Atlantic premiers vow united front on federal transfers

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC

Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter gestures during a news conference at the 18th Session of the Council of Atlantic Premiers meeting on Monday, November 29, 2010 in Pictou, Nova Scotia.

Atlantic premiers vow united front on federal transfers - CTV News

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PICTOU, N.S. — Atlantic Canada's premiers are vowing to form a united front on federal transfers as Ottawa discusses the renewal of those payments in three years.

The premiers met Monday to discuss several issues, including transfer payments they say are crucial to provide health, education and social services. The arrangement that determines how those transfers are paid expires on March 31, 2014.

"We do need to make sure we are in the face of the federal government," said Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams, who was attending his last meeting of the Atlantic premiers before leaving politics Friday.

"If we stand back and allow people to take care of us, that simply isn't going to happen."

Prince Edward Island Premier Robert Ghiz said Ottawa needs to hear that it has a responsibility to ensure the same level of service no matter where people live.

"We need to make sure that the federal government hears us loud and clear that they are not going to get rid of their deficit by taking it out of health care and education which are vitally important to all Canadians," Ghiz said at a joint news conference at a resort near Pictou.

Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter said the Atlantic premiers are well aware that it is in their best interests to speak together on an issue that is vital to the region.

"It's absolutely imperative that we work together to ensure the federal government responds appropriately to the realities of Atlantic Canada," Dexter said.

New Brunswick's David Alward said the region could learn from Western Canada, which he said has worked effectively together on issues important to that area of the country.

"They really have worked as a common front," said Alward. "As we go into negotiations over the next two years, the timing is more important than ever that we be unified."

Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has recently mused that Ottawa may use inflation and economic growth as a guideline for future transfer payments. That has raised concerns in Atlantic Canada and Ontario, where that province's finance minister has said any move that would result in the reduction of federal transfers would be "very worrisome."

A spokesman for Flaherty reiterated Monday that the federal government will not cut transfers to the provinces in its efforts to balance the budget.

"The minister has been clear for some time now -- we will not reduce Canada's deficit by reducing transfers to provinces," Chisholm Pothier said in an email.

"We have increased transfers to provinces every year since we've been in government and that will continue to grow."

Negotiations are underway to put a new payment deal in place when the current system expires in 2014.

The Atlantic premiers are expected to meet again in New Brunswick in May to finalize a regional position on federal transfers.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like each region of the country is starting to unify with their neighboring provinces in order to get work done properly..... they mention the west and in the last little while, the Atlantic provinces have been working much closer with one another as well.... seems to be the only way to get the federal government to do anything these days.

Which raises the question as to why?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for provinces unifying to achieve their common goals, but it's starting to look more and more like Canada is dividing into 3-4 groups of provinces where most are starting to work more with one another then they are with the rest of the country/federal level...... where the rest of the country/federal level is viewed almost like the enemy.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
If Harper offers something, get it in writing. He word is useless.

As many around here have known for a long time now..... since about the day he became PM..... which would explain why they're all unifying now rather then going individually, getting screwed over and unifying afterward..... which I believe happened with the offshore deal we got screwed on by Harper and our former provincial Conservative party that lead at the time.... whom later attempted to use what little money we did get from the "New Deal" to pay off programs and debts they didn't compensate or calculate properly..... which based on the deal's agreements, was an illegal action to even consider, let alone do.

..... Which is also one of the main reasons why they got the boot and dropped down to third place in the last election, which allowed the NDP to lead...... since the Liberals were still trying to climb back to the top from third place themselves since 1997 when they pulled that HST stunt on us.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,915
11,194
113
Low Earth Orbit
Next election tell all your friends and family that if before 30 days the canadiate is wobbling he can be yoinked. If enough reject him your riding can revote or accept the next canidate with the highest votes.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Next election tell all your friends and family that if before 30 days the canadiate is wobbling he can be yoinked. If enough reject him your riding can revote or accept the next canidate with the highest votes.

Sounds like a great way for sore losers to get what they want by jumping on the first thing they do wrong, however trivial.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,915
11,194
113
Low Earth Orbit
That's the point. It will take sore loser and those disapppointed by who they voted for to change their vote.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
That's the point. It will take sore loser and those disapppointed by who they voted for to change their vote.

The bigger picture is that having the option to jump to an election right after we just had one because the newly elected leaders don't snap sh*t right off the bat isn't just a waste of more tax payer's money and resources, it's also a waste of time for voters, because if they do go ahead and pull another election right after we just had one and a new leader is voted, there's nothing stopping other people doing the exact same thing to the new leader and calling yet another election......

..... Meanwhile, those we originally elected might not have been perfect in the first couple of weeks.... at least work would still be getting done, rather then no work being done because everybody is still running around wasting their time on more election campaigns.

And how many of those few voters who turned out for the first election will come out for a 2nd or 3rd election in such a short time? Sure those who want someone replaced/removed will come out, which will force others to come and vote again too in order to maintain the original vote.... but we know that the more people are sent out to vote in a short period of time, the less they are inclined to participate and voter fatigue begins to set in..... all the while those same voters begin to lose more faith in the democratic system when we spend more time voting people into power then those people spend doing their jobs.

There's a reason why there are fixed terms and non-confidence votes.... nobody needs a system like the above because it would only produce more problems then it would solve.

But I'm not even sure what any of this has to do with the report or what I posted to open up the debate.