The Achilles' Heel of the Federal Liberals

[Ricki Bobbi]

-I have already posted somewhere that the NDP is at great risk of the Liberals recovering more of the progressive vote.

-And no, it won't help the Conservatives in the centre, because the Liberals won't have to move left to make the gain.

Typical slothfulness. Too much effort to actually look up the posts?

You win sir. If you won't back up your claims. Will hurl insults without admitting it that is great.

I'm sure you'll tire of it like you did on November 6th. Living smug in the satisfaction of your great victory while oblivious to the vauous nature of your existence.

[Figleaf]

-I have already posted somewhere that the NDP is at great risk of the Liberals recovering more of the progressive vote.

-And no, it won't help the Conservatives in the centre, because the Liberals won't have to move left to make the gain.

...Too much effort to actually look up the posts?

Yes, especially for the likes of you.

You win sir. If you won't back up your claims.

?? ??

What 'claim' do I need to back up now? I wasn't aware of any dispute on this.

[fellowtraveller]

83B on Education

103B on Healthcare

164B on Social Services

42B on "Protection of persons and property"

23B on "Transportation and communication" What the hell is this??

Interesting that the feds spend nearly $200 billion on two programs- health and education- that are largely the responsibilities of the provinces. Yes, I know much of that is kicked back to the provinces, but it does raise the question of why the feds are involved so deeply.

A one-word working theory would be: 'control'.

[mikedavid00]

83B on Education

103B on Healthcare

164B on Social Services

42B on "Protection of persons and property"

23B on "Transportation and communication" What the hell is this??

Interesting that the feds spend nearly $200 billion on two programs- health and education- that are largely the responsibilities of the provinces. Yes, I know much of that is kicked back to the provinces, but it does raise the question of why the feds are involved so deeply.

A one-word working theory would be: 'control'.

Yes. they do sent it back to the provinces.

And this top down style gov't doesn't work. They want full control and don't trust how the provinces spend their money. They give more money to the welfare provinces than to the proserous.

The feds need much less power and need to stop playing 'daddy' to everyone. Let the provinces run their own things and learn from their mistakes.

[geoffrey]

When people realise two things, the Liberals are in trouble. And people can't be that stupid, eventually they'll get it:

1) Environment isn't nearly as important as having jobs for people... something that is looking like it's going to be a bigger issue everyday. Canada can't actually do anything in real terms for global warming... but we can destroy our economy in a hurry.

2) The Liberals are the only party with a track record of signing an agreement, ignoring it completely, violating commitments internationally... all under Mr. Dion as well. The Liberals are the worst party to vote for if you care about the environment, bottom line. They can paint their signs in whatever colour they want, it's the same old party, they even elected an old guard Chretien Quebecois. They aren't a Green alternative.

A vote for the Liberals is a vote for another term of ignorance of the environment.

At least Mulroney fixed much of the acid rain problem through compromise and pragmatic plans. Shoving Rick Mercer on TV to tell us to buy Energuide appliances isn't a plan, I'm afraid.

If Canadians elect a Liberal government based on the environment, my faith in democracy will be permenantly destroyed. Would people be that stupid?

[Charles Anthony]

If Canadians elect a Liberal government based on the environment, my faith in democracy will be permenantly destroyed. Would people be that stupid?

You will never be able to draw that conclusion.

You will never know whether people vote DionLiberal based on the environment or based on a Liberal-promised free lunch.

[Ricki Bobbi]

A vote for the Liberals is a vote for another term of ignorance of the environment.

At least Mulroney fixed much of the acid rain problem through compromise and pragmatic plans. Shoving Rick Mercer on TV to tell us to buy Energuide appliances isn't a plan, I'm afraid.

If Canadians elect a Liberal government based on the environment, my faith in democracy will be permenantly destroyed. Would people be that stupid?

A little bit of an overstatement at the end there.

Seriously the Liberals are very vulnerable on the environment. But to take advantage of it the Prime Minister will have to do something he doesn't like doing. Admit a mistake. Ambrose is political dead weight in the environment portfolio.

If he ends up putting Prentice in the portfolio and empowers him to come up with a workable plan on global warming then the Conservatives will be looking very good in the next election.

[geoffrey]

If Canadians elect a Liberal government based on the environment, my faith in democracy will be permenantly destroyed. Would people be that stupid?

You will never be able to draw that conclusion.

You will never know whether people vote DionLiberal based on the environment or based on a Liberal-promised free lunch.

