NationStates Jolt Archive

There seem to be a lot of issues in our country at the moment and I'm wondering what would make things better? I'm not the most up to date on everything, but it seems as though the economy's doing alright, we've got social liberties which is always nice...

The thing that seems to be a big issue is this whole division in our country. We've got Quebec (as usual) talking about separation, there are some people out west doing likewise, et c. I think that if we managed to improve things on that front, making a more united Canada, it would benefit us greatly. As for how to accomplish such a feat, I'm not entirely sure... I think that exchange programs might help a bit... we are a quite geographically and culturally diverse country, many people haven't seen much of the country and what people in other parts of the country are like... I'm thinking that maybe if we sent people (well school kids I suppose) on exchanges to other provinces and territories (the way we sometimes send kids to other countries...) then that would allow us to understand our fellow canadians better and what issues affect them. But then perhaps we could apply this sort of program to federal politicians, so they can have a better understanding of the issues that affect people in all regions of this country.

I dunno, it's just a suggestion.

Exchange trips are an excellent suggestion, Dakini. When you have a chance to get to know people in other places, it's much hard to blindly believe bad things about them. I know some Quebecois who were fervant separatists before having the opportunity to know people from the west, for example. Their whole lives they had been told that the rest of Canada resents them - it was no wonder they wanted to separate!

There are federal programs that 4-H clubs and school classes and so on can apply for. We should be expanding those programs, making them available to all students aged 15-16, even if their family cannot afford to host a child in return. It's a pretty good program for a month out of the summer holiday, for example.

I can't imagine many people wanting to take up this program.

I can't imagine many people wanting to take up this program.
I can't imagine anyone not wanting to participate in such a program. It's an opportunity to get away from your parents for a bit and see some new sights, meet new people et c.

Exchange trips are an excellent suggestion, Dakini. When you have a chance to get to know people in other places, it's much hard to blindly believe bad things about them. I know some Quebecois who were fervant separatists before having the opportunity to know people from the west, for example. Their whole lives they had been told that the rest of Canada resents them - it was no wonder they wanted to separate!
Geez. That would explain a lot.

There are federal programs that 4-H clubs and school classes and so on can apply for. We should be expanding those programs, making them available to all students aged 15-16, even if their family cannot afford to host a child in return. It's a pretty good program for a month out of the summer holiday, for example.
Yeah, programs like this need to be promoted more I think I'd never heard that such programs were available when I was younger. The first opportunity I really had to really leave the province for a decent amount of time was for university, but that's a lot of commitment (moving so far away for so long to a place you don't know...) so I didn't do it.

shoot every tenth quebecan as a warning to others

I can't imagine many people wanting to take up this program.No? If you were 15 or 16, you wouldn't want a government sponsered exchange trip for 2-4 weeks across the country away from your family with a bunch of your friends? The visiting people from another place and potentially different cultures is just a beneficial side effect at that point.

Man, my whole family has been on exchange trips of this sort through 4-H - I went to Ontario, my siblings have been to Quebec, Saskatchewan, and the Maritimes. And each and every one of us would have done it again.

There seem to be a lot of issues in our country at the moment and I'm wondering what would make things better? I'm not the most up to date on everything, but it seems as though the economy's doing alright, we've got social liberties which is always nice...

The thing that seems to be a big issue is this whole division in our country. We've got Quebec (as usual) talking about separation, there are some people out west doing likewise, et c. I think that if we managed to improve things on that front, making a more united Canada, it would benefit us greatly. As for how to accomplish such a feat, I'm not entirely sure... I think that exchange programs might help a bit... we are a quite geographically and culturally diverse country, many people haven't seen much of the country and what people in other parts of the country are like... I'm thinking that maybe if we sent people (well school kids I suppose) on exchanges to other provinces and territories (the way we sometimes send kids to other countries...) then that would allow us to understand our fellow canadians better and what issues affect them. But then perhaps we could apply this sort of program to federal politicians, so they can have a better understanding of the issues that affect people in all regions of this country.

I dunno, it's just a suggestion.
If I was Canadian I would be most concerned about the privatisation of Canada's amenities to American-owned businesses. Which means that Americans are buying up Canada.

shoot every tenth quebecan as a warning to othersThank you for proving my point. :rolleyes:

If I was Canadian I would be most concerned about the privatisation of Canada's amenities to American-owned businesses. Which means that Americans are buying up Canada.Hell yeah! I get particularly p.o.'d when American companies are permitted to buy profitable public utilities. Our provincial governments - especial the Liberals in BC - are incredibly shortsighted. And selling all those shares in Petro-Canada? Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Maybe Canada should join the EU.

Exchange trips are an excellent suggestion, Dakini. When you have a chance to get to know people in other places, it's much hard to blindly believe bad things about them. I know some Quebecois who were fervant separatists before having the opportunity to know people from the west, for example. Their whole lives they had been told that the rest of Canada resents them - it was no wonder they wanted to separate!

There are federal programs that 4-H clubs and school classes and so on can apply for. We should be expanding those programs, making them available to all students aged 15-16, even if their family cannot afford to host a child in return. It's a pretty good program for a month out of the summer holiday, for example.
Katimavik. Look into that one. My sister participated in it years ago.

