Transfer payments ...

[MarchHare]

The problem isnt that we aren't a swing province, it is that Ontario has 100 seats in the house while we have around 30.

I'm not sure if those numbers are accurate or not, but if so, Alberta has greater per capita representation than Ontario. That would give Ontario slightly more than three times as many seats as Alberta despite having about four times our population.

Anyway, all this incessent complaining about Ontario deciding every election grows tiring. Did anyone ever bother to think that (excluding Quebec) Ontario has more citizens than every other province and territory combined?

[Edit]
Source: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050324/d050324c.htm

Ontario Population: 12,449,502
NL+NS+PEI+NB+MB+SK+AB+BC+NT+YK+NU Population: 12,060,677

[transplant99]

Everyone gets the burden/right of one vote per person, but when it comes to money, hey that equality shinguard just doesn't come into the equation.

TADA!!!!! DING DING DING.

Always has, and always will be that way because thats how the liberals work.

Equality is great and all according to them...until its time to share the burden financially.

One of the arguments of those who lean left is that a democracy is supposed to represent the MINORITY in all facets of society....except when it comes to distribution of wealth.

Well here you are in Alberta....where all the money is (which is absolute BS as well) so you get to send your money all over the rest of the country. Yet when it comes to having a say in things.....hmmm...seems its a "majority rules" (IE: rep by pop in Ontario) situation now!!

Funny how they want it both ways isnt it? Yet when Albertans cry out that they are being raped....the response is "too bloody bad...maybe you should of voted Liberal".

I say "too bloody bad" to them when they whine about Alberta being a "rich" province. If you want some of it.....come and work for it yourselves. Otherwise....and in no uncertain terms....its flat out theft to keep the system status quo. Ontario decides the government and the way they do "business", while Alberta and others just have to keep lining the pockets of Quebec and others because...well...thats how the Libs stay in power. What a joke.

Where are they looking out for the minority known as Alberta?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by fotze+May 11 2005, 08:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (fotze @ May 11 2005, 08:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Okay, I'm not too sure if your second paragraph is supposed to be sarcastic, but man do I hope it is.

Of course it is totally sarcastic, I thought it was over the topply so. [/b][/quote]
I figured as much. But sometimes you never know, there are a few people around here who just may say something like that and mean it (not you).

[MarchHare]

One of the arguments of those who lean left is that a democracy is supposed to represent the MINORITY in all facets of society....except when it comes to distribution of wealth.

Who said that?

A democracy is supposed to represent the will of the majority while protecting the rights of minorities. Not once have I ever suggested the minority should rule, just that they shouldn't be subjected to discriminatory laws.

[Claeren]

I do not see it here yet, but i believe the actual tranfer deficit for Alberta last year was $7B.

23B Ontario (12M) = $1917/person/year
07B Alberta (03M) = $2333/person/year



Claeren.


PS - Incidently, i am involved in a big debate with a bunch of ignorant seperatists over in the Canada section at www.skyscraperpage.com . They seem to think Quebec is not to much of a charity case but that the rest of Canada just needs to be more of a charity case. It is OUR fault for not blackmailing the country?! Apparently they think someone else (??) will pay the tab if we worked harder for our 'fair share'...

Seperatist thread....

[looooob]

Originally posted by Claeren@May 11 2005, 11:38 AM
I do not see it here yet, but i believe the actual tranfer deficit for Alberta last year was $7B.

23B Ontario (12M) = $1917/person/year
07B Alberta (03M) = $2333/person/year



Claeren.


PS - Incidently, i am involved in a big debate with a bunch of ignorant seperatists over in the Canada section at www.skyscraperpage.com . They seem to think Quebec is not to much of a charity case but that the rest of Canada just needs to be more of a charity case. It is OUR fault for not blackmailing the country?! Apparently they think someone else (??) will pay the tab if we worked harder for our 'fair share'...

Seperatist thread....

