CanPol: May(?) 2011 Election. Vote today!

[Wezil]

Summary of the discussion so far:

-Asher does not understand that out of the $8B we get in equalization, we contribute $3B to the pot. The real amount we receive is thus ~5B. Corollary: we get the less equalization per capita except Ontario (and excluding NF which has found oil and soon will be 'have').

-He also does not understand that equalization is based on fiscal capacity, not provincial budget. We could cut taxes and equalization would still "pay" for the cuts.

-He also claims that equalization is "tampered" to benefit Quebec, while the last modification was made to benefit Alberta.
(The new rule was that a province can choose to deduct 50% of natural resource revenues from the contribution calculation; Quebec asked in turn to deduct hydro power revenue from the calculation, a request that was denied).

-Krill has shown himself to be a tool.

-NYE is against government intervention in the market, except when it's against Quebec.

-Most people seem to be missing the point that whatever part of equalization we receive from Alberta (~1.8B) doesn't compensate for a decapitated manufacturing industry.

I feel left out.


Why is Quebec a perennial "have not" province Oncle? Why can't they get their **** together?

[Hauldren Collider]

I thought quebec was the second largest province in terms of population and GDP...

[Wezil]

There are lots of reasons why Quebec should be able to pay their own way yet they collect transfers every year without fail...

[Hauldren Collider]

When almost their entire parliamentary delegation appears out of the loop in terms of governing, why is that?

[Wezil]

You are referring to the BQ?

Not sure I understand the question.

[Hauldren Collider]

Yeah, I was under the impression that the other two major parties in the Canadian parliament (liberals and conservatives?) basically ignore BQ, and that BQ was most of the Quebec delegation. So if they aren't involved in the government, why does the Canadian Parliament even bother to give them goodies?

[Wezil]

Ah, Why don't we cut off transfers to Quebec?

As a nation we decided to "share the wealth", so to speak, ages ago. Canadians should expect a certain level of service regardless of where they live in the country. Since most services (health, education) are under provincial jurisdiction Constitutionally, the Feds accomplish this by transfers. To cut transfers because you don't like the politics of the province would be mean spirited.

The question isn't really "Is Quebec a have-not province?" (this will probably be debated by others in this thread), but rather "Why is Quebec a have-not province?".

[Wezil]

The BQ in the Fed Parliament is actually an interesting topic HC. When they were first elected in the 80's there was much talk about the implications of a separatist party sitting in the House.

[Hauldren Collider]

It works a bit differently in the US. States are given formula grants, administered by the feds, and then states largely act out the grants but have little flexibility regarding how to do so. Block grants, introduced by Reagan, offer more policy flexibility and have usually proven more effective. Frankly, I would like to see grants to states largely stop and allow states to determine what policies they want and how to administer them.

Many states get earmarks or exemptions to things, usually the smaller ones. This is pretty much because of the Senate. Alaska and the farm states are the main offenders.

[Asher]

Summary of the discussion so far:

-Asher does not understand that out of the $8B we get in equalization, we contribute $3B to the pot. The real amount we receive is thus ~5B. Corollary: we get the less equalization per capita except Ontario (and excluding NF which has found oil and soon will be 'have').

You are confusing equalization with transfer payments.

Please cite that the $8B does not include the money Quebec does contribute. In all of the places I've seen it, only the "have not" provinces had > $0 in that category and Quebec had $8B. So what your claiming doesn't pass the sniff test.

-He also does not understand that equalization is based on fiscal capacity, not provincial budget. We could cut taxes and equalization would still "pay" for the cuts.

I understand what it's based on. What I'm talking about is what it's used for. You don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter what it's based on, the fact is Quebec is DEPENDING on billions of dollars from the rest of Canada fund their basic budget.

-He also claims that equalization is "tampered" to benefit Quebec, while the last modification was made to benefit Alberta.

It was made to benefit Newfoundland, not Alberta. Look into the specifics. Alberta has very little in the way of off-shore oil, last I checked, and that was the change.

And this does not in any way invalidate claims about Quebec's history.

-Most people seem to be missing the point that whatever part of equalization we receive from Alberta (~1.8B) doesn't compensate for a decapitated manufacturing industry.

You're missing the point. It's not meant to compensate for a failing industry. If the industry fails, you need to move on and create new ones and not expect charity. Man up.

[Wezil]

Frankly, I would like to see grants to states largely stop and allow states to determine what policies they want and how to administer them.

How do you prevent a patchwork of services across the country? How do the poor states offer basic services at a decent level?

[Hauldren Collider]

How do you prevent a patchwork of services across the country? How do the poor states offer basic services at a decent level?

The patchwork of services is the point--if we wanted complete uniformity we wouldn't have states. Some states offer different services. Hawaii and Massachusetts actually had a public healthcare system before ObamaCare. That was their choice. Consequently they also have higher taxes. Some states like New York have larger, more comprehensive state university systems than others. California has stricter environmental regulations (and regulations in general) than the other states. Alaska actually has a guaranteed minimum income (iirc). The ability for states to choose these things is the entire point of federalism.

The poorer states can still afford programs. Most of the difficulty states have funding things is from unfunded mandates, where the feds require the states to pay for things but don't reimburse. Medicaid is one such program.

[Wezil]

That's a difference in political culture between the US and Canada. We want as close to uniformity in basic services as possible.

Question - Do you (and Americans in general) see themselves as a citizen of their State first and Nation second or the other way around?

[Hauldren Collider]

That's a difference in political culture between the US and Canada. We want as close to uniformity in basic services as possible.

Question - Do you (and Americans in general) see themselves as a citizen of their State first and Nation second or the other way around?

I actually have no idea. My guess is that most Americans see themselves as American before, say, Texan. I have a pretty biased sample--I live right around Washington, D.C. so we have a lot of transplants from other areas. I'm actually a transplant--I was born in Tennessee. I don't know anyone where I live who thinks of themselves as Virginian or Marylander or whatever before American. So it's hard for me to say.

Also remember my views on the roles of states reflects a conservative ideology--liberals would probably disagree with some of the things I've said regarding federalism.

[Fake Boris]

I feel left out.


Why is Quebec a perennial "have not" province Oncle? Why can't they get their **** together?

Good question.

There is a historical case of French Canadians being colonized; it all started with the British conquest, following which ~4,000 of the wealthiest and most educated French Canadians left back to France.
From that point pretty much every dollar invested here was British; education institutions were British (and protestant), limiting accessibility.

It's a long story, but in the end there tends to occur a natural segregation between a conquering elite and the annexed masses. Nothing like slavery in the U.S., but still, it's the general case of French people doing better in Morocco than Moroccans, Spaniards in Latin America, etc.

Against the general interpretation that "Quebec can't get its **** together", I'd say that significant progress has been done since the '60s. This progress could not have been achieved in any other way than by the collective bargaining power of government, given the miserable status of the French Canadian peasantry. This often leads to misinterpretation, where ROC believes that we like government because we're slackers. The truth is that the provincial government is perceived as having provided us what a private sector led by British capital historically would not.