Katimavik. Look into that one. My sister participated in it years ago.Yeah, that's a good one. Unfortunately, by the time I heard about it, I was too old.

They really ought to be providing this info directly to schools and clubs, so that kids can find out about it and present it to their parents as an option.

I think the Canadian army ought to be phased out while extended versions of Katimavik ought to be mandatory for all citizens 16-21. Young people travelling around the nation essentially providing community services - free room, board and travel expenses - at or around minimum wage.

I sorta did that, but not in a program. It was a good growth experience, and I think there's a whole shitload of people out there in Canada who could stand to grow more than just a little.

I think the Canadian army ought to be phased out while extended versions of Katimavik ought to be mandatory for all citizens 16-21. Young people travelling around the nation essentially providing community services - free room, board and travel expenses - at or around minimum wage.

I sorta did that, but not in a program. It was a good growth experience, and I think there's a whole shitload of people out there in Canada who could stand to grow more than just a little.I agree with everything you've said here - EXCEPT the phasing out the military part. Our peacekeepers are far too important both domestically and internationally to be phased out.

I think the Canadian army ought to be phased out while extended versions of Katimavik ought to be mandatory for all citizens 16-21. Young people travelling around the nation essentially providing community services - free room, board and travel expenses - at or around minimum wage.
Damnit. I'm 22 and just barely too old. :( I could have made more than I did last summer and done it somewhere interesting... well, new at least. (I earned minimum wage last summer and was lucky to get 20 hours/week out of my job) Although I don't know that phasing out the military is a good idea.

I sorta did that, but not in a program. It was a good growth experience, and I think there's a whole shitload of people out there in Canada who could stand to grow more than just a little.
It never hurts anybody to grow a little more.

I agree with everything you've said here - EXCEPT the phasing out the military part. Our peacekeepers are far too important both domestically and internationally to be phased out.
Well, I don't mind us keeping the mandatory minimum number of military enthusiasts occupied with things related to the UN or our other treaty organizations, although I would prefer to see us eventually opt out of those treaty organizations altogether, save the UN.

Domestically speaking, I'd prefer to see the armed Forces retasked and re-purposed for specialized policing and something along the lines of what I've already described - a national 'army' of community workers, not a bunch of people trained to march in formation and shoot firearms.

I think that if we managed to improve things on that front, making a more united Canada, it would benefit us greatly.

Why do you think that a united Canada would be good for us? What makes you think that Canada wouldn't be better off seperated into two or three different countries? From what I've seen, it seems like Canada is too large. Geographically it is huge: the second biggest country on the planet, but even with respect to population Canada is a little on the big side. Of the top ten wealthiest countries in the world, most of them are smaller than Canada. (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html) I say that if the Quebecers still hold seperatist sentiments, and if the west want out, then we should at least consider the advantages that a divided Canada might afford.

Why do you think that a united Canada would be good for us? What makes you think that Canada wouldn't be better off seperated into two or three different countries? From what I've seen, it seems like Canada is too large. Geographically it is huge: the second biggest country on the planet, but even with respect to population Canada is a little on the big side. Of the top ten wealthiest countries in the world, most of them are smaller than Canada. (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html) I say that if the Quebecers still hold seperatist sentiments, and if the west want out, then we should at least consider the advantages that a divided Canada might afford.
No.

I think the Canadian army ought to be phased out.

That would certainly save a lot of time and money, but what would we do if we were attacked?

That would certainly save a lot of time and money, but what would we do if we were attacked?

Well, Canada is part of NATO; still, I don't know how that would work if you have no army. Perhaps you only need an airforce or navy?

That would certainly save a lot of time and money, but what would we do if we were attacked?
We won't be, if we play our cards right and mind our manners.

Well, Canada is part of NATO; still, I don't know how that would work if you have no army. Perhaps you only need an airforce or navy?
I say we keep up just enough numbers to satisfy NATO, NORAD, etc. but that we plan to eventually officially opt out of those treaty organizations completely.

We won't be, if we play our cards right and mind our manners.

Diplomacy and isolationism can go a long way toward keeping out of war (and I advocate them both for that reason), and it might be possible to downsize the Canadian military, but if Canada had no military whatsoever I think we would simply be too much of an easy target. What I think we should do is stop mucking about on peacekeeping missions to the other end of the planet and instead focus our military on protecting Canadians.

Diplomacy and isolationism can go a long way toward keeping out of war (and I advocate them both for that reason), and it might be possible to downsize the Canadian military, but if Canada had no military whatsoever I think we would simply be too much of an easy target. What I think we should do is stop mucking about on peacekeeping missions to the other end of the planet and instead focus our military on protecting Canadians.I'm starting to think that there is a different perspective on the military for every adult Canadian. No wonder we find it difficult to agree on things sometimes!

Diplomacy and isolationism can go a long way toward keeping out of war
a la Australia?

Diplomacy and isolationism can go a long way toward keeping out of war (and I advocate them both for that reason), and it might be possible to downsize the Canadian military, but if Canada had no military whatsoever I think we would simply be too much of an easy target. What I think we should do is stop mucking about on peacekeeping missions to the other end of the planet and instead focus our military on protecting Canadians.
No, what we should do is just keep doing & being who and what we are as humbly as possible while developing deep, trusting and abiding relationships with as much of the world as possible, making the notion of hurting us a universally-unthinkable act. That's actually my own successful strategy for living in the heart of Canada's largest urban centre, in incredibly ethnically-diverse Toronto Centre.

