Wildrose Leader Says No More Money For Quebec.

[Goober]

As I had mentioned earlier what happens if a province or 3 decide not to sign off at the First Ministers conference that sits and screams at each other over Equalization. As it is a Joint Federal & Provincial responsibility – There is a ton of room for litigation.
Every 5 years it is renewed and changed – updated – so with that the province (s) can look for legal precedent.
But I could be wrong. NOT
Improving Territorial Formula Financing and Strengthening Canada’s Territories.”
http://www.aucc.ca/_pdf/english/prog...on_paper-1.pdf

Pg 29-30
REGIONAL DISPARITY AND THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982
Section 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982, entitled “Equalization and Regional
Disparities”, is of particular relevance here. It contains two parts, which read as follows:
(1) Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial
legislatures, or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their
legislative authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the
government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to…

First, section 36(1) explicitly recognizes the pursuit of equity as a national
objective that is the joint responsibility of the federal government and the provinces.
This is important since much of what both the federal and provincial levels of governments do has a significant equity dimension. Thus, to the extent that the federal government has an
interest in the equitable delivery of provincial programs, section 36(1) could be used to
justify federal involvement in provincial programs through the spending power.

 

[Tonington]

Was I rude or ignorant in my posts to you?

Ignorant, apparently yes, hence why I asked if it was deliberate. Especially considering I said multiple times that I have a general understanding of how it works. Follow the ball below, I'll bold the parts you apparently skipped in our sequence of replies:

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Goober]

Ignorant, apparently yes, hence why I asked if it was deliberate. Especially considering I said multiple times that I have a general understanding of how it works. Follow the ball below, I'll bold the parts you apparently skipped in our sequence of replies:

I do not see a hell of a lot of ignorance in my posts.And I read all of your posts.

 

[Tonington]

I do not see a hell of a lot of ignorance in my posts.

How about where I said multiple times that I did not fully understand the program, and then you say "So then you must know all the specifics..."

That is ignorant of what I had previously said in multiple posts, and disingenuous at worst.

No other species has ever killed off another species? That's a stretch.

Who cares about murder, it's happened before.

Doesn't sound any better does it?

Do you cry because our species did in the Neanderthals ya big ****ing pussy? Stuff your ****ing Green Bolshevik movement up your ass Chairman Meow.

As for your wife pegging me, what did she say Petros you angry little man? She married you, so I think most would be prudent in seeking second opinions rather than hers.

 

[Goober]

How about where I said multiple times that I did not fully understand the program, and then you say "So then you must know all the specifics..."

That is ignorant of what I had previously said in multiple posts, and disingenuous at worst.

You are not the only one who knows where to look. Points I made in my opinion were valid - they may be wrong according to you- but I believed they were valid- but you in my opinion tended to make comparisons that were IMHO not comparable.

So today I went looking in places as we both do. So please read what I had posted - the links - and note this is a Joint Fed – Prov. area of responsibility -
Joint would equate to equal - So a province can refuse to sign. And then where does it go. The SCoC.

 

[petros]

How about where I said multiple times that I did not fully understand the program, and then you say "So then you must know all the specifics..."

That is ignorant of what I had previously said in multiple posts, and disingenuous at worst.







As for your wife pegging me, what did she say Petros you angry little man? She married you, so I think most would be prudent in seeking second opinions rather than hers.

She said you were an insecure little guy with few true friends who probably reads comics or other fantasy material. Do you still read comics? I'd put money on it.

 

[Tonington]

Joint would equate to equal - So a province can refuse to sign. And then where does it go. The SCoC.

Under the Constitution, it is the Federal government that makes the payments. Harper made changes, which eventually resulted in Bill Casey being kicked out of the Conservative Party for speaking truthfully about the unilateral changes made by Harper without the consultation of NS and Nfld & Lab.

Understand that the equalization program is written vaguely in the Constitution. If one province simply bargains in bad faith, I imagine that Ottawa can simply withhold other payments, like a form of sanctions, if a province doesn't agree to sign. In Alberta's case, they don't get equalization funds, but they do get Health and Social transfers.

Maybe it would go to the Supreme Court. I don't imagine it would end up well though. Like Gerry said, it's probably better to avoid the tantrum.

She said you were an insecure little guy with few true friends who probably reads comics or other fantasy material. Do you still read comics? I'd put money on it.

I read your posts, so yes I guess I do read funny strips. She's way off. :lol:

 

[petros]

I doubt it. Which comic or "graphic novel" is your favourite?

 

[Tonington]

I doubt it. Which comic or "graphic novel" is your favourite?

The Walking Dead. Great series.

 

[petros]

She's good eh?

 

[Tonington]

She's good eh?

Well no, you said she made the comment loooooooong ago, and I only started reading the novels recently. I hadn't read a comic or graphic novel series before that since I was in grade school.

Besides that, many people who read graphic novels are not insecure. Her diagnosis is about as apt as someone saying a bed wetter is probably a future serial killer.

 

[petros]

LOL She still pegged you.

P.S. you can't replace "evil corporations" for those who bullied you in your past. You still have to deal with that for what it was.

 

[Tonington]

LOL She still pegged you.

:lol: Since she was barely partially right? You're a funny little man Petros. That's why I read your posts :lol:

 

[petros]

Oh no...She never misses.

 

[Tonington]

Oh no...She never misses.

Sure she does. She did when she said I probably read comics. If she thinks the correlation between reading a graphic novel and insecurity in males is 1.0, then she's also as math challenged, and causally challenged as you are. A good match. :lol:

 

[petros]

Why do you need to escape into fantasy materials?

 

[Tonington]

Why do you need to escape into fantasy materials?

You don't read? That explains a lot.

 

[petros]

Oh I read but it's not comic book fantasy material.

What are you escaping from?

 

[Tonington]

Oh I read but it's not comic book fantasy material.

So why do you need fantasy Petros? And why do you think it matters if it's a graphic novel, or The Equinox?

 

[petros]

Content is everything. What are you escaping from?