Is Ontario getting "too much" from Confederation?

[Smallc]

That would be sound logic, were there not concrete evidence in this very thread that Ontario is still a massive net contributor to Confederation.

[TheNewTeddy]

So everything not in the 4 western provinces (which have less than a third of the population) is the "east" and evil?

[Smallc]

So everything not in the 4 western provinces (which have less than a third of the population) is the "east" and evil?

Yes, haven't you heard? Actually, we're not really in the east either. The West is BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and now, Newfoundland and Labrador.

[fellowtraveller]

You do realize that NWT has the largest per capita GDP of any jurisdiction on Earth, and will grow at over 7% this year, I hope.

I think I know far more about the Northern economy than you. since I have spent most of my adult life there- and not in govt service. .

Here is a stone cold hard fact: without federal govt money that funds the massive number of government jobs in all three territories at all four levels: federal, territorial, First Nations and local none of the three territories would exist for lobger than it wold take for the moving vans to haul every soul south.

I am genuinely pleased to see the territories finally getting some sources of income ther than government subsidy, but to pretend that their 'growth' puts them into anything resembling financial health is nuts. Look at the economic base that the '7% growth' is actually constructed from and you will note that very little of it comes from anywhere but your pocket and mine.

Existence? Not even close. For an average fiscal capacity? Sure. Manitoba has an economy that, despite being almost the same size per capita as Ontario and BC, does not provide the same fiscal capacity for some reason. As I said though, with little revenue coming from oil, potash, or natural gas, Manitoba has more in common with the mining and manufacturing found in the provinces to the east.

I am pleased to learn that Manitoba is doing so well. When can Ottawa stop sending that $2 billion per year in extra coin?

[Smallc]

I think I know far more about the Northern economy than you. since I have spent most of my adult life there- and not in govt service. .

I don't know who you're talking about, but I don't work for the government.

Here is a stone cold hard fact: without federal govt money that funds the massive number of government jobs in all three territories at all four levels: federal, territorial, First Nations and local none of the three territories would exist for lobger than it wold take for the moving vans to haul every soul south.

The reason the territories (especially the NWT, since it has the largest economy) require so much federal money is simple - they aren't allowed to tax resources for revenue, as they don't have control of the resources.

I am genuinely pleased to see the territories finally getting some sources of income ther than government subsidy, but to pretend that their 'growth' puts them into anything resembling financial health is nuts. Look at the economic base that the '7% growth' is actually constructed from and you will note that very little of it comes from anywhere but your pocket and mine.

Actually, it comes from mining. There was a very recent article about it (a few days ago) that I don't have time to look for now.

I am pleased to learn that Manitoba is doing so well. When can Ottawa stop sending that $2 billion per year in extra coin?

Manitoba, in a world and even a western context is doing very well. In context of a Canadian average when it comes to provincial government fiscal capacity, it needs about $1.7B in support. I don't really have a problem with any province needing support to reach the average. The wealth of the Canadian economy should help all Canadians in every province.

[fellowtraveller]

The reason the territories (especially the NWT, since it has the largest economy) require so much federal money is simple - they aren't allowed to tax resources for revenue, as they don't have control of the resources.

Incorrect. The reason the territories need so much federal money is that they have so very little industry other than govt jobs. Many of the few people that work at places like Diavik are not even residents of the NWT, and Diavik scaled operations are few and far between both luiterally and economically. Nunavut is worse, and Yukon is in between in terms of having anything resembling a viable local economy outside government jobs.

Yukon used to have large private sector employers like Faro, United Keno Hill and Whitehorse Copper but those all shut down long ago. Their large contribution to the economy in the form of capital works and real jobs have not been replaced, though in recent years a couple of small mines have started up. They don't come close to making the territory anything but a basket case . The largest project in the Yukon in the last decade was an expansion of the hydro power generation and grid, which was - wait for it- public money as always. It is a big gamble in the hope that future mining operations will buy from the grid, but it looks more likely that future projects will self-generate.

Actually, it comes from mining

No, it comes from Ottawa and the offset from corporate and income taxes does not come close to a zero sum.

Manitoba, in a world and even a western context is doing very well. In context of a Canadian average when it comes to provincial government fiscal capacity, it needs about $1.7B in support. I

Are you being intentionally funding with inherently contradictory statements like this?

[g_bambino]

Then why do First Nations negotiate with the feds first and foremost?