If we simply are open, honest, and genuine with the rest of the world we command its' respect. And in a time of unforeseen trouble, the world would rally to our aid. And our malefactors find themselves in the unenviable position of being universally known for time immemorial as the evil little bastards who did wrong by those eminently pleasant and amenable folks, the Canadians. I'd like to think that should such a calamity occur in a demilitarized Canada, that we would show the world who holds the moral high ground by simply picking ourselves up and going about our affairs as though nothing dramatic had taken place; that while we recognize and will respond to nonspecific threat or peril, we will not relinquish our freedoms, or alter our society, in response to (and thereby officially acknowledging) international terror agencies.

No, what we should do is just keep doing & being who and what we are as humbly as possible while developing deep, trusting and abiding relationships with as much of the world as possible, making the notion of hurting us a universally-unthinkable act. That's actually my own successful strategy for living in the heart of Canada's largest urban centre, in incredibly ethnically-diverse Toronto Centre.

If we simply are open, honest, and genuine with the rest of the world we command its' respect. And in a time of unforeseen trouble, the world would rally to our aid. And our malefactors find themselves in the unenviable position of being universally known for time immemorial as the evil little bastards who did wrong by those eminently pleasant and amenable folks, the Canadians. I'd like to think that should such a calamity occur in a demilitarized Canada, that we would show the world who holds the moral high ground by simply picking ourselves up and going about our affairs as though nothing dramatic had taken place; that while we recognize and will respond to nonspecific threat or peril, we will not relinquish our freedoms, or alter our society, in response to (and thereby officially acknowledging) international terror agencies.
There's just one problem. How can we expect others to "rally to our aid" if we need help, if we don't provide aid when they need help? And by this I specifically mean peacekeeping missions. I am against the various versions of the "war of the month" club, if you know what I mean.

That being said, I strongly support diplomacy and multi-lateralism in our foreign policy. The best peace-keeping efforts are the kind that prevent wars and atrocities BEFORE they happen, not mopping things up and rebuilding AFTER they happen. (Re: Pearson and the Suez Crisis, for example)

Write a new constitution with a federal division of powers and a gradual phaseout of Quebec's special status. Why? Because the legacy of government intervention threatens to destroy the nation, just like it has hurt every other nation that tried it.

I think we should develop our military a bit more, not to build some sort of invasion force or anything, but to improve our ability to aid in other conflicts and you know, so we're less of a joke when it comes to that. It would be nice if we didn't just have to rely on our good friendships with other countries and moral outrage for an attack on us in a pinch.

Why do you think that a united Canada would be good for us? What makes you think that Canada wouldn't be better off seperated into two or three different countries? From what I've seen, it seems like Canada is too large. Geographically it is huge: the second biggest country on the planet, but even with respect to population Canada is a little on the big side. Of the top ten wealthiest countries in the world, most of them are smaller than Canada. (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html) I say that if the Quebecers still hold seperatist sentiments, and if the west want out, then we should at least consider the advantages that a divided Canada might afford.
What advantages do we have dividing the country? I mean, let's take away your feelings of being ripped off as an Albertan and set them aside. What do you have against a united Canada, exactly?

I think we could best break it down issue by issue.

Farming:
Gradual phasing out of Canadian farm subsidies and a greater dependence on food sources from other countries. We have too many farmers right now, given the ability of the globe to produce food. Why not let people who can produce food cheaper provide us with food at lower prices. We save money on all the food we buy and we no longer have to pay for a corporate welfare system. Besides, the additional revenue could be used to help those that cannot make a profit farming to find a job that makes money on its own without government aid.

Taxes:
Flat tax system like the one adopted in Eastern Europe recently. It would simplifiy the tax system for Canadians filling out forums while forcing the extremely rich to actually pay their far share and helping out those in what is currently the lowest bracket.

Child Care:
Phasing out of the system and just giving the money to people to spend on their kids on their own. Families have been raising kids for ages. I see no need to institutionalize the issue.

Gun Registry:
Let's keep track of the movement of guns in our country so that we can best respond to the needs of communities that suffer from excessive gun violence, but at the same time, let's recognize that gun usage is a symptom of a bigger problem, cyclical poverty. Let's stop giving people a reason to use guns rather than trying, and failing, to keep them out of their hands.

Foreign Aid:
Meeting that commitment to .07% of our GNP seems a reasonable goal to reach, but the real steps towards helping those countries in need of aid will come from the reduction of trade barriers between our countries. We will give the developing world far more by reducing our farm subsidies than we will by just giving them hand-outs, but we should contribute our charity regardless.

National Unity:
If our provinces want to leave, fine. They will not fare as well independent as they would within Canada, so it's their own problem. If they want to opt out of government programs, that's fine too. They have an obligation to be true to the wants of their own provinces. At the same time, their opting out will probably increase the costs for other provinces, so they won't see all the money they would have gotten for the program. It's time to get serious and give a fair deal to all of the provinces. None of them are special in anyway, and a responsible federal government cannot cater to the notion that some of them deserve special privileges. If that causes some of them to leave, that's fine. They will not last outside of Canada.

