Eastern prosperity

[[email protected]]

Yes, because it was promised as terms of Confederation.

What exactly were those terms?

Can you provide a specific link or a reference?

sure.

The Quebec Resolutions, October 1864 (what everyone voted on)

1.The best interests and present and future prosperity of British North America will be promoted by a Federal Union under the Crown of Great Britain, provided such Union can be effected on principles just to the several Provinces.

2.In the Federation of the British North American Provinces, the system of Government best adapted under existing circumstances to protect the diversified interest of the several Provinces, and secure efficiency, harmony and permanency in the working of the Union, would be a general Government, charged with matters of common interest to the whole country …

http://www.collectionscanada.ca/confederat...3001-245-e.html

It is also interesting to read about the events leading up to Confederation (or not). There was not very much support for Confederation. PEI and NFLD did not join in 1867 and both NS and NB tried to leave or alter it soon after 1867. Most of the opposition was around economic, ie prosperity issues, taxes, trade etc etc

eg "The proceedings of the conference were not recorded, but it is known that Tilley and the other New Brunswick delegates were impressed by what Confederation could offer: greater security, a wider market for their goods, and a way to reach that market through the promised Intercolonial Railway."

http://www.collectionscanada.ca/confederat...001-2100-e.html

If Canada had not promised prosperity, why would anyone want to join it?

[[email protected]]

To be fair, we have no idea how prosperous Atlantic Canada would be today had it not joined Canada. It probably is fair to say that it would be better off.

Why is it fair to say that?

Atlantic Canada was booming before Confederation, doing better than Central Canada.

And then the Brits banned slavery and Canada adopted principles of free trade. Bad luck for Nova Scotia who's 19th century prosperity was dependent upon slavery and extremely high tarriffs.

The Brits banned the slave trade in 1807 so not relevant.

The Reciprocity Treaty eliminated custom tariffs with the US, so what do you mean high tariffs?

[[email protected]]

Atlantic Canada was booming before Confederation, doing better than Central Canada.

So, do you think you live in a vacuum, that the rest of the world should stand still? Booms come and go, the trick is being part of the next one. How did the rest of Canada destroy your prosperity? What could you have done outside of Confederation that would have given you more opportunities than being in it?

That is a valid question and very tough to answer since it is a big 'what if'. It seems likely that Maritime Union would have gone ahead, with or without NLFD (they probably would have joined later). Given the fast rising population, increasing industry and wealth it seems probable that the region would have adopted policies to enhance and continue this. It certainly would have developed a sizable industrial base which would have keep pace with the growth of New England in the years ahead since the regions were very similar. Strong links would have been kept with the US and the UK. Plus the Union would control the eastern seaboard and control access to Canada from the Atlantic. Of course, anything could happened, but this seems reasonable.

[Charles Anthony]

I will be blunt: I find your sense of entitlement to be distressing.

Please understand that my following statements and replies are my attitudes in general for ALL parts of Canada. I genuinely believe that Canada should dissolve into independent countries. Do not take my comments personally vis-a-vis the Atlantic provinces.

The Quebec Resolutions, October 1864 (what everyone voted on)

I did not vote on it and neither did you. Why should I be obligated to follow it?

1.The best interests and present and future prosperity of British North America will be promoted by a Federal Union under the Crown of Great Britain, provided such Union can be effected on principles just to the several Provinces.

Such a goal is incredibly vague.

2.In the Federation of the British North American Provinces, the system of Government best adapted under existing circumstances to protect the diversified interest of the several Provinces, and secure efficiency, harmony and permanency in the working of the Union, would be a general Government, charged with matters of common interest to the whole country …

Again, this is a vague goal.

If Canada had not promised prosperity, why would anyone want to join it?

I doubt they did. The politicians of the Atlantic provinces imposed this upon their people.

Please understand, somebody like me, may think that the economic salvation of a province and the "common interest of the whole country" is best served by gutting all of government and abolishing all subsidies. Whoever is undergoing financial hardship should get up and move or starve. Therefore, my recommendation could qualify as accomplishing the above vague goals.

[BornAlbertan]

Charles, I agree about Canada being dissolved. To think some fisherman 3,000km has anything in common with me in Alberta is a joke. The only thing we have in common is if he actually decides to get his arse (I had to use that word ) off his armchair and is willing to work instead of collecting pogey (that one too ) is that there is a job for them in Alberta. Other than that we think different, talk different and are educated different.

Any investment which would see decades of losses would see the investor cut their losses...confederation and multi-culturalism as a whole are failed experiments in which the bleeding hearts of Canada fail to acknowledge and move on from. They all seem to think Canada has this "identity" when the only identity we have is from within and is artificially founded for the sole reason of giving us some sense of pride. The identity that is so often applied to Canada is the Ontario identity. It is kind of pathetic really. A whole country has to define itself based on one self-righteous province and in particular city.

