Predict how Canada will look like in 4 years

[-TSS-]

Never been to Canada myself but what I've heard about your country is that in contrast to the big cities there is a multitude of small communities of 5000-10000 population and all very viable with full services.

A stark contrast to Finland where the government policy is to destroy small communities and force people living in the bigger population-centres. Can you imagine in Canada that in a town of say 10000 people if there is an incident which needs police to be called in the police arrive from 100km from the nearest bigger town? This is reality in many parts of Finland and Finland is only 1/30 the size of Canada.

[Michael Hardner]

Can you imagine in Canada that in a town of say 10000 people if there is an incident which needs police to be called in the police arrive from 100km from the nearest bigger town?

In Canada, we have the opposite problem where a city the size of Toronto is reviled by Canadians from smaller towns, who are effectively subsidized by the same large cities.

[eyeball]

In Canada, people in rural areas are not allowed to sustain themselves from the natural resources they're surrounded by unless given permission to by city-folk that are hundreds and even thousands of miles away.

Seems fair to me that city-folk should be who pays our taxes.

[Michael Hardner]

In Canada, people in rural areas are not allowed to sustain themselves from the natural resources they're surrounded by ...

I don't see what prevents them, provided they own the resources they're going to use.

[eyeball]

We own the resources as much as anyone, what we don't have is a reasonable means of accessing them. Access rests in the hands of city-folk...who otherwise gripe about having to subsidize rural folk.

Edited October 25, 2015 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

We own the resources as much as anyone, what we don't have is a reasonable means of accessing them. Access rests in the hands of city-folk...who otherwise gripe about having to subsidize rural folk.

So you want to go drill oil near your house ? Living hear something doesn't mean you own it. You're speaking about fisheries administration of course and that has little to do with city people's money and more to do with the attention of all Canadians, including rural folks who don't live near water.

[dialamah]

We own the resources as much as anyone, what we don't have is a reasonable means of accessing them. Access rests in the hands of city-folk...who otherwise gripe about having to subsidize rural folk.

I don't really understand this. If you don't have a reasonable means of accessing a resource, this suggests to me that you don't 'own' the resource any more than I (a "city-folk") does since I don't have a reasonable means of accessing this resource either. Presumably, either the government or a corporation has means of accessing this 'resource', which again has very little to do with 'city-folk'. I fail to see why this means I should pay your taxes? Can you be a little more clear about what you are trying to say?

Edited October 25, 2015 by dialamah

[CITIZEN_2015]

How Canada will look like in 4 year? It will look like the Canada it used to be before these invaders from the western oil sand desert of Alberta hidden as progressive conservatives but in fact the former Reform Party members took over this country. A peace making country internationally and a caring free democratic country nationally.

However, it will be more than 4 years. Trudeau will win 2 more consecutive majorities and in about 12 years time after being the greatest Prime Minister of Canada making Canada both economically strong and environmentally sound would choose to step aside. Conservatives are as good as dead at least for the next decade and a half. They messed up so bad this time that their percent of vote will actually go down in the next election.

Edited October 25, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[Argus]

It will look like the Canada it used to be before these invaders from the western oil sand desert of Alberta hidden as progressive conservatives but in fact the former Reform Party members took over this country.

You seem to be suggesting those from out west are not proper Canadians. Have I got that right? Or is it that if their political beliefs are different from yours they're not proper Canadians? Do you want to expel them from Canada?

And can you list the ways in which Canada is different? I'm betting that's a big 'no', or will be filled with your personal opinions of a partisan political nature, and not anything of substance.

A peace making country internationally and a caring free democratic country nationally.

Again, the inference here is that Canada wasn't democratic because you didn't get your way in the previous elections. Is a place only democratic when your party wins? The nonsense about a 'peace making country' is straight out of the progressives cliche'd handbook. I remind you that Canada got involved in the war in Afghanistan under the Liberal government, not the Conservatives.

Conservatives are as good as dead at least for the next decade and a half. They messed up so bad this time that their percent of vote will actually go down in the next election.