Aboriginal Issues:
I say offer the same deal to the aboriginal people that we offer to the provinces. They can form independent countries on their reserves or they can move into Canadian society. Therefore, if their old way of life is what they really want, they can accomplish it on their land without concern for the rest of Canada. In fact, we could probably give them some of the surrounding land if they really wanted it. If, however, they find that they like our society better than life out on the reserve, they can move to Canada or just apply for annexation. Either way, it puts the fate of the aboriginal people in their own hands and gives them a fair chance to choose their own destiny.

I can't imagine anyone not wanting to participate in such a program. It's an opportunity to get away from your parents for a bit and see some new sights, meet new people et c.
definatly

Farming:
Gradual phasing out of Canadian farm subsidies and a greater dependence on food sources from other countries. We have too many farmers right now, given the ability of the globe to produce food. Why not let people who can produce food cheaper provide us with food at lower prices. We save money on all the food we buy and we no longer have to pay for a corporate welfare system. Besides, the additional revenue could be used to help those that cannot make a profit farming to find a job that makes money on its own without government aid.
I don't think that's a good idea, but then I'm a bit paranoid about us being unable to support ourselves. I think it's a better idea if we can produce much of our own food rather than rely on other people to produce food for us.

Taxes:
Flat tax system like the one adopted in Eastern Europe recently. It would simplifiy the tax system for Canadians filling out forums while forcing the extremely rich to actually pay their far share and helping out those in what is currently the lowest bracket.
The rich currently pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than the poor. How does it help the poor to make the rich pay less taxes and the poor pay more?

Child Care:
Phasing out of the system and just giving the money to people to spend on their kids on their own. Families have been raising kids for ages. I see no need to institutionalize the issue.
What about families where both parents want to work? There should be government subsidized day care centres so parents who otherwise couldn't afford to put their children in day care can do so.

I don't think that's a good idea, but then I'm a bit paranoid about us being unable to support ourselves. I think it's a better idea if we can produce much of our own food rather than rely on other people to produce food for us.
Except the cost of us supporting our farmers is that people in developing world can't get a market to sell to and resort to subsistence farming. If we want to get serious about helping the developing world, we have to accept that we need to let them accept some responsibilities in this global economy.

The rich currently pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than the poor. How does it help the poor to make the rich pay less taxes and the poor pay more?
The number of loopholes in the current tax code makes it so that the rich don't actually pay more. Rather, they just hire tax lawyers and accountants to find them ways to avoid paying the full tax rate. Flat tax is mathematically unbreakable and much easier to calculate, meaning that the wealthy can't pull tricks and the middle and lower class have an easier time filling out their tax forms.

What about families where both parents want to work? There should be government subsidized day care centres so parents who otherwise couldn't afford to put their children in day care can do so.
Where I'm from if both parents work they can afford to put your kids in a private day care or hire a nanny, but maybe that's just me. Who is this system really helping?

Do you agree with the rest, or are those just the flagrant violations of your beliefs?

Where I'm from if both parents work they can afford to put your kids in a private day care or hire a nanny, but maybe that's just me. Who is this system really helping?
I know many families in which both parents work and they can hardly afford to put their kids in daycare so they scrape by.

Do you agree with the rest, or are those just the flagrant violations of your beliefs?
I either agree with them or don't have enough knowledge to form a real opinion on it.
Oh, except the bit about letting the other provinces leave. I disagree that it's a good idea but I agree that they're better off in Canada and won't survive on their own. I simply disagree that we shouldn't encourage them to avoid such experiments in independance.

I know many families in which both parents work and they can hardly afford to put their kids in daycare so they scrape by.
I personally don't know any. However, even if you accept that, a reforming of the tax system that would provide these families with better benefits than they currently get combined with less government spending on corporate subsidies, like the farmer example I gave, would mean they get to see enough of their own money to take care of this issue on their own.

I'm not a traditional social conservative, but a lot the things our government does only end up slowing down our growth as a nation, which keeps us from irradicating poverty instead of just temporarily alleviating it for some. I'm proposing a system of changes that would fundamentally alter the way government does business, but I'm not in power. That said, the Liberals have taken the right first steps in my opinion by balancing the budget and beginning to pay down the debt. The Conservatives before them also had the right idea with the FTA and later the NAFTA. We need to become an economically freer nation in some areas if we want to continue to sufficiently fund things like education, health care and welfare.

Put it this way: if your goal is to send bored teenagers to another place where they can sneak out and get drunk, this is a great idea. By "not interested", I mean they won't care about learning about the culture of the other province any more than most tourists care about experiencing the culture they're in more deeply than visiting a few museums and getting drunk at the local bars. I don't see how this is going to bring about national unity any more than tourism brings about world unity.

Government-sponsored daycare should be made available to all parents when both mom and dad have bachelor's degrees (or just mom/dad if the parents are separated). The amount of money they'll contribute to the economy by working far outweights what the government would have to pay some college student to look after the kids.

If we got the Winnipeg Jets back, I think all our problems would disappear. Come on, Gretzky, bring 'em back over the border.

What advantages do we have dividing the country? I mean, let's take away your feelings of being ripped off as an Albertan and set them aside. What do you have against a united Canada, exactly?
Why isn't an individual province having something to gain enough? If one doesn't believe that the dubious benefits of Canadian citizenship are worth paying billions out to the federal government every year, what more is there to say? He or she doesn't like the membership fee.