No, I'd never know. But I do know that some will vote for Dion because he was environment minister.

No one can actually vote for him because he's done good environmental things. In fact, he's never done anything good for the environment in his entire life (in regards to policy... he may recycle or something, despite recycling huge GHG emissions...).

[mikedavid00]

If Canadians elect a Liberal government based on the environment, my faith in democracy will be permenantly destroyed. Would people be that stupid?

No they aren't. Poeple who are life Liberals and NDP care about the environment. There is a population of swing voters that are most likely happy with Harper becuase he majorly hasn't screwed up yet and will vote for him nextime.

Look at that post where I showed how close almost 20 ridings where to Harper winning. I think he'll get that many seats at least. 1000 people being polled through all of Canada just don't represent those close close ridings where CPC almost won.

[Ricki Bobbi]

No they aren't. Poeple who are life Liberals and NDP care about the environment. There is a population of swing voters that are most likely happy with Harper becuase he majorly hasn't screwed up yet and will vote for him nextime.

Look at that post where I showed how close almost 20 ridings where to Harper winning. I think he'll get that many seats at least. 1000 people being polled through all of Canada just don't represent those close close ridings where CPC almost won.

I hope you are right. My gut tells me that you are, but I don't want to get my expectations up.

Harper is such a shrewd tactitian and the path seems almost too obvious.

It all makes me think of the old saying "if something seems too good to be true..."

[Figleaf]

83B on Education

103B on Healthcare

164B on Social Services

42B on "Protection of persons and property"

23B on "Transportation and communication" What the hell is this??

Interesting that the feds spend nearly $200 billion on two programs- health and education- that are largely the responsibilities of the provinces. Yes, I know much of that is kicked back to the provinces, but it does raise the question of why the feds are involved so deeply.

A one-word working theory would be: 'control'.

Try 'need' and 'capability' instead.

Naturally the feds want to 'control' how federal money is spent, but they don't 'control' the provinces without their consent.

[geoffrey]

Try 'need' and 'capability' instead.

Naturally the feds want to 'control' how federal money is spent, but they don't 'control' the provinces without their consent.

So the Fed's will ask Alberta: "Hey, we know you are violating the Canada Health Act (something Quebec and BC do without consequence mind you), do you mind giving up your health transfers?"

I somehow doubt it.

Health spending (more consitutionally, hospital care) is completely a provincial area of responsibility. The Federal government shouldn't have such coercive force over the provinces in that area.

[jdobbin]

So the Fed's will ask Alberta: "Hey, we know you are violating the Canada Health Act (something Quebec and BC do without consequence mind you), do you mind giving up your health transfers?"

I somehow doubt it.

Health spending (more consitutionally, hospital care) is completely a provincial area of responsibility. The Federal government shouldn't have such coercive force over the provinces in that area.

If I recall, there were penalties to both provinces over the last few years for violation of the Canada Health Act.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/944-e.htm

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/alt_formats...-fed-sect_e.pdf

[Figleaf]

Try 'need' and 'capability' instead.

Naturally the feds want to 'control' how federal money is spent, but they don't 'control' the provinces without their consent.

So the Fed's will ask Alberta: "Hey, we know you are violating the Canada Health Act (something Quebec and BC do without consequence mind you), do you mind giving up your health transfers?'

I somehow doubt it.

Health spending (more consitutionally, hospital care) is completely a provincial area of responsibility. The Federal government shouldn't have such coercive force over the provinces in that area.

Within each province, health care is exclusively provincial jurisdiction. Because of that, a province is free to agree to accept federal money with strings attached, or not.

It's both ridiculous and childish for provincialists to pretend some terrible federal oppression is involved.

[geoffrey]

So can a province opt out of a proportional amount of other transfers sent to Ottawa if they don't receive Health money.

Say if health dollars are 20% of the transfers to provinces, and your cut from the program because the constituents of that province don't like the policy dictated to them... can we just not pay 20% of our taxes?

Provincial collection of income taxes would be a nice step to eliminate Ottawa's coercion. We essientially have to pay outrageous amounts of taxes to a level of government that should technically be providing the least services.... all so they can maintain control and limit certain province's growth and progress to allow the poor provinces to maintain their ridiculous backwards policies.

It's truly a crime to prevent a province from making progress in the system that will save lives. You can't be expected to pay say 20% of your taxes to get that all withheld because you want to do something differently.

Federal power is way too strong in this country, considering the extremely regional nature of Canada.

[Figleaf]

So can a province opt out of a proportional amount of other transfers sent to Ottawa if they don't receive Health money.

