Conservatives to deal with Fiscal Imbalance.

Ricki Bobbi · January 16, 2007

So word has leaked out that the Conservatives have made provisions for dealing with the fiscal imabalance.

Here is the link.

Radio Canada reported Monday that Ottawa will increase transfer payments to the provinces in the area of education, post secondary education and infrastructure.
As well, Quebec would get an extra $1.5 billion in equalization payments.

Seems like we will see a Quebec election called in the spring.

geoffrey · January 16, 2007

Increasing transfer payments again is not the solution. Increasing Ottawa's involvement isn't what we want.

Less taxes need to go to Ottawa so that provinces can fund their programs internally, and therefore be more accountable for their spending.

Riverwind · January 16, 2007

Radio Canada reported Monday that Ottawa will increase transfer payments to the provinces in the area of education, post secondary education and infrastructure.

Sick and insane. Provinces should collect their own taxes and stop depending on Ottawa to do the dirty work. When comes to equalization: Quebequers will only demand more next year. It is impossible to satisfy people who are kept dilberately ignorant about their gov'ts fiscal situation by their political elite. Although, August's posts about the ADQ give me some hope that change is in the wind.

If this plan goes through, I expect to see some serious gains for a Reform II party that will likely have a seperatist bent. I am sure Albertans will figure out that it is useless to have your 'guy' in power unless your 'guy' believes that he might not get your vote next time.

geoffrey · January 16, 2007

If this plan goes through, I expect to see some serious gains for a Reform II party that will likely have a seperatist bent. I am sure Albertans will figure out that it is useless to have your 'guy' in power unless your 'guy' believes that he might not get your vote next time.

Bang on. This is not the Stephen Harper that anyone elected. Correcting the fiscal imbalance meant more tax room for provinces, not increased control in Ottawa.

jbg · January 16, 2007

Bang on. This is not the Stephen Harper that anyone elected. Correcting the fiscal imbalance meant more tax room for provinces, not increased control in Ottawa.

Good morning. He's running a minority government, effectively in coalition (though without formal agreement) with the Bloc. What else can he do?

Can you find enough Anglophone ridings to give him a majority?

Saturn · January 16, 2007

Radio Canada reported Monday that Ottawa will increase transfer payments to the provinces in the area of education, post secondary education and infrastructure.
As well, Quebec would get an extra $1.5 billion in equalization payments.

What a surprise! Quebec gets only $1.5 billion. That must be just the warm-up. Once the election is called it will be raining money in Quebec.

Shakeyhands · January 16, 2007

another promise kept? a little eager there Ricki.

Lets see if its accepted by the Provinces before planning the parade route.

man.. you sound like a Leafs fan! :lol: ............... and I am one!

Ricki Bobbi · January 16, 2007

another promise kept? a little eager there Ricki.
Lets see if its accepted by the Provinces before planning the parade route.

man.. you sound like a Leafs fan! ............... and I am one!

Eager? Maybe. People might take issue with how they kept the promise, but they did keep it. Besides with something as nebulous as the fiscal imbalance it is impossible to keep everybody happy.

Leafs fan .... yuk. My team has won the cup in most of our lifetimes. Just went in the spring....

mikedavid00 · January 16, 2007

So word has leaked out that the Conservatives have made provisions for dealing with the fiscal imabalance.
As well, Quebec would get an extra $1.5 billion in equalization payments.

Wasn't the idea that he was going to give back more money to the provinces that give most like Ontario and Alberta? Wasn't that the fiscal imbalance?

The answer is for the feds to remove themselves from making descisions on a provinces schooling and infrastucture needs. I think the provinces know what they need most. Let those provinces keep their money and deal with them as they see fit.

Naturally though, Harper is working 'with the system' rather than against it. He will win an election this way and I guess that's what we should be aiming for.

I believe in Harper and his Reform values are hidden underneath. The Lebanon issue showed this when he acted rashly and called Isreal's defence a 'measured response' or something like that. While he was right, he was going against the values of the CBC which should be respected and this cost him votes. You have to play politics.

OR, what COULD be happening is that he's getting jaded by his power and rubbing elbows with elites all over the country and starting to realize if he wants to keep his power, he had better work with the status quo or he'll lose it.

You can have a certain opinion when you work for a company, but when you OWN the company, your opinions change due to other influences via the people around you.

I hope the latter isn't true.

mikedavid00 · January 16, 2007

Increasing transfer payments again is not the solution. Increasing Ottawa's involvement isn't what we want.
Less taxes need to go to Ottawa so that provinces can fund their programs internally, and therefore be more accountable for their spending.

I comletely agree.

