2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

[mariomike]

I love Northern Ontario for hunting and summer recreation and cottaging. Succession, if it were possible, would be business, nothing personal.

First trip out of Toronto in 1966 was on the Dayliner to Peterboro.

It was a Budd car. Used to ride it with my father.

 

[FJAG]

First trip out of Toronto in 1966 was on the Dayliner to Peterboro. Toronto ended at Scarborough and the wilderness began at AAAAAA-gin-COOOOOurt.

True that. In 1960 we moved to the Birch Cliff Heights area of Scarborough, just a little west of where Kingston Rd and Danforth Ave merged. If you went east on Kingston Rd another three kilometres, just beyond RH King Collegiate, you would start to hit farmlands all the way to Oshawa. Going west, Mississauga was a tiny place. After Etobicoke there was nothing really until Hamilton.

 

[mariomike]

Our part of town was a village, until it was annexed in 1967. The "final frontier before Etobicoke".

 

[Brad Sallows]

No fear about being overly-dependent on resources.

Components of GDP.

 

[GR66]

No fear about being overly-dependent on resources.

Components of GDP.

As @Kirkhill noted above GDP can be a tricky measure to use as in includes all spending, including non-productive internal and government spending. That is why I focused on exports which is where a nation earns income from outside its own, closed system.

A single resource commodity group (Mineral fuels including oil) accounts for 23.8% of our total export income. Not as bad as the Gulf States, but that's still a significant number of eggs to have in one basket. The top five resource categories account for 38.1% of our total exports.

One need only look at the boom and bust cycle in Alberta to see how an economy largely dependent on exporting commodities is affected by fluctuations in global demand and global prices.

 

[TacticalTea]

As @Kirkhill noted above GDP can be a tricky measure to use as in includes all spending, including non-productive internal and government spending.

That's not accurate.

GDP includes government spending because it is derived from taxes, which themselves are cut out of profits made from production.

Gross Domestic Product aims to represent Production, as its name indicates.

''the monetary value of all finished goods and services made within a country during a specific period''. Each word in there is important. It has its flaws, but counting taxes is not one of them.

But anyway, I don't disagree with most things you've said on this thread, this was just my economics rant of the day.

 

[TacticalTea]

My point is more that we equate population density with a priority of concerns, issues at at hand and electoral results.

For example, provincially, just because half the province of NS lives in the HRM does not mean that the concerns of those in Yarmouth or Sydney are any less valid. And they should have equal representation.

If we want find a way to come back together as a tight country we need figure out a proper method of representation that does not have certain areas dominating others, and making sure the small areas have equal importance electorally.

If we want to progress we need to move beyond population density as the measure of electoral power. Only through getting everyone on board to an equal playing field will we overcome our divisiveness.

Yeah, I don't know why people in this thread are arguing for proportional vote and more power to the cities. That's only going to divide the country even further. Our democratic process is fine and doesn't need major reform. What we need is to devolve more power from the federal government, as it was first designed in the 1800s.

Extraordinary powers were levied for the purpose of fighting world wars... these need not be held in the federal's hands anymore. Power to and by the people means power close to the people.

The Senate would be drawn from members representing the Provincial parties not the Federal parties since their role is to represent the interests of the Provinces.

Electors often select Provincial parties that are different than they select Federally. In Ontario for example the 2021 Federal Election saw the Liberal Party of Canada receive 78 of the 121 seats (64% of the seats with 39% of the popular vote) vs 37 seats for the Conservative Party (31% of the seats with 35% of the popular vote). Meanwhile in the 2022 Ontario Provincial election the Ontario Liberal Party received 24% of the popular vote compared to 41% for the Conservative party. Under a PR system then Ontario would have 64% Liberal/35% Conservative representation in the HOC but 24% Liberal/41% Conservative representation in the Senate. Hardly the Senate mirroring the HOC.