Say if health dollars are 20% of the transfers to provinces, and your cut from the program because the constituents of that province don't like the policy dictated to them... can we just not pay 20% of our taxes?

Letting people choose on an individual basis how much or which taxes to pay will quickly result in chaos.

Provincial collection of income taxes would be a nice step to eliminate Ottawa's coercion.

The Federal government is no less coercive than provincial governments.

We essientially have to pay outrageous amounts of taxes to a level of government that should technically be providing the least services....

Sez who?

all so they can maintain control and limit certain province's growth and progress to allow the poor provinces to maintain their ridiculous backwards policies.

Do you really believe the purpose of the federal government is to harm the provinces? Paranoia strikes deep, in the heartland.

It's truly a crime to prevent a province from making progress in the system that will save lives.

Define "progress".

Federal power is way too strong in this country, considering the extremely regional nature of Canada.

No way. It's the provincial governments that are too strong, too self-interested, and too susceptible to crony corruption.

[geoffrey]

The Federal government is no less coercive than provincial governments.

It's considerably more coercive than provincial governments, you are correct.

We essientially have to pay outrageous amounts of taxes to a level of government that should technically be providing the least services....

Sez who?

The Constitution Act, 1867. Health care, education, social welfare, policing... all provincial responsibilities... yet most of our tax dollars go to Ottawa. What up?

Do you really believe the purpose of the federal government is to harm the provinces? Paranoia strikes deep, in the heartland.

The purpose of the Federal government is to get re-elected. Nothing else. If you think a politican is there for high and mighty purposes, spreading joy across the land, your naive. They want power, power makes them money and gives them friends. They do that by taking from one region and giving to another, concentrating their votes and winning elections. Typically, to win you need Quebec and Ontario, so that's why we see the West and the maritimes consistantly disadvantaged and unrepresented.

Define "progress".

Getting out of a failing system that has been outdated for over a decade and moving to something nice and progressive with real results like the systems we see in Norway or France.

No way. It's the provincial governments that are too strong, too self-interested, and too susceptible to crony corruption.

Crony corruption, maybe, but that's not because of the powers they hold.

Provincial governments should be self-interested... they are the only governments in this country that seem to actually stand for the people they represent. I elect politicans to have my voice heard in wherever they are elected to, not to idling stand by and do nothing. If provincial governments didn't stand up for their provinces interest, I promise you they wouldn't last long.

[fellowtraveller]

83B on Education

103B on Healthcare

164B on Social Services

42B on "Protection of persons and property"

23B on "Transportation and communication" What the hell is this??

Interesting that the feds spend nearly $200 billion on two programs- health and education- that are largely the responsibilities of the provinces. Yes, I know much of that is kicked back to the provinces, but it does raise the question of why the feds are involved so deeply.

A one-word working theory would be: 'control'.

Yes. they do sent it back to the provinces.

And this top down style gov't doesn't work. They want full control and don't trust how the provinces spend their money. They give more money to the welfare provinces than to the proserous.

The feds need much less power and need to stop playing 'daddy' to everyone. Let the provinces run their own things and learn from their mistakes.

They send some of the money back, and make the taxpayers beg for their own money back.

"please sir, may I have more?"

The Liberals would never dream of giving up control of tax money related to health and education. It is hiow they control provinces, one of their few levers.

It is how they created the 'surplus' through the nineties and early 2000s. Simply keep the money intended for health and education, and force the provinces to raise the money themselves for these critical programs. Between this and the luck they ran into with low interest rates, they are hailed as economic geniuses. Note that Paul Martin, in over a decade at the center of spending, never initiated a comprehensive review of govt spending. They took the easy route, on the vbacks of taxpayers and leveraged their status at the top of the tax pyramid.

Would you like to know Harpers secret agenda with a majority? He is going to make sure that the Constitution is respected and that each level of govt knows its roles and responsibilites, is funded accordingly, and delivers .

What a novel and terrifying concept.

[geoffrey]

Would you like to know Harpers secret agenda with a majority?

I was personally hoping it was going to be like the attack ads said. Those ads actually made me vote for Harper... all the firewalls, increased defence, provincial autonomy, private healthcare, cuts to social programs.... the biggest thing being the realisation that Canada is a second class nation desperate in need of major reform... wow... that's a guy I'd elect.

Instead he ended up being not like the Liberals claimed and I'm disappointed in that.

[Figleaf]

The Federal government is no less coercive than provincial governments.

