The Beaver Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 In the wake of the Gomery Commissions findings, and with a Federal election likely just around the corner, are we headed for another unity crisis in the country? Has Quebec been given enough fodder--and enough anger--to finally quit confederation? Will the West and Ontario/Maritimes find common ground on which to build a new country? Or will we stay the course--more or less--and keep united despite these considerable challenges? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 Opinion polls have Quebeckers at the highest "I would vote yes" percentage since 1995. Don't forget that the provincial Libs are sucking as well, with an approval rate of around 30%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
River City Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 I've always wanted to belong to a Canadian Beer Drinker's Party as that is something that does unite Canadians from Coast to Coast to Coast. But judging by the passion on this Board, we could start the Voyageur Soccer Party of Canada and keep the country together, since it doesn't look like the Politicians care too much for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canso Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 I wish I could vote Bloc Quebecois! Gilles Duceppe is the only man worthy of being called a Prime Minister. Maybe he could turn the separatist agenda into a national movement to separate from the monarchy..or from NAFTA...or CONCACAF! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Beaver Posted April 22, 2005 Author Share Posted April 22, 2005 quote:Originally posted by canso I wish I could vote Bloc Quebecois! Gilles Duceppe is the only man worthy of being called a Prime Minister. Maybe he could turn the separatist agenda into a national movement to separate from the monarchy..or from NAFTA...or CONCACAF! Okay, I realize you are mostly joking, but I have to admit that aside from his Separatist agenda Duceppe sounds like the best person for the PM's job by far. Layton is okay, a little too fervent, perhaps, but his ideas are well-intentioned and I'd doubt he'd let corruption rot the NDP. I'll agree with Atwood on this one: If Jack got rid of the mustache, maybe it'd be easier to take him seriously. He sort of looks like a guy that wears black leather chaps and PVC. Mind you, I'm not against free trade--I'm just not certain that NAFTA is the best agreement for us. Yes, Monsieur Duceppe, make your party a Canadian national party, and then you might have something. (Of course, the best card he holds right now is the separatist card...) (Canso: By the way, I was called a bigot in another thread on this sub-forum. What the hell?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 quote:Originally posted by The Beaver By the way, I was called a bigot in another thread on this sub-forum. And you earned it in that thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loud Mouth Soup Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 At least I would be able to blame the Liberals for destroying this country. Nice job, morons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Beaver Posted April 23, 2005 Author Share Posted April 23, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Richard And you earned it in that thread. Hey, I thought we were done with this. Time to move on, right? From one bigot to the other, can we agree to do that? [:I] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandon Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 quote:Originally posted by The Beaver In the wake of the Gomery Commissions findings, and with a Federal election likely just around the corner, are we headed for another unity crisis in the country? Has Quebec been given enough fodder--and enough anger--to finally quit confederation? Will the West and Ontario/Maritimes find common ground on which to build a new country? Or will we stay the course--more or less--and keep united despite these considerable challenges? if Quebec ever seperates (god forbid) there is no way that B.C. would remain in a country with the entire power base centred in Ontario-what i mean is that minus the checks of power that Quebec has on the(ontario pandering) federal government it would become even more inequitable. i think you would probably see bc and alberta leave as well although not necessarily together. i read a really interesting book a few years ago by Rafe Mair it was called Canada: Is Anyone Listening? if you ever get a chance you should read it it gives a good perspective of some British Columbians point of view in regards to that scenario among other things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 quote:Originally posted by The Beaver Are you sure about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 quote:Originally posted by The Beaver Hey, I thought we were done with this. Time to move on, right? From one bigot to the other, can we agree to do that? [:I] Unless my eyes are deceiving me it was you who made the reference in this thread. Anyway, we may differ on the subject of stereotyping of neighbourhoods but it seems were are a lot closer on our overall political thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 quote:Originally posted by brandon if Quebec ever seperates (god forbid) there is no way that B.C. would remain in a country with the entire power base centred in Ontario-what i mean is that minus the checks of power that Quebec has on the(ontario pandering) federal government it would become even more inequitable. i think you would probably see bc and alberta leave as well although not necessarily together. i read a really interesting book a few years ago by Rafe Mair it was called Canada: Is Anyone Listening? if you ever get a chance you should read it it gives a good perspective of some British Columbians point of view in regards to that scenario among other things It is hardly surprising that the feds pay more attention to Quebec and Ontario than they do to British Columbia, 20 million people versus only just 4 million in BC, indeed only 10 million everywhere west of the Manitoba/Ontario border with more than half the GNP and most of the transfer payments for the whole of Canada generated in Ontario and Quebec. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canso Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 (Canso: By the way, I was called a bigot in another thread on this sub-forum. What the hell?) Everyone's a little bit racist sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Beaver Posted April 25, 2005 Author Share Posted April 25, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Richard [ Anyway, we may differ on the subject of stereotyping of neighbourhoods but it seems were are a lot closer on our overall political thinking. No, we're probably more similar in most other ways of thinking, too. (But I am only assuming this based on what little I've read here from you.) Whalley does not in fact resemble a chuff-nut. Nor is Guilford the arm-pit of Surrey. Mind you, one has to wonder how the people of these neighborhoods can feel/believe that the federal Conservatives are the best thing going. Do they have any idea how useless Conservative policy will be for the lower- and working- class? (And please, don't go and tell me that these two neighborhoods are in any way well-off. I am not judging them on their financial status or wealth, just their political ignorance.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Beaver Posted April 25, 2005 Author Share Posted April 25, 2005 quote:Originally posted by brandon Hey, I know Rafe Mair. What a knob! I'm surprised he never ran for the Reform Party. (Or did he?) Hey, I know you Abbostsford dudes have a big woody for the Conservatives, but I know far too many British Columbians who'd much rather live in Canada with or without Quebec. Hey, if Quebec leaves, BC and Alberta suddenly become even more important to the federal experiment. In BC at least, you have to take into account the fact that most of us--at least 2 thirds of us--do not want to be part of the US of A. And most of us do not see the benefit or purpose of forming our own country. Western Alienation is a bit of a myth, to be frank. Too many of us like to blame others for our problems, rather than get off our asses and fix them ourselves. For instance, my Conservative-voting cousin in Calgary once told me that it is the government's fault for his not having found a better career. He said that if our post-secondary wasn't subsidized, and so accessible, then he would have made a more careful decision about the sorts of courses he'd taken at university. If university was more expensive, he argued, then one would HAVE to make a better decision. He blamed the Liberals and our socialist society for HIS poor decision. And I thought Conservatives were all about personal responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 quote:most of the transfer payments for the whole of Canada generated in Ontario and Quebec. Quebec is designated a have-not province and thus receives transfer payments. The transfer payment revenue is generated in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC supporter Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 quote:Quebec is designated a have-not province and thus receives transfer payments. The transfer payment revenue is generated in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.You might want to drop BC from your list. BC has officially been a "have-not" province for several years and only now is moving back into "have" status. Owing to its recent "have-not" status, BC is getting $721 million in equalization payments in 2004/95, and will get another $596 million next year. Plus, due to revised estimates, the province is also getting a one-time extra "back equivalization" payment of $259 million for 2001/02 through 2003/04. Sure makes the province's books look a heckuva lot better as we approach the May 17 provincial election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Grizzly Quebec is designated a have-not province and thus receives transfer payments. The transfer payment revenue is generated in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. No wonder Ontario is pissed, it's seems it's the only province not receiving equalisation payments - carrying all the other provinces instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyleG Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 quote:Originally posted by BC supporter You might want to drop BC from your list. BC has officially been a "have-not" province for several years and only now is moving back into "have" status. Owing to its recent "have-not" status, BC is getting $721 million in equalization payments in 2004/95, and will get another $596 million next year. Plus, due to revised estimates, the province is also getting a one-time extra "back equivalization" payment of $259 million for 2001/02 through 2003/04. Sure makes the province's books look a heckuva lot better as we approach the May 17 provincial election. More that it seems Alberta is the only "have" province in