Re: RE: Fiscal Imbalance
Reverend Blair said:
Oh my, he's gone into a tizzy and missed the central point of the argument. THERE IS MORE TO A COUNTRY THAN NUMBERS ON A PIECE OF PAPER.
"Oh my," s/he's breaking the user agreement and pointing out that s/he thinks s/he's succeeded in inciting another member, which is against the user agreement -- and then pointing it out. And it looks like you're the one going into a "tizzy" and this is not the
Canadian Politics or
International Politics (what is bad for Ontario is bad for NAFTA, let alone the Outer Canadas) or
Canadian Culture or
Coming to Canada forum (though it applies to that around Ontario as well; the lowest number that represents money for settlement agencies per newcomer; but I've already been over that, I've already covered just about everything; for any reasonable debate; around a reasonable person who knows what a debate is) or the
Prairies forum either -- it's the
Ontario forum and the topic of the thread is "Fiscal Imbalance" -- with Ontario missing from the topic, but it's not missing due to the name of the forum. Are you lost?
I also asked (warned) you to use the pm button if you have anything personal to say to whomever/whatever you think "I" am. That way, I can ignore crap such as the post you made and so can everyone else. But when you make personal posts publicly I have to address them, because I have no idea who/what is going to stumble across this forum, read your drivel and due to ignorance, possibly believe it and join in on some ignorance/obfiscation-fest. I've seen it happen more than enough times to know how to stop it.
Informed Ontarians also have to teach other Ontarians and particularly around this issue, how to spot and deal with obfiscation, hearsay, ignorance, trying to change the name of the forum/province let alone the topic: and the usual "tactics" of the ignorant so that they can blow you or anyone else off in any other forums, turning facts from other sources into some personal issue, and how to pin politicians and any other "Canadian ignorance" to the mat with one simple question:
"What makes the lives and futures of every 'Canadian' worth so much more than the lives of every Ontarian and even those who are about to move to Ontario, becoming sub-Canadians whose lives and futures are worth so much less than every other 'Canadian'?"
You never did answer that one because you can't. It would force you to prove otherwise, which would force you to deal with the facts, "you" meaning whomever, particularly politicians and particularly politicians in the Ontarios (which includes the confederates) to light fires under their worthless arses and go to it trying to argue the facts -- without even knowing what they are, or knowing damned well what the facts are -- but counting on the usual around politics -- ignorance of the masses, the source of every problem on the planet, to grease their lies, obfiscation, but best of luck forming up against what has formed up in Ontario around this issue; which is going to lead to many others but that's another topic/book or ten to address in another month, two, who knows, how the rest of the Canadas and particularly the confederates choose to try to ignore this issue (to say the least) will determine how it's dealt with.
I didn't choose to post in this forum for no apparent reason.
And you do not state facts backed up by credible sources; you state whatever (you seem to parrot the NDP for the most part; could be an NDP recuiter for all anyone knows) without a shred of anything to back it up with; which is not a debate.
A debate, as I was taught, is picking a subject or having one thrown at you,
informing yourself on the pros and cons regardless of which "side" you happen to be assigned to (or pick) and debating the facts, not hearsay, let alone personal anything let alone insults, the last resort of the "debater" who has nothing at all so tries to turn it into some personal debate -- which is what the pm button is for.
No one cares about your hearsay and I expect no one to care about any hearsay I post, without facts to back it up, it is not your job to do my research and it is not my job to do your research to disprove some wild allegation you make out of the blue.
If you have something to say then you back it up with facts and I published the facts and without a care in the world whether they happened to offend whoever/whatever because they're not "my facts" ... I didn't come up with any of it and this is the Ontario forum for local Ontario discussions, which is all this is. You are not going to obfiscate, you are not going to change the topic, let alone the name of the forum. And if you use the pm button for personal whatever then I can ignore it/delete it. Post it publicly, post anything publicly around me and you had better know what you're talking about.
You haven't read one document. You don't even know what a fiscal imbalance
is and now you're an expert on what counries are as well? Which country did you set up with no numbers and who says this is "a country"? Go to the Republic of Alberta website to read that ridiculous ignorance; which has received attention from American ignorance. Extremists (exploiters of ignorance for profit) in B.C. like:
The next spike
by John Dixon
“Western Alienation” is a bad idea in search of a reality, while Canada is a great reality in search of an idea. And there’s a connection.
You can hear it on talk-radio in B.C., particularly on the Rafe Mair show. Rafe offers a kind of endless loop of complaint that: a) Ottawa is far, far away, and it has forgotten us... except, of course, at tax time [ya, to hand you all more of our revenues per capita than we get to keep in Ontario]; b) We deserve better, and could probably get it for ourselves if we left - maybe with Alberta; culminating in c) YOU’LL BE SORRY WHEN WE’RE GONE!
It’s that final cry that lays down the rhythmic beat on these gripe-fests...
John Dixon lives in Vancouver where he teaches philosophy and is president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. He has served in Ottawa as advisor to the Deputy Minister of Justice, and the Minister of National Defence.
Gone to where other than off our land?
With a stand-alone economy, little Alberta's currency would be worth 12 to 15 cents on our dollar let alone the U.S. dollar. And they don't even have their own law enforcement for fewer people than the Toronto Police Force (which out-mans the Canadian Army and is paid for entirely out of what's left of the City of Toronto's residential property taxes that the "Ontario" government doesn't steal) have to deal with and fewer roads in Alberta to patrol as well; not to mention the "federal" waters in Lake Ontario the the Toronto Police Force marine units patrol.
Since Toronto receives one of the lowest levels of average annual snowfall of any major Canadian city, it traditionally does not budget as much to remove the white stuff.
While Toronto's snow-clearing budget is the second largest among big Canadian cities [a "big city" has to have at least 1 million people and should have at least 5 million to classify as "big" city and not in resident populations, it means nothing around big cities due to millions of commuters, business travelers, tourists and other visitors that all "the city's" infrastructure; including paying to clear snow and ice for them out what's left of our municipal taxes] at C$32.2 million after Montreal's C$54 million, it is the lowest per capita at C$13.59 compared to C$53.13 in Montreal.