I tend not to complain much about Alberta's lot in life, we have it pretty good

but it's true when I was going to University in Quebec, just over 10 years ago, my French Canadian friends literally did not believe (and mocked me openly) that Alberta was a net payer into confederation and Quebec was not.

internet searches weren't as easy back then, but gosh knows I tried to convince them otherwise

even last week in the paper you could read some folks trying to convince their fellow Quebecois how much WEALTHIER Quebec would be if they just went it alone.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by MarchHare@May 11 2005, 07:48 AM

I'm not sure if those numbers are accurate or not, but if so, Alberta has greater per capita representation than Ontario. That would give Ontario slightly more than three times as many seats as Alberta despite having about four times our population.

Anyway, all this incessent complaining about Ontario deciding every election grows tiring. Did anyone ever bother to think that (excluding Quebec) Ontario has more citizens than every other province and territory combined?

[Edit]
Source: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050324/d050324c.htm

Ontario Population: 12,449,502
NL+NS+PEI+NB+MB+SK+AB+BC+NT+YK+NU Population: 12,060,677

I'm well aware of the population difference between Ontario and the rest of Canada, thanks. However, that does not justify or excuse the fact that Ottawa panders to Ontario to get elected. You may not like the whining, but it is fact.

The Liberals gave massive breaks to the auto industry, based in ONTARIO, so as to limit the hardships they would feel under Kyoto, but offered nothing for the Oil and Gas industry, based in Alberta.

The Liberals are trying to buy votes by giving ONTARIO $6 billion of it's transfer back. What will Alberta get? A whole lot of nothing.

No, no reason at all to complain about how Ontario gets everything, and fata the rest of the country. Like I said, we are second-class Canadians.

I didnt express myself properly on the seats in the HoC this morning, as I was in a bit of a rush, but I dont actually mind the way the HoC is made up, and quite honestly, the house needs to be adjusted to reflect the number of seats each province should be guaranteed. That means a lot more seats for Ontario. I am fine with the House being represented by population.

However, there needs to be a system that balances the nation by region as well. And that is where the EEE Senate comes in. There is, quite simply, no reason for the federal government - regardless of it's location on the compass - to pay attention to the West. Canada needs a wholesale reform of it's political system, and it begins with turning the upper chamber into a useful branch of government, rather than a house of Liberal patronage and bribery.

Consider your own argument. Ontario has 12.5 million people. The west makes up 10 million people. Do you honestly believe that federal policy accurately represents the population breakdown of Canada's regions? I sure as hell dont.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by looooob+May 11 2005, 11:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (looooob @ May 11 2005, 11:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Claeren@May 11 2005, 11:38 AM
I do not see it here yet, but i believe the actual tranfer deficit for Alberta last year was $7B.

23B Ontario (12M) = $1917/person/year
07B Alberta (03M) = $2333/person/year



Claeren.


PS - Incidently, i am involved in a big debate with a bunch of ignorant seperatists over in the Canada section at www.skyscraperpage.com . They seem to think Quebec is not to much of a charity case but that the rest of Canada just needs to be more of a charity case. It is OUR fault for not blackmailing the country?! Apparently they think someone else (??) will pay the tab if we worked harder for our 'fair share'...

Seperatist thread....

I tend not to complain much about Alberta's lot in life, we have it pretty good

but it's true when I was going to University in Quebec, just over 10 years ago, my French Canadian friends literally did not believe (and mocked me openly) that Alberta was a net payer into confederation and Quebec was not.

internet searches weren't as easy back then, but gosh knows I tried to convince them otherwise

even last week in the paper you could read some folks trying to convince their fellow Quebecois how much WEALTHIER Quebec would be if they just went it alone. [/b][/quote]
I actually had a chance to talk to Gilles Duceppe about that once.

He crushed me like a bug



Claeren - I think BC was included in that too, so AB would be adjusted slightly downward.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by fotze+May 11 2005, 06:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (fotze @ May 11 2005, 06:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bend it like Bourgeois@May 11 2005, 07:25 PM
I actually had a chance to talk to Gilles Duceppe about that once.

He crushed me like a bug

Ya, we wouldn't want you to expand on that story or anything [/b][/quote]
Hehe ...fresh out of uni I was working in the policy field. Duceppe made a goodwill tour out here not long after he became leader of the Bloc. I was part of a private meeting with a half dozen business big wigs - my job was to be a wallflower.

