Provincial Seperation

[Figleaf]

I'd split BC into three: the Islands including Vancouver Island, the Mainland, and the Greater Vancouver Area and it's immediate hinterland.

I'd split Alberta into two, North and South.

I'd split Ontario into North, Southwest, Center-East, and Greater Toronto.

I'd split Quebec into Greater Montreal, Lower Canada, and Nord.

Good luck. What kind of status would they have? Would we have six more provincial governments to bicker with Ottawa?

They'd all be provinces with equal status. They would provide better government because they'd have more sensitivity to the local issues of their smaller territory.

[Hydraboss]

Fig, I like the idea...as long as you abolish the federal government. Then I could vote for your "more sensitivity to the local issues of their smaller territory" type of governance.

[geoffrey]

He'd split Alberta to keep the oil sands and Calgary seperate. Can't have too much economic power challenging his beloved Ontario.

It doesn't even make sense to split us... we're only 3 million people. That's like saying Toronto is too big to be it's own province. Don't be silly.

Think of the admin costs too! UGH!

[Wilber]

I'd split BC into three: the Islands including Vancouver Island, the Mainland, and the Greater Vancouver Area and it's immediate hinterland.

I'd split Alberta into two, North and South.

I'd split Ontario into North, Southwest, Center-East, and Greater Toronto.

I'd split Quebec into Greater Montreal, Lower Canada, and Nord.

Good luck. What kind of status would they have? Would we have six more provincial governments to bicker with Ottawa?

They'd all be provinces with equal status. They would provide better government because they'd have more sensitivity to the local issues of their smaller territory.

Just what we need, six more governments. Like we don't have enough. I think the problem here is lack of regional sensitivity in our Federal government, not within the provinces.

[punked]

I'm all for Quebec separation. Always have been, always will be.

however, it's probably not for reasons shared by others here.

To me, a unilateral declaration of separation by Quebec means that I and many other Natives will have to go into Quebec and defend our Native brothers and sisters from their oppressors. Having been around Quebec myself, I always note that the population lives primarily along the St. Lawerence. Once you get a couple of hours north of Montreal and Quecbec City, you notice that the majority of people are Native. the further north you go, the more apparent this becomes.

Hence, "Quebec" pretty much constitutes a thin strip of land abutting the St. Lawerence. everything else is Cree, Naskapi, Maliseet etc.

These people will need protection because Quebec claims the northern half of the province, however, I see no problem with the northern half separating from the southern half for the same reasons. Essentially, as Quebec tries to extend its power north, we'll have to protect the north from this power grab.

That is what allies of the Crown will do. After Quebec is done, then we can drive west and deal with Alberta next.

I have no problem accepting anyone's surrender in the intereests of Canada.

No the native population who have all the same rights as the french populations in Qubec voted that in a Qubec speration as a distintic people and Nation with in themselves they would stay in Canada. This was a 1995 vote before the seperation vote you wouldn't have top defend anything.

[punked]

Ignatieff is. He wants to bring in a carbon tax. Same with pretty much every Quebecker. They all want our money to fund their socialist empire.

A carbon Tax would not be bad for Canada if it is fallowed by a sharp cut in labour Taxes. It makes companies responcible with out putting them under, and also makes room for more jobs.

[Charles Anthony]

A carbon Tax would not be bad for Canada if it

Forget about predicting the accounting.

What if a carbon tax created a political back-lash that pitted one group of Canadians against an other group?

What if, as a result, some Canadians decided to declare independence? I think that would be good.

Would that be good for Canadians? I think so.

[punked]

A carbon Tax would not be bad for Canada if it

Forget about predicting the accounting.

What if a carbon tax created a political back-lash that pitted one group of Canadians against an other group?

What if, as a result, some Canadians decided to declare independence? I think that would be good.

Would that be good for Canadians? I think so.

