Re: RE: Fiscal Imbalance
Reverend Blair said:
So push your MP's and the opposition party leaders to dump the corporate tax cut and use it in Ontario. Jack's the only one willing to do that.
You're bitching about transfer payments, but Martin and Harper both want to toss $4.2 billion to their corporate buddies when we already have one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the developed world.
The transfer payments are costing us $23 billion a year. And there is no "we" around Manitoba and "we" in Toronto don't expect anyone in the Canadas to understand anything; other than in the rest of the Torontos, "Golden" (rusty due to tax raping and plundering) Horseshoe and the rest of south Ontario is more than enough to deal with.
You don't have ecnomies that are the size of Toronto's in any province other than all of Quebec, you don't compete on the same level as we do, you don't know much of anything in the rest of the Canadas (or Ontarios) because of all anyone ever talks about on this forum: "natural resources":
Gross domestic product at basic prices primary industries
$ constant 1997 (millions) 2004
Code:
INDUSTRY 2004 % of Total
Agriculture forestry fishing and hunting TOTAL 23,201 2.21
BREAKDOWN OF THE TOTAL ABOVE
Crop production ............................ 9,998 0.95
Animal production .......................... 4,215 0.40
Forestry and logging ....................... 6,880 0.66
Fishing hunting and trapping ............... 866 0.08
Support activities for agriculture
and forestry .............................. 1,242 0.12
Mining and oil and gas extraction TOTAL ...... 38,699 3.69
BREAKDOWN OF THE TOTAL ABOVE
Oil and gas extraction TOTAL ............... 22,817 2.18
Mining (except oil and gas) TOTAL ......... 10,546 1.01
BREAKDOWN OF THE TOTAL ABOVE
Coal mining .............................. 1,208 0.12
Metal ore mining ......................... 4,608 0.44
Non-metallic mineral mining and quarrying 4,730 0.45
Support activities for mining
and oil and gas extraction ................ 5,336 0.51
PRIMARY TOTALS (ALL) ......................... 61,900 5.90
All industries TOTAL 1,048,266 100.00
Source:
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/prim03.htm "Canada is rich due to natural resources, right?" You call 5.9 per cent of the total economic output of the Canadas, gross, before taxes but not excluding subsidies, 5.9 cents on every Canadian dollar "rich?"
Our economy is not base on natural resources. Primary, the above, is worth less than 2% of Ontario's GDP.
And it's not due to vehicle manufacturing/parts either. Ontario (south) out-produced Michigan in vehicles (not just cars) last year and Michigan has the highest vehicle output in the U.S.
We manufacture quite a lot more than just vehicles and parts but all manufacturing in the Ontarios is only worth 20% of its GDP.
Source: www.2ontario.com
It's another world and has next to nothing to do with "Ontario" given that 9% (and shrinking) of the population of the Ontarios lives outside south Ontario and is involved in primary, producing supply, which is worth less than 2% of "Ontario's" GDP and they cost us a lo more than that.
Corporations are what employ the greedy working slobs and their unions that the likes of the NDP stand up for -- because they're in a time warp with the rest of the Canadas, they have never even managed to get an industrial revolution going in a province and around this economy, who cares about $4.5 billion in corporate tax cuts?
Our corporate taxes are higher than the worthy economies in the U.S. we have to compete with and there are not many worthy economies in the U.S. compared to south Ontario, but they all have lower corporate taxes and personal taxes and that is all that matters around here. What the taxes happen to be in B.C. or anywhere else in the Canadas are
irrelevant in south Ontario.
And what is the point in paying for the likes of Manitoba? We don't need your grain. Over 75% of it is exported raw and it's not exactly a cash crop. Why should we pay to subidize that stupidity or any other stupidity? You get what you reward and all this ridiculous "federation" does is penalize economic success to reward failure -- with zero accountability, no measurement system to see if (no need by just looking at population and GDP of other "provinces" that might as well be colonies) it's accomplishing anything but maintainining stupidity.
And no measurement system to check its impact on the Paymasters in south Ontario; by the confederates.
We don't have 50 states like the U.S. does and it transfers next to nothing in federal taxes to other states, which is why it (and Ireland and Spain and plenty of other places with economies that "should not be" as high as they are given that they didn't/don't get the handouts that anything in the Canadas does out of south Ontario) and that's why.
Subsidizing farmers, primary period, in the U.S. to fend off the westen Canadas with their 19th century "economies" and no markets to speak of, exporting raw/semi-processed natural resources as a result (which is not how to make money in the 1900's let alone today), because they actually have markets outside what would be two states in the U.S., south Ontario, southwest Quebec, the Windsor-Quebec City Corridor, tiny strips of land compared to the rest of the Ontarios and Quebecs let alone the rest of the Canadas, with 60% of the population/markets and the rest scattered around millions of square km, without the population of Toronto, the usual as in the population of Winnipeg is the municipal area and Toronto's municipal area is the fourth largest in North America behind only L.A., NYC and Chicago and it's about to take Chicago out.
