The Liberals in NS are some of the worst opposition in the country. The Conservatives have a much realistic view of what is happening.

Edited March 14, 2012 by punked

[Newfoundlander]

The NDP in NS doesn't have as much control over its power operations because the Cons sold the power company off. So NSP is pushing it hard because they will get basically an interest free loan to expand its infrastructure making the company worth more. In the end the NDP gets to say yes or no but it will be up to NFLD because the NS NDP can't tell the power company what to do. It becomes less of a political decision in NS and more of a economic one because of this.

From what I understand the Premier can still say no to the project and I thought I saw somewhere recently that he hasn't given the okay to it.

[punked]

From what I understand the Premier can still say no to the project and I thought I saw somewhere recently that he hasn't given the okay to it.

The Premier can say no but wouldn't he ran an election on close relations with our Atlantic Neighbors and even talked about this idea in the election. He actually has a mandate to do it.

[g_bambino]

Its interesting to finally see the Liberals CHALLENGING the NDP as opposed to standing in agreement with them on almost every issue. It can only help re-define them.

Indeed. But, this seems to have come about only because the NDP's attitudes towards certain matters have shifted.

[fellowtraveller]

Again the provinces need to be consulted on decisions which are national and effect them. That is what the NDP says needs to happen, the other two parties say it is there way or the highway. That is just how it is.

You are living in complete fantasy if you think that endlessly consulting provinces on federal decisions will result in decisions that will leave everybody happy. Of course consultation should be done, but in the end it is the job of the federal govt to make decisions for the benefit of most, not running in circles trying to please everybody like a neurotic poodle.

I noticed you completely avoided the concept of asymmtrical federalism, which is what Layton and the NDP propose. We both know they have to somehow stick to this nonsense to have any hope of keeping a few seats in Quebec, but nobody else is fooled.

It is just one of the reasons that your speculations about what the NDP would do will remain complete conjecture, nobody wants a federal govt that endorses either asymmetrical federalism or a policy of appeasement to everybody at any cost.

Thanks for sticking with that it makes getting elected really easy for the other parties.

[g_bambino]

If a simple majority is not enough for a referendum on confederation, then Newfoundland's presence is illegitimate.

The action taken after the result of that particular referendum was highly contentious amongst Newfoundlanders; to many there in 1949, 51-49 was too close to justify the union.

Then again, it wasn't as though Newfoundland was, prior to 31 March 1949, even remotely close to a sovereign state; it was fully a colony of the United Kingdom and hadn't seen the legislature sit in fifteen years. A Canadian province is self-governing and co-sovereign (as well as bound in a legal agreement) with the other provinces and the federal Crown.

[g_bambino]

So if they brought in a national daycare system, or a gun registry they wouldn't impose it on provinces if they didn't want it, as well as allow them to explore alternative forms of health car delivery?

They can't do that.

[punked]

You are living in complete fantasy if you think that endlessly consulting provinces on federal decisions will result in decisions that will leave everybody happy. Of course consultation should be done, but in the end it is the job of the federal govt to make decisions for the benefit of most, not running in circles trying to please everybody like a neurotic poodle.

It is the way our country was run most of the time prior to 1960. I get it you are a Conservative so you want the Conservatives to have the power to tell everyone what to do. When they are out of power you will be crying that the Feds have to much power.

[g_bambino]

You are living in complete fantasy if you think that endlessly consulting provinces on federal decisions will result in decisions that will leave everybody happy. Of course consultation should be done, but in the end it is the job of the federal govt to make decisions for the benefit of most, not running in circles trying to please everybody like a neurotic poodle.

You might be forgetting about a little something called the constitution: it sets out pretty clearly what the federal government can and can't do vis-a-vis the provinces. For many things, if the federal government wants a national policy, it needs to consult with all the provinces and have their agreement.

[punked]

You might be forgetting about a little something called the constitution: it sets out pretty clearly what the federal government can and can't do vis-a-vis the provinces. For many things, if the federal government wants a national policy, it needs to consult with all the provinces and have their agreement.

And for other things they should consult the provinces even if they have complete control. Like a crime bill that forces the provinces to spend money they don't have to enforce laws the people of those provinces don't believe in. You can get tough on crime and still talk to the provinces at the same time.

[fellowtraveller]

It is the way our country was run most of the time prior to 1960. I get it you are a Conservative so you want the Conservatives to have the power to tell everyone what to do. When they are out of power you will be crying that the Feds have to much power.

It was nothing of the sort prior to 1960. Ottawa was far more autocratic and centralized in decision making then. The good old days are right here right now, not in some mythical time of Perry Como.

Much of the dissent in Canada today is due to weak federal governance, an unwillingness to make correct but unpopular-in-the-regions decisions.