The city [Toronto] also has the most roads to clear, some 5,100 kilometres (3,170 miles), roughly the distance across the country. (C) Reuters Limited 1999.
Source:
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=3189&method=full
We have this "western alliance" crap on one side, claiming to be "Canadian" while making bizarre threats in endless loops of complaint in gripe-fests, and the even more bizarre out of Stampede Town, a political party with one foot in mad cow dung and the other in a "holy puddle" of pig urine, on our land in South Ontario mouthing off in all directions. If "y'all" want to leave, then get lost. We'll replace "y'all" (not much) in a week, with people who will actually take advantage of the opportunities they have for a change and won't engage in endless loops of complaint in gripe-fests over Ontario getting its fair share of its own revenues per capita to pay for expenses per capita, let alone turning it around to the opposite claiming that they have legitimate gripes in taking more of Ontario's revenues per capita than it gets to keep for itself -- which is what the polite term "fiscal imbalance" means.
We've got, not "Quebec" but the usual, a few bonehead politicians lying to people (at least they have a real population to market to and fairly diverse as well, unlike the populations of suburbs in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland & Labrador, PEI, the N.W.T., Yukon, Nunavat) who don't matter. "Everyone matters," etc., but it's a lie. Very few people matter around decision-making and the business leaders of the Montreal region, which
is Quebec (take it up with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and their documentation of this mess), are not the slightest bit interested in nothing "Quebec" (it's not a singularity) can accomplish on its own anyway: "separating" from itself, from Canada. Good luck to them even getting a referendum question
passed with the confederate
Clarity Act around.
But the confederates are sitting right on our land in South Ontario; they're not in a political District or anything else, they're on our land and if it comes down to it and "we" (do you have any idea what the Ontario Chamber of Commerce represents? Aside from everything else backing them up, the confederates have every business that means anything in the Ontarios pointing guns at their heads; diplomatically for now but it's a no-brainer where the "diplomacy" will lead -- nowhere as usual around this province, with the rest of "y'all" spitting on us; your post is a typical example) and the lid is off here, there is no putting it back on and nothing is trying to put it back on. Every time the confederates or any other provincial/territorial moron open their less than worthless yaps, more guns are brought to bear against them and we certainly don't need the confederates. We'll be far better off without them and the "Ontario" feds are out of time as well.
All of the talk is done. From here on out it's just a matter of going through the motions, "speeches" like yours only serve to piss Ontarians off more, as more and more are informed, which doesn't mean a bunch of numbers, it means knowing how those numbers are affecting the lives of Ontarians today, have affected them for decades and will destroy them in the future, 5 years maximum and the heat is going to be turned up to make sure that the rest of the Canadas we have no use for and the U.S./NAFTA has no use for as is, bitch and complain as usual, as though they have a single card to play. What are you going to do, save us billions of dollars a year? That's supposed to be some threat that we're supposed to care about?
You've all pissed all over south Ontario, bashing Toronto is the second national sport as proclaimed by many a BC'er, Alberta goes without saying around their delusions of "Ontario" and "Quebec", and you're speaking for all of Winnipeg in this forum -- and we can shut you down and what are you going to do about it?
"Why are the lives of every 'Canadian' worth so much more than the lives of Ontarians?"
Every single jurisdiction gets more of our own revenues per capita than the (less than worthless) "Ontario" government gets to keep for "Ontario" programs/services/infrastructure and that's what the "fiscal imbalance" (extortion and we have 100 years of proof that it has accomplished worse than nothing; one of the largest money transfers on the planet has taken place by the confedertes, for decades, out of Ontario and into the what? There is nothing out there and it doesn't take an economic analyst to see it, it's what the population numbers combined with GDP numbers are; markets and we are not oriented to the rest of the Canadas anymore).
If I wished to discuss, debate, not
argue the issues, not
arguments, of a
country I would not be publishing in the
Ontario forum. Just because every other jurisdiction in the Canadas gets more of our revenues per capita than we get to keep for ourselves, year after decade, doesn't mean that "the country" is being discussed. Our revenues are the topic in this thread and I didn't post in the
Ontario forum for no apparent reason.
AND THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO ANY FISCAL ANYTHING BUT NUMBERS (oops, Caps Lock must have got stuck, just like yours must have above) and explanations of numbers that represent the lives of Ontarians and the near- and long-term future of Ontario in this case; which certainly does and will affect more than one country, the U.S. more than this one, as you have already pointed out with regard to south Ontario's "strategic location" as yet another attempt to obfiscate and to attempt to spit on the success of Ontario with ignorance based on myths and hearsay -- not facts -- and it's irrelevant to any
fiscal imbalance anyway; it doesn't entitle all other Canadians to
more funding
per person for healthcare, edcuation or any other confederate spending, let alone
all other confederate spending, when the Canadiana (Canadian propaganda) myth is that everything is supposed to be "reasonably equal" -- it is not supposed to kill the golden goose, leave Ontario in last place and with 5 years to go before it's a "have not" province) and the "fiscal imbalance" that Ontario has endured for decades is the topic of this thread in the
Ontario forum.
And when was the last time you set a country up? Now you're an expert on what counries are as well? Which country did you set up and how did you do it without numbers? It's not relevant to this forum either, but:
British North America Act said:
]I. PRELIMINARY. [Roman numeral Arabic 1]
1. This [means 1, singular not plural] Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1867.(2)
2. Repealed(3)
II. UNION. [Roman numeral for Arabic 2]
3. It shall be lawful for the [means 1, singular not plural, as an entity of a specific number of Senators representing 1 entity or as 1 as a singular person or anything else, but I'm not going to point it out every time; a "dozen" eggs isn't some arbitrary number and eggs is plural meaning more than 1 egg] Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly.(4)
4. Unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.(5)
5. Canada shall be divided into Four Provinces, named Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick.(6)
6. The Parts of the Province of Canada (as it exists at the passing of this Act) which formerly constituted respectively the Province of Upper Canada and Lower Canada shall be deemed to be severed, and shall form Two separate Provinces. The Part which formerly constituted the Province of Upper Canada shall constitute the Province of Ontario; and the Part which formerly constituted the Province of Lower Canada shall constitute the Province of Quebec.