If we got the Winnipeg Jets back, I think all our problems would disappear. Come on, Gretzky, bring 'em back over the border.
Meh. . .hockey's not really the same anyway. . .the new rules just piss me off.

My Canucks are doing pretty well, though (including the win earlier today).

Canada has hockey and beer. . .what more unity does it need?
Let's discuss over a stout.

There's just one problem. How can we expect others to "rally to our aid" if we need help, if we don't provide aid when they need help? And by this I specifically mean peacekeeping missions. I am against the various versions of the "war of the month" club, if you know what I mean.

That being said, I strongly support diplomacy and multi-lateralism in our foreign policy. The best peace-keeping efforts are the kind that prevent wars and atrocities BEFORE they happen, not mopping things up and rebuilding AFTER they happen. (Re: Pearson and the Suez Crisis, for example)
Even if Canada did not have a millitary, we would still be able to support our allies in a war. We could provide them with food, water, oil, money etc. In a large war their economy is going to need aid, and maybe we could help them that way.

Government-sponsored daycare should be made available to all parents when both mom and dad have bachelor's degrees (or just mom/dad if the parents are separated). The amount of money they'll contribute to the economy by working far outweights what the government would have to pay some college student to look after the kids.
What about the families who accually need this system to get by? If both parents have bachelor degrees, and aren't teachers or nurses, they problably won't need Govt-Spons Day-Care like a single mother/father that is a manager at Costco.

Could Canada use some improvement? Of course, so could everyone. But look around people. Canada is just about the best place (if not the best place) on earth to live. Yeah, I know, the winter sucks. But I'll stack Canada against any other country any day of the week. People are ungrateful. They get so much more than most and still scream for more.

I for one am damn proud of the Canada we have now. Does that mean we should not try to improve? Of course not.

But people who bitch about Canada for this or that, I'd like to see them live in a 3rd world country, or the USA or some other country that doesn't have the freedoms we have here in Canada.

Go walk a mile in their shoes, then come back to Canada and thank your lucky stars there is a Canada on this planet.

http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Lib-can1.gif

First off I’d like to declare my bias as a nationalist. It’s unfortunate but I do admit that I biased towards Canada. That said I’m from New Brunswick and we very well might be a third world country without equalization and the health transfer.

As far as the Quebec separation issue goes, I am a bit unnerved by the fact that so many of my English friends dismiss it so easily. Even if you do believe that Quebec would be much worse off without Canada by not even giving Quebeckers the time of day, in regards to this issue, is a slap in the face. They possess a democratically elected government and that legislature consistently raises issue with the current terms of federalism. By disregarding what that body says we are telling Quebeckers that we think their process of decision making is inferior, flawed, or in some way wrong. Beyond that by having the debate as to whether or not there is a problem just compounds miscommunication. They’re province has decided that there is a problem and we need to, as participants in a system that is accountable to them, find a working compromise. I don’t mean giving them a slice off the top equalization or agreeing to model national standards on their system. No, the argument is them not getting a fair say in their own affairs; senate reform, being a little more judicious in the use of the federal spending right, and generally not riding roughshod over their culture as a whole would be good starts.

The argument of a distinct society is a moot point. They are of course a distinct society, every province is. If we were not distinct in some manner we would’ve made a unitary government identical to Great Britain’s.

As far as the other separation movements, meh. These groups do not carry a lot of weight, NFLD has one as well. Western alienation will fix itself in ten years due to population growth if we do nothing. That said the aforementioned senate reform would placate most of the major concerns.

Now all that said if their democratically elected government says they want to leave then they have a legal right to revoke their signature from the constitution. Canada cannot hold Quebec as a political hostage. That said the original Quebec, the landmass that decided to join originally, can leave. The fact that they are wards over Rupert’s Land seems to be lost on a great many people. They can stop using our money, our military, our infrastructure et cetera. They should be charged for the Trans Canada, by the kilometer, or we should dig it up when they leave. The same can be said for the port facilities in Montreal. Canada invested in the province of Quebec, not the nation of Quebec. I would also point out that all of their fun little laws that violate NAFTA, which are allowed to exist because they are a province and not a nation, would be quashed so fast by the NAFTA board without the constitution to hide behind.

As for the specific points:

Canadian farm subsidies can be phased out in part. The economy of Sas. Would go into the toilet without them though. I think Canada, perhaps out of a nationalist bias I admit, needs to produce it’s own staples. In a time of crisis we need to be able to feed ourselves or we have opened ourselves up to an undue amount of foreign influence,

I would have to disagree with the flat tax. I think the load needs to be moved off the middle class but this is not the way to do it. I would say increase the personal income tax on the wealthy, reduce it on the middle class, and couple this with a complete removal of corporate tax. Before this seems too generous I think we should also legislate that all corporate profit needs to be turned into dividends. A corporation is a mechanism for the distribution of wealth and the diffusion of risk, it should not be a self sustaining entity. This way corporation will only expand when there is a driving market trend, i.e. more investment back into the company. To add to this we could differ ALL tax on ALL direct stock investments until the sale of the asset, or the dividend payout (which would be a large once of year contribution if the company did well since it would no longer be allowed to sit on it.) Beyond this the economy could be spurred by making income via capital gains taxed at MUCH less then the salaried income of an individual. This would hopefully induce all but the poorest Canadians to be active on the markets, to take advantage of the lower tax rate.