It has nothing to do with Conservatives or Liberals, both of whom as majority govts act as our Constitution permits and as is their repsonsibility. There is no need to specualte about how the NDP would act if in some alternate univese they gained power, they have given ample notice and sufficient example they would be the same or, if they stick to this asymmetrical federalism baloney- far far worse. The Conservatives DO have the power to tell everyone what to do, that is what govt does. So did the Liberals.

The feds have the power defined in the constitution and so do the provinces. So many of our disagrerewemnst are over the interpretation or implementation of that power sharing agreement.

You'll have to get over your resentment of our constitution or move to somewhere that embodies your beliefs, like Narnia or Atlantis.

[Newfoundlander]

The action taken after the result of that particular referendum was highly contentious amongst Newfoundlanders; to many there in 1949, 51-49 was too close to justify the union.

Then again, it wasn't as though Newfoundland was, prior to 31 March 1949, even remotely close to a sovereign state; it was fully a colony of the United Kingdom and hadn't seen the legislature sit in fifteen years. A Canadian province is self-governing and co-sovereign (as well as bound in a legal agreement) with the other provinces and the federal Crown.

Newfoundland was a Dominion. Same as Canada, just without responsible government.

[punked]

It was nothing of the sort prior to 1960. Ottawa was far more autocratic and centralized in decision making then. The good old days are right here right now, not in some mythical time of Perry Como.

Much of the dissent in Canada today is due to weak federal governance, an unwillingness to make correct but unpopular-in-the-regions decisions.

It has nothing to do with Conservatives or Liberals, both of whom as majority govts act as our Constitution permits and as is their repsonsibility. There is no need to specualte about how the NDP would act if in some alternate univese they gained power, they have given ample notice and sufficient example they would be the same or, if they stick to this asymmetrical federalism baloney- far far worse. The Conservatives DO have the power to tell everyone what to do, that is what govt does. So did the Liberals.

The feds have the power defined in the constitution and so do the provinces. So many of our disagrerewemnst are over the interpretation or implementation of that power sharing agreement.

You'll have to get over your resentment of our constitution or move to somewhere that embodies your beliefs, like Narnia or Atlantis.

Tell more about how we got a national Social Security system, a National Heathcare system, and a National EI system which the provinces all agreed to then. You have a serious misunderstanding of our history.

[g_bambino]

Newfoundland was a Dominion. Same as Canada, just without responsible government.

Newfoundland ceased to be a Dominion in 1934, when the Commission of Government was established. (Canada was no longer technically a Dominion after 1931, when it became a Commonwealth Realm, though the term 'Dominion' remained in use until the 1950s.)

[ed.: +]

Edited March 14, 2012 by g_bambino

[Newfoundlander]

Newfoundland ceased to be a Dominion in 1934, when the Commission of Government was established. (Canada was no longer technically a Dominion after 1931, when it became a Commonwealth Realm, though the term 'Dominion' remained in use until the 1950s.)

[ed.: +]

It was still considered a Dominion.

[g_bambino]

It was still considered a Dominion.

Whether it was called a Dominion or not, it really wasn't one. The very definition of a Dominion was a self-governing jurisdiction of the British Empire. After 1934, Newfoundland ceased to be self-governing.

[cybercoma]

The action taken after the result of that particular referendum was highly contentious amongst Newfoundlanders; to many there in 1949, 51-49 was too close to justify the union.

Then again, it wasn't as though Newfoundland was, prior to 31 March 1949, even remotely close to a sovereign state; it was fully a colony of the United Kingdom and hadn't seen the legislature sit in fifteen years. A Canadian province is self-governing and co-sovereign (as well as bound in a legal agreement) with the other provinces and the federal Crown.

I agree with what you've said about Newfoundland. They ultimately had no choice but to join confederation. The United Kingdom, as they began moving to decolonize much of their holdings, probably had no interest in Newfoundland any longer.

It's just that you can't say a 50%+1 vote in Newfoundland, which was close and quite possibly rigged, is ok to get into confederation, but 50%+1 is not good enough to get out. The problem is that forcing a "self-governing and co-sovereign" entity, as you rightfully call it, to stay in a union that it does not want to be in will only cause problems. As the saying goes, "Canada doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice." Other nations around the world with similar tensions between various ethnicities and nations within their political borders shoot and drop bombs on each other, take and behead hostages, or self-immolate in protest. You can't force a people that don't want to be part of the nation to stay, lest there be war. Now that's not to say that maybe we shouldn't go to war to try and keep the country united, I'm not going to make a judgment on that either way. I'm just trying to identify the fact that requiring greater than 50%+1 for secession is pointless because it will just lead to a violent revolt if the majority of people want to leave.

[fellowtraveller]

Tell more about how we got a national Social Security system, a National Heathcare system, and a National EI system which the provinces all agreed to then. You have a serious misunderstanding of our history.