the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue and White Army Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 quote:Originally posted by DoyleG More that it seems Alberta is the only "have" province in the country. I'd be careful of becoming too cocky, as such status is highly fluid. Once upon a time Alberta had to pander to provinces such as Nova Scotia for financial handouts... and a fair share of the older infrastructure in Alberta comes from such monies. One day your oil will run dry... as will your province's arrogance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 I think the current equalization payment program is poor, owing more to political than economic considerations, i.e. consider almost everyone a "have-not" province so they will all be happy. Almost rewards failure. Considering provinces like BC, Quebec, Saskatchewan, etc. as have not is ridiculous in my opinion. I am all for the principal behind the program, letting provinces in (hopefully temporary) difficulty receive extra funding to aid in their recovery. I fully support Newfoundland being given extra money following the fishery collapse or funding being provided for economies hurt by mad cow problems. Providing it to provinces with good employment figures and good economies by any standard economic criteria is a waste. As most provinces have a somewhat disproportional influence on the federal government due to certain things that need the provinces approval, this program functions on the jealousy principal, ie. he got funding so I want it to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Equalization comes about because Canada has pursued for most of its existence economic polices that are national rather than provincial in scope and equalization seeks to redistribute the imbalance in wealth that results. The Domnion Lands policy, as just one example, which was designed to create a self sufficient agrarian economy in the prairies, and a market for eastern wares. In a national context this made sense. Provinces were locked into certain paths that, as a whole, was an economic boon to Canada, but may not have been the best value adding economic path. Equalization is compensation for Saskatchewan (as an example, and we are a province that fluctutate betwen "have" and "have not", and usually receive the smallest equalization payment) not being able to ignore the economic needs of Ontario and go purchase/import everything from the cheapest source. And also limits our ability to sell our goods and resources as might be most benefical to us. Saskatachewan and Alberta, for example, would be better off economically if Ontario imported all of its oil and natural gas from foreign sources. Alberta is the province most punished by equalization right now, since, unlike Ontario, they do not benefit from having a partially protected market that is nearly 3 times its own size. I don't wish to pander to the whinning of a certain element of Alberta in saying this, because I am one who sees the nation as just that - a nation. I have no problems with equalization because an equitable distribution of wealth within a nation is not something I philosophically have a problem with. But if we are going to get rid it, then lets rewrite the whole kit and kaboodle to level things out. I am pretty certain a made in Saskatchewan economic policy would work better for our narrowed aims and objectives than a made in Canada economic policy does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew W Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Gordon, even if you didn't wish to pander to a certain element in Alberta your "I (heart) Three Hills" t-shirt is in the mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandon Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 quote:Originally posted by The Beaver Hey, I know Rafe Mair. What a knob! I'm surprised he never ran for the Reform Party. (Or did he?) I know you Abbostsford dudes have a big woody for the Conservatives.... well ive actually never voted conservative or reform for that matter(i always vote for the green party or not at all) but i would say that the reform party did a better job of representing their b.c. and alberta constituents in ottawa than any other mp thats come out of the liberals or the ndp for that matter. as for him being a knob so what? did you read the book? i'm guessing not because to slag someone off for there political views without even bothering to to take into account or debate the facts they put in front of your face is typical liberal and conservative elitism "Hey, if Quebec leaves, BC and Alberta suddenly become even more important to the federal experiment." i would say that b.c. and alberta are already far more important economically to the "federal experiment" than quebec is now and in the forseeable future and its this lack of recognition and things like the national energy program-Trudeau and renegging on the cf-18 base in b.c. and then moving it to quebec-mulroney that lead to what you want to believe is the "myth" of western alienation. as for your "conservative voting cousin" i dont think that his political slant is going to make him any less of a retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soju Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Loud Mouth Soup At least I would be able to blame the Liberals for destroying this country. Nice job, morons. I haven't lived in Canada for several years now so I'm wondering what you mean by "destroying this country" can you elaborate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.