7. The Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall have the same Limits [often expressed by one or more numbers; latitude, longtitude] as at the passing of this Act.
8. In the general Census of the Population of Canada which is hereby required to be taken in the Year One Thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, and every Tenth Year thereafter, the respective Populations of the Four Provinces shall be distinguished.
...just the first 8 of 147 sections, then six Schedules, most Sections and Schedules and Footnotes (amendments/repeals) with their own subsections, etc., denoted by more numbers and letters that serve as numbers (A., B., C.,...(a), (b), (c),..., Roman numerals I., II., III., (i), (ii), (iii),...). Feel free to count the numbers yourself.
British North America Act said:
]
Footnotes to the Constitution Act, 1867
These footnotes are taken from the April 1, 1996 Consolidation of The Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982
(1) The Enacting clause was repealed by the
Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, 56-57 Vict., c. 14 (U.K.). It read as follows:
Be it therefore enacted and declared by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, as follows:
(2) As enacted by the
Constitution Act, 1982, which came into force on April 17, 1982. The section, as originally enacted, read as follows:
1. This Act may be cited as The British North America Act, 1867.
(3) Section 2, repealed by the
Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, 56-57 Vict., c. 14 (U.K.), read as follows:
2. The Provisions of this Act referring to Her Majesty the Queen extend also to the Heirs and Successors of Her Majesty, Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
(4) The first day of July, 1867, was fixed by proclamation dated May 22, 1867.
(5) Partially repealed by the
Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, 56-57 Vict., c. 14 (U.K.). As originally enacted the section read as follows:
4. The subsequent Provisions of this Act, shall, unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, commence and have effect on and after the Union, that is to say, on and after the Day appointed for the Union taking effect in the Queen's Proclamation; and in the same Provisions, unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.
(6) Canada now consists of ten provinces (Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, British Columbia Prince Edward Island, Alberta Saskatchewan and Newfoundland) and three territories (the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut).
The first territories added to the Union were Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory, (subsequently designated the Northwest Territories), which were admitted pursuant to section 146 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and the
Rupert's Land Act, 1868, 31-32 Vict., c. 105 (U.K.), by the
Rupert's Land and North-Western Territory Order of June 23, 1870, effective July 15, 1870. Prior to the admission of those territories the Parliament of Canada enacted
An Act for the temporary Government of Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory when united with Canada (32-33 Vict., c. 3), and the
Manitoba Act, 1870, (33 Vict., c. 3), which provided for the formation of the Province of Manitoba.
British Columbia was admitted into the Union pursuant to section 146 of the Constitution Act, 1867, by the
British Columbia Terms of Union, being Order in Council of May 16, 1871, effective July 20, 1871.
Prince Edward Island was admitted pursuant to section 146 of the Constitution Act, 1867, by the
Prince Edward Island Terms of Union, being Order in Council of June 26, 1873, effective July 1, 1873.
On June 29, 1871, the United Kingdom Parliament enacted the
Constitution Act, 1871 (34- 35 Vict., c. 28 ) authorizing the creation of additional provinces out of territories not included in any province. Pursuant to this statute, the Parliament of Canada enacted the
Alberta Act, (July 20, 1905, 4-5 Edw. VII, c. 3) and the
Saskatchewan Act (July 20, 1905, 4-5 Edw. VII, c. 42), providing for the creation of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, respectively. Both these Acts came into force on Sept. 1, 1905.
Meanwhile, all remaining British possessions and territories in North America and the islands adjacent thereto, except the colony of Newfoundland and its dependencies, were admitted into the Canadian Confederation by the
Adjacent Territories Order, dated July 31, 1880.
The Parliament of Canada added portions of the Northwest Territories to the adjoining provinces in 1912 by
The Ontario Boundaries Extension Act, 1912, 2 Geo. V, c. 40,
]The Quebec Boundaries Extension Act, 1912, 2 Geo. V, c. 45 and
The Manitoba Boundaries Extension Act, 1912, 2 Geo. V, c. 32, and further additions were made to Manitoba by The
Manitoba Boundaries Extension Act, 1930, 20-21 Geo. V c. 28.
The Yukon Territory was created out of the Northwest Territories in 1898 by The
Yukon Territory Act, 61 Vict., c. 6, (Canada).
Newfoundland was added on March 31, 1949, by the
Newfoundland Act, (U.K.), 12-13 Geo. VI, c. 22, which ratified the Terms of Union between Canada and Newfoundland.
Nunavut was created by partitioning the Northwest Territories into two on June 13, 1998, by the
Constitution Act, 1999 (Nunavut), 46-47 Eliz. II, 1997-98, c. 15 (Canada).
Source:
The Solon Law Archive, Canadian Constitutional Documents, A Legal History (C) Copyright 1994-2004 William F. Maton -
http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1867.html (Still Under Development: The complete
set of documents is available now, here on-line, freely.
With the main core done, there's the other 400 or so to do...)
Just six of 78 footnotes of one portion of one "Constitution" Act, 8 of 147 sections, then six Schedules, full of other Acts and Orders, another "Constitution" for Nunavat (lots more numbers) to add to the mess and how many numbers do you count just out of that?
Which country are you referring to that has no legal system/laws and no way to refer to any of them, no dates (numbers), no location -- numbers whether created by cartogophers "to scale" [numbers that make maps accurate so that locations listed on maps such as rivers, oceans, lakes, whatever "land marks" that are not man-made can be referred to when defining the boundaries of a country and whatever internal political jurisdictions it has as referred to by laws of the country that are usually cited as name, year, section, subsection, or section/paragraphs number in other court transcripts when citing a precedent] or latitude, like the 49th parallel, which has nothing to with anything east and south then north [can also be expressed in numbers of degrees, 0/360 being north 90 being east, 180 being south, 270 being west; and direction is expressed in numbers on many ships and airplanes ... GPS, latitude, longitude, altitude above or below mean sea level] of Lake Superior, which means nothing until numbers confirm that distances on charts/maps are accurate to scale, are agreed upon and can then be referred to; to define where a country's boundaries are in a way that will stand up in a court of law, the WTC, WTO, whatever that constitutes a violation of the jurisdiction of a country can't just be expressed as hearsay.