It didn't quite work out that way, but I don't want to over-dramatize it either. Was about a 5 min conversation between he and I. I'm sure everyone else in the room knew I was about to get schooled and let me learn my lesson. I questioned where the 11 billion (at the time) would come from to replace federal cash, we went back and forth a few times, and I was sunk. Turns out he knew a lot more about specific programs and budget items in Quebec than I did. Go figure.

He also knew a hell of a lot more about how to take control of a conversation. I watched him steer some of the suits around and thought I could do better. That didn't quite work out either. Dude has psycho eyes.

[CaptainCrunch]

I've gained a ton of respect for Duceppe, he was the leader that the BQ was looking for and does not come across as the raging Xenophobe that othe Bloq leaders have been.

I doubt that you'll ever hear him blaming an election loss on Jewish money.

[calculoso]

Originally posted by MarchHare@May 11 2005, 09:43 AM
Who said that?

A democracy is supposed to represent the will of the majority while protecting the rights of minorities. Not once have I ever suggested the minority should rule, just that they shouldn't be subjected to discriminatory laws.

How exactly are the rights of Albertans being protected? Seems like we're being financially taken advantage of instead.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by calculoso+May 12 2005, 03:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (calculoso @ May 12 2005, 03:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MarchHare@May 11 2005, 09:43 AM
Who said that?

A democracy is supposed to represent the will of the majority while protecting the rights of minorities. Not once have I ever suggested the minority should rule, just that they shouldn't be subjected to discriminatory laws.

How exactly are the rights of Albertans being protected? Seems like we're being financially taken advantage of instead. [/b][/quote]
Are you saying our "rights" have been comprimised? How so?

[MarchHare]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+May 12 2005, 09:12 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ May 12 2005, 09:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

How exactly are the rights of Albertans being protected? Seems like we're being financially taken advantage of instead.

Are you saying our "rights" have been comprimised? How so? [/b][/quote]
Or that Alberta's fortune is protected by the constitution?

Just the opposite is true, actually. Transfer payments from richer provinces to less forutunate ones are guaranteed by the Constitution Act. Alberta keeping all it's wealth in-province is not.

[MarchHare]

Ontario is still seeing a net loss of funds though. It's not like they're all of a sudden becoming a have-not province. They're just losing less than they did previously.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by fotze@May 12 2005, 08:04 PM
This thread is not about the raw deal for Ont and AB, but that they are proposing to change it ONLY FOR ONTARIO because Ontario has just recently started to bitch.

Surely you can't agree with that.

Well Ontario is far more important politically to the Liberals than Alberta is.

What are we going to do about? Mostly what I hear is whining and complaining and that leads to the whole idea of seperation.

I would propose that we need electoral reforms to give us proportional representation. The way I'm thinking it could be implemented the Liberals would lose seats in Ontario and likely gain in most other provinces. This would result in any Liberal minority or majority governments not being able to put Ontario's agenda ahead of the rest because their powerbase would be more spread out and not just concentrated in Ontario.

Anyone have the numbers from last election on what percentage of Ontario voted Liberal compared to the percentage of the number of seats in Ontario that were won by Liberals? That's the disparity we need to address in Ontario and the rest of the provinces. I think it would solve a lot of the West's alienation issues. Not only would it reduce their powerbase in Ontario but the other provinces would be better represented in the Liberal party itself.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

To answer my own question...

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/candidatesri...ario/index.html

Liberals had 44.67% of the vote share in Ontario and yet won 75 out of 106 seats or 71% of the seats. If we had proportional representation implemented by province then the Liberals would only have 47 seats, not 75 in Ontario.

Looking at Alberta now...

The Conservatives had just 61.64% of the popular vote and yet won 26 of 28 seats (93%). The Liberals had 21.98% of the popular vote and yet only got 2 seats. If we had proportional representation implemented by province then the Liberals would have gotten 6 seats.

And of course that trends can be continued for each province.

But it clearly demonstrates how the current system encourages these regional powerbases and thus most of our regional problems. I found it strange in the thread on proportional representation that some people thought it would get worse with proportional representation when the idea I'm proposing does the exact opposite.

