Wildrose Leader Says No More Money For Quebec.

[Tonington]

That is oversimplification.

It's the same thing. It's exactly like understanding how a car works, without knowing all the specifics. There's a million situations in life just like this. Where I work, not one person could tell you all the specifics about how the vaccine we are making works. Yet we all know how it works, even if I don't know how the antigen is separated from the cell culture before final blend.

None of the discussions on this forum are about the specifics of the equalization formula, it's all high level stuff. Like this one for instance:

That said, they are conditional.

The incentive is to ride a fine line between the definition of qualifying as a have-not, yet still being able to collect... Nfld is/was in that position and Danny Williams insisted that he need the payments to build the infrastructure to service the offshore oil/gas... I can actually appreciate that logic as it will speed-up the process of moving forward.

Department of Finance says otherwise:

Equalization payments are unconditional – receiving provinces are free to spend the funds according to their own priorities.​

How is that an incentive? The equalization payments are the result of a formula. Straddling close to being a have province means less payments from the equalization program. If someone were gaming that system, how would being close to the line be a preferable position to being farther below the cut-off value?

To use your example of Danny Williams in Newoundland and Labrador, there is no incentive to be close to the line. The farther away from a have province, the more funds from equalization, which would have allowed Newfoundland to make even larger investments in off-shore infrastructure.

Perhaps there is an incentive there, but it's not clear that straddling a line is the preferred position.

 

[Goober]

It's the same thing. It's exactly like understanding how a car works, without knowing all the specifics. There's a million situations in life just like this. Where I work, not one person could tell you all the specifics about how the vaccine we are making works. Yet we all know how it works, even if I don't know how the antigen is separated from the cell culture before final blend.

None of the discussions on this forum are about the specifics of the equalization formula, it's all high level stuff. Like this one for instance:

Well then you understand every provinces revenues, taxes, costs, economy, expected growth, expected revenue increases. Then throw in the side agreements. Why do you think equalization is renegotiated every number of years. No I will stick to my post.

 

[Tonington]

Well then you understand every provinces revenues, taxes, costs, economy, expected growth, expected revenue increases.

No, I said I don't know the specifics...are you willfully ignoring that?

Anyways, even though I don't know how much revenue Alberta generates, or how much taxes they collected, what their program costs are, what the size of the Alberta economy is, the expected rates of growth in Alberta, or the expected revenue increases, I can tell you without question that it is not in the Alberta Premier's power to decide where equalization goes. I can tell you without question, that the notwithstanding clause does not apply to the section of the Constitution Act that covers the equalization program.

All without knowing a thing about Alberta's specific economic conditions.

Why do you think equalization is renegotiated every number of years.

Politics...why else? Everyone has a different idea of what equalization means, and governments change.

 

[Goober]

No, I said I don't know the specifics...are you willfully ignoring that?

Anyways, even though I don't know how much revenue Alberta generates, or how much taxes they collected, what their program costs are, what the size of the Alberta economy is, the expected rates of growth in Alberta, or the expected revenue increases, I can tell you without question that it is not in the Alberta Premier's power to decide where equalization goes. I can tell you without question, that the notwithstanding clause does not apply to the section of the Constitution Act that covers the equalization program.

All without knowing a thing about Alberta's specific economic conditions.

Politics...why else? Everyone has a different idea of what equalization means, and governments change.

And tell me what happens when 2 or 3 provinces refuse to sign. The Fed Govt could impose a deal but it would then go to the SCOC.

 

[petros]

We could always sell off one of the useless Provinces and divy up the proceeds or invest in the ones that deserve investing in.

 

[taxslave]

No, I said I don't know the specifics...are you willfully ignoring that?

Anyways, even though I don't know how much revenue Alberta generates, or how much taxes they collected, what their program costs are, what the size of the Alberta economy is, the expected rates of growth in Alberta, or the expected revenue increases, I can tell you without question that it is not in the Alberta Premier's power to decide where equalization goes. I can tell you without question, that the notwithstanding clause does not apply to the section of the Constitution Act that covers the equalization program.

All without knowing a thing about Alberta's specific economic conditions.

Politics...why else? Everyone has a different idea of what equalization means, and governments change.

That is precisely the problem. The bureaucrats that control the redistribution of wealth haven't got a clue either.

 

[Angstrom]

Quebec always gets a big share cause they provide for a hole lot of things provincially that normally is provided by the fed. So instead of the Fed providing them with the service, they get the money that would pay for that service and provide the service for themselves.


Everyone knows they have there own set of laws and court system right?

Yea that's why they get a bigger check from the Fed every year. No big deal.

****ing whiners

 

[captain morgan]

This is Canada and there is a formula in place, so tell me how does she plan to carry this out?

Based on the unique potential interpretation of Section 15 in the Constitution 2-Packs... Discrimination.

Perhaps you're not aware, but something like 'discrimination' is significantly based on a subjective interpretation.

It's the same thing. It's exactly like understanding how a car works, without knowing all the specifics. There's a million situations in life just like this.