What number of what constitutes a violation of entering the waters or airspace of "a country?" You just say so, you saw some ship fishing in "Canadian waters" and its GPS system and recorder proves that it wasn't but you state, "There's more to a country than numbers" and the WTC, WTO, UN, Canadian military and whatever else is just going to take your word for it?
You can build a fence, shed, addition or other building wherever you feel like building one: but it's only legal according to numbers stated by laws/bylaws of your jurisdiction on your own property that you are holding a lawful deed for. Surveyors deal with nothing but numbers.
Which country are you referring to with no economic/financial systems, or when it comes to fiscal anything around governments; taxes. Whichever it is, if any, it has no "fiscal" anything so it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
Reverend Blair said:
It's okay, though...I needed an example of somebody who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. You'd be it, little buddy.
Do explain it then as opposed to the usual obfuscation, trolling, inciting, getting defensive/personal over nothing personal, breaking all the rules, not debating a single fact, with a fact, not even being interested in the name of the forum or topic: ignoring the facts, the sources, certainly not me, and having to resort to name-calling because you have nothing else.
Don't even try to judge to me on some personal level. Aside from having not the faintest clue, you are most definitely not qualified to even try. Do it again and you get reported. Understand? Stick to the subject of the forum and the subject of the thread and the documentation I have posted, with very clearly marked sources. And as usual in the prairies, what does the price of wheat grain, barley, chicken or anything else have to do with anything? What value are you referring to that has anything to do with a
fiscal imbalance that has been/is robbing Ontario blind for decades?
What would you expect to see around a
fiscal imbalance other than numbers, sources and explanations of them? This isn't a cultural issue, other than the welfare culture the hopelessly broken "transfer system" has created in this mess, which the Atlantic Canadas have done many studies about. What do you make of these, Skippy?
“How to Fix Equalization to Encourage Growth. (
http://www.aims.ca/aimslibrary.asp?cmPageID=192&ft=4&id=292) Atlantic Institute for Market Studies web site.
“Help that Hurts.” (
http://www.aims.ca/aimslibrary.asp?cmPageID=192&ft=5&id=187) Atlantic Institute for Market Studies web site.
What's the source? Can you figure that much out? Me? Of course you can figure it out but you have to ignore it or you'll be forced to deal with reality from a welfare state, one of the worst in the Canadas.
Reverend Blair said:
You kind of missed the point that I wasn't arguing that Ontario produces most of this country's wealth. You wrote off, because it doesn't fit your in your little accountant's book, that Ontario did a lot to put itself in that position.
You not only kind of missed point of the forum you're in and the topic of the thread, but have no clue what a fiscal imbalance
is if you think that one of 13 subnational jurisdictions can create a fiscal imbalance
with itself, by itself. If Ontario were all there were to this "federation" the only possible fiscal imbalance would be internal and regional, and there is a vertical fiscal imbalance to deal with in the Ontarios but it's caused by the horizontal fiscal imbalance (horizontal means "across" and in reference to a federal fiscal imbalance and 13 subnational governments, across those jurisdictions). The "Ontario" feds are running an $11 billion fiscal imbalance (last year alone) on the City of Toronto alone, because that is how it works internally. It's not up to Toronto to get that $11 billion back from the confederates (though it will; they don't follow any laws so why should we?), it's up to the alleged "provincial government" to do it, which is the whole point of focusing on Ontario, by sticking to the Ontario forum as opposed to having endless rants such as yours to respond to in another forum. I don't have the time.
Wealth has nothing to do with anything. No one is arguing that confederate tax laws discriminate against Ontario; they're federal ("horizontal") and it's irrelevant what happens to pay out what. It's what goes back
in per capita across the board that creates a horizontal fiscal imbalance. Ontario gets the least per capita "spending" (pittances of its own revenues back but that's also beside the point; other than around the massive "surpluses" the confederates have run on the backs of Ontario, not all; which is another issue but the same -- even around Ontario's share of GDP as a percentage of Canada's does not go back to Ontario out of surpluses -- nor does the share of interest it pays on the federal debt, with "its share" low-balled, not reality, just percentage of GDP, which isn't our choice it's how the confederates do it, claim to do it, but don't around Ontario. Percentage of federal receipts from each jurisdiction would make more sense around paying back shares of interest but no matter how it's measured, Ontario gets ripped off in that too) of any jurisdiction in the Canadas, and has for decades.
Even around commie-socialists and Canadiana, it's supposed to be relatively equal. The confederates get over $80 billion a year in receipts from Ontario and no one is saying "give it all back." Just fix the screwed up "transfer system" and alleged "equalization" that sounds reasonable, even noble -- but as per usual, it's a crock of sh.t. It does one thing: allows politicians to lie to advance their political "careers" with lies. We're hauling them out on the carpet with it, enough is enough, smarten up or we'll roll you up in the carpets and kick you to pulps.
Who is going to stand up and tell every Ontarian that their lives are worth so much less than the lives of every other Canadian, and even those who aren't in Ontario yet are about to get ripped off. As soon as they arrive and set foot in Ontario they become sub-Canadians whose lives are worth far less than any other Canadian, so the politicians are going to have to do much more than "explain" that one: or we'll have to get rid of them (with sane structures and systems that actually work). There is no time for yet another confederate committee, all of the facts are on the table, they're not "our numbers" they're confederate numbers and numbers from every Department ("Ministry" ... the public relations bulls..t end) of Finance in all 13 jurisdictions. They all have to publish audited financial statements of public accounts and no one/nothing (who knows anything) is even claiming that the numbers are wrong.
They are doing what you are: obfiscating, trying anything to weasel out from the guns they're under and the more they lie, the more guns are brought to bear against them, more studies, more documentation, but we don't have the time for it, so something is going to give: and it's not going to be Ontario.
Here's "my little accountant's book" just from one document:
INDEPENDENT POLICY RESEARCH
Research on the transfer system has been a cottage industry at various times and in different parts of Canada [which is outrageous in itself given its alleged goals and impact; nothing but lies to advance political careers].
