Katimavik

[August1991]

The federal government has approved Katimavik’s funding for another year until the fall of 2008. Bev Oda, Minister of Canadian Heritage, confirmed that our funding will be extended at its current level of $19.7 million for the 2007-2008 program year. This is a clear indication that this government recognizes the value of Katimavik and the benefits it provides for both youth and communities.

Link

Government bureaucrats should not be involved in picking winners. They create many more problems in trying to pick them. They shouldn't try.

This idea applies, among others, to our immigration system, cultural granting boards and Katimavik.

Government bureaucrats have important roles to play in a civilized society but choosing R & D recipients, selecting immigrants or participants in Katimavik, or deciding corporate grants or tax policies are not among them.

The idea of Katimavik is not bad. But government bureaucrats should not be involved.

For $20 million of other people's money - less than a buck per Canadian - the Tories have bought peace. Too bad Oda didn't have the courage to say no, on behalf of us all.

[mikedavid00]

For $20 million of other people's money - less than a buck per Canadian - the Tories have bought peace. Too bad Oda didn't have the courage to say no, on behalf of us all.

So basically 4000 kids and relatives sent in letters to our gov't to spend $20,000,000 of out tax dollars on their special interest.

And this is all volunteer based? Wonder where the 20 million goes?

Could it be that there are a group of adults that are managing the program and getting the kids to do their letter writing and volunteer work in order for those adults loot public funds?

Nah couldn't be. Not in a first world country like Canada.

(lol)

EDIT: After reading a bit further sure enough, there are a group of elite offenders pocketing the money and giving themselves jobs:

Link to URL

And oops, seems this is a Quebec organization and look who's on the board of directors:

"Justin P.J. Trudeau

Member"

And who else has their paws in our tax dollars from this program?:

"Jacques Hébert"

-"Hébert was a close friend of Pierre Elliot Trudeau"

-"Hebert attended the launch in Shanghai with Alexandre Trudeau"

And suprise suprise, this program was created during the trudeau years. When the PC got in control, he went on a hunger strike if they cut the funding to the program.

How many Canadian elites have their paws in the public cookie jar? I never even heard of this group till now.

[Charles Anthony]

I remember the hunger strike and it was childishly stupid.

The Conservatives are in power now. There is no reason to blame the Liberals for what happens today with this thing.

[mikedavid00]

I remember the hunger strike and it was childishly stupid.

The Conservatives are in power now. There is no reason to blame the Liberals for what happens today with this thing.

What would the CBC do if they cut funding to this program? It would almost be headline news and there would be children sent out striking. It wouldn't be good media for the CPC do they had to do what they had to do.

This program funds Libearl Quebec elites. Nothing more. It's a volunteer program where children are being used as pawns. This is organized crime IMO.

No wonder every conservative gov't has threatened to cut funding.

Of course, there's things the polticians 'know' that they aren't about to tell the public. It's probably in the 'know' that this program is used to funnel money to elites.

The chairperson is a member of various boards, including the Canadian Labour and Business Centre, the Education Marketing Advisory Board, the Canada Millenium Scholarship Foundation, the Canadian Centre for Management Development and the Canada Foundation for Innovation.

Basically, he's rich off our tax dollars. This sort of thing has got to stop... i mean.. is it a far reach to say that 40% of every tax dollar spent goes to non essential elites, side programs, and cushy white collar welfare jobs?

And why Quebec? ALL THE TIME Quebec is involved in looting public funds.

Does this sort of looting go on in Alberta?

[jbg]

What is Katimavik?

[Ricki Bobbi]

What is Katimavik?

It's a youth service program. Probably the closest American equivalent would be Americorps.

[geoffrey]

At a cost of less than $5000/kid for a year of experiencing various areas of Canada, I'd say it's good value. I disagree with the premise of the program, but I don't think there is a value for our tax dollars issue here.

[madmax]

What would the CBC do if they cut funding to this program? It would almost be headline news and there would be children sent out striking. It wouldn't be good media for the CPC do they had to do what they had to do.

So, what party would cutting Katimavik be good for? The Conservatives have no problem cutting programs they don't approve and letting the media anounce those cuts. The Conservatives approve of the program.