According to pretty much every political analyses I've seen the Conservatives largely suffered from the desire for change, and a resentment of Harper's style. There wasn't a great deal of dislike of what the Conservatives had done over the past ten years, and so no reason to suspect that a new leader with a more open and friendly attitude might not reverse what happened. Your belief that Trudeau's government will result in all things good and wonderful is nothing but wishful thinking.

[CITIZEN_2015]

You seem to be suggesting those from out west are not proper Canadians. Have I got that right? Or is it that if their political beliefs are different from yours they're not proper Canadians? Do you want to expel them from Canada?

And can you list the ways in which Canada is different? I'm betting that's a big 'no', or will be filled with your personal opinions of a partisan political nature, and not anything of substance.



Again, the inference here is that Canada wasn't democratic because you didn't get your way in the previous elections. Is a place only democratic when your party wins? The nonsense about a 'peace making country' is straight out of the progressives cliche'd handbook. I remind you that Canada got involved in the war in Afghanistan under the Liberal government, not the Conservatives.

According to pretty much every political analyses I've seen the Conservatives largely suffered from the desire for change, and a resentment of Harper's style. There wasn't a great deal of dislike of what the Conservatives had done over the past ten years, and so no reason to suspect that a new leader with a more open and friendly attitude might not reverse what happened. Your belief that Trudeau's government will result in all things good and wonderful is nothing but wishful thinking.

The culture in western Canada is very different with Eastern Canada especially Quebec and Atlantic Canada. I lived there for 2 years.. It is a lot more conservative and in my view in a high percentage of people to the extreme and that is where the reform party was born and where Harper came from.So this was the essence of my comment rather than your very strange interpretation that I was saying Albertans are not Canadians!!!!!!. They are part of federation of course they are.

Canada was not fully democratic and I have posted in another thread the reasons that under a majority conservative democracy was a thing of the past. For example the conservative government was found in contempt of the parliament (the symbol of democracy in many western counties) TWICE. They passed unpopular bills like bill C-51 and Bill C-36 using their majority (obtained because 25% of eligible voters voted for them in 2011). They came in conflict with the Supreme Court of Canada (the vanguard of democracy, human rights and constitution in Canada) so many times and they clearly showed their contempt for SCC. The countless number of scandals that followed their election in 2011, They clearly lacked transparency and accountability and were very secretive in all years. The fact that many people feared them to oppose them (example, Firing of Linda Keen for reporting an unsafe nuclear reactor) and the list goes on. I said undemocracy I did not say dictatorship (like rolling tanks on streets and shooting or jailing opponents).

Yes desire for change was because of 4 years of corruptions and scandals. The Party under Mulroney and Joe Clarke was much more moderate and these people from Western Canada took it to such extreme including using race and religion as dividing tools to stir Canadians against each other so that a good majority of Canadians disliked them and voted them out of power (a great sign that we still have or abled to retain our democracy in this country even under such government) and they have to go back to moderation if they want to have any chance of returning to political scene of Canada.

Edited October 25, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[eyeball]

I don't really understand this. If you don't have a reasonable means of accessing a resource, this suggests to me that you don't 'own' the resource any more than I (a "city-folk") does since I don't have a reasonable means of accessing this resource either. Presumably, either the government or a corporation has means of accessing this 'resource', which again has very little to do with 'city-folk'. I fail to see why this means I should pay your taxes? Can you be a little more clear about what you are trying to say?

Our fisheries have been privatized into individual quota's that are inevitably being bought up by large companies and our forests are enclosed in huge tree farm licences that only the biggest influential companies can afford to 'manage'. They catch 'their' fish and cut 'their' wood when and where they see fit and ship it offshore for processing often bringing their own contractors and crews with them.

What this has to do with city-folk, the majority of Canadians that is, is that they're apparently oblivious to how governments grant almost all the access to natural resources to big companies mostly based in big cities, often in other countries. City-folks make up the majority of voters and the minority of rural folk keep getting the government you deserve.