I don;t think Canadians understand how a carbon tax turly works, It isn't just "more taxes on industry" it is something that used with lowering of labour taxes. It creates room for not only growth in industry but a gaol for industry to lower carbon and new jobs because of the lower tax on labour. If such a tax pitted one of Canadians aginst another it would be for no other reason than one of Canadians can't read books.

[Wilber]

A carbon Tax would not be bad for Canada if it

Forget about predicting the accounting.

What if a carbon tax created a political back-lash that pitted one group of Canadians against an other group?

What if, as a result, some Canadians decided to declare independence? I think that would be good.

Would that be good for Canadians? I think so.

I don;t think Canadians understand how a carbon tax turly works, It isn't just "more taxes on industry" it is something that used with lowering of labour taxes. It creates room for not only growth in industry but a gaol for industry to lower carbon and new jobs because of the lower tax on labour. If such a tax pitted one of Canadians aginst another it would be for no other reason than one of Canadians can't read books.

The rub is you would be primarily taxing one industry to finance lowering taxes in all industries. More likely it would just mean a vast transfer of capital from that one industry into the coffers of the Federal Government to be spent on who knows what.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

A tax is a tax. The money is taken away from the tax payer and given to the government. It is a net transfer of wealth. Once those funds are in government hands it goes into general revenues and is spent however they please.

A carbon tax will hurt my province of Alberta. For that reason I oppose it. But since Dion is not in favour of it, I will wait and see how he proceeds. Harper is not in favour of it either, so I will wait and see how it plays out. I don't expect to see it happen, but if it does there will be a lot of unhappy Albertans.

The chip on our shoulder is watching our tax dollars pay for provincial services outside of Alberta through equalization. That little program costs the citizens of Alberta billions of dollars every year, with no return on the investment. This is a tax on our citizen that provides no benefit to them. Taxation should yield some benefit to the citizen in my belief.

[punked]

A carbon Tax would not be bad for Canada if it

Forget about predicting the accounting.

What if a carbon tax created a political back-lash that pitted one group of Canadians against an other group?

What if, as a result, some Canadians decided to declare independence? I think that would be good.

Would that be good for Canadians? I think so.

I don;t think Canadians understand how a carbon tax turly works, It isn't just "more taxes on industry" it is something that used with lowering of labour taxes. It creates room for not only growth in industry but a gaol for industry to lower carbon and new jobs because of the lower tax on labour. If such a tax pitted one of Canadians aginst another it would be for no other reason than one of Canadians can't read books.

The rub is you would be primarily taxing one industry to finance lowering taxes in all industries. More likely it would just mean a vast transfer of capital from that one industry into the coffers of the Federal Government to be spent on who knows what.

Almost all business uses Carbon in some way. It is just a different Tax system instead of taxing labour you put the tax on Carbon leaving it to those who do the business and make the waste to come up with soluations thus saving money for themselves. It is not a bullseye on Alberta or business it is a different way to tax business while thinking of the enviroment at the sametime.

[geoffrey]

Yup, it's absolutely a bulls-eye on Alberta. They can't take more money through equalisation, so they do it through boutique taxes. Clever.

I don't see vast calls for smog taxes against Ontario power producers or the auto industry in Ontario. I'll take a smog tax over a carbon tax anyday, and during the summer in Toronto, I think many would agree.

Smog actually kills people, carbon does not.

[punked]

Yup, it's absolutely a bulls-eye on Alberta. They can't take more money through equalisation, so they do it through boutique taxes. Clever.

I don't see vast calls for smog taxes against Ontario power producers or the auto industry in Ontario. I'll take a smog tax over a carbon tax anyday, and during the summer in Toronto, I think many would agree.

Smog actually kills people, carbon does not.

A Carbon tax would tax all GHG emissions including those of smog ie your SOx's. It doesn;t target anything but bisuness much as the labour taxes only target bisuness.

[Figleaf]

He'd split Alberta to keep the oil sands and Calgary seperate. Can't have too much economic power challenging his beloved Ontario.

