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

[Fake Boris]

Canada is my father, and NAFTA is my allowance.

[Asher]

'Beg' for NAFTA?

You were the one that seemed to think it was a safe assumption to be in NAFTA.

[Flubber]

Why do you all bother so much with transfers to Quebec, while those to Manitoba/the Maritime leave you indifferent?

(The answer is obvious, I'm interested in your wording of it).

For me its probably the following

1. The feeling that a large province that should be rich and a "have" is not--
2. The sheer massive size of the transfers to Quebec-- while I don't think Quebec has ever been the highest or even near to being highest on a per capita basis, my recollection is that Quebec is massively the largest recipient in total dollars. Those dollars could have life-altering impacts in some of the smaller have-nots.
3. The feeling that apart from transfers, that Quebec has wielded disproportionate influence within Canada and has received much preferential treatment (support of Quebec based industry, placement of government offices etc etc)

4. That despite the first 3 points, despite being treated as the spoiled baby of the family and being catered to more than any other member of the family ---- Quebec is never satisfied. Not being satisfied is probably ok (most provinces are not really satisfied) but Quebec is in a perpetual state of throwing a tantrum and threatening to leave the family. Its not enough to be told you are special-- its not enough to be given the most.

[Flubber]

Right now I'm reading a study estimating the direct costs of oil dependency in Quebec to $15B/year (That's 5% of Quebec's GDP). These costs will only increase over the years.

.

Can you explain this? What is a "direct cost of oil dependency"? I can easily agree that every province is currently dependent on oil but frankly for most uses, any realistic substitute is more expensive. Many energy uses will switch to natural gas (considering its abundance makes it relatively inexpensive) but it does take time.

[Hauldren Collider]

NAFTA

[notyoueither]

Why would Canada shoot itself in the leg to inflict Quebec a headshot?

Realpolitik speaks. Our economic interests are too intertwined to play hardball.
And conventional wisdom says you can't pretend you will during a referendum.

Explain how they are intertwined.

Most trade goes north-south.

Canada is my father, and NAFTA is my allowance.

You're assuming that Texans and Mexicans give a ****.

There would be loud voices in the RoC that would want Ottawa to oppose Quebec being part of NAFTA. I think the agreement requires the consent of all members to be expanded. I'm not sure how it applies to successor states.

[Hauldren Collider]

RoC = Republic of Canada? It makes me think Taiwan...

[notyoueither]

Rest of Canada.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think Canada as a whole is stronger with Quebec.

Western Canada on the other hand would be stronger outside rather than inside Canada. Quebec being in brings benefits to the East.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hell no to Meech and Charlottetown.

[notyoueither]

BC, AB, SK, and MB gain from being part of Canada.

For one, the East provides pools of labour that can be employed when needed without the hassles of immigration. People from the Maritimes come when the work is on and the dollars are good, and mostly go home when the projects and paychecks end. Immigration works a bit differently, even immigration plans that envision temporary employment and nonpermanent status.

Dealing with the US is also easier, I'd imagine, when we are part of a larger country. Try the softwood dispute without having the RoC on BC's side.

[notyoueither]

NYE -

A longer article on crime in today's Globe: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...1978257/page1/

Thanks.

I have some problems with the Conservative programme on crime. Perhaps too severe. OTOH, I also have some problems with the arguments from the other side.

One, they consistently cherrypick stats. In that article it says that crime has been decreasing for ten years. Fine, it is still multiples higher than in 1960. It's good news that it is going down. It is not low enough. It's also been steadying off recently. Obviously some factors have been good for reduced crime (fewer young males) but others could be worked on, like education, social programmes, and incarceration of habitual criminals.

Another is this

Yes, this is true: Crime rates are not affected by how many people go to jail.

Until recently, the rate at which Canada incarcerated prisoners had been restrained and steady since the 1890s – for more than a century, in other words – at between 80 and 110 adults per 100,000 people. The United States started out where we did, but since the 1980s has almost quadrupled its incarceration rate, to 760 prisoners per 100,000 people, the highest in the world (China runs a distant second).

If it were true that jailing more criminals made society safer from crime, the U.S. should have seen greater rates of decline in its crime than we have. But the fluctuation in the U.S. homicide rate mirrors ours, exactly. Both homicide rates (the American one being consistently about four times ours) peaked in 1975 and both have declined ever since.

This is horse ****.

Imprisoning habitual criminals does not decrease crime? On what planet? Oh, and I see the US example is once again reached for. Here's a clue, when someone uses the US as an example of social or other programmes for Canada they are selling you swampland, or a very poorly performing healthcare system.

Perhaps the argument could be that of course you will reduce crime when you put Guido in prison, but then Guido will teach Philip and Terrence how to be better criminals while they share space and time. I'd buy that, but that could be solved.

Simply using the most ****ed up industrialised society on the planet and saying that will happen to us if you don't agree with me is out of bounds. It should be a foul against the rules of intelligent discussion among Canadians. It is akin to mentioning the Nazis in other places. It is Bushising the discussion (Washingtonising? Jacobinising? Yankenising?).

At any rate, justice is not the policy that will decide my vote. The economy is a clear number one. I'm looking for others, and I would score justice against Harper if there were reasonable alternatives, but there aren't; and Liberal plans to cancel business tax cuts and actually increase them is far worse.

[Ben Kenobi]

Try the softwood dispute without having the RoC on BC's side.

Which is why softwood lumber is exempt from NAFTA?

Thank you please, may we have another?

[notyoueither]

Softwood is exempt from NAFTA? Do tell. This ought to be good.

[Ben Kenobi]

Softwood is exempt from NAFTA? Do tell. This ought to be good.

There are still quotas. Always have been. BC wanted no quotas on softwood lumber, they wanted Lumber as a part of NAFTA and unrestricted free trade with the US. They have been negotiating for the last decade to get it included.

What has Canada done? They shafted us by settling with the US, and to keep the quota as is. Canada's been worse than useless for BC on softwood lumber. BC would get a better deal on their own then they would with the eastern bastards who have zero interest in the BC lumber industry.

That being said, the provincial legislature has been useless too. They've effectively killed the industry through carbon taxes and doing nothing for the beetle kill. Been 10 straight down years for softwood lumber, and now we have to start paying the price as the beetle kill is running out.

It's sad, because the interior has probably the best setup longterm for lumber in the world, but it's not going to be rebuilt again in my lifetime to what it was just 20 years ago. It will take 60-70 years just to rebuild the timber stands.