So, city-folk can either keep on subsidizing rural-folk or tell the government to reallocate a few resources back our way.

[Michael Hardner]

They catch 'their' fish and cut 'their' wood when and where they see fit and ship it offshore for processing often bringing their own contractors and crews with them.

Yes I thought this is what you were talking about.

What this has to do with city-folk, the majority of Canadians that is, is that they're apparently oblivious to how governments grant almost all the access to natural resources to big companies mostly based in big cities, often in other countries. City-folks make up the majority of voters and the minority of rural folk keep getting the government you deserve.

So because nobody cares about the problem, or at least not enough people care then this is a city vs country issue ? I don't think so. City people subsidize a lot of things but this isn't a counter example.

[Argus]

The culture in western Canada is very different with Eastern Canada especially Quebec and Atlantic Canada. I lived there for 2 years.. It is a lot more conservative and in my view in a high percentage of people to the extreme and that is where the reform party was born and where Harper came from.So this was the essence of my comment rather than your very strange interpretation that I was saying Albertans are not Canadians!!!!!!.

Countries are invaded from without, not within. You described is an invasion "from the western oil sand desert of Alberta" as if it were a foreign country as if they had no right to rule here and as if the vast majority of votes which put them in power didn't come from Ontario.

Canada was not fully democratic and I have posted in another thread the reasons that under a majority conservative democracy was a thing of the past.

Ah, a thing of the past. So there were no votes, no elections once they took power? How strange that they're now out of power.

For example the conservative government was found in contempt of the parliament (the symbol of democracy in many western counties) TWICE.

Political shenanigans between the opposition testing the limits of their numbers, and the conservatives, testing how far they would go. Hardly a threat to democracy.

They passed unpopular bills like bill C-51 and Bill C-36 using their majority

Which is the essence of democracy.

(obtained because 25% of eligible voters voted for them in 2011).

Only 24% of eligible voters voted for Trudeau. Does that mean he has no legitimacy and cannot pass 'unpopular bills'?

They came in conflict with the Supreme Court of Canada

As does every federal government.

The countless number of scandals

Piddling and exaggerated compared to those of the governments before them.

They clearly lacked transparency and accountability and were very secretive in all years.

Same as the one before them.

The Party under Mulroney and Joe Clarke was much more moderate

If you don't mind your prime minister taking million dollar payments from businessmen in the form of brown paper bags, then lying about it and suing the government for saying he did.

and these people from Western Canada took it to such extreme including using race and religion as dividing tools to stir Canadians against each other

So how do you feel about the Quebec Liberals plan to ban the niqab in every government building, including schools and hospitals?

And as I've already stated, whatever one thinks of the government's position, the vast majority of Canadians of all political stripes and in all provinces, including newcomers, agreed with them.

Edited October 25, 2015 by Argus

[dialamah]

So, city-folk can either keep on subsidizing rural-folk or tell the government to reallocate a few resources back our way.

I guess we'll be subsidizing rural folk then, and honestly, I don't have a problem with that.

But still curious: say we decided to allocate some resources back to 'rural folk'. Exactly how would that work? I grew up in a rural area myself, and fail to see how my family - or even my family and all our neighbors - could have effectively logged the area. Sure, we could have cut down trees and maybe milled them for local use and sent some to the lower mainland, but I don't see that being as economically advantageous as having employment available in the local forest industry. I am honestly curious as to how you see that working.

[ToadBrother]

Honour killing is no different than domestic violence resulting in death and will be treated the same in the courts.

Sure it's different. Honour killings frequently involve a conspiratorial element, and are almost always premeditated, whereas spousal murder, while perhaps the final act in a long string of abusive events, is often not premeditated.

How many domestic violence causing death attacks do you know that will involve multiple member's of the victim's family in direct conspiratorial and premeditated roles? If any thing, honor killings are more like mob hits.