Anybody who is frustrated with Ontario's politcal dominance should be very interested in proportional representation from what I can see. Over 50% of Ontarians voted AGAINST the Liberals and yet they won 71% of Ontario's seats. There is a very obvious flaw here and once again I have to wonder why this is not a bigger issue to most Canadians.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by fotze@May 12 2005, 08:52 PM
I think the current vote tallying bidness is the best way.

Why do you believe that? Do you not recognize that a lot of our regional disputes are born out of the current electoral system?

[MarchHare]

Originally posted by fotze@May 12 2005, 02:52 PM
I think the current vote tallying bidness is the best way. I just don't necessarily think the money transferring part is up to snuff.

Do any of you have a less than exceptional relative that just never can make any money to support themself. (But have a kickass home theatre or vehicle).

Do you guys support them? transferring your money so that everything is equal year after year. Sure you probably help for a couple years, but what if becomes 40 years, isn't about time for some change? Do you think you would have an opinion on how that moeny is spent? What if he is just deciding to get a phd in everything at your expense? NOt a single soul here would continue to foot the bill for that many year and just accept it no questions asked.

You do know that transfer payments are mostly used to pay for healthcare and education in less prosperous provinces, right? The whole point of equalization is so Canadians can receive relatively equal access and quality of service regardless of which province they live in.

Equalization isn't so other provinces can spend money foolishly on Alberta and Ontario's dime. Thus your analogy of a deadbeat relative with a kick-ass car or home theatre isn't apt.

[looooob]

Originally posted by MarchHare+May 12 2005, 03:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MarchHare @ May 12 2005, 03:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-fotze@May 12 2005, 02:52 PM
I think the current vote tallying bidness is the best way. I just don't necessarily think the money transferring part is up to snuff.

Do any of you have a less than exceptional relative that just never can make any money to support themself. (But have a kickass home theatre or vehicle).

Do you guys support them? transferring your money so that everything is equal year after year. Sure you probably help for a couple years, but what if becomes 40 years, isn't about time for some change? Do you think you would have an opinion on how that moeny is spent? What if he is just deciding to get a phd in everything at your expense? NOt a single soul here would continue to foot the bill for that many year and just accept it no questions asked.

You do know that transfer payments are mostly used to pay for healthcare and education in less prosperous provinces, right? The whole point of equalization is so Canadians can receive relatively equal access and quality of service regardless of which province they live in.

Equalization isn't so other provinces can spend money foolishly on Alberta and Ontario's dime. Thus your analogy of a deadbeat relative with a kick-ass car or home theatre isn't apt. [/b][/quote]
I think you are mostly right, and speaking for myself only , I still think Albertans have it pretty good

having said that, whether you like Ralph Klein or not, Alberta has made some tough choices (and suffered to some extent) that other provinces didn't

when I lived in Winnipeg folks would often bemoan Alberta's wealth,but at that time Calgary (population 900 K) had three adult hospitals, Winnipeg (population 600K) had 7, including three that were within either walking distance or a 5 minute drive from my apartment

now I happen to think that Calgary / Alberta cut things way too deep (and are now paying the price), but I think that's sometimes forgotten when people speak of the "Alberta advantage"

[MarchHare]

One other thing:

When determining whether or not a province qualifies for equalization or not (and also how much they receive per capita), Alberta isn't even included in the calculations because we're so much richer than every other province. If we were included, we would skew the results in such a way that even Ontario would probably be considered "have not".

Equaliztion examines the ability to generate tax revenue in the five "average" provinces, those being Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and BC. Based on those numbers, the government determines a base value. Any province below that receives transfer payments on a per capita basis to bring them up to that base. Any province above or equal (currently Ontario, Alberta, and Saskatchewan) do not receive equalization, but they can, and do, receive other transfer payments, such as the federal health transfer. This ensures that each provincial government can (at least in theory) provide the same minimum standard of healthcare, education, and other government services across the country. Obviously richer provinces like Alberta and Ontario are going to have more money available to them, even without equalization.

In other words, even though we're sending money to the other provinces, we still come out ahead and can afford better services than they can. It's not like Alberta and Ontario are just scraping by while PEI and Newfoundland are off blowing money like drunken sailors.