Eastern prosperity

[email protected] · March 2, 2007

Can Atlantic Canada be prosperous as part of Canada?

Wilber · March 2, 2007

Why not?

geoffrey · March 3, 2007

If Atlantic Canadians want to be. The richest part of the United States is attached to them.

[email protected] · March 3, 2007

Can Atlantic Canada be prosperous as part of Canada?

The point of asking this question as was this.

Given Canada’s 140-year-old national economic policy that favours economic development in the central region but not Atlantic Canada, will there ever be a serious attempt by the national government to create a prosperous regional economy in Atlantic Canada?

Wilber · March 3, 2007

Can Atlantic Canada be prosperous as part of Canada?

The point of asking this question as was this.

Given Canada’s 140-year-old national economic policy that favours economic development in the central region but not Atlantic Canada, will there ever be a serious attempt by the national government to create a prosperous regional economy in Atlantic Canada?

Why is it up to the national government to create a prosperous regional economy? The national government just shouldn't get in the way.

sideshow · March 3, 2007

Why shouldn't the government get involved? Perhaps the government could provide incentives so that employers would move into the region and provide employment-and thus create more opportunities, wealth, etc.

Manufacturing can be done anywhere, telecommunications can be anywhere, etc. If there were powerful incentives for employers to move to the region and create jobs perhaps that region would/could grow?

I'm not a huge proponent of government incentives, but I think when a region is dying economically the government really should step in and help out. I don't know the specific cure for what ails the east coast, but I think that anything that helps a)employers create employment and profits, and b)employees find good employment that stimulates their purchasing power within the economy, is a good thing.

Wilber · March 3, 2007

Why shouldn't the government get involved? Perhaps the government could provide incentives so that employers would move into the region and provide employment-and thus create more opportunities, wealth, etc.
Manufacturing can be done anywhere, telecommunications can be anywhere, etc. If there were powerful incentives for employers to move to the region and create jobs perhaps that region would/could grow?

I'm not a huge proponent of government incentives, but I think when a region is dying economically the government really should step in and help out. I don't know the specific cure for what ails the east coast, but I think that anything that helps a)employers create employment and profits, and b)employees find good employment that stimulates their purchasing power within the economy, is a good thing.

Move from where? Why should my tax dollars go toward subsidizing a business to move out of my town and across the country?

I think one has to realize that governments do not create wealth. As a matter of fact, they have shown themselves to be incompetent at it time and time again. Governments only redistribute wealth. We already do that through equalization and by the Federal Government spreading around it's own spending to provide an economic benefit to specific regions. Ultimately, if a region is to be truly prosperous, it has to come from the people living there.

sideshow · March 3, 2007

@Wilber:

Employers could be provided with incentives to move from areas of low unemployment and higher wages, to areas of high unemployment and lower wages. For instance.

If there are way too many employers competing for employees in one province, and there are a lack of people to fill the jobs, why not provide the employer with a financial incentive to pick up and move to a region where there are people needing the work? It is basically win-win.

Because the employer gets the workers, the workers get the employer. The government needs simply to provide the incentive. And that incentive need not be out of pocket. It could even be a big cut in taxes in one region, or rent free land, or whatever-something that it is not using or getting a financial advantage for right now anyways. And in the end, if the employer is paying SOME tax (as compared to none in that region), and the workers are paying SOME tax (as compared to paying none in that region) then it's a win for government as well.

Just because a province like Alberta is overflowing with cash for the last decade or so, and may do so for another decade or so doesn't mean it will always be that way. Times change. Manitoba had its wheat barons at one time. And it may become a water exporter in 50 years and be the "rich" province. Who knows? The maritimes are still part of Canada and deserve to have a hand up because they need it.

I think that the government, for helping companies like Michelin, should be applauded. They keep their work there and supply good jobs. And though the unions may hate the "michelin" bill, the government in that instance stepped in (dare I say butt in?) and created a law (that some see as unfair and unbalanced), that helped encourage growth of a company/industry.

If not for that government intervention, I would be sure that michelin would have packed up and left-to a huge detriment to the community. So sometimes government intervention is a good thing. And I support unions.