Several features stand out from this research:
- As reported earlier, no serious quantitative analysis or economic modeling has ever been made public and probably has never been done on the impact of the fiscal gap on Ontario. [They've been done now and every gun is being brought to bear now; it's kinda the point but they are referring to the less than worthless confederates.]
- Most of the available research on the system has focused on equalization and other transfer payment programs [only to discover a total disaster, let alone mess; which the Atlantic Institute of Market Research turned up years ago, but the lying fraudulant politicking continues], not federal spending differentials built into federal government programming [which makes it even worse; such as the federal government spends an average of $819 per immigrant on settlement services in Ontario compared to $3,806 per immigrant in Quebec, Ontario received the lowest amount of benefit per unemployed person of any province in 2003-04: $5,060 per unemployed person. In contrast, PEI received $14,485 per unemployed person and the list goes on and on, particularly around confederate "surplus" and other spending that isn't connected to the hopelessly broken transfer "system"]. From Ontario’s point of view, as we have seen, the second of these is as important as the first.
- Research on the mechanisms and processes involving the net fiscal gap and its components has been much greater than the economic and consumer impact of the system on recipient and contributing provinces alike. [It screws all.]
- Research on the transfer system and related issues in the recipient provinces always ignores the impact of the system on Alberta and Ontario.
Perhaps the best way to convey the overall tone is by letting some of the best known researchers address the issues in their own words:
Paul Boothe, a former Deputy Minister of Finance for Saskatchewan and Professor at the University of Alberta, writes as follows:
...some have argued (notably, Thomas Courchene) that as long as trade flowed along an east-west axis as a result of the National Policy, most of the benefit of Ontario’s contributions to other regions eventually returned — either in the form of inexpensive natural resources or through purchases of Ontario’s manufactured goods. Whether the reason for Ontario’s past generosity [it's always been done by the confederates with confederate receipts taken from Ontario, not "by Ontario" nor were/are any of the programs under "Ontario's" jurisdiction, but those from the prairies ... and Atlantic Canadas, B.C. and territories, and sometime even Quebec politicians marketing to ignorant sort of "masses" get confused around such things; not around themselves, only around Ontario and/or Quebec] was altruism or enlightened self interest, it is clear that the past ten to fifteen years have seen a change of attitudes in Canada’s largest province. [What is clear in the documentation is that the amounts of Ontario's revenues being stolen by the confederates to burn in the past ten years in particlar, it'd be better if they did burn it instead of causing the damage the transfer "system" has and will always cause as is, has shot up dramatically and the "rules" of transfers that used to make them make at least sound good have been thrown in the garbage, and Ontario has dropped to last place in the federation around everything, gets the least, has no reason to even pay federal taxes anymore, has no use for the confederates; but restructuring that from the volumes of books on it is difficult to explain in a post, to fix this mess, not to "dump" anything but lying frauds of politicians and the insults to the words systems and structures that allow them to exist and get away with it, as is.]
Changing trade patterns and increased openness — accelerated by free trade agreements with the US and Mexico — changed the implicit economic contract on which the Canadian federation was based [irreversibly in Ontario]. With trade redirected along a north-south axis, natural resources from the rest of Canada are now sold to Ontario at world prices.
The largest markets for Ontario’s manufactured goods [and services] are now in the US. Likewise, regions that benefit from Ontario’s contributions to the federation are increasingly likely to
spend the proceeds in US markets.
Probably more important than the change in trade patterns themselves has been the apparent indifference of Ottawa to the challenges Ontario faced in adjusting to the new realities. [And it's not "apparent" it's extremely obvious and they're not "indifferent" they're obnoxious worthless little toads who think they can order us around, sitting right on our land surrounded by us, while raping and murdering us by negligent incompetence that's build right into the "systems" and "structures".] Ottawa’s indifference along with the lack of recognition of its historical contribution by other partners in the federation, has caused Ontario governments [lots more than that] to question the province’s traditional role in the federation.[7] [Simple reality and guess who talked about it the most in "the Commons" last...mess? Duceppe, of course. Who else would would defend Ontario along with pointing out the obvious after what blew the lid off this, the "deals" with Newfoundland & Labrador and Nova Scotia? No one else in that asylum. Bury your heads in the sand and it'll just go away;
never, we have no time for anymore confederate committees or anymore confederate anything, it's over [as is, which is a very good thing] for all politicians in the Canadas and the confederates and everything else just ignoring it all -- even trying to blame it on Ontario in your case, is great marketing to get it done. All it's doing is pissing Ontarians off even more.]
Boothe also notes:
…the growth of information technology in general and the Internet in particular has resulted in the transfer of powers from national governments to regional and local governments and citizens themselves.
As the traditional functions of the national government are circumscribed by these trends,
a self conscious federal government [sitting right on south Ontario's land] must develop a new rationale for its continued existence. [And it had better be quick about it; but there is nothing it has to offer. Union departments/services, of course, but no singular federal government, no "constitutional monarchy" or mess of constitutions/Pandora's box that the confederate Supreme Court can't even come up with a list of as to "what it contains" in myriad Acts, Statutes, "unwritten traditions" -- another total mess.]
An obvious place to look for a new raison d’etre is in areas of jurisdiction currently occupied by provincial and local governments. [And maybe even forcing the confederates, if they survive beyond the election circus act marketing "campaigns" -- all of them, like we need a leader who can flip burgers and eat plenty of them turning into a fat slob, and "Hello, I'm a politician. My name is Pond Scum do you mind if I hold your baby for a picture?" And the all-important hand-shaking abilities and rigged audiences to read speeches they didn't even write to.
Stand-up comics have a rougher time getting jobs, and they don't follow "their laws"; just stupid laws, the alleged "supreme law"/mess, highest in "the lands" with their side-deals all over the place, totally out of their jurisdiction, which is against the mess of constitutions/Pandora's box, and to keep their noses and our revenues out of "provincial" business and that word is going; around here. Provincial means unsophisticated simpleton bumpkinly rustic rural bucolic yokel rube yahoo hayseed chawbacon hicks.]