This child care initiative was stupid. It’s a band-aid, it creates a new program of universal entitlement (which under the current Canadian financing system is unsustainable as we are seeing with healthcare), it increases government bureaucracy, and it’s modeled after the Quebec program which has had questionable success. (Research is showing that more middle income families are taking advantage of it then any other demographic, meaning we are subsidizing luxury while the single mother who stays at home doesn’t qualify but her child starves.)

Gun registry is a bit of a moot point isn’t it? While the program is incredibly ineffectual it has had the effect of lowering aggregate demand on firearms. Why not simply tie more and more bureaucracy into the firearms problem, as we are doing, and people will hopefully find it too much of a hassle to use guns for anything but hunting. (I’m not joking have gun wielding offenders fill out form after form before the legal system can go through.)

As far as the foreign vs. subsidies argument goes both can be accomplished simultaneously, rather than giving them hard cash injection give the third world export credits. They are going to need to buy what they need as is so lets get Canadian industry in there to do it. They need education? Great we have a lot of construction workers to build schools. We also have companies here that recruit teachers who then teach in other countries. Massive grants in way of export credits will give this countries exactly what they need, they just have to get it through us. That said it should also put our industry in a position of developing international connection. This should expand corporate Canada globally.

National Unity (see above)

Aboriginal governments I can’t see as lasting outside of Canada. That said I am more than willing to grant them the same autonomy has a province, including representation in the House of Commons. We can stop paying them treaty stipend and include them in equalization. If they want to hunt and fish their livelihood into extinction so be it. That said they will not have the money to provide the social safety network (that they will be required to provide as a legitimate government in Canada) so they will have to cut deals with provinces. The provinces are providing a lot of the things like healthcare and just turning around and charging Ottawa, now Natives will have the means in which to pay their own way. An added bonus of this new co-dependence will be this:
Burnt-Church “Great haul of lobsters guys, we got most all of them. Oh, some of us require healthcare after a long working season. Well New Brunswick lets work out a deal on healthcare.”
New Brunswick “That sounds great, and we can tie in lobster quota into the agreement.”
BC “No, we must consume all our natural resources because our culture didn’t have the time to develop a proper concept of conservation, due to white arrival here.”
NB “Fair enough but you are now exterminating a species we’d like to see survive so until we are in agreement about this, no.”
BC “I see. Well I guess we can either pay to train our own doctors and reclaim our autonomy and sovereignty or we can deicide to cooperate with Canada who is reasonably well intention despite their horrible horrible history. Hmm”

And viola native rights.

Three issues:
Saskatchewan's main profit-makers are potash and oil, neither of which are subject to subsidies. The problem is that every child of a farmer is getting the idea that he can be a farmer too when we simply do not need that many farmers. However, rather than just saying "Sorry, but you'll need to find something else to do", the government takes money from everyone else so that these kids can grow up to be farmers like their fathers before them. Why don't we just give the government of Saskatchewan more money in terms of equalization and create jobs that the Canadian people actually need? The simple truth is that if we needed farmers as much as everyone seems to claim, they would be able to make it their own without government help. Yet they cannot. Why should we be worried about foreign imports for our staples. It serves as an incentive not to get into fights with those countries, and it works both ways. If you want to be serious about maintaining good global relations, give yourself a stake in it. Once two countries become economically intertwined, the process of removing them from that bond becomes economically disastrous, which means no government would ever undertake such an action. It would destroy their own country to do so.

Your tax policy of forcing companies to declare all revenue as dividends doesn't make sense, and I mean that in the nicest way, but it would actually destroy a huge amount of business in Canada. Corporations use the profits that aren't declared as dividends to grow the business. Essentially, they put the money back into the business so it produces even more next year. Not only is this essential for the financing operations of almost every single business in Canada, it helps to increase the value of shares for the average shareholder like you and me. If we forced companies to turn all net income to dividends, we would see no foreign investment in Canada, our own local businesses would stagnate and most would try to alter their revenue to avoid falling victim to the policy. It simply isn't practically feasible. Higher taxes on wealthy and everything makes sense, until you realize that the extremely wealthy have found ways to avoid being counted as extremely wealthy. If we couldn't beat them with the first 5000 pages of tax code, what makes us so sure the next 5000 will do anything more than make life tougher on the average Canadian trying to fill out his tax forms. In other countries where this policy has been used, tax compliance has drastically increased simply due to the straightforward nature of the policy.

As for national unity, in terms of both Quebec and aboriginals, I say let them be masters of their own destinies. If they can get the votes to leave, more power to them. That's their issue to deal with. However, if things don't work out so well, next time they apply to join Canada, they will get the same deal everyone else got, no special treatment. I'm fine with their culture and their diversity, but I don't want to spend the money of other Canadians convincing these people that it's a good idea to stay. Let them stay and accept that they are just a gear in a much larger clock, or let them try to find their own way, but don't ask the rest of Canada to shower them with wealth just to get them to stay.