Outside the Windsor-Quebec City Corridor, there is nothing to add up in the rest of the Ontarios and Quebecs so the entire province of B.C. is next and it doesn't even have the popluation of Toronto.
<CENSUS METROPOLITAN AREAS - 2001 -
http://www.statcan.ca:8096/bsolc/english/bsolc?catno=92F0138M2002001
CENSUS METROPOLITAN AREAS - 2001
1. What's a Census Metropolitan Area (CMA)?
The 2001 Census defines 27 census metropolitan area (CMAs) and 19 census agglomerations (CAs) with census tracts. This working paper includes three maps for each of these CMAs and CAs. The first map shows the boundary of the CMA/CA and the boundaries of the census subdivision (CSD) components of the CMA/CA for the 1996 Census. The second map shows the transition from 1996 to 2001 (with boundary changes highlighted), and the third map shows the CMA/CA (and component CSDs) as it is defined for the 2001 Census. Accompanying tables list the component census subdivisions and the criteria which they meet to be included in the CMA or CA. The paper describes various factors that can result in changes to the boundaries of CMAs and CAs. For the 2001 Census, municipal restructuring is the factor that has had the greatest impact on the boundaries of some CMAs and CAs.
The paper also briefly describes and compares the delineation criteria for metropolitan areas in the United States with those for census metropolitan areas in Canada. An indication is given of the impact on the Canadian CMA program if the American metropolitan area criteria were used.
Source:
http://www.statcan.ca:8096/bsolc/english/bsolc?catno=92F0138M2002001
The paper:
PDF http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/92F0138MIE/02001/cma2001.pdf
CMA listings/maps:
http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/92F0138MIE/02001/cma2001.htm (PDFs)
Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) and Census Agglomeration (CA)
Part A – Plain Language Definition
Area consisting of one or more adjacent municipalities situated around a major urban core. To form a census metropolitan area, the urban core must have a population of at least 100,000. To form a census agglomeration, the urban core must have a population of at least 10,000.
Part B - Detailed Definition
...
Source:
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/Products/Reference/dict/geo009.htm
2. How the tables are laid out.
Name of Province - 2001 provincial population (total) follows. Next line CMA (title, the names of the CMA(s) under that) 2001 (populations for the CMA under that), 1996 (populations of the CMA under that), population growth or decline rate (a minus sign [-] denotes decline) between the 1996 Census and 2001 Census and those numbers came with the data, I have not checked them -- and Rank.
RANK: 1 is the most populous CMA, Rank 27 is the lowest/last because only 27 CMAs were defined by the 2001 Census.
Ontario - 11,410,046
Code:
CMA 2001 1996 %Change Rank
Toronto *............. 4,682,897 4,263,759 9.8 1
Ottawa-Hull * (ON/QC). 1,063,664 998,718 6.5 4
Hamilton *............ 662,401 624,360 6.1 9
London *.............. 432,451 416,546 3.8 10
Kitchener *........... 414,284 382,940 8.2 11
St. Catharines-Niagara* 377,009 372,406 1.2 12
Windsor *............. 307,877 286,811 7.3 15
Oshawa *.............. 296,298 268,773 10.2 16
Greater Sudbury *..... 155,601 165,618 –6.0 20
Kingston *............ 146,838 144,528 1.6 24
Thunder Bay .......... 121,986 126,643 –3.7 27
TOTAL 8,661,306 8,051,102 54.7
2,748,740 people in "Ontario" live outside the CMAs above,
75.91% of the population lives in the CMAs and scratch Greater Sudbury, the asterisk beside it, which I didn't put there; not as a CMA in the "Outer Canadas" but if it keeps losing over 10,000 people per census it won't be a CMA for much longer either.
Subtract 277,587 people (Sudbury, Thunder Bay) from the 8,661,306 people just in the CMA's of south Ontario. They are supply (Thunder Bay has the largest number of grain elevators in the Canadas; to ship out the worthless grain from the prairies that's heading across the Atlantic, with about 75% of the grain grown in the prairies being exported raw, which is not profitable and we have to pay to subsidize it and subsidizing stupidity is why even Spain has a larger economy than "the Canadas" does), they have nothing to do with the economies of south Ontario, we import supply from all over the world and they might as well be in Africa or Australia or some backwater state or South America or all of the other places we import supply from; which has to do with the asterisks that I did not put there.