Edited October 25, 2015 by ToadBrother

[webc5]

I hope that within 4 years we have electoral reform and have a proper representation of everybodies point of view in Canada.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Countries are invaded from without, not within. You described is an invasion "from the western oil sand desert of Alberta" as if it were a foreign country as if they had no right to rule here and as if the vast majority of votes which put them in power didn't come from Ontario.

Ah, a thing of the past. So there were no votes, no elections once they took power? How strange that they're now out of power.

Political shenanigans between the opposition testing the limits of their numbers, and the conservatives, testing how far they would go. Hardly a threat to democracy.

Which is the essence of democracy.

Only 24% of eligible voters voted for Trudeau. Does that mean he has no legitimacy and cannot pass 'unpopular bills'?

As does every federal government.

Piddling and exaggerated compared to those of the governments before them.

Same as the one before them.

If you don't mind your prime minister taking million dollar payments from businessmen in the form of brown paper bags, then lying about it and suing the government for saying he did.

So how do you feel about the Quebec Liberals plan to ban the niqab in every government building, including schools and hospitals?

And as I've already stated, whatever one thinks of the government's position, the vast majority of Canadians of all political stripes and in all provinces, including newcomers, agreed with them.

I didn't say military invasion.

I explained with examples why I said Canada was not democratic under conservatives. I didn't say dictatorship I said undemocratic with many examples. You countered by claiming that the previous governments were the same. First I don't think any government in the past was this corrupt and scandalist and second even if your counter argument is true then two wrongs doesn't make it right.

Which prime minister took million dollar payments from businessmen in the form of brown paper bags? Mulroney or Joe Clarke? Never heard this before.

Quebec liberals are responding to the demand of big majority of Quebecers and even though I am myself against niqab but also very much against it being forcefully taken off (because if is a women's choice and has to be respected). Niqab is a backward cultural thing and if we are true democracy as much as we may dislike it we should allow it. Quebecers appear very protective of their culture like language and else and I see it as a fault. But that is not the issue in this thread. I was saying that it should not have been used as a campaign tactic to make people fearfull and divide people to buy votes.

Edited October 25, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[eyeball]

So you want to go drill oil near your house ? Living hear something doesn't mean you own it.

When we're talking about crown resources we're clearly talking about something we all own.

You're speaking about fisheries administration of course and that has little to do with city people's money and more to do with the attention of all Canadians, including rural folks who don't live near water.

Exactly, it has everything to do with all Canadians paying attention to how Ottawa and provincial capitals manage resources and more importantly for who. Resource management is now largely aligned with globalization where just about every local resource is privatized and harvested as fast as possible with the barest minimum regard that regulators allow for local environmental or socioeconomic values and exported to places with the least regard for these values.

Try to wrap your head around the idea of an adjacency principle that grants people the right to sustain themselves from the resources surrounding them. Then weave that principle into the foundation of fisheries and forestry area-based co-management boards that work with senior governments, who represent you and me, the owners of our natural resources.

So it comes down to either continuing to subscribe to globalization or move towards localization.

Unfortunately you'll probably have to contend with foreign companies suing our assess off to regain control of our resources and we'll likely have to open up the constitution somewhere along the way too...and on top of that you'll have to keep paying us our taxes so...

Not paying attention comes with a price, and rural-folks have by far paid the highest price.

[eyeball]

So because nobody cares about the problem, or at least not enough people care then this is a city vs country issue ?

No, I'd say it's a taxpayer problem that policy-makers created through globalization and it's just a co-incidence most taxpayers live in the city.

I don't think so. City people subsidize a lot of things but this isn't a counter example.

The salient point is that city-dwellers have far greater influence on governments but don't seem to care enough about how globalization has affected rural-people to use that influence. We're effectively powerless and have little to no voice. We need you to subsidize our influence. Lend us your power and maybe you'll get to keep more of your money.

[Michael Hardner]

Try to wrap your head around the idea of an adjacency principle that grants people the right to sustain themselves from the resources surrounding them.

It's an interesting idea, but as to why that is a separate consideration from overall economic planning and caretaking by a government ... I'm not sure that I agree. Nobody seemed to care when the work that was proximate to me was outsourced to the other side of the world, but I don't work in a field that is romanticized to be "real Canadian" such as farming, fishing, timber, hunting, showshoeing.

