I think Alberta is about the only province that could sustain itself, quiet well without any federal funds.someone said:
Is Martin Bluffing
- Thread starter red
- Start date
Ah... another post-script edit/addition. And how, exactly, did I "screw myself up" in your little brain? By (1) pointing out to Mr. Someone that governments (especially the Federal government) routinely pass legislation outside of its' jurisdiction, despite his suggestion that this could not happen? Or (2) in explaining that the Provinces do indeed have a constitutional interest in "marriage", and could use the NWS clause according to their jurisdiction, again same sex or not?bbking said:
Because, irrespective of your little fantasies... that was ALL that was said. And it's ALL still true.
You really should take the pills the "brain doctor" gives you....
As things stand, I agree but don't forget, if federal taxes were not as high as they are in order to transfer money to the provinces, the provinces would be able to raise their own taxes to finance these programs to the levels individual provinces (and their voters) thought was worth well.langeweile said:
Is this an example of thread drift or what
Y
yychobbyist
Not true at all (except the part about thread drift). The population base of all provinces with the exception of Ontario, Quebec and maybe B.C. just make sustainabiltiy impossible. Here's where you guys with all the population get to pay for being able to chose the government for the rest of us.someone said:As things stand, I agree but don't forget, if federal taxes were not as high as they are in order to transfer money to the provinces, the provinces would be able to raise their own taxes to finance these programs to the levels individual provinces (and their voters) thought was worth well.
Is this an example of thread drift or what
First of all, it is not population that is important so much as per capita income. As someone else pointed out, Alberta could definitely afford to province their own education (it is actually only at the post secondary level and in areas of job training that the federal contributes much to education anyway) and health care. Once BC recovers from past bad government, they will clearly return to have status and not have problems in this regard.yychobbyist said:
You are right in suggesting that there is some implicit redistribution involved in federal cost sharing programs (I assume that is what you mean to suggest as it makes more sense that talking about population). Whether or not there should be redistribution between have and have not provinces is a matter of opinion. However, if there is going to be such redistribution I would say that it should be through the equalization program so that provinces can set their own spending priorities. One would assume that provincial governments elected in those provinces are in a better position to decide how their citizens what the money spent.
If I recall correctly, like most provinces they contract the RCMP. Many provinces find it cheaper. Some years ago, Newfoundland wanted to expand their RNC to eventually replace the RCMP in areas of the province not covered by the RNC but they found it was much more expensive than just contracting the RCMPred said:
By and large, the Canada Health Transfer, Canada Social Transfer, and Health Reform Transfer follow the population very closely. Of the $40.7 billion that the Government collects, and then returns to the provinces (with their conditions), here are samples of the breakdown... compared to population statistics:yychobbyist said:
Ontario $16.4 billion (40%, vs population of 38%)
Alberta $4.2 billion (10%, vs. population of 10%)
PEI $0.157 billion (.3%, vs. population of .5%)
Nova Scotia $1.2 billion (2.9%, vs. popultion of 3%)
New Brunswick $.88 billion (2.1%, vs. population of 2.5%)
British Columbia $5.3 billion (13%, vs. population of 13%)
...
Yes, there are additional "equalisation" transfers beyond this... but that is a separate matter. There is no reason that THIS "hostage" money could not be taxed directly against the provincial populations by the provinces, rather than have the Federal Government "help" them.
There is NO reason for the Federal Government to be collecting $40.7 billion in taxes for purposes outside of their jurisdiction.
Best regards,
F.
All I know is that provinces have contracts with the RCMP so they are paying for these services. There may be an implicit subsidy built into the contracts that I am not aware of. One disadvantage of these contracts involves occasional disputes over priorities for law enforcement. I guess the biggest example of was during probation when Saskatchewan decided that the RCMP was not active enough in enforcing their probation laws and set up their own provincial force which was disbanded after probation.red said:
I believe that's true... as well as whatever they feel is necessary within the city (RCMP jurisdiction is Canada-wide, and they do more than just community policing). Remember, though, that a LOT of that is "politics"... and the RCMP has been there forever (way before it was a province)....red said:
If your point is that the province should be paying for them for "localised services", though... I most thoroughly agree....
Best regards,
F.
1) whose tradition?K Douglas said:
2) traditions change
My Conservative MP extends the 'traditional definition of marriage' as "...a LIFELONG union between one man and one woman..."
The Conservatives belong to another age. It is clear why they dropped the 'Progressive' part of their name.
The Conservatives have done nothing to earn my vote.