Québec - 7,237,479
Code:
CMA 2001 1996 %Change Rank
Montréal *............ 3,426,350 3,326,447 3.0 2
Québec City *......... 682,757 671,889 1.6 7
Chicoutimi-Jonquière . 154,938 160,454 –3.4 21
Sherbrooke *.......... 153,811 149,569 2.8 22
Trois-Rivières *...... 137,507 139,956 –1.7 25
TOTAL 4,555,363 4,448,315 2.3
2,682,116 people live outside the CMAs above,
62.94% of the total population lives in the CMAs.
* «Main Street» : Windsor-Québec City Corridor a.k.a. "Inner Canada" (ask David Kilgour)
14 of Canada's 27 CMA's (13, scratch Sudbury -- not as a CMA but as a CMA in the Windsor-Quebec City Corridor given that it's nowhere near it and its economy has nothing to do with ours).
Total population of
Ontario and
Québec CMAs:
13,216,669
British Columbia - 3,907,738
Code:
CMA 2001 1996 %Change Rank
Vancouver ............ 1,986,965 1,831,665 8.5 3
Victoria ............. 311,902 304,287 2.5 14
Abbotsford ........... 147,370 136,480 8.0 23
TOTAL 2,446,237 2,272,432 19.0
1,461,501 people live outside the CMAs,
62.60% of the total population in them.
Total population of
Ontario and
Québec (Windsor-Quebec City Corridor) and
British Columbia (Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island) CMAs:
15,662,906
Then comes the rest of the Outer Canadas/Outer World:
Alberta - 2,974,807
Code:
CMA 2001 1996 %Change Rank
Calgary .............. 951,395 821,628 15.8 5
Edmonton ............. 937,845 862,597 8.7 6
TOTAL 1,889,240 1,684,225 24.5
1,085,567 people live outside the CMAs, 63.51% of the total population in them.
Manitoba - 1,119,583
Code:
CMA 2001 1996 %Change Rank
Winnipeg ............. 671,274 667,093 0.6 8
448,309 people live outside the CMA,
59.96% of the total population inside it.
Saskatchewan - 978,933
Code:
CMA 2001 1996 %Change Rank
Saskatoon ............ 225,927 219,056 3.1 17
Regina ............... 192,800 193,652 –0.4 18
TOTAL 418,727 412,708 2.7
560,206 people live outside the CMAs,
42.77% of the total population in them.
Nova Scotia - 908,007
Code:
CMA 2001 1996 %Change Rank
Halifax .............. 359,183 342,966 4.7 13
548,824 people outside the CMA,
39.56% of the population in it.
Newfoundland and Labrador - 512,930
Code:
CMA 2001 1996 %Change Rank
St. John's ........... 172,918 174,051 –0.7 19
340,012 people live outside the CMA,
33.71% of the total population in it.
New Brunswick - 729,498
Code:
CMA 2001 1996 %Change Rank
Saint John ........... 122,678 125,705 –2.4 26
606,820 people live outside the CMA,
16.82 of the total populaton in it.
Prince Edward Island - 135,294
No CMA
Sources:
CMA populations (2001, 1996, %Change): Bridging the Innovation Gap: Count Cities In, Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) -
PDF http://www.fcm.ca/newfcm/Java/gap.pdf (via Census of Canada, 2001 Census Analysis Series)
Source of the above: Statistics Canada -
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/standard/popdwell/Table-CMA-PS.cfm (select a jurisdiction, sort by clicking on what you want to sort by and note the "Show land area, population density and population rank for this table" link, sort ascending or descending by population density (national/provincial/territorial rank is by total population not density) then note what other options come up.
Or start here:
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/standard/popdwell/Table-CMA.cfm (View nationally - all CMAs and CAs, View by Province or Territory, the link above, View showing Census Subdivisions (CDs), View Showing Urban Core, Urban Fringe and Rural Fringe).
Or start here with explanations:
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/standard/popdwell/tables.cfm and view whatever you like. The link that leads to the link above is in the list of bullets: Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs), Census Agglomerations (CAs)
Or you could start here:
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/datalib/cc01/changes01.htm to find out what changes took place between the 1996 and 2001 Census. The link to the above is at the bullet "Access": <Population> (link) counts for all levels of geography (excluding census tracts and dissemination areas) available on STC web site for public access, as well as in Geosuite and Geosearch." and lots more.