It's considerably more coercive than provincial governments, you are correct.

No, read carefully ... we disagree. You have an imaginary notion that one government is less coercive than the other, but there's no basis for that view.

We essientially have to pay outrageous amounts of taxes to a level of government that should technically be providing the least services....

Sez who?

The Constitution Act, 1867. Health care, education, social welfare, policing... all provincial responsibilities... yet most of our tax dollars go to Ottawa. What up?

I'm quite familiar with the Constitution, thanks (and fyi, policing is not listed in s. 92). If you read the division of powers sections, you will see that the federal government has a longer list, and many rather sweeping areas of responsibility. You glibly assert that the feds should be doing less, but you clearly have no idea what the truth is.

Do you really believe the purpose of the federal government is to harm the provinces? Paranoia strikes deep, in the heartland.

The purpose of the Federal government is to get re-elected.

I'm talking about the government, not the party that happens to be in government. Do you really believe that the purpose of the federal government is to harm the provinces?

Provincial governments should be self-interested... they are the only governments in this country that seem to actually stand for the people they represent. I elect politicans to have my voice heard in wherever they are elected to, not to idling stand by and do nothing. If provincial governments didn't stand up for their provinces interest, I promise you they wouldn't last long.

Provincial politicians are exactly that, provincial. They serve the narrow interests of the local power-cliques. If it weren't for the federal government, the Canadian colonies would still be corrupt backward satrapies they were in the 1950's.

[geoffrey]

No, read carefully ... we disagree. You have an imaginary notion that one government is less coercive than the other, but there's no basis for that view.

Sure, I'd rather have someone that knows and understands the concerns of the local population being coercive than someone that has no experience in the area. I'm sure the Maritimers feel the same about "my great-great-grandfather once arrived here in New Brunswick" Harper. No one wants authority over their life given to someone that thinks completely different then themselves.

I'm sure you and other Ontarians would hate to have me with authority over your life, and I don't blame you. Just as I'd not like to see your authority imposed over mine when we obviously have very different cultural outlooks and political values.

I'm quite familiar with the Constitution, thanks (and fyi, policing is not listed in s. 92). If you read the division of powers sections, you will see that the federal government has a longer list, and many rather sweeping areas of responsibility. You glibly assert that the feds should be doing less, but you clearly have no idea what the truth is.

Actually, most legal constitutional experts (and the way things work in Canada) is that this part of s. 92 is observed as giving provincial governments power over enforcement of Federal law:

14. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.

The provinces have police, the Fed's build prisions. Never made much sense to me. The only power the Fed should have with law is establishment of the Criminal Code, what is legal in Alberta should be legal in PEI, ect. ect..

This constitutional area might also throw a wrench into your arrest the separtists belief... but I'm not sure how this would exactly work out. A la

The purpose of the Federal government is to get re-elected.

I'm talking about the government, not the party that happens to be in government. Do you really believe that the purpose of the federal government is to harm the provinces?

The ruling party decides the policy of the government. If they wished to pass an act that taxed only Albertans for the benefit of everyone else (NEP style), then yes, they could. The beaurocracy would really be helpless to stop such a move. What the Federal government's intentions are are really irrelevant. It's only what the politicans think that matter. And they just want their job back.

Provincial politicians are exactly that, provincial. They serve the narrow interests of the local power-cliques. If it weren't for the federal government, the Canadian colonies would still be corrupt backward satrapies they were in the 1950's.

Too much faith in central government. I really must insist you've enjoyed the benefit of being in central Canada too long or something.

Maintaining general legal standards and freedoms, foreign affairs and a military is about as far as Federal powers should extend... well and the other silly little things like weights and measures, ect. ect..

[Figleaf]

No, read carefully ... we disagree. You have an imaginary notion that one government is less coercive than the other, but there's no basis for that view.

... No one wants authority over their life given to someone that thinks completely different then themselves.

I'm sure you and other Ontarians would hate to have me with authority over your life, and I don't blame you.

I'd rather have a remote authority providing good government than a local potentate governing badly. Your fallacy lies in the expectation that local is necessarily better. But it's not necessarily so, and there are plenty of examples. Consider Afghanistan ... if you're a girl living in Kandahar, do you want the rules of the Kabul government that says you get to go to school or the local warlord who says you don't?

I'm quite familiar with the Constitution, thanks (and fyi, policing is not listed in s. 92). If you read the division of powers sections, you will see that the federal government has a longer list, and many rather sweeping areas of responsibility. You glibly assert that the feds should be doing less, but you clearly have no idea what the truth is.