Because the constitution places Crown-First Nations relations squarely with the federal parliament and Cabinet.

[Smallc]

Incorrect. The reason the territories need so much federal money is that they have so very little industry other than govt jobs. Many of the few people that work at places like Diavik are not even residents of the NWT, and Diavik scaled operations are few and far between both luiterally and economically. Nunavut is worse, and Yukon is in between in terms of having anything resembling a viable local economy outside government jobs.

NWT has massive mining operations. That's why it has such a giant per capita GDP (in the $125K range)

No, it comes from Ottawa and the offset from corporate and income taxes does not come close to a zero sum.

Please provide proof. I have the GDP numbers. What do you have?

Are you being intentionally funding with inherently contradictory statements like this?

I'm not sure what was contradictory there. Manitoba, with a per capita GDP of about $42K, is doing very well in the context of the western world. Canada, with a per capita GDP average now at about $50K is doing better.

[huh]

Doesn't this have to do more with what the money is spent on? For example, if Quebec heavily subsidizes child care at the expense of tax payers elsewhere is that just a ok? You might have an ideological reason for supporting child care everywhere, but i don't think that gives you the right to demand that others who either disagree, or do not have that luxury, pay for it for you.

If another province doesn't have nearly the debts yours does and doesn't provide the same entitlements yours does, should that other province subsidize your entitlements? I think that's immoral. How about every province bankrupts itself as badly as Quebec, where will the money come from? Just keep taxing until we are a quasi communist state with no economy? It cant work the way things are presently going.

[cybercoma]

Doesn't this have to do more with what the money is spent on? For example, if Quebec heavily subsidizes child care at the expense of tax payers elsewhere is that just a ok? You might have an ideological reason for supporting child care everywhere, but i don't think that gives you the right to demand that others who either disagree, or do not have that luxury, pay for it for you.

If another province doesn't have nearly the debts yours does and doesn't provide the same entitlements yours does, should that other province subsidize your entitlements? I think that's immoral. How about every province bankrupts itself as badly as Quebec, where will the money come from? Just keep taxing until we are a quasi communist state with no economy? It cant work the way things are presently going.

So you're another one of those misinformed people that thinks the federal government transfers money to provinces based on their debt?

[August1991]

I am an Ontario Separatist. 15% of Canadians seem to think Ontario gets more than it's fair share out of confederation, yet all these statistics prove otherwise. Why should Ontario stick around in a country where it's getting robbed blind, and people want to take away what little money it has left?

NewTeddy, a better question is to ask why Ontario, Upper Canada at the time, inserted into the BNA Act in 1867 a section that natural resources - and potential resource royalties - belonged to the future provinces alone.

With its recent diamond mine discoveries, and our BNA, the Northwest Territories have every reason to seek provincial status. They certainly have the money.

----

Now then Teddy, perhaps the best question is to ask why politicians in Yellowknife would agree to belong to a Canadian confederation?

Edited March 16, 2012 by August1991

[Newfoundlander]

Yes, haven't you heard? Actually, we're not really in the east either. The West is BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and now, Newfoundland and Labrador.

I actually plan on running for premier and sailing Newfoundland and it's oil off the coast of BC, then we can form our own country.

[August1991]

I actually plan on running for premier and sailing Newfoundland and it's oil off the coast of BC, then we can form our own country.

The politicians in St. John's have their cut of the offshore oil - the federal politicians have no legitimate claim on it. So, why desire independence?

But why did Newfoundland politicians (eg. Smallwood) and merchants accept to let fisheries be a federal jurisdiction? (Trudeau said that fish swim. True. But Icelandic fishermen, for example, can only catch so much fish.)

The Newfoundland government is rich today because it owns its resource (oil). IMV, Newfoundlanders were foolish to surrender their codfish resource to Ottawa in 1949.

Edited March 16, 2012 by August1991

[Newfoundlander]

The politicians in St. John's have their cut of the offshore oil - the federal politicians have no legitimate claim on it. So, why desire independence?

But why did Newfoundland politicians (eg. Smallwood) and merchants accept to let fisheries be a federal jurisdiction? (Trudeau said that fish swim. True. But Icelandic fishermen, for example, can only catch so much fish.)

The Newfoundland government is rich today because it owns its resource (oil). IMV, Newfoundlanders were foolish to surrender their codfish resource to Ottawa in 1949.

