[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

The lesson Canada can learn from the Greek example is that poorly timed austerity measures are the worst possible option.

I think the lesson is don't spend too much, don't set up crazy pension systems, don't borrow too much, and above all don't put yourself in a position that you need to beg for money from others.  And don't hold referendums that do nothing but piss off your creditors. 

[viper37]

When the economy is strong.   Have the neocons been so successful that this is not obvious? 

but when is the economy strong?  The moment you reduce government spending, you are going to hurt people who came to depend on it.  The Libs reduced (twice) the unemployement benefits, it did hurt some people.  They cut transfer funding to the provinces, later the equalization, it hurted the provinces a lot.  They cut military funding without reforming the army, that hurted our capacity to wage war with a minimum of casualties in Afghanistan.

We were far from recession in these time.  Yet there were protests, arguments that it would hurt the people, etc, etc.  The same we hear everytime there is a policy of reducing government expenses.

On the opposite, the Mulroney Conservatives did spend tons of money at the end of the 80s and early 90s, when we entered worldwide recession / US bank crisis.  They run huge budget deficit and later introduced the GST.  The Ontario NPD also spent a lot of money and increased its taxes.  I can't remember this doing any good to canadian or ontarian economy.

[crazy canuck]

I can't remember this doing any good to canadian or ontarian economy.

I don't think Canadians would vote for a party which based its economic policies on one person's anecdotal memories. 

[viper37]

What I meant is, I remember clearly what happenned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Rae#Rae.27s_Government_policies

And if you look at GDP growth during an historical period, comparing Ontario to Quebec:
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/provincial/economy/gdp-growth.aspx

Ontario increased it's deficit threefold with its budget deficit measures while Quebec stayed the course (still running deficits, but not as huge).

If you look at this report:
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/state-of-ontarios-indebtedness.pdf
Page 12, you'll see a graph starting in 1990s with Rae's policies.  The deficit grew enormous while economic growth never picked up the pace, remaining steadily at the same pace as inflation + pop growth.

After a year or two of Rae's policies, he was force to drastically cut back on expense, wake-up call from creditors, no doubt, just as happenned to Quebec in 1996-97.  No one likes to lend money without ever receiving its money back.

You'll also notice that Mike Harris years had zero effect on GDP growth, nor did the huge deficits of post-Harris era did anything good for Ontario.

Looking at this table here:
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/provincial/economy/gdp-growth.aspx
(select Ont. and Que in "region).
You will see that GDP growth was very similar for Quebec and Ontario.  One kept business as usual, the other one went full ahead with social expenditures.

[Razgovory]

I can't remember this doing any good to canadian or ontarian economy.

I don't think Canadians would vote for a party which based its economic policies on one person's anecdotal memories. 

I don't think whether or not Viper has memories is based entirely on anecdotal information.

[crazy canuck]

Hey BB, is all the praise Notely is getting at the Premier's conference changing your view?

[PRC]

Notley is saying all the right things.  She still has yet to do all the right things, but it's early so saying them is worth something.

[Barrister]

Hey BB, is all the praise Notely is getting at the Premier's conference changing your view?

It seems to me she's getting praise from the central canadian intelligencia by selling out long-time Alberta interests.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/braid-unlike-notley-wall-tells-provinces-to-butt-out-of-pipeline-approval

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, we need a lot less Wall type histerics.  He seems to be completely oblivious to how difficult it will be to force pipeline construction across unwilling Provinces.  The Notley approach will make the pipeline constuction much more likely.

[Barrister]

Disagree.

We give BC, and Quebec, a veto over a pipeline and one will never get approved.

[crazy canuck]

Whether you like it or not other Provinces already have a considerable amount of control over what is built within their provincial boundaries. Not to mention the First Nations interests.  Throwing a temper tantrum isn't going to help.  That is why her approach will work better than Wall's approach.

[viper37]

I agree with CC on this.

[Barrister]

I agree with CC on this.

Of course BC and Quebec think they can veto a national project that benefits Alberta.

[crazy canuck]

What the government of BC has done is to require that pipeline companies who wish to operate in this jurisdiction do so consistent with the laws of BC and Canada.  You are sadly mistaken if you think anything less is possible. 

I suspect the same is true for all other Provinces.  Even Alberta

Put another way do you really think the Federal government should be able to violate the principles of cooperative Federalism. If so you should review the recent pronouncements from the SCC on that point.  What you refer to as a "veto" is the provinces acting within their jurisdiction.  Neither the Feds nor any province can trump that.

You are fortunate you have a premier who understands the point 

[Barrister]

What the government of BC has done is to require that pipeline companies who wish to operate in this jurisdiction do so consistent with the laws of BC and Canada.  You are sadly mistaken if you think anything less is possible. 

I suspect the same is true for all other Provinces.  Even Alberta

Put another way do you really think the Federal government should be able to violate the principles of cooperative Federalism. If so you should review the recent pronouncements from the SCC on that point.  What you refer to as a "veto" is the provinces acting within their jurisdiction.  Neither the Feds nor any province can trump that.

You are fortunate you have a premier who understands the point 

You seem to miss the really key issue however: that interprovincial pipelines are a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction:

s.  92  In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say, 

...

10.  Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the following Classes: 

(a)  Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province

Provinces such as BC have incidental jurisdiction over minor matters.  But that quite clearly does not go so far as to constitute some kind of veto.  BC can not say "we will not approve this pipeline unless we get a fair share of Albertas oil revenue" - which has nothing to do with any residual jurisdiction BC might have.