Yeah, and here you are stating that due to your basic knowledge of how an internal combustion engine works in principle, you are fully capable of building a fully functional car.

Keep on dreamin' 2-Packs

None of the discussions on this forum are about the specifics of the equalization formula, it's all high level stuff. Like this one for instance

... And having a basic understanding of the complexities of the formula, you may have an idea about the notion that there are no absolutes in the end result of that equation.

I can tell you without question that it is not in the Alberta Premier's power to decide where equalization goes. I can tell you without question, that the notwithstanding clause does not apply to the section of the Constitution Act that covers the equalization program.

But it is.

Quebec did exactly that via their subjective interpretation of one of the elements that the Notwithstanding Clause touched on... Do you honestly think that Quebec is the only province entitled to make that call?

 

[wulfie68]

Quebec always gets a big share cause they provide for a hole lot of things provincially that normally is provided by the fed. So instead of the Fed providing them with the service, they get the money that would pay for that service and provide the service for themselves.


Everyone knows they have there own set of laws and court system right?

Yea that's why they get a bigger check from the Fed every year. No big deal.

****ing whiners

And you realize that every province has its own set of laws and courts? And every municipality makes its own laws as well? Do they teach the role and types of gov't in Quebec?

Quebec DOES have its own embassies for some reason but that doesn't mean the rest of the country should be on the hook for that type of spending, or for services that go beyond the accepted national norm (such as their subsidized childcare).

 

[Tonington]

And tell me what happens when 2 or 3 provinces refuse to sign. The Fed Govt could impose a deal but it would then go to the SCOC.

What do you mean? Refuse to sign what?

Based on the unique potential interpretation of Section 15 in the Constitution 2-Packs... Discrimination.

I'm sure you mean Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and not section 15 of the Constitution Act:

15. The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

It's still clear you don't understand how this works. If Alberta were to pass their own legislation using the notwithstanding clause in the Charter, it would mean over-riding section 15. That would mean that equal treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination, is no longer treated in Alberta as a fundamental right, under whatever scope they write into the legislation.

If they wrote this legislation, and they nullified this fundamental right, then your argument is destroyed. They have no standing to claim anything regarding discrimination, because they have just nullified it by legislating that it is now operating notwithstanding...Further, they cannot successfully write legislation that over-rides Federal jurisdiction. Supreme Court will overturn it. They cannot successfully write a law to eliminate Federal collection of income tax, which is ultimately the source of the funds allocated in the equalization program. Supreme Court will overturn it.

As an example, Alberta used the notwithstanding clause to include an opposite sex only definition into it's Marriage Act. Their use of the notwithstanding clause allowed them to suspend fundamental rights relating to equality. In the end the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament alone had the authority to define marriage.

Epic fail. Durp.

It's abundantly clear that you do not have a clue about what the notwithstanding clause is.

 

[captain morgan]

If Alberta were to pass their own legislation using the notwithstanding clause in the Charter, it would mean over-riding section 15.

You're really got to learn to read, and more importantly, understand the discussion points here 2-Packs.

The goal is to use the Notwithstanding Clause is to challenge the premise (I emboldened the important word for you). I offered 'discrimination' as the impetus to engage the challenge.

Now, work with me here; In engaging this action, the AB gvt could state that they would collect the Fed portion of the taxes on behalf of AB citizens and remit their pro rata share to all of the applicable Fed programs to the CRA (it's not to Ottawa by the way). Any disputed amounts would remain in the provincial treasury until such time that the SCC ruled on the challenge.

The AB gvt has deep enough pockets that they could hold this up for years, possibly decades... In that time, the excess money isn't transferred and, well, it would be spent to the advantage of the group engaging the challenge.

 

[Tonington]

You're really got to learn to read, and more importantly, understand the discussion points here 2-Packs.

Yes, that's the problem, and not your fairy tale version of reality :lol:

The goal is to use the Notwithstanding Clause is to challenge the premise (I emboldened the important word for you). I offered 'discrimination' as the impetus to engage the challenge.

That's not how the clause works. More fairy tale from someone older, who by your own statements should be more grounded due to your life experiences. Unfortunately for you, age does not shield one from being foolish.

Now, work with me here; In engaging this action, the AB gvt could state that they would collect the Fed portion of the taxes on behalf of AB citizens and remit their pro rata share to all of the applicable Fed programs to the CRA (it's not to Ottawa by the way). Any disputed amounts would remain in the provincial treasury until such time that the SCC ruled on the challenge.

Is this more of your imagination, or do you have anything substantive, like say precedent?

The AB gvt has deep enough pockets that they could hold this up for years, possibly decades... In that time, the excess money isn't transferred and, well, it would be spent to the advantage of the group engaging the challenge.

Yes, and every tax payer in Alberta would be audited by the CRA, and if they don't pay their taxes...you think Ottawa would allow that? Yeah right. Dream on. :roll:

Imagination is fine, but you're a long ways outside the box of reality...