Three issues:

Your tax policy of forcing companies to declare all revenue as dividends doesn't make sense, and I mean that in the nicest way, but it would actually destroy a huge amount of business in Canada. Corporations use the profits that aren't declared as dividends to grow the business. Essentially, they put the money back into the business so it produces even more next year. Not only is this essential for the financing operations of almost every single business in Canada, it helps to increase the value of shares for the average shareholder like you and me. If we forced companies to turn all net income to dividends, we would see no foreign investment in Canada, our own local businesses would stagnate and most would try to alter their revenue to avoid falling victim to the policy. It simply isn't practically feasible. Higher taxes on wealthy and everything makes sense, until you realize that the extremely wealthy have found ways to avoid being counted as extremely wealthy. If we couldn't beat them with the first 5000 pages of tax code, what makes us so sure the next 5000 will do anything more than make life tougher on the average Canadian trying to fill out his tax forms. In other countries where this policy has been used, tax compliance has drastically increased simply due to the straightforward nature of the policy.


I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that profits retained in the company aren't generally taxed in other jurisdictions?

The only difference is that some jurisdictions tax before dividends are deducted from the bottom line, and some do so after. The net effect is, of course, that in countries where such taxation occurs AFTER disbursements there may be an inclination to provide dividends in order to limit tax liabilities.

But in both cases the retained earning left for re-investment is, of course, fully taxable at corporate rates. And, in Canada, those rates have been lowered 30% over the past four years at the federal level (from 28% to 20%).

Further to the rest of your statement, tax loopholes always favour the rich. This is no secret. However there are generally less such protections in Canada than in some countries. And, that being the case, tax forms have been streamlined and simplified significantly at the personal level for most Canadians over the past few years - not further complicated.

For a great many Canadians the simple form - a two-page statement comprised almost entirely of filling in the blanks with the numbers from their T4s, plus any union, tuition, child care, or charitable donations (about 30 minutes work at most) and they're done. The only slow part is waiting for the refund.....

I can't imagine anyone not wanting to participate in such a program. It's an opportunity to get away from your parents for a bit and see some new sights, meet new people et c.
There are already many such programs in place, Katamavik (http://www.katimavik.org/) being the most well known.

I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that profits retained in the company aren't generally taxed in other jurisdictions?

The only difference is that some jurisdictions tax before dividends are deducted from the bottom line, and some do so after. The net effect is, of course, that in countries where such taxation occurs AFTER disbursements there may be an inclination to provide dividends in order to limit tax liabilities.

But in both cases the retained earning left for re-investment is, of course, fully taxable at corporate rates. And, in Canada, those rates have been lowered 30% over the past four years at the federal level (from 28% to 20%).

Further to the rest of your statement, tax loopholes always favour the rich. This is no secret. However there are generally less such protections in Canada than in some countries. And, that being the case, tax forms have been streamlined and simplified significantly at the personal level for most Canadians over the past few years - not further complicated.

For a great many Canadians the simple form - a two-page statement comprised almost entirely of filling in the blanks with the numbers from their T4s, plus any union, tuition, child care, or charitable donations (about 30 minutes work at most) and they're done. The only slow part is waiting for the refund.....
They still get taxed, I'll agree, but part of the whole incentive is to go into business is the knowledge that you can use the success of one year to improve that business even further in the next year. If that ability, the ability to grow, is taken away, business will not come to Canada. Furthermore, the reinvestment of profits allows companies to weather bad years and save in good years. Basically, the freedom to have a statement of retained earnings is an integral part of the business process and a driving factor in our economy.

As for simplification, it has been successful in Canada, which precisely why I recommend making it simpler still. A flat tax can still be progressive with the inclusion of a tax free personal allowance while still remaining mathematically unbreakable.

shoot every tenth quebecan as a warning to others
No, that would be a trifle harsh, instead force every tenth separatist to live in Toronto for one year and speak english or die.:)

Well let me see if I can’t be a little clearer about the tax proposal, as I have no large argument with your other points.

Reinvested profits are yes of course the main way that businesses grow today. What I am suggesting is that this current way of doing things allows for the existence of market contrary behavior in corporate culture. While this plan does have to be attributed to Milton Friedman I have adapted its application into the Canadian context.

Businesses all too often makes decisions based on the whims of their executive, hence all of the accusations of breach of fiduciary obligations. By forcing a corporation to pay out all of its net income to its shareholders on Dec. 31st of every year I expect to see a nigh complete removal of a corporation’s ability to work against market forces. Our economic system assumes that these corporations are making rational self interested decisions, but that does not always seem to be the case. By having a MAJOR stockholder involvement on the close of every year corporations would have to be much more accountable to their owners as apposed to their executives. More to the point the executives would not be able to function with impunity.

If a corporation wants to grow or invest in its own infrastructure it will need another infusion of capital. Since it cannot stockpile its own funds it will be required to issue new shares to gather new capital. This means that a sizable portion of the Canadian market must support a business’ plan before they could act. To be frank I would expect to see most of the money that the shareholders made in dividends go back into the company. If the company is profitable and has a sound reason to need the capital it will be provided by those looking to profit by the expected returns.

I do realize that this would create a glut of shares on the TSE and drive the stock price down but I expect the market to compensate. People will simply own many more shares but no real different proportion, or the fact that the dividend payouts will be several times what they were previously will inflate the price (proportionate to the demand of course). I also think foreign investment would skyrocket, not drop, in this atmosphere. Rather than becoming tied to an investment for long periods of time foreign investors will have much more capital mobility on the TSE. With so much trading going on liquidity would be enormous, the risk diffusion would be substantial.