A complementary theory ... has been advanced by Breton (1996). This theory views national and subnational governments as occupying the same political space as competitors for the allegiance of voters. Because
social policy areas under provincial jurisdiction show up regularly as top-of-mind issues among voters across Canada, the federal government is driven to compete ... with provinces to occupy the policy areas that voters view as most important.[8]
7. Boothe, Paul. “Renewal in the Centre: Working with Ontario’s Federation Partners.” Pages 1-2.
8. Boothe, Paul. “Renewal in the Centre: Working with Ontario’s Federation Partners.” Pages 16-17.
McMahon in Retreat From Growth makes some important policy recommendations:
…government taxation and, particularly, spending levels must be brought into a normal range. Hardly any developed region in the world bears the level of government spending found in Atlantic Canada… [Ontario's taxes are right up there with Newfoundland and Quebec to
pay for that spending; as documented by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, with surtaxes included, not the usual political fraud/lies. And the Atlantic [Canada] Institute for Market Research (AIMS) has incredible amounts of documentation, the data it's based on, that will shock the hell out of any "Canadian" who believes that "equalization" does anything but bankrupt the rich to totally
screw the poorer jurisdictions.]
Federal policy, with its bundle of perverse incentives, has been particularly devastating…
The region could benefit from an effort by Atlantic leaders, at both the federal and provincial levels, to push for reform of Ottawa's regional programs.
But the worst of those are the ones that regional politicians often support most strongly: federal transfers to the region, regionally extended employment insurance (EI) and economic-development efforts.[9]
[Which is part of the fiscal imbalance.
Who is going to stand up and tell every Ontarian that their lives are worth less than the lives of every other "Canadian"? Everyone, it's what you're all doing and it's all you did with your ridiculous remark about "Ontario bringing a fiscal imbalance it has
no control over whatsovever, it's between the confederates and the boneheaded politicians being referred to above, and backed up very well by the Atlantic [Canada] Institute of Market Research. Go read all of their documentation and tell them how "helpful" the ridiculously blind, deaf and dumb "transfer system" in this mess has "benefitted them" or anything else in this mess. But politicians will be politicians, when they're allowed to prey on the oblivious "masses" and we have suburbs in Toronto with more people to market political bullshit to than any of the Atlantic provinces, with one exception: we have skids of documentation that is not produced by governments to haul every politician out on the carpet with. The populations of all four of the Atlantic provinces combined don't even amount to the (irrelevant due to commuters) resident population of the City of Toronto alone, with one city hall to try to represent itself with in a province of over 12 million people; 93% in the south. Toronto is the third-largest "province" in the ridiculous "constitutional monarchy [lie; we have no monarch other than in symbolic bullshit that no one even cares about anymore] federation" behind the usual: the rest of the Windsor-Quebec City Corridor only, or "Ontario" and "Quebec" -- fiction, lies, structural insanity that, along with insults to the word "systems" (political) cause political insanity.]
Finally, Professor Courchene of Queen’s University notes:
…Ontario now has the lowest level of per-capita effective revenues, with BC a close second. The poorest equalization-receiving province here is Newfoundland (and) Labrador with $7,449 in per capita effective revenues, compared to $6,992 for Ontario. (Note that this ignores the revenue boost that Newfoundland and Labrador will get from the bilateral offshore accord).[10]
[And that's a damned shame considering everything Courchene has documented; one paragraph. And he's from Montreal not Toronto or south Ontario or whatever this "Ontario" thing is supposed to be, but the facts are the facts.]
9. McMahon, Fred. “Retreat from Growth: Atlantic Canada and the Negative-Sum Economy.” Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS), 2000, page 151.
10. Courchene, Thomas J. “Vertical and Horizontal Fiscal Imbalances: An Ontario Perspective.” Institute for Research on Public Policy. Background Notes for a Presentation to the Standing Committee on Finance, House of Commons, May 4, 2005, pages 10-11.
REFERENCES AND RELEVANT WEBSITES
Baldwin, John R., Mark Brown, Jean-Pierre Maynard and Danielle Zietsma. “
Catching Up and Falling Behind: The Performance of Provincial GDP per Capita from 1990 to 2003.”
Statistics Canada, Economic Analysis Research Paper Series, Catalogue no. 11F0027MIE -
No. 024., November 2004.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/11F0027MIE/11F0027MIE2004024.pdf
Boothe, Paul. “
Renewal in the Centre: Working with Ontario's Federation Partners.”
September 2003.
http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/investing/reports/rp36.pdf.
Canadian Institute for Health Information.
http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=home_e
Canadian Institute for Research on Regional Development, Université de Moncton.
http://www.umoncton.ca/icrdr/fs_mandate_en.html.
Chen, Duanjie and Jack M. Mintz. “
Ontario’s Fiscal Competitiveness in 2004.”
Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, November 8, 2004.
http://www.competeprosper.ca/research/ChenMintzReport_241104.pdf
“
Colleges: An Investment in Ontario's Future, 2005-06 Funding Requirements.”
Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario (ACAATO), February
2005.
http://www.acaato.on.ca/home/fundin...Paragraphs/01/document/FundingRequest2005.pdf
Council of Ontario Universities.
http://www.cou.on.ca/
Courchene, Tom. “
ACCESS: A Convention on the Canadian Economic and Social Systems.”
Working Paper prepared for the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government of Ontario, 1996.
http://www.iigr.ca/pdf/publications/328_Appendix_A_ACCESS_A_Conv.pdf
Courchene, Thomas J. “
Vertical and Horizontal Fiscal Imbalances: An Ontario Perspective.”
Institute for Research on Public Policy. Background Notes for a Presentation to the Standing
Committee on Finance, House of Commons, May 4, 2005.
http://www.irpp.org/miscpubs/archive/tjc_050504.pdf
“
How Much Does Ontario Contribute to Federal Coffers?” TD Economics, Topic Paper,
March 3, 2005.
http://www.td.com/economics/topic/db0305_ont.pdf
Institute for Competitiveness & Prosperity.
http://www.competeprosper.ca/institute/index.html
Ontario Hospital Association.
http://www.oha.com/
Loubier, Yvan. “
The Existence, Extent and Elimination of Canada’s Fiscal Imbalance.”