[guyser]

The identity that is so often applied to Canada is the Ontario identity. It is kind of pathetic really. A whole country has to define itself based on one self-righteous province and in particular city.

Self righteous ?

[[email protected]]

Any investment which would see decades of losses would see the investor cut their losses...confederation and multi-culturalism as a whole are failed experiments in which the bleeding hearts of Canada fail to acknowledge and move on from. They all seem to think Canada has this "identity" when the only identity we have is from within and is artificially founded for the sole reason of giving us some sense of pride. The identity that is so often applied to Canada is the Ontario identity. It is kind of pathetic really. A whole country has to define itself based on one self-righteous province and in particular city.

Interesting comments about the 'failed experiments' of the central government, what that be tied to the dysfunctional political system in the country, the system that produces these flawed policies?

[NovaScotian]

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.

The steel industry subsidization ended almost 10 years ago. Today subsidies to business are lower then the national average.

[NovaScotian]

This highlights the Atlantic Canadian problem.

Pulling Against Gravity: Economic Development in New Brunswick During the McKenna Years

Savoie’s story of New Brunswick and Frank McKenna’s miracle involves two distinct, but interrelated threads: the creation of New Brunswick (and Atlantic Canada’s) dependency on federal government largesse; and Frank McKenna’s revolution given such dependency. Savoie’s central thesis is that federal government policy against Atlantic Canada (including New Brunswick) hurt McKenna’s effort to modernize New Brunswick. Thus the title of the book. Frank McKenna’s dynamic policies worked to lift the province up off of the ground. But continued pro-central Canada federal policies have limited how high New Brunswick could go. I discuss each major theme in turn.

The creation of New Brunswick’s dependency: The province as a “supplicant”

Savoie argues that New Brunswick (and Atlantic Canada) are economic dependent regions. The economic dependency springs from Canada’s history. From Confederation onward, a highly-centralized federal government undertook economic policy to favour the interests of central Canadians. John A. Macdonald’s National Policy, favouring manufacturing in central Canada and east-west trading links, lead to corporate headquarters relocating away from the Maritimes. During the two world wars the federal government concentrated nearly all war making manufacturing Quebec and Ontario. Crown corporations, after playing a major role in the war effort, remained headquartered in central Canada (pp. 20-21). Particularly after World War I and onward, New Brunswickers and Maritimers took on the role of that of “supplicants”—people and governments continually and asking federal government for economic help (chapter 3). The Duncan Commission was established; the Maritime Rights Movement took hold; the Rowell-Sirois Report was tabled; various legislation and regional development efforts were undertaken after World War II onward. All of these efforts, according to Savoie, established Atlantic Canada in the public’s mind as a singularly have-not, backwards region — chronically underdeveloped and always asking the federal government for more help.

The crux of Savoie’s argument is that federal government boasts loudly about helping New Brunswick and Atlantic Canada through aggressive “regional development” efforts, but delivers little in actual industry development. Be it Diefenbaker’s Atlantic Manifesto, Trudeau’s new Department of Economic Expansion (DREE), Mulroney’s Atlantic Canada Economic Opportunity Agency (ACOA) or Chretien’s $700-million Atlantic Investment Partnership Program (just announced last year), these programs have been dwarfed by much larger “national” industry building initiatives—the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Auto Pact, Industry Canada subsidies and tax breaks, and federal R&D efforts like the Technology Partnership Program and “Networks of Centres of Excellence.” Indeed, Savoie makes the case, in this book and elsewhere,[ 2 ] that after the initial DREE years, regional economic development money has been steadily diluted away from Atlantic Canada to Montreal and to richer provinces points west. Throughout Pulling Against Gravity Savoie criticizes successive federal governments for addressing Ontario and Quebec concerns as “national” problems, while at the same time perceiving Atlantic Canada concerns as “regional” ones.

Why is this so? Savoie points to the over-concentration of power in central Canada. For example our Senate is a mere patronage tool for powerful prime ministers, all of whom since World War II have come from central Canada. Since senators are appointed, they speak for the prime ministers who appoints them, not for their respective regions. Being appointed, senators lack democratic legitimacy, and are rightly ignored by mainstream journalists and ordinary Canadians. The United States, by contrast, has a powerful Senate, whose constituent senators speak for diverse state interests. Consider the current lumber dispute. Certain powerful U.S. senators support anti-dumping measures. In Canada our senators remain silent. Moreover, having a powerful legislative body in the United States that speaks for the diverse regions has meant that the U.S. government has spread federal expenditures more evenly throughout that country. It has allowed for disparate federally supported growth poles (e.g., the space centres in Texas and Florida) to develop. In Canada, by contrast, our government has purposely favoured high-tech growth solely along the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto axis (e.g., Canada’s space centre in Montreal).