Currently the Senate can in effect be stacked by the party that remains in power the longest as they will have the most opportunity to fill seats as they become vacant. And despite the supposed "independence" of the Liberal-appointed Senators they are all still selected by the Federal party leader in power at the time. Much more likelihood of "rubber stamping" in that situation than by members of a potentially different (Provincial) party with no direct ties to the Federal party leadership.

I've been advocating for this for a while, and can personally confirm that a good amount of senators are also in favour of this.

 

[Dana381]

Yeah, I don't know why people in this thread are arguing for proportional vote and more power to the cities. That's only going to divide the country even further. Our democratic process is fine and doesn't need major reform. What we need is to devolve more power from the federal government, as it was first designed in the 1800s.

Extraordinary powers were levied for the purpose of fighting world wars... these need not be held in the federal's hands anymore. Power to and by the people means power close to the people.

I've been advocating for this for a while, and can personally confirm that a good amount of senators are also in favour of this.

The federal government should also lower the transfer payments to allow provinces to raise the provincial tax level proportionally. This would allow the provinces more autonomy (real or percieved) in how they spend their money. I don't think we can eliminate the transfer payment system all together but there should be steps to minimize its necessity.

I would also like to see more federal incentives to help the "have not" provinces attract industry. Currently those provinces have to provide industry with deep tax breaks to attract them and then the provincial budgets suffer. If there was some sort of federal program where industry gets the biggest tax breaks by establishing in the poorest provinces then the province can hold on to their tax revenue and won't need so much federal transfer money.

 

[mariomike]

I don't know why people in this thread are arguing for proportional vote and more power to the cities. That's only going to divide the country even further.

8 pages of City-state provinces, and another 53 pages of electoral reform, with no end in sight.

One person, one vote? In Canada, it's not even close

Some ridings have fewer than 40,000 people. Others are closer to 160,000. Can anything be done to make them more equal?

www.wellandtribune.ca

If after reading the above people are STILL whining, maybe best if the part of Ontario south of the red line goes its own way as a separate province.

Maybe Uncle Sam will adopt "South Ontario".

 

[FSTO]

Well, Toronto doesn’t really think of itself as Canadian anyway.

 

[mariomike]

Well, Toronto doesn’t really think of itself as Canadian anyway.

Reading that, I'm not surprised to read the CAF is not attracting many recruits from the GTA.

I don't think many are as obsessed with other Canadians as some seem to be about them.

Nothing personal FSTO. I've been to your town and thought the people were very nice.

But, most in the GTA would be more likely to visit New York State than Manitoba.

Maybe some Canadians wouldn't mind US statehood for their province.

 

[GR66]

That's not accurate.

GDP includes government spending because it is derived from taxes, which themselves are cut out of profits made from production.

Gross Domestic Product aims to represent Production, as its name indicates.

''the monetary value of all finished goods and services made within a country during a specific period''. Each word in there is important. It has its flaws, but counting taxes is not one of them.

But anyway, I don't disagree with most things you've said on this thread, this was just my economics rant of the day.

The only fly in that ointment is that not all government spending is derived from taxes. The over $1 Trillion in debt racked up by the Federal Government is proof of that. All that borrowed money that the government spends counts as "production" as well. And don't forget the Provincial and Municipal deficits on top of that.

Money circulated internally within the country...earned/taxed/spent/earned/repeat...is not NEW money (i.e. net national income). Exports, foreign investment (and borrowing from foreign sources) is where new money comes from (excluding of course new money that the government just creates from whole cloth).

 

[TacticalTea]

The only fly in that ointment is that not all government spending is derived from taxes. The over $1 Trillion in debt racked up by the Federal Government is proof of that. All that borrowed money that the government spends counts as "production" as well. And don't forget the Provincial and Municipal deficits on top of that.

Money circulated internally within the country...earned/taxed/spent/earned/repeat...is not NEW money (i.e. net national income). Exports, foreign investment (and borrowing from foreign sources) is where new money comes from (excluding of course new money that the government just creates from whole cloth).

That debt mostly consists of direct transfer payments, which are not included in the ''goods and services'' calculation, even if they would otherwise be included under the umbrella of government spending.