Report of the Subcommittee on Fiscal Imbalance. Standing Committee on Finance, June 2005.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/infocomdoc/38...INA/report/RP1914208//finarp13/finarp13-e.pdf
Lovely, Warren. “
Canadian Financing Quarterly: Killing the Golden Goose?”
CIBC World Markets, Economics & Strategy, April 15, 2005.
http://research.cibcwm.com/economic_public/download/cfqapr05.pdf
McMahon, Fred. “
Retreat from Growth: Atlantic Canada and the Negative-Sum Economy.”
Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS), 2000.
http://www.aims.ca/aimslibrary.asp?cmPageID=192&ft=1&id=83
Pelletier, Benoit. “
A call into question of the foundations of the federal spending power.”
A speech given by Mr. Benoit Pelletier, Minister for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs
during a conference on the theme of “Redistribution within the Canadian Federation.”
University of Toronto, February 6, 2004.
http://www.saic.gouv.qc.ca/centre_de_presse/discours/2004/saic_dis20040206_en.htm
Péloquin, David A. “
Incentives for grant-maximization and other distortions of provincial and state polices: A comparison of equalization regimes in Canada and Australia.”
http://www.forumfed.org/programs/llviewpapers.asp?lang=en&allone=0&event=Fiscal+Eq
Statistics Canada.
http://www.statcan.ca/
Watts, R.L. “
Comparing Equalization in Federations.” Forum of Federations, as delivered October 28, 2002, Charlottown, Prince Edward Island.
http://www.forumfed.org/programs/llviewpapers.asp?lang=en&allone=0&event=Fiscal+Eq#
Watts, Ronald. “
Autonomy or Dependence: Intergovernmental Financial Relations in Eleven Countries.” Queen’s University, January 28, 2005.
http://www.iigr.ca/pdf/publications/362_Autonomy_or_Dependence_I.pdf
2003 Special Series on the Council of the Federation. A series of commentaries on the interprovincial-interterritorial Council of the Federation published by the Institute of Intergovernmental Relations at Queen’s University and the Institute for Research on Public Policy, 2003.
http://www.iigr.ca/iigr.php/site/browse_publications?section=39
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following people, who have represent the provincial New Democratic, Liberal and Progressive Conservative parties — and the federal Liberal party, were interviewed for their views for this report:
Elinor Caplan
Janet Ecker
Ernie Eves
Mike Harris
Ian Macdonald
Roy MacLaren
John Manley
David Peterson
Bob Rae
Gordon Walker
Other individuals connected with the public life of Ontario were also consulted on particular aspects of the project. Their assistance, as well as the assistance of those listed above, was invaluable and is much appreciated.
Fairness in Confederation Provincial Roundtable Discussions
Windsor and District Chamber of Commerce (May 24, 2005)
Linda Smith, Windsor and District Chamber of Commerce
Lindsay Boyd, Windsor and District Chamber of Commerce VP of Board/Union Gas
Rosanna Pellerito, City of Windsor
Ike Erickton, Chatham and District Chamber of Commerce
Neil McGuoy, Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital, Windsor
Walter Muroff, Walter Muroff and Co. Ltd.
Gail Antaya, Chatham and District Chamber of Commerce
Dave Harrison, Scotiabank, Windsor
Daryl Dawson, Tamo Group, Chatham
Dean Clevett, BASF Canada, Windsor
Dave Robertson, Windsor and District Chamber of Commerce Finance and Tax Committee
Ed Miles, Windsor and District Chamber of Commerce Finance and Tax Committee
Igor Siljanoski, Windsor and District Chamber of Commerce
Toronto Board of Trade (May 27, 2005)
John Ballie, Kodak Canada Inc.
David Black, Toronto Board of Trade
Debbie Bonk, Vaughan Chamber of Commerce
Cecil Bradley, Toronto Board of Trade
Karen Campbell, Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance
Mike Chopowick, Toronto Board of Trade
Glen Grunwald, Toronto Board of Trade
David Lindsay, Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario
Chris May, Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario
Peter Milligan, Poole Milligan
Claurelle Poole, Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity
Mauro Ritacca, Toronto Real Estate Board
Peter Sirois, Etobicoke Chamber of Commerce
Pradeep Sood, Indo-Canada Chamber of Commerce
Phil Thomas, Scarborough Chamber of Commer
Ottawa Chamber of Commerce (June 6, 2005)
Eric McSweeney, Chair, Ottawa Chamber of Commerce
David Glastonbury, Past Chair, Ottawa Chamber of Commerce
Gail Logan, President, Ottawa Chamber of Commerce
Katherine Hollinsworth, Policy & Communications Coordinator, Ottawa Chamber of Commerce
Mike Oster, Director, Ottawa Chamber of Commerce
Bruce Hillary, Director, Ottawa Chamber of Commerce
Maureen Molot, Chair, Ottawa Community Foundation
Barbara Corkum, Sales Link Management Services
Tom McWilliam, Gloucester Chamber of Commerce
Louise Crandall, Canadian Pharmacists’ Association
Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce (June 9, 2005)
Roberta Simpson, Chair, Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce
Mary Long Irwin, President, Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce
Gail Brescia, Director of Membership Development, Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce
Jack Mallon
Ian McCormack, Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce, Board of Directors
Jack Moro, Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce, Board of Directors
Dennis Buset, Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce, Board of Directors
Kelli Gothard McKinnon, Immediate Past President, NOACC
Melissa Kusznier, President-Elect, NOACC
Bob Petrie, City Manager, Thunder Bay
Ron Dysievick, Bombardier
Greater Sudbury Chamber of Commerce (June 10, 2005)
José Blanco, Consultant
Jack Braithwaite, Weaver Simmons
Marc Charron, North Bay Chamber of Commerce, NOCC
Bernie Freelandt, Freelandt Caldwell Realty
Steve Irwin, Scotiabank
Chris Kemp, RBC Dominion Services
Michael Luciw, NYB Architects and Chair of the Greater Sudbury Chamber of Commerce
Debbi Nicholson, Greater Sudbury Chamber of Commerce
Dr. David Robinson, Laurentian University
Vicki Smith, CopyCopy
London Chamber of Commerce (June 15, 2005)
David Gurnham, President Elect, London Chamber of Commerce; partner, Deloitte
Terry Roman, President, Decade Development
Pete Thuss, Owner, What’s Up Clothing
Peter McMahon, Past President, London Chamber of Commerce; partner, Protek-IT Solutions
Wayne Dunn, Past President, London Chamber of Commerce; Co-owner County Heritage Forest
Doug Marshman, Past Chair, Municipal Affairs Committee; partner Deloitte
Bill Chizmar, Past President, London Chamber of Commerce; lawyer
Melissa Hardy-Trevenna, London St Thomas Real Estate Board
Gerry Macartney, CEO, London Chamber of Commerce
Garry MacDonald, President, Sarnia Lambton Chamber of Commerce
Sheryl Bovay, Chair, Sarnia Lambton Chamber of Commerce
Bob Hammersley, President, St Thomas and District Chamber of Commerce
Dan Reith, Board Vice Chair, St Thomas and District Chamber of Commerce
Peter Watson, President, Response Generators
Nick Kokkoros, Planning & Facilities Dept, London Health Sciences Centre
Martha Dennis, General Manager, Woodstock District Chamber of Commerce
Bob Klanac, Communications Director, London Chamber of Commerce
Lorna Wendling, Tax Manager, Deloitte
Ron Dawson, Past-President, London Chamber of Commerce; RC Dawson Ltd
Malcolm Ruddock, Vice President Communications & Public Affairs,
University of Western Ontario
--
Source:
Ontario Chamber of Commerce (http://www.occ.on.ca/)
Fairness In Confederation
Fiscal Imbalance: Driving Ontario to ‘Have-Not’ Status.