Or you could click on "Analysis Series" from the sidebar of any of the links above and turn up loads of data (to be turned into information or to get information with interactive tables) or head to that home page at:
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/Products/Analytic/Index.cfm
Total Populations: See sources above. If you start at the link below the original source (Windsor-Quebec City Corridor research, previously, the link under the FCM document) then select a jurisdiction the total (2001 Census as described at the third link above "Please note that the most appropriate 2001 population figures for Canada, provinces and territories are the current postcensal population estimates. See the explanatory note." with links in that) populations of the province/territory are listed at the top of each jurisdiction's table.
Total population in CMAs, also known as "cities," for the rest (outside "Ontario", "Québec" and "British Columbia"): 3,634,020
Toronto*: 4,682,897
Montréal*: 3,426,350
All of the rest of the CMAs in the Canadas don't add up to Toronto alone (and the "entire" provinces of the rest don't amount to Toronto's economic output, including the rest of Ontario and all of Québec; separately, then you drop by almost half of Québec's economic output to B.C., Alberta is below B.C. then the rest make up the other 12.46% the total GDP of the Canadas; liabilities, they get all of their federal taxes back and billions of dollars in handouts on top of that; are worth less than zero and B.C. and Alberta, not that there is such a thing, but if there were, would have 24.37% of the GDP of the Canadas while Quebec alone has 21.07%, Ontario and Quebec, the Windsor-Quebec City Corridor, 63.17%, Ontario, Quebec and B.C., 75.55%) and barely amount to Montréal, let alone both (2001) at: 8,109,247 people in the Toronto and Montréal markets alone, which is over the population/markets of all of Québec today and everything else in the Canadas but the rest of the Ontarios; with all of 7% of the population of the Ontarios outside the Windsor-Québec City Corridor region in 2001 and it'll be less when the 2006 Census numbers come out and the 13% of the Québec section's population is dropping very fast (other than around the Aboriginal peoples) in "the north" (everything north and east of Québec City).
No
province other than the usual, the other end of the Windsor-Québec City Corridor, had 4,682,897 people; just the Toronto CMAs population and it's not "boasting," no one is in control of it, private investors, mostly American, decide in what and where they will invest in the Canadas, not governments and people decide where they will live, it's a constitutional right. When human resources meet good business plans and investors, things are built and new jobs are created and new jobs are "people with money to spend", new markets to sell our goods and services to without exporting.
The confederate feds simply plunder the Ontarios (south) to pay for bitching, whining spoiled brats in the rest of the Canadas to buy their votes and there is no fix for it other than for Ontario to become a republic along with Québec. Then we dump our norths (draw lines on maps using economic geographers to form a new economic union), sign a union constitution and economic charter hanging Québec's, pretty much Montréal's share of the federal debt/bankruptcy over its head given that Ontario is owed by "these federation" with interest and if we let everything off with that then it comes out of our share of the federal debt; and Ontario is also the one and only jurisdiction that has always paid more into this ludicrous insanity ("federation") and gee whiz, I wonder why there are problems with "central Canada," the Windsor-Québec City Corridor, the economic regions that cause the transportation/communications corridors to exist and pay for every cent of them and always have along with just about everything else's bills -- we can't even maintain an economic union with the rest of the Canadas, other than probably the Vancouver economic region, Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island.
And we don't want or need socialists with no money or clues, like the NDP, running anything. Perhaps if Manitoba ever gets a real industrial revolution going, the poor working man being exploited by corporate fatcasts (not in knowledge-based economies, it doesn't work or you lose your most important resource: well-educated human resources not natural resources) and then it gets into a high tech revolution, then is manufacturing what is needed for an information era and it all has to tie together, it will find the NDP to be oblivious dinosaurs without a clue what a knowledge-based economy needs.
They proved it quite well when they actually won a majority govenment in Toronto, not Ontario. Stick up for the "working man" and the labor unions make outrageous demands, they had "their man" in power but the working man is hired by corporations that can and did lock them out.
Then the NDP discovered who/what PAYS for the working man, who/what creates all the jobs for the working man and had to deal with corporations and then the unions became irate, the NDP had turned their backs on them and was conspiring with the enemy, so they all went on strike.
By the time they were done, everyone was locked out and on strike; but maybe they make sense in Manitoba, Saskatchwan has even fewer people, neither are knowledge-based economies and we had no "federal" party with a clue.
They have lots of clues but can't sell it to the Canadas because the Canadas is still stuck in the agricultural era for the most part; it's why it costs so much money and is such a lame country.
Japan has next to no natural resources and its topography, weather, eathquakes and such are much more difficult than anything in the Canadas has to deal with. But even Spain makes more money than the Canadas and maybe your healthcare and other social systems work but ours don't; none of them. Due to tax plundering, you all get more of our money per person than we get to keep for ourselves.
And there is no reconciling it. When you (the rest of the Canadas) have a clue, you do. And get it with your own money. We have real business to look after and real issues to deal with.