The offshore oil still belongs to Canada. As for giving up the codfish resources we didn't have much choice if we were oing o join Canada, the ocean is the jurisdiction of the federal government as it is in all of Atlantic Canada, the North and BC.

[Smallc]

The politicians in St. John's have their cut of the offshore oil - the federal politicians have no legitimate claim on it.

Actually, it's the other way around.

[WWWTT]

This is an odd thread?And I am still not sure I should be replying in it.

Obviously Ontario is currently a have not province,for many many years Ontario has contributed more than it has received.

To me it is apparent that Ontario should now be receiving more but the federal conservatives do not want to further burden the provinces where their vote is strong!

And why should they?Ontario voters are blindly voting for them in complete ignorance of the fact transfer payments are short changing Ontarians!McGuinty is somehow failing in getting the message out but still somehow succeeded in getting a very strong minority government in the last election!And this is where this topic becomes confusing and difficult to find a "smoking gun" that we can all point to and say "AHA,we're getting screwed in Ontario!"

WWWTT

[fellowtraveller]

To me it is apparent that Ontario should now be receiving more but the federal conservatives do not want to further burden the provinces where their vote is strong!

do you mean provinces like Ontario where the Tories are strong?

[WWWTT]

do you mean provinces like Ontario where the Tories are strong?

You are making a contradiction.And aswell you are furthering my point or you did not completely read the comment that I made where you cropped out this one sentence.

I clearly mention the strength of the conservative vote in Ontario,I even go further to imply that because of the blind faith Ontario voters have is part of the reason why we are being short changed.Maybe you don't like that part?

WWWTT

[-TSS-]

From our European point of view we have often been wondering which has more say over its own matters: A state(or a Canadian province) or a member-state of the EU.

As I am somewhat eurosceptic in more than one things I'm often declined to view the former as a more powerful than the latter in that comparison.

Of course, things are not as simple and straightforward as that but in the EU countries which are supposed to be nominally independent really have unbelievably little leeway.

[August1991]

Actually, it's the other way around.

It ain't so simple.

The offshore oil still belongs to Canada. As for giving up the codfish resources we didn't have much choice if we were oing o join Canada, the ocean is the jurisdiction of the federal government as it is in all of Atlantic Canada, the North and BC.

Fish swim, oil doesn't. So what?

Nova Scotia and Newfoundland signed agreements to share something that Alberta (and Quebec) take for granted. And once upon a time, Ontario took for granted.

According to the BNA Act 1867, natural resources belong to the provincial governments. Why?

In the early 1860s, people had found oil in Sarnia, Ontario and the Ontario government (thinking of Pennsylvania oil) wanted to keep the royalties for itself, and not share them with the French Catholics of Lower Canada.

Hence, Section 92 of our original constitution.

Edited March 18, 2012 by August1991

[g_bambino]

In the early 1860s, people had found oil in Sarnia, Ontario and the Ontario government (thinking of Pennsylvania oil) wanted to keep the royalties for itself, and not share them with the French Catholics of Lower Canada.

Hence, Section 92 of our original constitution.

Can you illuminate your source for that?

[Smallc]

According to the BNA Act 1867, natural resources belong to the provincial governments. Why?

This oil isn't in the provinces.

[eyeball]

Then why do First Nations negotiate with the feds first and foremost?

I was thinking more of the similarity of Quebec and Manitoba relying permanently on equalization money for their existence.

Because BC, SK and AB would not have Manitoba as a partner to begin with, what would they bring to the party economically? I doubt anybody would want the Territories either, no return on investment there either.

B.C. doesn't have much to bring to the table. We're only a have-province due to an underground pot industry that Ottawa appears bound and determined to destroy like it did our fisheries.

[fellowtraveller]

B.C. doesn't have much to bring to the table. We're only a have-province due to an underground pot industry that Ottawa appears bound and determined to destroy like it did our fisheries.

We'll still take you into our alliance because we feel sorry for you.

Nova Scotia and Newfoundland signed agreements to share something that Alberta (and Quebec) take for granted.

I thik you meant to say that Quebec takes Alberta for granted, and got your punctuation all mixed up. If Alberta took Quebec for granted, we'd be sharing all that sweet hydro generation revenue.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

B.C. doesn't have much to bring to the table. We're only a have-province due to an underground pot industry that Ottawa appears bound and determined to destroy like it did our fisheries.

Imagine the economic growth in BC if pot was legalized.

It'd be bigger news than Alberta's oil boom.