The Next Canadian Government

[Colin Parkinson]

So essentially your argument is that your vote should be tied to the percentage of the GDP you produce ?

To be honest I don't know what the best solution is, but that the current system does not do a great job of representing and protecting them.

 

[markppcli]

To be honest I don't know what the best solution is, but that the current system does not do a great job of representing and protecting them.

How do, if we’ve already established that if anything less populated areas are over represented in parliament then how many votes do you get for owning a farm? Or should we establish a second house for those owning X amount of property?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So seeing how you added 30% and 18% to get 48%, if we add on 58% for resources, then rural folks should be credited with 106% of Canada’s GDP and get a decently greater share of the vote?

It was a simplistic attempt to extract the rural percentage of GDP from those categories that Mark linked to. Part of the problem with those GDP numbers is much of it like real estate and Healthcare is domestic churn, where the money changes hands within Canada and it's unclear if they are just roughly taking the price paid for the real estate as a whole, or the actual monies transferred at time of sale. Example if a house in North Van sells for 1.5 mil and the down payment is $500,000, does the StatCan numbers reflect the whole cost or the costs actually paid this year?
The thing about resources is that most of it leaves the country and earns hard revenue for the country and companies, in essence new money being injected into the system and balancing out money leaving the country to buy overseas goods. Domestic resources that go into manufacturing for export are in my opinion the most valuable of bit of GDP, as it create domestic churn and brings in new monies.

 

[lenaitch]

Yeah, I’m just doubtful the farmers had too much of a problem in the case he’s referring to. Fundamentally the courts will defer to the law, including lawful land use.

For what it's worth:

Law Document English View

Welcome to the new e-Laws. It’s now easier than ever to find Ontario laws. We welcome your feedback.

www.ontario.ca

 

[Colin Parkinson]

How do, if we’ve already established that if anything less populated areas are over represented in parliament then how many votes do you get for owning a farm? Or should we establish a second house for those owning X amount of property?

The challenge is that in our systems monies and policies are focused on grabbing the urban vote, often at the expense of the rural issues and infrastructure. The US Electoral College is one such attempt to minimize this effect. I don't think you ever eliminate completely.

Frankly the Feds and Provinces should tell the major cities like Lower Mainland, Toronto, etc to do without more federal monies and instead divert that money to making smaller communities more liveable and making it that businesses can succeed in them. (highways, water, sewage, telecommunications)

 

[markppcli]

It was a simplistic attempt to extract the rural percentage of GDP from those categories that Mark linked to. Part of the problem with those GDP numbers is much of it like real estate and Healthcare is domestic churn, where the money changes hands within Canada and it's unclear if they are just roughly taking the price paid for the real estate as a whole, or the actual monies transferred at time of sale. Example if a house in North Van sells for 1.5 mil and the down payment is $500,000, does the StatCan numbers reflect the whole cost or the costs actually paid this year?
The thing about resources is that most of it leaves the country and earns hard revenue for the country and companies, in essence new money being injected into the system and balancing out money leaving the country to buy overseas goods. Domestic resources that go into manufacturing for export are in my opinion the most valuable of bit of GDP, as it create domestic churn and brings in new monies.

Which is why I posted the assessment from the Ministry for Rural Economic Development whom I assume have some insights into the matter. That’s the quoted 30 percent. Or we can play amateur economist and try and make numbers dance in our heads to suit our own pre existing opinions.

 

[markppcli]

The challenge is that in our systems monies and policies are focused on grabbing the urban vote, often at the expense of the rural issues and infrastructure. The US Electoral College is one such attempt to minimize this effect. I don't think you ever eliminate completely.

Frankly the Feds and Provinces should tell the major cities like Lower Mainland, Toronto, etc to do without more federal monies and instead divert that money to making smaller communities more liveable and making it that businesses can succeed in them. (highways, water, sewage, telecommunications)

No, the Electoral College, and also Parliamentary Democracy, is a way to make collecting votes in the 17th century practical. It has the effect of unbalancing votes from populations because a) the US allows sitting congressmen to redraw the lines and b) the Canadian Constitutional system has guarantees of seats no province will sign off on changing.

So the Federal and Pronvicial Goverments should focus more money on the increasing small rural populations and ignore the 80 percent of Canadians living in cities because those living in smaller communities are more economically important or have some kind of ethical / moral value that exceeds urban areas? Great, let’s assign value to every region of Canada and we’ll give out federal funding in your new system where by less productive areas receive more and less productive areas (this is your argument right?) get less.