Consequently New Brunswick (and Atlantic Canada in general) have become economically dependent in the sense that, to this day, the regions have failed to industrialize in step with modern economic development. Just as the federal government, from the National Policy onward, purposely nurtured central Canada’s traditional manufacturing (at the expense of Atlantic and western Canada), so too today our federal government favours an over-concentration of high-technology development within the southern Quebec/Ontario region. In fact Savoie makes the case that our federal government supports no meaningful industry building strategy for Atlantic Canada. Much of federal efforts are directed to funding after-the-fact compensatory programs (employment insurance, equalization payments). Savoie notes that, in the run-up to the 2000 federal election, Prime Minister Chretien stated: “we will win more seats in Atlantic Canada in the next federal election. Apparently, I will have to fix the problem with U.I. there” (p. 188).

For Chretien, liberalizing an already lenient employment insurance program made good vote-buying sense. But re-liberalizing employment insurance makes poor regional development policy. Given a lax EI insurance scheme, workers stay in old, sunset industries and occupations. Particularly in rural areas, the minimum number of hours to qualify for EI is very lenient, where workers spent unusually long periods idle. For Savoie, the federal government has always been quick to design lavish economic relief packages for Atlantic Canada, while at the same time ignoring industry-building programs. The result is that Atlantic Canada (and New Brunswick) remain dependent on federal largesse.

Savoie as an Atlantic Canada rights advocate

Pulling Against Gravity rolls two themes into one book. It first tells the story of Frank McKenna’s modestly successful “miracle.” But secondly it makes a passionate plea for New Brunswick and Atlantic Canadian rights in Canadian federation. Savoie calls for an elected Senate to bring meaningful power to periphery provinces. Failing that, the writer calls for a decentralization of power from federal government to the provinces. He writes:

“But a strong central government has never been in the economic interest of New Brunswick or Atlantic Canada. To be sure, federal transfer payments of one kind or another have enabled them to provide a high level of public service, but this came with a price—economic dependency (p. 190).

http://www.isuma.net/v02n04/murrell/murrell_e.shtml

[Charles Anthony]

NovaScotian,

It is against the forum rules to re-copy an entire article.

You can post selections and provide a link:

http://www.isuma.net/v02n04/murrell/murrell_e.shtml

instead.

[NovaScotian]

sorry, i will cut it down.

I always forget the rules on this forum!

[NovaScotian]

And then the Brits banned slavery and Canada adopted principles of free trade. Bad luck for Nova Scotia who's 19th century prosperity was dependent upon slavery and extremely high tarriffs.

Before confederation the Maritime economy depended on trade with the Caribbean, the US and Europe. AFTER confederation the new government of Canada adopted high tariffs(see The National Policy.) which was extremely damaging to the Maritime economy in the long run.

It was central Canada that wanted the high tarrifs and the Maritimes preferred the more free market approach.

Charles Anthony said "I doubt they did. The politicians of the Atlantic provinces imposed this upon their people. "

The Maritimes did not need to be promised prosperity because at the time it was the wealthiest part of Canada, small yes, but prosperous.

Most politicians of Nova Scotia were dead set against it. In fact Nova Scotia was the scene of the first separatist movement in Canada. In the elections of 1867 the Anti-confederation party, led by Joesph Howe won 18/19 federal seats and provincally the Anti confederation party won 36/38 seats.

The government in 1868 proclaimed:

..the scheme [confederation with Canada] by them assented to would, if adopted, deprive the people [of Nova Scotia] of the inestimable privilege of self-government, and of their rights, liberty, and independence, rob them of their revenue, take from them the regulation of trade and taxation, expose them to arbitrary taxation by a legislature over which they have no control, and in which they would possess but a nominal and entirely ineffective representation; deprive them of their invaluable fisheries, railroads, and other property, and reduce this hitherto free, happy, and self-governed province to a degraded condition of a servile dependency of Canada."

– from Address to the Crown by the Government (Journal of the House of Assembly, Province of Nova Scotia, 1868)

It was Britain that forced the Maritimes into confederation.

[stjohnrv]

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.

[stjohnrv]

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?

one poster says manufactoring ca be done anywhere??? is that so if he really believes that possibly he would like to factor in such varibles as markets and transportation. onarion has every advantage to the north eastern USA and thousands of miles of railway and highways to get their goods to market.

Come on down to the Atlantic coast and witness the 75% of our rail transportation was ripped up by cn and Cp rail with the permissionof Ottawa. Our higways are all pointed in one direction northwest to Quebc. we have no good highways into the eastern USA and we have NO raillinks left at all.

Compete on a level laying field one would have to be from west of NB to believe that. Incidently the govenment grants one poster suggests are dealt out regionally by population he should really do a bit of reading before he allows his mouth to run so hard. we are a small % of the overall poulation about 7.3% (it would be higher but we haven`t been able in the past 60 years to convince our youngster to stay at home for minimum wage) however we do pull our weight in one critical section of the canadian mosiac our 7.3% provides the canadian military with 23% of its recruits. We can die for it, but we must never raise above ourselves and ask for a hand up... i said a hand up not a hand out.