Wilber · March 4, 2007

I'm not a big fan of artificial incentives, they generally just end up supporting non competitive businesses. If businesses can't get the labour they need, they will move on their own. It is already happening in BC. Two companies have recently moved their manufacturing facilities to Ontario because they couldn't get the labour they need here. They didn't need a government incentive to do it. I certainly don't think the feds should be in the business of helping one province poach from another. The Maritimes already receive equalization payments from other provinces. How they use it is up to them.

I don't know what unions have to do with it.

White Doors · March 4, 2007

Employers could be provided with incentives to move from areas of low unemployment and higher wages, to areas of high unemployment and lower wages. For instance.

The market provides that incentive. Already maritimers are starting to move back. It's not because the government is 'encouraging them to'. It is the market that is encouraging them to.

The federal and provincial governments have to concentrate on 'primary' business of government and get out of the way of free enterprise more than they are now. There are encouraging signs but it has to be consistent and longer term. We shall see.

Who knows? The maritimes are still part of Canada and deserve to have a hand up because they need it.

NO! The maritimes need to buck up and get off the proverbial government teet and function on their own. This is coming from a Maritimer. We need to stop blaming others and look at ourselves in the mirror.

You think the maritmers that are left are happy that their children have to move away to be as financially independant as they were allowed to be? No. Less government and less taxes. Go for the Irish model. Coincidentally Ireland was depressed for many generations and they have bucked up.. Why can't their cousins in the maritimes?

The only reason that they can't will be a one-word answer: Government.

I think that the government, for helping companies like Michelin, should be applauded. They keep their work there and supply good jobs. And though the unions may hate the "michelin" bill, the government in that instance stepped in (dare I say butt in?) and created a law (that some see as unfair and unbalanced), that helped encourage growth of a company/industry.

YOu do know that michelin is a french company... One needs only look to France's economy/society to see how that is working/or not.

You need to do more research.

sideshow · March 4, 2007

Actually I am very familiar with the michelin issue. In fact, if it wasnt for the michelin bills, they would have packed up and left long ago.

As for help for the maritimes, i see know problem with helping companies relocated there. If some can do it on their own, then fine, but those businesses that need the help for a move, and will provide employment once ther e are really not a problem.

[email protected] · March 4, 2007

Great discussion!

The national government currently spends billions each year in incentives, but look where it spends them

Who gets business subsidies in Canada (1998 to 2000)

Ontario/Quebec 62%

Western Canada 31%

Atlantic Canada 7%

Who gets federal government spending on natural sciences, engineering, social sciences, and humanities (2001)

Ontario/Quebec 78.6%

Maritimes 2.6%

Charles Anthony · March 4, 2007

I do not believe ANYBODY should get "business subsidies" but those statistics look a lot like the general distribution of the population.

Very few people live in Atlantic Canada and very few subsidies go there. What should you expect?

sideshow · March 4, 2007

I do not believe ANYBODY should get "business subsidies" but those statistics look a lot like the general distribution of the population.
Very few people live in Atlantic Canada and very few subsidies go there. What should you expect?

Probably a very accurate view. It makes sense that Ontario would have a large majority of incentives.

Mad_Michael · March 6, 2007

Can Atlantic Canada be prosperous as part of Canada?

Not likely any time soon.

Too much addicition to subsidies and old school approaches.

I'd love to be wrong, but I've seen no sign of any changes there at all. Signs from Newfie about the oil suggests the opposite trend is still very strong.

Have they stopped any of that outrageously subsidized coal mining and steel making silliness in Nova Scotia yet? Gotta walk before one can run.

Mad_Michael · March 6, 2007

Great discussion!
The national government currently spends billions each year in incentives, but look where it spends them

Who gets business subsidies in Canada (1998 to 2000)

Ontario/Quebec 62%

Western Canada 31%

Atlantic Canada 7%

Given that Ontario/Quebec represents 75% of the population of the country, that indicates that Western Canada and Atlantic Canada are over-subsidized.

Who gets federal government spending on natural sciences, engineering, social sciences, and humanities (2001)
Ontario/Quebec 78.6%

Maritimes 2.6%

I'd like to see a data source for this one as it appears to be rather misleading or cherry-picked. Nova Scotia alone has more universities than half the freakin' country.

[email protected] · March 6, 2007

I do not believe ANYBODY should get "business subsidies" but those statistics look a lot like the general distribution of the population.

