Promoting liberalism

[Canuck E Stan]

Switzerland has TWO places in representation, by population and by region. Just like many democratic countries have.In this country,as long as the Senate is hand picked by the leader of a minority party, based only because he wants that person, this country will never work to do anything for the different regionals that exists. The great number of parties that can co-exist in that Switzerland shows it can work and has worked for them for a long time. Direct democracy and regioinal representation is the way to go, that's why Senate reform needs to happen sooner than later. Switzerland is an excellent model for Canada to follow.

[Guest eureka]

That is no response to the question of decentralization. Neither does it have much to do with the topic of this thread.

If you search the earlier thread on the Senate, you will find I had a great deal to say on that subject. From your post, I judge that you need some background.

[Canuck E Stan]

Eureka, your argument on decentralization doesn't say anything to convince me that centralization is the key to keeping Canada together. If I had the time to search all the posts to see what you stated in the past I would,but I don't . Your statement on

"Canada is the most decentralized country in the world"

is interesting as it is the exact same thing that Trudeau said 10 years ago just after the Quebec referendum. Without telling me to refer to previous posts could you please give me some validation to that statement. I am very interested in your answer.

[Guest eureka]

I have given many illustrations of the lesser powers of the Canadian Federal Government as compared to others and some related to the spending of various governments.

Perhaps the best illustration of relative powers of central governments vis a vis regional authorities is the proportion of GDP that each spends. This proportion is directly related to the jurisdictions of each.

I don't have comparative figures for other countries except the gross ones I have given, but here is a historical comparison of Canada and the USA. The USA should serve as an illustration of Canada in the world since it is widely looked on as a "decentralized" nation.

Federal. Provincial/State

Canada U.S. Canada U.S.

1955 14.9% 17.5% 5.1% 3.5%

1960 14.6 17.8 7.1 4.3

1965 12.4 17.3 8.5 4.5

1970 13.3 18.8 12.5 5.7

1975 16.3 19.2 14.7 6.9

1980 15.6 20.1 15.8 6.9

1985 19.4 21.9 17.9 6.4

1990 18.6 20.6 17.8 7.2

Both federal government show about the same modest increases. However, the disparity is greater than it seems since the later Canadian figures include healthcare and other transfers that are not specifically identified. I would think that the Canadian government spends very much less than the US.

The regional pattern is too obvious to need explanation. US expenditures by states have about doubled but are still only one third of federal (roughly).

In Canada, provincial expenditures have increased about 3 and one half times and are now (1990 as now) almost equal to federal expenditures. This, too, is probably understated when the agreed role of the federal government in areas of admittedly provincial jurisdiction such as healthcare and EI is considered.

This shows the great growth in provincial powers at the expense of the central government in Canada.

I don't have later figures than 1990, but I suspect that the Canadian equation has widened still more following the reduction to provincial transfers by the Chretien/ Martin administration.

If Trudeau pointed to this only ten years ago, then he was a "Johnny-come-lately."

I have been saying it for a lot longer. But, nobody listens, People prefer to believe Ralph Klein and whoever happens to be heading Quebec's propaganda machine at any one time.

[Guest eureka]

Sorry the figures are bunched up: it is not the way I typed it. Computers seem to do things their way.

I think they are still understandable, though

[Argus]

Sorry the figures are bunched up: it is not the way I typed it. Computers seem to do things their way.

I think they are still understandable, though

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's pretty meaningless anyway. A huge chunk of provincial spending is health care, over forty percent, I believe. The other big budget item is education, at least here in Ontario, where the prov took over all spending on education from municipal school boards. Between them, those two items probably take up about 70% or more of their budget.

[Guest eureka]

And is that not the point? Those are responsibilities of the Central governments in any other advanced nation. Since they are two of the most important jurisdictions in any country, is that not a demonstration of decentralization.

There are other powers that are also provincial that should not be.