But will Quebec and Atlantic canada agree? Probably not.

B. Max · January 16, 2007

Bang on. This is not the Stephen Harper that anyone elected. Correcting the fiscal imbalance meant more tax room for provinces, not increased control in Ottawa.

I wonder if our mime has be told yet what dance he's going to dance.

mikedavid00 · January 16, 2007

Bang on. This is not the Stephen Harper that anyone elected. Correcting the fiscal imbalance meant more tax room for provinces, not increased control in Ottawa.

Yeah but in fairness, what do you expect him to do? Our system has been taken advantage of and Canada is now split into groups or Liberal-created regional minorities. He has to take these measures in order to win. Let's face the truths of our Parlimentary system.

What it will show Albertans is what I've been saying all along; the parlimentary system is no longer functining to serve Canadians; rather politics. The only way to fight this is through seperation. Another reform party won't even solve this because they will not have power to make changes. Thus 'seperation is the only way'. As great men once said.

Alberta's seperation threat is unique though. Canada needs Alberta. Alberta doesn't need Canada. Unlike Quebec, this isn't a cultural issue with language at the core. Alberta is not asking for handouts. Quebecs threats where almost entirely based off handouts and language issues. Major differece.

Alberta really does mean it when they say it and I do support seperation of Alberta and especially unionship with the US.

Ricki Bobbi · January 16, 2007

Yeah but in fairness, what do you expect him to do? Our system has been taken advantage of and Canada is now split into groups or Liberal-created regional minorities. He has to take these measures in order to win. Let's face the truths of our Parlimentary system.

That is exactly what he has done. But it does not necessarily mean it will lead to separation in Alberta.

I haven't seen anything here in Calgary that would lead me to think people in great numbers are really considering separation.

Not in the leadership vote. Not in opinion polls. Nothing.

Catchme · January 16, 2007

Quite frankly, I can't think of any promises he has kept yet!

mikedavid00 · January 16, 2007

Quite frankly, I can't think of any promises he has kept yet!

What are you talking about? The GST is the best example.

HoratioCaine · January 16, 2007

If they're going to fix it they should fix it the right way, not in some half cocked way only designed to get more votes in Quebec.

Equalization is a good idea, but it's been corrupted by man. If it were applied the way it was intended instead of all these backroom deals to each province there wouldn't be a problem. But you've got all the provinces, especially oddly enough the have provinces, whining and complaining and the feds not doing what they should do: Tell them to shut the you know what up.

jbg · January 16, 2007

But you've got all the provinces, especially oddly enough the have provinces, whining and complaining and the feds not doing what they should do: Tell them to shut the you know what up.

"Oddly enough"????

It seems that the "have" provinces are throwing a party. They should at least control the guest list, the choice of music, etc.

stignasty · January 17, 2007

Saskatchewan Finance Minister Andrew Thomson said his oil-producing province stands to lose up to $800 million next year under this plan.

"It's clear what they are trying to do is buy Quebec votes with Western oil. And I think that is a very dangerous game to be playing. This is not the way that Confederation should work," Thomson said.

"The Conservatives campaigned hard on saying they would remove natural resources from the equation. If this is the fact, that they are going to move forward with this, this is an absolute betrayal of what their election promise was." http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/17/...-imbalance.html

Well, someone else doesn't agree with Ricki Bobbi.

geoffrey · January 17, 2007

Good morning. He's running a minority government, effectively in coalition (though without formal agreement) with the Bloc. What else can he do?
Can you find enough Anglophone ridings to give him a majority?

Can you remember how many ridings Mulroney lost when he sold out Western Canada?

Catchme · January 17, 2007

Quite frankly, I can't think of any promises he has kept yet!

What are you talking about? The GST is the best example.

He raised personal 1% and decreased GST 1%, LOLOLOL

The only example and it was nothing.

Saturn · January 18, 2007

Here is another promise kept: http://politicsblog.ctv.ca/blog/Contributo.../1/2465438.html

By: Stephen Harper
Source: National Post

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

On September 19, the Prime Minister acted recklessly when he ordered his Finance Minister, Ralph Goodale, to wade into the income-trust market like a proverbial bull in a china shop. On that day, investors were put on notice that their popular income trusts were going to be targeted by a Liberal government seeking higher tax revenues from companies and investors.

Martin's reckless action has caused uncertainty over the future of income trusts, and so has wiped out billions of dollars in market capitalization from Canadian companies and tens of thousands of dollars from the retirement nest eggs of individual investors. Most notable was the damage done to Canadian seniors who may not have the time to recoup their losses.

...

So one must ask, why is the government clamping down on the retirement savings of seniors and investors?