Interesting comment. You make it sound like Calgary has some claim to benefit from the oil sands of northern Alberta. But if (as Geoffrey asserts) Canada has no claim to benefit from the oil in a part of Canada, then why would Calgary have any claim to benefit from the oil in a completely other part of Alberta?

[Figleaf]

What if, as a result, some Canadians decided to declare independence?

We'd laugh them all the way to jail!

[Charles Anthony]

We'd laugh them all the way to jail!

We'd?

You and .... who else??

Oh! Yeah! We have been through this already. Go back to post #131 and repeat.

[Hydraboss]

Figleaf, people like you and Saturn need to get some time in front of the national press. With attitudes like yours being broadcast around Canada, my hopes of Alberta seperation would be hugely fueled. I am even noticing a considerable shift on this board towards support for an independant Nation of Alberta.

Good work. Keep it up.

[Riverwind]

He'd split Alberta to keep the oil sands and Calgary seperate. Can't have too much economic power challenging his beloved Ontario.

Interesting comment. You make it sound like Calgary has some claim to benefit from the oil sands of northern Alberta. But if (as Geoffrey asserts) Canada has no claim to benefit from the oil in a part of Canada, then why would Calgary have any claim to benefit from the oil in a completely other part of Alberta?

Hydraboss, why don't you answer this question?

[Charles Anthony]

But if (as Geoffrey asserts) Canada has no claim to benefit from the oil in a part of Canada, then why would Calgary have any claim to benefit from the oil in a completely other part of Alberta?

The answer is simple: "Calgary" does NOT have any claim to benefit from the oil in a completely other part of Alberta. Period.

Who is "Calgary" anyway?

This seeming paradox is no paradox at all. It represents the problem of statism. It is the paradox of statism.

It would not exist if we were free of the delusion that "Calgary" or "Canada" were able to make a claim on anything.

[Hydraboss]

As long as the current lines are drawn as to the jurisdiction of the province of Alberta, only the province has any "claim" on the resources within it's borders. If Ft.MacMurray seperated and was recognized as such, then the remainder of Alberta would have no "claim" to those resources.

Until any seperation happens, the current laws of Canada have force.

[Figleaf]

We'd laugh them all the way to jail!

We'd?

You and .... who else??

We, the broad-based law-abiding citizenry of Canada.

[Figleaf]

As long as the current lines are drawn as to the jurisdiction of the province of Alberta, only the province has any "claim" on the resources within it's borders.

No, that's not correct at all.

In fact constitutionally the provincial governments "administer" the resources within their jurisdiction.

So two important points:

1-this arrangement arises WITHIN the framework of the constitution and would be changeable if the constititional framework changes; and

2-'administering' is not the same thing as unrestricted ownership.

[Hydraboss]

Then it's probably a good thing I didn't use the phrase "unrestricted ownership".

Please define "administer" as it is used in the constitution.

[Figleaf]

Then it's probably a good thing I didn't use the phrase "unrestricted ownership".

Please define "administer" as it is used in the constitution.

Your use of the concept of an exclusive 'claim' runs close enough to the concept of unrestricted ownership that my comment still stands.

As for 'administer', I invite you to make your own survey of constitutional jurisprudence if you seek details about its interpretation. I'll be interested in whatever results you find.

[rbacon]

Canada is a Confederation of Sovereign Individual Provinces.....Each Province has a Head of State, the LT. Gov...Each Province has an elected Prime Minister, or if you are French Premier.....Each Province has it's own local Parliament.....Each Province has a border.....No Province belongs directlt to Canada.....In fact the people of each Province own that Province......The Parliament at Ottawa doesn't even own the land that the Ottawa Parliament buildings sit on the people of Ontario own that land......And in Alberta the people of Alberta own all the land that the oil sands sit on, not Ft. McMurray... Your argument is childish and immature....No Alberta does not belong to TROC, we are not your chattels, Yes we can leave when we democratically decide to do so......