David MacKinnon, August, 2005
PDF http://www.occ.on.ca/2publications/reports/docs/FICReport_082005.pdf
One document. If you think that you can even argue with the person tasked with putting all of the above together into one document, look up the author (MacKinnon) let alone the sources, and best of luck debating with him.
The above is just one "little" acccountant's book and it is not mine. I'm quite used to that pathetic tactic, posting sources from the U.S. Department of Defense/Pentagon, U.S. Senate Committee on Intelligence, the President of the United States, in pointless "debates" about what everything possible in the U.S. has already admitted to: no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, no WMD programs, no nuclear program (British intel, proven to be bogus before the invasion/occupation even occurred), no ties to Al Queda, right from their own government: but it's what "I" say and it's wrong; because those who want to believe lies will do anything to avoid dealing with the facts. And that is all you have done.
You go ahead and take on the sources above, just from one document -- which you might want to read first. The link is above, there's a 4-page document and link to it in the first post I made, around the first sentence, from the CIBC World Markets, which explains quite a lot in just 4 pages but doesn't go into much detail. Courchene took that document and ridiculous comments from the confederates trying to claim that there was no such thing, a horizontal fiscal imbalance was impossible because "provincial/territorial governments can raise taxes to whatever they want to" so he took the Lovely/CIBC report and documented it in detail:
Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP - http://www.irpp.org/)
Vertical and Horizontal Fiscal Imbalances: An Ontario Perspective
Thomas J. Courchene
Jarislowsky-Deutsch Professor of Economic and Financial Policy Queen’s University
and Senior Scholar Institute for Research on Public Policy
Montreal
Background Notes for a Presentation to the
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
HOUSE OF COMMONS May 4, 2005
And rammed it down the throats of the lying, not stupid, confederates. Just raise provincial taxes by $23 billion a year and for what, so that the confederates can run up massive surpluses for no apparent reason? So that they can hand more of our revenues per capita to other jurisdictions so they can pay their deficits off and even work on their debts while we raise taxes and cut more services? F..k you. And f..k every oblivious "Canadian" living in oblivious fantasy worlds.
No one and nothing in this worthless 'federation' is going to tell us that their lives are worth so much more than the lives and futures of every Ontarian (and newcomer) is, stating that we're sub-Canadians who don't even deserve the same share of our own revenues than the rest of "y'all" get.
Reverend Blair said:
Your attempt to denigrate praire farmers is laughable though. It shows an arrogance and purposeful ignorance that few can muster.
Your attempts to denegrate period are laughable. You are not going to denegrate anything around me and get away with it and would do well to get that through your thick skull.
Reverend Blair said:
You have no real arguments besides your rows of numbers.
Oh, that's just brilliant, Blair. And what do you have to try to demonstrate "poor, poor <whatever>" other than numbers that prove the
exact opposite? And prove plenty of stupidity as well?
Reverend Blair said:
You lack a heart and a soul. You could move to Alberta and vote for Ralphie...you'd fit right in there, little buddy.
You are inciting another member, personally, over your own ignorance of the facts; because it's all you've got. Try it again in one more post to me and you get reported.
Reverend Blair said:
I'm back in Winnipeg now BTW.
Congratulations. You have been "upgraded" to even larger welfare bum status. Saskatchewan is far more respectable.
Reverend Blair said:
I'll meet you at the airport and drive you around to spew your vitrolic, Canada-hating bullshit around here for a while. Hell, I'll take you to Kenora so you can piss them off too.
I have a better idea. Why don't you show up at Toronto international, the second-most expensive airport in the world to land at due to zero "federal" or "provincial" money and a private organization having to set up to sell bonds to rebuild terminal 1, which was declared structurally unsound, but which none of you gave a sh.t about as usual because your lives are all worth so much more than ours are and you can spew your bulls..t around here; and feel free to head to Kenora to tell them about the hydro grids you plan to build through all of north Ontario to feed hydroelectric power to south Ontario. [Losers; and then you'd be bitching that we were stealing all of your power. As if we'd bother; why not figure out how to use it yourselves to attract private investment and improve your own economy for once?]
And why oh why would Kenora mean anything? They've got more doctors per capita in the north than we do in the south, and want to "join Manitoba" so they can get this:
[b:b1b7c0fbe7]
Equalization Entitlements – (2004-05, 2005-06) per person
[i:b1b7c0fbe7]Sorted by 2005-06 [u:b1b7c0fbe7]per person[