But it gets worse. Instead of immediately moving to assure markets that income trusts are here to stay, the Liberals are justifying their actions in the coldest political terms. As one government member was quoted in the media as saying about income trust investors, "They have no constituency. They don't count politically."

That kind of arrogance cannot go unanswered. There is just no justification for what amounts to a Liberal government attack on investors, and especially on seniors.

The government continues to overtax Canadians and run multi-billion dollar surpluses, yet their first instinct is to attack an investment vehicle that can make the difference between bare survival and a dignified retirement for millions of Canadians.

The government claims that income trusts enjoy an unfair tax advantage over corporate dividends. If they believe this, then the answer is not to shut down a valuable investment vehicle, but to cut the double taxation of dividends. In short, level the playing field and let the market decide between income trusts and dividend-paying companies.

As my party's finance critic, Monte Solberg, says, the success of income trusts represents a rare triumph for investors over the tax man. Let's not be so naive as to assume that the Liberals will do the right thing to protect taxpayers. We'll need to fight hard to keep what we have, and even harder to gain ground.

It's time to stand up to Paul Martin and stop his attack on seniors and investors.

Ricki Bobbi · January 18, 2007

He raised personal 1% and decreased GST 1%, LOLOLOL
The only example and it was nothing.

Accountability Act - promise kept.

GST cut - promise kept.

Crime Bills - promise kept.

Choice in Childcare - Promise kept.

Pilot project for pediatric wait times guarantee - promise kept.

11,000 acres of farmland sold back to Quebec farmers around Mirabel - promise kept ....

You will probably call all of these nothing.

But that's ok. You'll never vote conservative and you never have.

madmax · January 18, 2007

Can you remember how many ridings Mulroney lost when he sold out Western Canada?

No, but I remember the entire elected Progressive Conservative MPs could drive to work in a Corvette.

But what happened to Mulroney? I think he cut and ran before the election.

geoffrey · January 18, 2007

Can you remember how many ridings Mulroney lost when he sold out Western Canada?

No, but I remember the entire elected Progressive Conservative MPs could drive to work in a Corvette.

But what happened to Mulroney? I think he cut and ran before the election.

That may have had something to do with favouring Quebec instead of the West.

$1.5b in additional welfare is going to Quebec... to support more programs than anyone else gets in Canada. I thought the point of equalisation was to ensure that all provinces had reasonable programs at reasonable taxation. Instead Quebec just keeps spending our money on ridiculous things and asking for more.

The fact that Harper is going to hand another $1.5b to Quebec is absolutely absurd and it's an insult to all Western Canadians. Alberta and Saskatchewan are going to fund this completely.

All the while we have McGuinty whining like a baby that his province gives too much per capita... while Albertans give 4x or $4000 per capita more than Ontarians. McGuinty wants Alberta to pay more... the hypocracy and entitlement from Eastern Canadians make me sick.

Non-renewable resource revenue needs to stay completely within a province to fund diversification (coming along good in Alberta) for when the resources run out. It's part of the inherent wealth of a region and can't be sent elsewhere, especially to a province that doesn't have any non-renewable resources so will unlikely ever 'give back'.

If Harper includes more Alberta money in his large vote purchase in Quebec, another Reform movement grows closer. More and more broken promises, and more and more shit going to Quebec. It's unacceptable. Liberals might do it under the table in envelopes and illegal embezzlement. The CPC has the nerve to do it in front of our faces.

I hope Albertans deal with Harper quickly and send him packing if one more dollar leaves this province after the new deal is made. We pay our fair share, it's time the rest of Canada learns that their economics are failed and develop their own economies. Especially Quebec.

Mulroney took his Western base for granted and so has Harper. Hopefully he'll pay dearly at the ballot box.

Ricki Bobbi · January 18, 2007

I hope Albertans deal with Harper quickly and send him packing if one more dollar leaves this province after the new deal is made. We pay our fair share, it's time the rest of Canada learns that their economics are failed and develop their own economies. Especially Quebec.
Mulroney took his Western base for granted and so has Harper. Hopefully he'll pay dearly at the ballot box.

I think the new, more mature, Alberta sees how unsuccessful that tactic was for us in 1993.

Do tell us which years were better for Alberta. 1984 to 1993? Or 1993 to 2006?

I have faith that Albertans will reward Harper for the positive steps he has been able to take in the last year.

Unfortunately, there is a serious undertone of impracticality to those people who voted Conservative in the last election who are already planning on abandon him for keeping his word and not breaking out the *secret agenda* that never really existed.

Harper in the PMO may not be perfect for Albertans, but he is better than any of out other options...