So it comes down to either continuing to subscribe to globalization or move towards localization.

Still not seeing why this is framed as city vs country to you.

Not paying attention comes with a price, and rural-folks have by far paid the highest price.

I disagree.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-tops-canada-in-child-poverty-rates-report-1.2835604

Toronto has the highest poverty rates in Canada as indicated.

Canada in 4 years could be better off but Toronto will need more attention.

[Michael Hardner]

No, I'd say it's a taxpayer problem that policy-makers created through globalization and it's just a co-incidence most taxpayers live in the city.

Agreed.

The salient point is that city-dwellers have far greater influence on governments but don't seem to care enough about how globalization has affected rural-people to use that influence. We're effectively powerless and have little to no voice. We need you to subsidize our influence. Lend us your power and maybe you'll get to keep more of your money.

Not sure whether this is even true. What is the per-capita "power" of PEI or Nunavut ? The states have an even worse problem but I don't want to conjure BC into this thread.

[dre]

But still curious: say we decided to allocate some resources back to 'rural folk'. Exactly how would that work?

I think you could go as far as you want with regionalizing control of resources and I dont think the relevant distinction is CITY VS RURAL.

Currently we are seeing a trend towards the globalization of these resources and this is causing political turmoil and conflict all around the world. It needs to stop IMO, but thats not to likely... crony capitalism is in full swing now, and theres huge momentum behind it.

Edited October 25, 2015 by dre

[eyeball]

I guess we'll be subsidizing rural folk then, and honestly, I don't have a problem with that.

But still curious: say we decided to allocate some resources back to 'rural folk'. Exactly how would that work? I grew up in a rural area myself, and fail to see how my family - or even my family and all our neighbors - could have effectively logged the area. Sure, we could have cut down trees and maybe milled them for local use and sent some to the lower mainland, but I don't see that being as economically advantageous as having employment available in the local forest industry. I am honestly curious as to how you see that working.

The advantage would be in having a more diverse mix of local opportunities. Local forest industry should include both small and large companies but even more importantly there should be greater local voice and public input into how the forests that people live and work in are managed. That way you capture all the values, industrial, socioeconomic, environmental, recreation etc of the people most dependent on and affected by management decisions. As it is now virtually all decision making lies with absentee landlords and authorities that are often hundreds and even thousands of miles away and the result is that the social, economic and environmental costs that come with that are offloaded on taxpayers and the environment.

[eyeball]

It's an interesting idea, but as to why that is a separate consideration from overall economic planning and caretaking by a government ... I'm not sure that I agree. Nobody seemed to care when the work that was proximate to me was outsourced to the other side of the world, but I don't work in a field that is romanticized to be "real Canadian" such as farming, fishing, timber, hunting, showshoeing.

Who said it was separate? It should be a foundational basis for resource allocation. I was certainly aware of what was happening to you but I was to busy dealing with my own trials and tribulations to do much but try and survive them. As for your industry, recall when Canadians were cautioned about getting into natural resources and your's was romanticized. There was a time when it was farmers, fishermen and loggers who kept the cities humming. Your industry should have been protected by foreign trade deals that insisted on level playing fields for worker's rights and labour standards that you could compete with. That it was same government that was rearranging our industries were pulling the rug out from under your's was never overlooked by me.

Still not seeing why this is framed as city vs country to you.

Your griping about paying our taxes.

I disagree.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-tops-canada-in-child-poverty-rates-report-1.2835604

Toronto has the highest poverty rates in Canada as indicated.

Canada in 4 years could be better off but Toronto will need more attention.

Who will we gripe about then?

[eyeball]

Not sure whether this is even true. What is the per-capita "power" of PEI or Nunavut ? The states have an even worse problem but I don't want to conjure BC into this thread.

I have no idea but I bet all our per-capita power would increase if we could get out from under FPTP.

Is there a city vs rural dynamic there too?