In other words, the government can't even increase real GDP by sending everyone a thousand dollar cheque (though it would probably increase nominal GDP indirectly by causing inflation, but nominal GDP is rather meaningless).

Now, is trade balance a better indicator of an economy's strength? Not so sure. In the G20, Russia and China dominate that leaderboard whereas Canada and the US figure poorly, the latter having the greatest trade deficit of any economy. Yet, would you say the Reds have stronger, more robust, or more diversified economies?

Doubtful.

 

[FSTO]

Maybe some Canadians wouldn't mind US statehood for their province.

I don’t think it would be the panacea they’d hope it would be.

 

[mariomike]

I don’t think it would be the panacea they’d hope it would be.

They say the grass is always greener on the other side.
You've got to love your country, even if it doesn't love you back.

 

[lenaitch]

I would just be happy if Ontario realized that there is a whole chunk of province above the 50 degree Longitude that they forgot about.

50? How about 44 or 45 lat? It's not just a weekend playground.

Yeah, I don't know why people in this thread are arguing for proportional vote and more power to the cities. That's only going to divide the country even further. Our democratic process is fine and doesn't need major reform. What we need is to devolve more power from the federal government, as it was first designed in the 1800s.

[/QUOTE]

Your statement seems to contradict itself. More power to the cities and devolving more power from the federal level seem very similar. In terms of devolved powers, which includes the power to tax, borrow and spend, I don't see a huge difference which sub-national level they devolved to (not under our current system, obviously, because municipalities don't constitutionally exist).

Besides, who would the sub-national governments whine to for more money?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

50? How about 44 or 45 lat? It's not just a weekend playground.

Your statement seems to contradict itself. More power to the cities and devolving more power from the federal level seem very similar. In terms of devolved powers, which includes the power to tax, borrow and spend, I don't see a huge difference which sub-national level they devolved to (not under our current system, obviously, because municipalities don't constitutionally exist).

Besides, who would the sub-national governments whine to for more money?
[/QUOTE]
Every level of government loves to have at least one other level to blame for its shortcomings…

 

[TacticalTea]

50? How about 44 or 45 lat? It's not just a weekend playground.

Your statement seems to contradict itself. More power to the cities and devolving more power from the federal level seem very similar. In terms of devolved powers, which includes the power to tax, borrow and spend, I don't see a huge difference which sub-national level they devolved to (not under our current system, obviously, because municipalities don't constitutionally exist).

Besides, who would the sub-national governments whine to for more money?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, sorry, I realized that.

In the first case, I'm talking about federal power as a result of the city's influence. In the second case, I'm talking about autonomy of the provinces.

In other words, I want them to have less power over others, but more power over themselves.

I don't get your point about how cities don't exist constitutionally. They're a creation of provinces sure... So what? The provinces are free to grant them more autonomy as they see fit.

 

[Brad Sallows]

That debt mostly consists of direct transfer payments

Can't figure out what you mean. There is no pretending "this part of spending is from revenues, and this part is from borrowing". People can say that, but it's meaningless.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Your statement seems to contradict itself. More power to the cities and devolving more power from the federal level seem very similar. In terms of devolved powers, which includes the power to tax, borrow and spend, I don't see a huge difference which sub-national level they devolved to (not under our current system, obviously, because municipalities don't constitutionally exist).

Besides, who would the sub-national governments whine to for more money?

I don't get your point about how cities don't exist constitutionally. They're a creation of provinces sure... So what? The provinces are free to grant them more autonomy as they see fit.
[/QUOTE]

Within the authorities of the Provinces power only though. City governments also play the game of "It's the Provinces fault" and "Give me more money", just as the Provinces do to the Feds. The Cities will never go for full autonomy as the responsibility will then rest on the shoulders of the Mayor and Council.In reality, both the Feds and Provinces should focus their efforts away from the major cities and work to make smaller communities and cities more liveable and able to support primary businesses there. But they won't as major cities are vote rich.