Wildrose Leader Says No More Money For Quebec.

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Try to think outside the box just this once, OK 2-packs?

:lol: Why have any laws at all. Just use Durpy Morgan's outside the box trick.

Dolts: "We wish to use the Notwithstanding clause to operate notwithstanding Section 36 of the Constitution Act."

SC: "That provision does not apply."

Dolts: "Try to think outside the box."

That's pretty damn funny Durpy Morgan :lol:
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
:lol: Why have any laws at all. Just use Durpy Morgan's outside the box trick.

Dolts: "We wish to use the Notwithstanding clause to operate notwithstanding Section 36 of the Constitution Act."

SC: "That provision does not apply."

Dolts: "Try to think outside the box."

That's pretty damn funny Durpy Morgan


Alright 2-Packs, I'll try and explain this for y'all...

Change the response to "That provision does not apply."

with

"we beg to differ and wish to take the next 15 years to do so. In the meantime, the AB gvt will collect the federal portion of the taxes owed to the CRA and remit the amounts less the disputed sums. In the meantime, we'll do our best to try and maybe keep the money intact."

:lol:
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Alright 2-Packs, I'll try and explain this for y'all...

Change the response to "That provision does not apply."

with

"we beg to differ and wish to take the next 15 years to do so. In the meantime, the AB gvt will collect the federal portion of the taxes owed to the CRA and remit the amounts less the disputed sums.In the meantime, we'll do our best to try and maybe keep the money intact."

Do you write for FreeAlberta.com? You're nearly as ignorant, and equally as funny. You were the one who brought up the Notwithstanding Clause, and you don't even know how it works. A provincial legislature, or the federal government can enact laws using the Notwithstanding Clause to over-ride certain fundamental rights. Equalization is not a fundamental right included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so the Notwithstanding Clause does not apply.

Think outside the box? Sure. But you're not even thinking, you're just parroting stupid crap you've heard.

I mean you might as well say you're just going to cover your ears with your hands and yell "BLAH BLAH BLAH" to make the problem go away. :roll:
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Well, well, well.... Not only is 2-Packs a salmon fluffer extraordinaire and climate-meteorological-physicist expert, but I see that you are also the last word on Constitutional law... That's really some remarkable resume that you've put together.


Equalization is not a fundamental right included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so the Notwithstanding Clause does not apply.

That all depends on how that loss of those funds affect you, doesn't it?

When you get a little life experience behind you and also get a first-hand glimpse relative to how the legal system actually operates, you may appreciate the slippery slope that the Notwithstanding Clause represents...
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Well, well, well.... Not only is 2-Packs a salmon fluffer extraordinaire and climate-meteorological-physicist expert, but I see that you are also the last word on Constitutional law...

No, but I can read:

33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

What's your problem? What part of that confuses you so much as to think it can apply to something other than what that clause says?

Jeez you're thick.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Yeah, it'd be really tough to make an argument (a very lengthy one at that) on the elements in Section 2 or 15 (think discrimination here and the myriad of forms, interpretations and subjective applications therein).

Like I said, get a little life experience behind you and then get back to me on this, m'kay?

No, but I can read:

.... But you can't comprehend.

One of the best life lessons that you can learn from this 2-Packs is to develop an understanding of your own limitations... Really...
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
Statements without substance are dangerous they can come back to haunt you
This is Canada and there is a formula in place, so tell me how does she plan to
carry this out? It is election rhetoric, and the problem is people will demand she
keep her promise, and that will be difficult in view of the national politcal climate.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Equalization is in the constitution. The only choice Alberta has is to separate if they don't like it. They certainly don't get to pick which provinces get equalization funds from Ottawa. And let's be clear, it's not Alberta's money that Quebec receives.

Yes it is in there - And it is always being amended. And I believe that harper will make that a major change - like health care - over a set period.

A question to ask yourself is why Equalization is so complicated that only a few in the country understand how it works.
Does that not say loads about what should be a base system for transfers to a have not - But when they can also have more doctors, teachers etc per cap than a have province also needs to be addressed.

Recall a few years back - Charest crying for money - Got 2 billion from Harper - during an election he then used 7 to 8 hundred millionof that for tax cuts.

They have the lowest tuition for post secondary
Day care that is now a right - 7 bucks a day and when they raised it from 5 there was hell to pay.

Face it - have not provinces have not used the money at times in ways that would improve the economy = jobs = tax revenue -

Look at the riots in Que over tuition hikes - How are last year students going to make up that lost time?

No, but I can read:

33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

What's your problem? What part of that confuses you so much as to think it can apply to something other than what that clause says?