Your speculation about the CBC conspiracy and Children Striking is more about you then the reality.

[madmax]

At a cost of less than $5000/kid for a year of experiencing various areas of Canada, I'd say it's good value. I disagree with the premise of the program, but I don't think there is a value for our tax dollars issue here.

A very close friend of mine, in the Conservative Youth back in the early 80s benefited from this program. I know he valued the experience. I have often wondered since that time, if Katimavik has always been around, or always funded.

Any info appreciated.

[Ricki Bobbi]

At a cost of less than $5000/kid for a year of experiencing various areas of Canada, I'd say it's good value. I disagree with the premise of the program, but I don't think there is a value for our tax dollars issue here.

Yet another discrepancy from Geoff.

There is no way a "true" Conservative Government of the type you favour, and keep complaining that the current Government isn't, would keep on funding Katimavik.

Care to explain yourself?

[geoffrey]

At a cost of less than $5000/kid for a year of experiencing various areas of Canada, I'd say it's good value. I disagree with the premise of the program, but I don't think there is a value for our tax dollars issue here.

Yet another discrepancy from Geoff.

There is no way a "true" Conservative Government of the type you favour, and keep complaining that the current Government isn't, would keep on funding Katimavik.

Care to explain yourself?

I actually said above I don't agree with the premise of the program, I don't like spending money on such things. But the value is good. I'd like to see the program cut, but there are likely hundreds of programs of equal ridiculousness that provide much less value to cut first.

I don't think the government should buy everyone food, but if they can get apples for $0.02 each then that's still a good value.

There is a significant difference between squandering money and just spending outside what I think is the government's responsibility.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I'd like to see the program cut, but there are likely hundreds of programs of equal ridiculousness that provide much less value to cut first.

But there is no value, ever, in giving money to Quebec?

I don't think the government should buy everyone food, but if they can get apples for $0.02 each then that's still a good value.

So you are a pragmatist when it suits you, but you vent your anger at the Conservatives anytime they act in a pragmatic manner?

There is a significant difference between squandering money and just spending outside what I think is the government's responsibility.

This is the first time I can remember you making that distinction. So you aren't going to move to *threaten* moving to another country because of Katimavik?

[geoffrey]

But there is no value, ever, in giving money to Quebec?

$1.5b for the sake of buying your way into a majority? No.

So you are a pragmatist when it suits you, but you vent your anger at the Conservatives anytime they act in a pragmatic manner?

100% pragmatist. I don't think the CPC has been working in much of a pragmatic manner. If you mean designing programs to gain a majority at all costs, then sure. But I'm not power hungry, I'm looking to see my self-interest represented... not a certain name in power.

In the end they are all the same in character... their policies are what distinguish them. If the CPC runs the same as the Liberals, I don't see the point in distinguishing between them with my vote.

This is the first time I can remember you making that distinction. So you aren't going to move to *threaten* moving to another country because of Katimavik?

Nah. It's $20M. I'll pay my what, $0.80 to the program. $1.5b to Quebec is $50 per Canadian, and with equalisation as it is now, likely closer to $115 per equalisation funding citizen (of Ontario and Alberta). If you were to further calcuate it on the basis of Alberta paying about 4x per capita as Ontario, we're looking at who knows, likely between $225-350.

I see a difference between $225 and $0.80.

Especially when one move provides absolutely zero value to anyone other than Quebecois. Katimavik is at least open to any Canadian that wants to go.

EDIT: By the way, the CPC increase of the lowest marginal rate nearly funds exactly the additional transfer dollars to Quebec. You figure it out.

[Ricki Bobbi]

100% pragmatist. I don't think the CPC has been working in much of a pragmatic manner.

Pragmatic. Defintion: of or pertaining to a practical point of view or practical consideration

The practical consideration here is winning a majority. Not necessarily *at all costs*. You might appear a little more educated if you learn the definition of words before questioning them?

If you were to further calcuate it on the basis of Alberta paying about 4x per capita as Ontario, we're looking at who knows, likely between $225-350.

So it's worth it to you to move to another country for $225 to $300? Or that's the point at where you start making false threats about it.

Especially when one move provides absolutely zero value to anyone other than Quebecois. Katimavik is at least open to any Canadian that wants to go.