OAS is not the same as the US Social Security, and required no provincial agreement. If you are talking about CPP, Quebec has opted out and the other provinces have no reason to be involved anyway in a realtively pure pension scheme.

Same with EI, which is not a social benefit but an insurance shceme with an ever decreasing dose of social engineering.

There is no national healthcare system, every province runs their own under the very brief guidleines of the Health Act. Oh, and there was huge dissent in the implementation of that until Ottawa imposed the deal. At least two provinces already had their own versions before Dief acted unilaterally in 1957. Provinces were dragged in kicking and screaming for the next several years.

So tell me , are you arguing for the centralized federalism of pre-1960 Canada, or for the asymmetrical lets-make-side-deals-with-each-province federalism of the 2012 NDP?

[cybercoma]

Tell more about how we got a national Social Security system, a National Heathcare system, and a National EI system which the provinces all agreed to then. You have a serious misunderstanding of our history.

Ask him about CPP/QPP next!

[cybercoma]

Ottawa imposed healthcare on the provinces? What kind of revisionist nonsense is this?

[punked]

OAS is not the same as the US Social Security, and required no provincial agreement. If you are talking about CPP, Quebec has opted out and the other provinces have no reason to be involved anyway in a realtively pure pension scheme.

Same with EI, which is not a social benefit but an insurance shceme with an ever decreasing dose of social engineering.

There is no national healthcare system, every province runs their own under the very brief guidleines of the Health Act. Oh, and there was huge dissent in the implementation of that until Ottawa imposed the deal. At least two provinces already had their own versions before Dief acted unilaterally in 1957. Provinces were dragged in kicking and screaming for the next several years.

So tell me , are you arguing for the centralized federalism of pre-1960 Canada, or for the asymmetrical lets-make-side-deals-with-each-province federalism of the 2012 NDP?

Yah CPP was agreed to by the provinces and in order to get rid of CPP you need to get the approval of 2/3rds of the provinces. That is the only reasons when the Conservatives started talking about CPP changed they went and talked with the provinces. Unlike past governments if the Conservatives didn't have to they would have just changed it with out meeting any provincial leader.

There is a National Healthcare system. Are you daft what country do you live in? In order for the provinces to get their cut from the Feds they need to met 5 rules set out by the Feds BECAUSE WE HAVE A NATIONAL SYSTEM. Your history is dead wrong.

Seriously you have only proven you have no idea what you are talking about. You are making it up as go along and I can't change your opinion because it is made up of facts that you have made up in your head.

[Newfoundlander]

I agree with what you've said about Newfoundland. They ultimately had no choice but to join confederation. The United Kingdom, as they began moving to decolonize much of their holdings, probably had no interest in Newfoundland any longer.

It's just that you can't say a 50%+1 vote in Newfoundland, which was close and quite possibly rigged, is ok to get into confederation, but 50%+1 is not good enough to get out. The problem is that forcing a "self-governing and co-sovereign" entity, as you rightfully call it, to stay in a union that it does not want to be in will only cause problems. As the saying goes, "Canada doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice." Other nations around the world with similar tensions between various ethnicities and nations within their political borders shoot and drop bombs on each other, take and behead hostages, or self-immolate in protest. You can't force a people that don't want to be part of the nation to stay, lest there be war. Now that's not to say that maybe we shouldn't go to war to try and keep the country united, I'm not going to make a judgment on that either way. I'm just trying to identify the fact that requiring greater than 50%+1 for secession is pointless because it will just lead to a violent revolt if the majority of people want to leave.

Newfoundland could have been its own country, the UK favoured us joining Canada though.

As for 50% + 1 Newfoundland probably shouldn't have joined Canada with only 51% support, especially seeing it was likely rigged.

[punked]

Ottawa imposed healthcare on the provinces? What kind of revisionist nonsense is this?

He is making up as he goes along because he does not wait to admit that Harper is governing by telling provinces what to do because the Reform always talked about the provinces having more say. He does not want to face the facts.

[cybercoma]

He is making up as he goes along because he does not wait to admit that Harper is governing by telling provinces what to do because the Reform always talked about the provinces having more say. He does not want to face the facts.

Oh agreed.

One thing I want to mention to you though. He's right. There is no National Healthcare program. The provinces agree to particular guidelines set out by the feds in exchange for funding. In theory at least, any province can pull out of the federal agreement and go it alone. However, they would have to explain to the electorate that the turned down billions of dollars in federal money for healthcare. Meanwhile, taxpayers federal income tax in that province would still remain the same, because taxes don't change from province to province, and they would need to raise the provincial taxes tremendously to cover the additional costs. Healthcare is the jurisdiction of the provinces, so he's right. However, the "federal program" that you speak of are stipulations that the provinces themselves agree to follow in exchange for funding, rather than being a federal program proper.