Jeez you're thick.
I wonder if the Not Withstanding Clause can be used - What about the have Provinces saying No with one voice as I am sure will happen if there is not long term change.

And if you recall the Provinces have a lot of say on this. While written in the Const - the program has changed each time it was up for renegotiation.


Equalization Program

"Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation." (Subsection 36(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982)

How Equalization Works
•Equalization entitlements are determined by measuring provinces' ability to raise revenues – known as "fiscal capacity".
•Before any adjustments, a province's per capita Equalization entitlement is equal to the amount by which its fiscal capacity is below the average fiscal capacity of all provinces – known as the "10 province standard".
•Provinces get the greater of the amount they would receive by fully excluding natural resource revenues, or by excluding 50 per cent of natural resource revenues.
•Equalization is adjusted to ensure fairness among provinces while continuing to provide a net fiscal benefit to receiving provinces from their resources equivalent to half of their per capita resource revenues.
•Equalization is also adjusted to keep the total program payout growing in line with the economy. The growth path is based on a three-year moving average of gross domestic product (GDP) growth. This helps to ensure stability and predictability while still being responsive to economic growth.
•The program also maintains the benefits of the Atlantic Accords for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. In 2007, the two provinces were given the choice to continue to operate under the previous Equalization system or to permanently opt into the new program at any point prior to the expiry of the offshore accords. Having chosen the new program, Nova Scotia benefits from a guarantee that it will do at least as well, on a cumulative basis, as it would have under the formula agreed to at the time the Accord was signed. Newfoundland and Labrador no longer qualifies for Equalization.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
That's not a bad idea. It worked for getting free money from the feds for Quebec.

Investors are the casualties in a booming oil patch - The Globe and Mail

Every 2½ weeks, companies shovel another billion dollars into oil sands projects. Drilling rigs across the province are tapping big new pools of oil. And firms desperate for skilled workers are scouring the globe to help them get on with ambitious growth plans. Western Canadian oil output is expected to surge by more than a third to 3.6 million barrels a day by 2018.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
A question to ask yourself is why Equalization is so complicated that only a few in the country understand how it works.

Probably because few take the time to read the f'n manual, so to speak.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
For me, WR spouting off about transfer payments is a non starter. There really is nothing they can do about it so it is so much smoke and mirrors.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
I noticed the CBC were up to their usual election tricks this afternoon. I was listening to CBC Newsworld as I wallpapered. Their coverage of the Alberta election went like this:

Announce PCs and Wildrose are tied. (OK)

Talk to the Liberal leader.

Announce Wildrose has trouble controling its candidates....talk about the "caucasian" crack and the minister that spoke out about homosexuality, and Smith's reply that Wildrose candidates are free to believe as they will.

Show a bit of the Youtube ad "Vote PC, because Wildrose are stupid bigots, they think the world is flat"

Talk to the mayor of Edmonton, who is "afraid" of the Wildrose Party.

End of Coverage.

Essentially it was free political advertising for Redford and the PCs.

The quicker we STOP funding the CBC altogether, the happier I'll be.

The Ministry of Truth has got to go.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
For me, WR spouting off about transfer payments is a non starter. There really is nothing they can do about it so it is so much smoke and mirrors.

As an opposition party no,provincial government perhaps not but they can sow the seeds of discontent in the populace who in turn put pressure on their MP's both in Alberta and other have provinces that are continually being forced to contribute to Quebec's excesses.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Have you read the manual?

Enough to know how it works, yes. Not enough to tell you all of the specifics. But I know where to look when something sounds not quite right. I guess in Captain Morgan's world that makes someone an expert, :lol:
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Enough to know how it works, yes. Not enough to tell you all of the specifics. But I know where to look when something sounds not quite right. I guess in Captain Morgan's world that makes someone an expert, :lol:

Well the experts have stated time and again that there are only a small number of people that fully understand the equalization formulas.Perhaps a few hundred or so, maybe 1000. but the numbers are low due to the complexity and side agreements of equalization. So when that happens it is not workable, as it cannot be understood by many.
So while you may think or may even be right there is a higher probability that you would not be right.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Well the experts have stated time and again that there are only a small number of people that fully understand the equalization formulas.

They're probably right. I don't fully understand it. You don't need to full understand something to know how it works though. Most people could tell you how a car works without giving you the engineering specs for all the parts.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
They're probably right. I don't fully understand it. You don't need to full understand something to know how it works though. Most people could tell you how a car works without giving you the engineering specs for all the parts.

That is oversimplification. You are a smart man. But what I posted was correct. Compare it to a car, whatever you wish to but the point I made was valid.