 

[Good2Golf]

Frankly the Feds and Provinces should tell the major cities like Lower Mainland, Toronto, etc to do without more federal monies and instead divert that money to making smaller communities more liveable and making it that businesses can succeed in them. (highways, water, sewage, telecommunications)

Sounds like D.C. - “Taxation without Representation.”

 

[lenaitch]

they must break it down from sourced activity? Right?

Take a concrete ready mix plant in toronto. The aggregate came from say Caledon and the cement from St.Mary's. The value of the parts should at least per attributed to where it came from. But the final product value to Toronto? Or final value subtract substituents?

Take the agriculture value, which is really low from a GDP standpoint but kinda important in the real world

As far as I know, wealth/income is attributed to where it is reported. To that end, most Canadian-owned mining companies are headquartered in Toronto and Vancouver.

*****

Interesting discussion. To simplify the topic, the next government could simply state that they will convene a constitutional conference, because that's what it would take. And we have such a solid history of that. Constitutional reform is political kryptonite.

 

[Furniture]

No, the Electoral College, and also Parliamentary Democracy, is a way to make collecting votes in the 17th century practical. It has the effect of unbalancing votes from populations because a) the US allows sitting congressmen to redraw the lines and b) the Canadian Constitutional system has guarantees of seats no province will sign off on changing.

So the Federal and Pronvicial Goverments should focus more money on the increasing small rural populations and ignore the 80 percent of Canadians living in cities because those living in smaller communities are more economically important or have some kind of ethical / moral value that exceeds urban areas? Great, let’s assign value to every region of Canada and we’ll give out federal funding in your new system where by less productive areas receive more and less productive areas (this is your argument right?) get less.

Show me on the doll where the rural voters touched you...

The reality is, urban votes still carry the elections, regardless of the "voting power" of each voter. The systems we have exist, and existed back in the 19th century, to try to balance urban and rural concerns.

There is no perfect formula to express the right balance between urban and rural, and there never will be one. It's like homelessness, welfare, etc.. a string of compromises that the majority can live with.

If urban Canada feels so let down, they are free to move to places where their vote carries more weight. Isn't that what the urbanites tell rural people when they complain about the lack of opportunity? You want your ballot to be a super ballot? Move to Nunavut...

 

[YZT580]

No, the Electoral College, and also Parliamentary Democracy, is a way to make collecting votes in the 17th century practical. It has the effect of unbalancing votes from populations because a) the US allows sitting congressmen to redraw the lines and b) the Canadian Constitutional system has guarantees of seats no province will sign off on changing.

So the Federal and Pronvicial Goverments should focus more money on the increasing small rural populations and ignore the 80 percent of Canadians living in cities because those living in smaller communities are more economically important or have some kind of ethical / moral value that exceeds urban areas? Great, let’s assign value to every region of Canada and we’ll give out federal funding in your new system where by less productive areas receive more and less productive areas (this is your argument right?) get less.

absolutely not yet somehow we need to protect the rural whilst supporting the urban. Don't know how you will work that one out but somehow we need to.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Rural Canadians don't want or need protection so much as to be left alone to live their own ways.

 

[Halifax Tar]

@Brad Sallows

Rural Canadians don't want or need protection so much as to be left alone to live their own ways.

This is the crux IMHO. I think everyone wants to be left alone and allowed to live their life in their own ways, and, I think, too often our Governments interfere in things like this.

 

[dimsum]

Rural Canadians don't want or need protection so much as to be left alone to live their own ways.

Until some disaster or whatever strikes, and then it’s “the govt doesn’t care about us”.

Sounds like D.C. - “Taxation without Representation.”

I thought there was a small kerfuffle about that in the US…something about tea…

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is the crux IMHO. I think everyone wants to be left alone and allowed to live their life in their own ways, and, I think, too often our Governments interfere in things like this.

I have often proclaimed that each and every individual, regardless of age, race, sex or creed has four absolutely fundamental rights: Life, Liberty and Property as set out by John Locke in 17th century England and Privacy, the right to be left alone, to life one's life and to treat one's body as one wills, as described by Brandeis and Warren in 19th century America.

Rights belong only and solely to individuals. There is no such thing as collective or group rights. Groups and collectives may have power and influence due to their size and wealth but they must never be seen to have any rights. That includes e.g. religious groups, linguistic groups and the biggest "collective" of all, the state.

 

[Remius]

I think the only real rights anyone has intrinsically are the ones they are willing to die for.

Might be simplistic in that approach but all other rights beyond that are not as inalienable.