You still haven't stated the economic value, in terms of domestic and international confidence in the economy, of a zero or minimal threat of Quebec separation. Or is there any?

[geoffrey]

100% pragmatist. I don't think the CPC has been working in much of a pragmatic manner.

Pragmatic. Defintion: of or pertaining to a practical point of view or practical consideration

The practical consideration here is winning a majority. Not necessarily *at all costs*. You might appear a little more educated if you learn the definition of words before questioning them?

The practical consideration here is fixing this country from the last 13 years of Liberal power. Not developing policies that essientially do the same thing, favour the same people, and further add to regionalism in Canada.

So it's worth it to you to move to another country for $225 to $300? Or that's the point at where you start making false threats about it.

It's more than a few hundred dollars. Canada is a terrible place to do business. Decisions like just handing cash to Quebec because Quebec asks for it don't do anything to improve the situation.

You still haven't stated the economic value, in terms of domestic and international confidence in the economy, of a zero or minimal threat of Quebec separation. Or is there any?

It'd hurt some areas of Canada. I doubt if it'd affect Alberta's oil revenues, the US isn't just going to stop buying our oil tomorrow because Quebec is gone. Some of our industries that are involved with Quebec (not many) would be negatively affected. But we'd also be free of a multi-billion dollar drain on Alberta's economy in direct transfers to the province of Quebec and Quebec's unemployed.

[Ricki Bobbi]

The practical consideration here is fixing this country from the last 13 years of Liberal power. Not developing policies that essientially do the same thing, favour the same people, and further add to regionalism in Canada.

*Essentially* is a pretty loose term to use.

Do you think they are taking steps in the direction of fixing the country? What is the value of far more radical steps only to lose power in the succeeding election only to see all of their fixes reversed?

It's more than a few hundred dollars. Canada is a terrible place to do business. Decisions like just handing cash to Quebec because Quebec asks for it don't do anything to improve the situation.

You just said it was $225 to $300. Where is this much more than a few hundred dollars coming from?

It'd hurt some areas of Canada. I doubt if it'd affect Alberta's oil revenues, the US isn't just going to stop buying our oil tomorrow because Quebec is gone. Some of our industries that are involved with Quebec (not many) would be negatively affected. But we'd also be free of a multi-billion dollar drain on Alberta's economy in direct transfers to the province of Quebec and Quebec's unemployed.

What about the associated fall in value of the Canadian dollars? The rise in the prime rate?

[geoffrey]

Do you think they are taking steps in the direction of fixing the country? What is the value of far more radical steps only to lose power in the succeeding election only to see all of their fixes reversed?

Some of the ideas are ok... but there has been no changes of substance. So what's the big difference between a CPC or LPC government?

It's more than a few hundred dollars. Canada is a terrible place to do business. Decisions like just handing cash to Quebec because Quebec asks for it don't do anything to improve the situation.

You just said it was $225 to $300. Where is this much more than a few hundred dollars coming from?

This particular payout is $225ish. In the big picture? Our tax system is outdated by a few decades, we are middle of the pack at best in OECD economic indicators, our unemployment despite Alberta's job shortage is still way too high in many areas of the country... these are all the things that add up to a cost of far more than a few hundred dollars on your average working Canadian... There are much better places to live than Canada.

Ireland has a GDP per capita and average income higher than us. They have no natural resources. The difference between them and us is a loss to the individual Canadian. We have better geography (next to the biggest economy in the world), way more resources, more flexible access to immigrant workers... yet we are much poorer.

That's a cost.

It'd hurt some areas of Canada. I

What about the associated fall in value of the Canadian dollars? The rise in the prime rate?

A fall in the Canadian dollar significantly benefits resource exporters in Alberta. Actually, that benefits Ontario manufacturing too. So really, other than tourists, that's a good thing.

The rise in the prime rate would moderate the growth caused by the falling dollar.

[mikedavid00]

I don't like spending money on such things. But the value is good.

The value is good??

Are you serious???????

[geoffrey]

I don't like spending money on such things. But the value is good.

The value is good??

Are you serious???????

I'd pay $0.80 for one less hippie to be sitting on a street corner.