 

[petros]

Oh my goodness.

 

[captain morgan]

Yes, that's the problem

Excellent. So we are in agreement then; you need to learn to read and understand the discussion points here. :lol:

That's not how the clause works.

Sure it does. The Clause allows a provincial gvt to enact legislation that will temporarily over ride Charter Rights. The Clause has a 5 year duration, but can be reactivated indefinitely.

Is this more of your imagination, or do you have anything substantive, like say precedent?

Quebec's use of the Clause to over ride minority language rights?

Yes, and every tax payer in Alberta would be audited by the CRA, and if they don't pay their taxes...you think Ottawa would allow that?

.. And what's Ottawa gonna do? Invade?

Besides, the beef would be with the AB gvt as they are acting as the tax collector AND they are the ones that would be withholding the funds, not the individual.

Ya see, here is an excellent example of the value of learning to read & understand the discussion points. Your heinous misinterpretation just makes you look like an ass.... Yet again.

 

[petros]

Sure it does. The Clause allows a provincial gvt to enact legislation that will temporarily over ride Charter Rights. The Clause has a 5 year duration, but can be reactivated indefinitely.

That would be "no force no effect" from Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 which states that any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is of no force or effect. Statutes which conflict with the Constitution are invalid in the most radical sense; they do not become law.

 

[Tonington]

Excellent. So we are in agreement then; you need to learn to read and understand the discussion points here. :lol:

:lol: Come now, don't tell me you that use sarcasm as a cover for your foolish statements don't recognize real sarcasm?

Sure it does. The Clause allows a provincial gvt to enact legislation that will temporarily over ride Charter Rights.

Yes...but it doesn't apply to something like Federal taxes. You just don't get it. Alberta doesn't even collect their own taxes.

Quebec's use of the Clause to over ride minority language rights?

And how would that apply to Alberta declaring that they will collect Federal taxes unilaterally? It doesn't.

.. And what's Ottawa gonna do? Invade?

You must be a terrible poker player.

Besides, the beef would be with the AB gvt as they are acting as the tax collector AND they are the ones that would be withholding the funds, not the individual.

Bull crap. What fairy land box is that on your tax return?

Unreal. You are way out there in delusion. It makes me laugh to think of all the times you've used life experience as cover for the ridiculous things you say when you're pressed.

Ya see, here is an excellent example of the value of learning to read & understand the discussion points. Your heinous misinterpretation just makes you look like an ass.... Yet again.

Like I care what your fairy tale perception looks like :lol:

There's drugs for that by the way, though you likely don't think you need any help:

 

[petros]

During a challenge, SCC can suspend any law and deem it no force no effect until the Govt comes up with acceptable remedy. Even the income tax law.

 

[captain morgan]

Come now, don't tell me you that use sarcasm as a cover for your foolish statements don't recognize real sarcasm?

That wasn't sarcasm... You really need to take my advice on reading and comprehension.:lol:

Yes...but it doesn't apply to something like Federal taxes. You just don't get it. Alberta doesn't even collect their own taxes.
And how would that apply to Alberta declaring that they will collect Federal taxes unilaterally? It doesn't.

.... And that's why the AB gvt would make the unilateral decision to collect and remit the Fed portion of the taxes. It's up to the Feds to at that point to push the issue and as the events roll-out, the opportunity then may exist to invoke the Clause.

See 2-Packs, this is where a little life experience goes a long way. Maybe some day you'll consider looking at life outside of the confines of the little theoretical box in which you shelter yourself from the world.

You must be a terrible poker player.

I'm really not that interested in poker... Never have been

Bull crap. What fairy land box is that on your tax return?

See the above explanation 2-Packs

Unreal. You are way out there in delusion. It makes me laugh to think of all the times you've used life experience as cover for the ridiculous things you say when you're pressed.

Hence, your need to NOT deal with the scenario I painted and post loser pictures in lieu of an argument.

Like I care what your fairy tale perception looks like :lol:

Apparently you do.. At least enough to continually ask your silly questions.

 

[petros]

20 or 25 pack? Menthol?

 

[Angstrom]

And you realize that every province has its own set of laws and courts? And every municipality makes its own laws as well? Do they teach the role and types of gov't in Quebec?

Quebec DOES have its own embassies for some reason but that doesn't mean the rest of the country should be on the hook for that type of spending, or for services that go beyond the accepted national norm (such as their subsidized childcare).

First. I'm not from Quebec. Don't assume I'm from there.
Second, They Don't have the British Common Law the rest of Canada is under. They have there own Federal court on top of all the provincial and municipal stuff.

Remember they never signed the constitution of Canada. So in a way they are in charge of there own Federal programs. If they use that money for childcare that's there choice and the rest of us should just stop whining like little kids.

They still are owed more money only for the simple fact that they pay into the Fed with tax's like the rest of us, but never signed on for all the Federal services you get out of those tax's, and they take care of those services provincially on there own instead. What don't you understand?

Its simple really.