Very few people live in Atlantic Canada and very few subsidies go there. What should you expect?

Probably a very accurate view. It makes sense that Ontario would have a large majority of incentives.

Even assuming it is pop distribution, why should Ontario receive incentives at all?

Mad_Michael · March 6, 2007

Even assuming it is pop distribution, why should Ontario receive incentives at all?

1. Because Ontario taxpayers pay for them.

2. Because Ontario is home to the largest number of self-employed entrepreneurs that such programs are designed to give incentives to.

The lack of such incentives going to the Atlantic provinces has NOTHING to do with politics and EVERYTHING to do with the complete lack of self-employed Atlantic region entrepeneurs applying for such funds.

P.S. I'm still waiting for a data source for your assertions above.

geoffrey · March 6, 2007

Who gets business subsidies in Canada (1998 to 2000)
Ontario/Quebec 62%

Western Canada 31%

Atlantic Canada 7%

Given that Ontario/Quebec represents 75% of the population of the country, that indicates that Western Canada and Atlantic Canada are over-subsidized.

Western Canada is 10 million people, 33%ish of the population. 3.3 in Alberta, 4.3 in BC, 1 in Saskatchewan, 1.2 in Manitoba. totalling 9.9 million.

I was off on a Wikipedia tangent when I was researching this... I never realised quite how far the RoC lags behind Alberta... we have 135% of the GDP per capita of Ontario and 150% of the GDP of the national average. What else is sad? Saskatchewan is only a hundred bucks per capita behind Ontario. Poor ol' Ontario.

If you looking at contributions, Alberta has around 10% of the population, but we comprise 15% of Canada's GDP. We're actually catching up to Quebec in absolute terms.

More reason for us to bail on this sinking ship, Alberta is far ahead of the world with economic growth and development, Canada without us is very second rate. We should stop bleeding to feed the hungery welfare machine. We are being held back.

Mad_Michael · March 6, 2007

More reason for us to bail on this sinking ship, Alberta is far ahead of the world with economic growth and development, Canada without us is very second rate. We should stop bleeding to feed the hungery welfare machine. We are being held back.

Gosh, kinda makes me homesick for the old Quebec separatists. They were equally obnoxious and self righteous, but at least they were resonably pleasant about.

Hydraboss · March 6, 2007

Geoffrey, keep up this attitude in your posts and you will steal my line "Alberta Separatist".

geoffrey · March 6, 2007

Gosh, kinda makes me homesick for the old Quebec separatists. They were equally obnoxious and self righteous, but at least they were resonably pleasant about.

Eventually people get over the emotions and do what's best for them an their families.

Mad_Michael · March 6, 2007

Gosh, kinda makes me homesick for the old Quebec separatists. They were equally obnoxious and self righteous, but at least they were resonably pleasant about.

Eventually people get over the emotions and do what's best for them an their families.

Yes.

As the Quebec example shows, the silent majority knows how to ignore the extremists and their ego-driven separatist policies.

No comment is offered about how many years Ontario paid to subsidize Alberta (like every other Province in Canada). No comment is necessary. It speaks for itself. Ontario has been a net-contributor to Canada since 1867. It is the only province in Canada that can say the same. Alberta is only a recent recruit to the club. They are welcome, but not if all they can do is bitch about it. Very unCanadian that is.

guyser · March 6, 2007

More reason for us to bail on this sinking ship, Alberta is far ahead of the world with economic growth and development, Canada without us is very second rate. We should stop bleeding to feed the hungery welfare machine. We are being held back.

We know we know, Alberta is the finest. You keep telling us all the time.

And when the boom goes boom? We will surely feed your welfare machine ok...?....it is only fair.

sheesh....

blueblood · March 6, 2007

More reason for us to bail on this sinking ship, Alberta is far ahead of the world with economic growth and development, Canada without us is very second rate. We should stop bleeding to feed the hungery welfare machine. We are being held back.

We know we know, Alberta is the finest. You keep telling us all the time.

And when the boom goes boom? We will surely feed your welfare machine ok...?....it is only fair.

sheesh....

Good point. I think Alberta and Canada as a whole should be investing the returns from the oil sector into other up and coming industries. Having an economy just propped up on oil in my opinion is dangerous, we as a country should not be having all our eggs in one basket. There should be no excuse for Canada to be a welfare machine.