Actually, most legal constitutional experts (and the way things work in Canada) is that this part of s. 92 is observed as giving provincial governments power over enforcement of Federal law:

14. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.

'Most' constitutional experts, eh? So when did you conduct this poll?

The only power the Fed should have with law is establishment of the Criminal Code, what is legal in Alberta should be legal in PEI, ect. ect..

That's a nice quaint opinion.

The ruling party decides the policy of the government. If they wished to pass an act that taxed only Albertans for the benefit of everyone else (NEP style), then yes, they could.

First, the NEP did not 'tax Albertans'. Second, we have a constitution and the rule of law which confine governments to constitutional measures only.

Provincial politicians are exactly that, provincial. They serve the narrow interests of the local power-cliques. If it weren't for the federal government, the Canadian colonies would still be corrupt backward satrapies they were in the 1950's.

Too much faith in central government.

Nah, just a knowledge of history.

[geoffrey]

I'd rather have a remote authority providing good government than a local potentate governing badly. Your fallacy lies in the expectation that local is necessarily better. But it's not necessarily so, and there are plenty of examples. Consider Afghanistan ... if you're a girl living in Kandahar, do you want the rules of the Kabul government that says you get to go to school or the local warlord who says you don't?

That's one of the most ridiculous examples in support of Federalism I've ever seen. Comparing the rule of Alberta to Kandahar isn't the same. We are a civilized country, Afghanistan is trying to get there. I'm sure Stelmach's first move wouldn't be to ban girls from classrooms.

Let's deal with the reality in Canada. Provinces would be able to meet the needs of their citizens better if the Federal government wasn't playing such a heavy hand.

I'd rather have a remote authority prodiving good government than a local ptentate governing badly as well. But the remote authority isn't governing well in Canada, with either real party in charge. So what do we do? Govern ourselves.

Let me turn the tables on your ridiculous argument with an even more ridiculous one. In Nazi occupied France, I'm sure the local government would have been highly prefered and responsible to the people than the foreign controled occupational authority.

First, the NEP did not 'tax Albertans'. Second, we have a constitution and the rule of law which confine governments to constitutional measures only.

Provinces have been unready to challenge the Federal government's powers in terms of the consitution, however. A considerable challenge of the Canada Health Act may prove to find it unconsitutional... same with educational funding. The Federal government for sure cannot touch education, but they do. Public health is still up in the air a little based on the word of the law... the spirit of the law definitely defines it in favour of the Albertans.

[geoffrey]

I'm quite familiar with the Constitution, thanks (and fyi, policing is not listed in s. 92). If you read the division of powers sections, you will see that the federal government has a longer list, and many rather sweeping areas of responsibility. You glibly assert that the feds should be doing less, but you clearly have no idea what the truth is.

Actually, most legal constitutional experts (and the way things work in Canada) is that this part of s. 92 is observed as giving provincial governments power over enforcement of Federal law:

14. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.

'Most' constitutional experts, eh? So when did you conduct this poll?

Please, try to find one that disagrees. I've taken many courses in such matters. Policing is a provincial responsibility generally handled through contracts with the RCMP. If policing wasn't provincial, then how are municipalities and provinces able to establish their forces like the OPP and say Calgary Police Service?

Your not only arguing against probably one of the stronger areas of the consitution but against reality as well here. Policing is clearly and definitively a provincial jurisdiction.

[Figleaf]

I'm quite familiar with the Constitution, thanks (and fyi, policing is not listed in s. 92). If you read the division of powers sections, you will see that the federal government has a longer list, and many rather sweeping areas of responsibility. You glibly assert that the feds should be doing less, but you clearly have no idea what the truth is.

Actually, most legal constitutional experts (and the way things work in Canada) is that this part of s. 92 is observed as giving provincial governments power over enforcement of Federal law:

14. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.

'Most' constitutional experts, eh? So when did you conduct this poll?

Please, try to find one that disagrees. I've taken many courses in such matters. Policing is a provincial responsibility generally handled through contracts with the RCMP. If policing wasn't provincial, then how are municipalities and provinces able to establish their forces like the OPP and say Calgary Police Service?

Your not only arguing against probably one of the stronger areas of the consitution but against reality as well here. Policing is clearly and definitively a provincial jurisdiction.

Your many courses have not served you very well. S.92 says nothing about policing, and s.91 gives general residual powers to the federal level. If anything, the provinces have no jurisdiction to create or authorize police forces.