To return to the notion of reinvestment; I see reinvestment as the most logical course of action because to draw upon these dividends would see heavy taxation on the individual. I expect people to keep their assets within the portfolio, and off the table from Revenue Canada, so that they might maintain the asset’s tax shelter status. In fact I predict that it would be easier for someone to borrow against their portfolio and use a sustainable stipend from said portfolio to cover the interest, as apposed to simply extracting continuously and bringing taxation upon your own head.

While I realize that a lot of the above is a perfect example of the tax loophole you’ve expressed distain for I don’t see it the same way. The way I see it we don’t want to limit people’s ability to avoid taxation, but increase taxation as well as people’s ability to avoid it. This will require private citizens to be active in finical markets. I hate to bring personal example into the discussion but I know my father saves a fair bit upon taxation via judicious use of the intra-family transfer. To do this he runs an account at a brokerage house for each family member, an additional one for the family unit, and employs an accountant as well. This might suggest that I come from a family of some affluence but I assure you this is not the case. My father was educated in a trade school and can’t afford to put me through university.

To be blunt by having the rich jump through these taxation loopholes we stimulate the market as they move money through financial institutions, and liquidity is always desirable on an exchange. I merely hope that we can start to make the middle class start to think like this so that they might begin shuffling their own money about.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this allow for the creation of a free-rider effect when it came to dividends? That is, some people would continuously reinvest their dividends and grow everyone's share in the company while others would simply take the dividends each year and rely on the company to grow through the goodwill of others. That is what I see to be the advantage of retained earnings. When the company has extra money, it has the choice to pay out even amounts in dividends or to reinvest a lump sum from everyone's cut in the company. Basically, the company draws its funding for the next year from everyone equally and is not as dependent upon the shareholders to give it the money to continue. Under the proposed system, as I understand it, someone would have to reinvest their dividends to continue the company, but the growth they were responsible for creating would then be looted by all the other shareholders at the end of the year as dividends are yet again divided equally amongst shareholders.

I realize that those reinvesting in the company would get additional shares, which would mean the share of their company would grow next to their free-riding counterparts, but you can't deny that those who were so inclined could simply mooch off of the contributions of others, which I see as rather unfair.

Good to see that we are more or less at argreement on the other issues though.

EDIT: My objections aside, your proposal makes a lot more sense when you explain it that way.

I am hoping that the free-rider effect will be limited by the ever diminishing returns of those who choose not to reinvest. While it is a legitimate concern in the first few years after the new system is introduced I think that it will be phased out by sheer numbers. You have to remember that the new dividend amounts have no real basis in share price. Your proportion of the company entitles you to the same proportion of the profits of that year. I am also hoping that rational self interest will keep people reinvesting, as stated above. However I do seem to possess that bit of naivety in regards to people that most economists do.

Admittedly there will be some room for abuse insofar as companies might run expenditures a bit higher than necessary to avoid dividend payouts, but I think that these companies will suffer on the market because of it.

As far as the other issues go, the only one I hold any real contention with is the farm subsidies and not so much in a logically defensible fashion. I am a rational human being and I would like to think that I can spot my own biases when I see them and this is one of them. You’re right that we don’t NEED that many farmers. We are also adding to third world poverty by subsiding our farms, they’re poor it’s not as if they’ll over take our ability to produce if we are unnaturally bolstering it. So in effect I’m a bit of a selfish person because I like the idea that we have a ‘sustainable’ (and I use that word in a very loose manner) agrarian society. We don’t but you have to admit the lie looks pretty.

[Hmm a bit of divorce from my own emotions there eh? I get into trouble for saying stuff like that in real life. My views don’t always diverge from that of the ignorant but when the ignorant realize that this is what it means to hold those views they are upset at me. As if I was the one who made their view any more or less selfish. An elephant is still an elephant, whether or not you turn out the lights.]

I am hoping that the free-rider effect will be limited by the ever diminishing returns of those who choose not to reinvest. While it is a legitimate concern in the first few years after the new system is introduced I think that it will be phased out by sheer numbers. You have to remember that the new dividend amounts have no real basis in share price. Your proportion of the company entitles you to the same proportion of the profits of that year. I am also hoping that rational self interest will keep people reinvesting, as stated above. However I do seem to possess that bit of naivety in regards to people that most economists do.

Admittedly there will be some room for abuse insofar as companies might run expenditures a bit higher than necessary to avoid dividend payouts, but I think that these companies will suffer on the market because of it.
I like this idea, actually. I plan to run it by a few more people, but I think it could still work with a flat tax rate.

I like this idea, actually. I plan to run it by a few more people, but I think it could still work with a flat tax rate.

As I said original kudos belong to Milton Friedman. He also makes a viable argument for privatizing education. Unfortunately he and I differ there. Google him he’s a well published economist and whether or not your left or right leaning he’s a good read, though those right leaning will come away nodding as apposed to shaking their heads.

As I said original kudos belong to Milton Friedman. He also makes a viable argument for privatizing education. Unfortunately he and I differ there. Google him he’s a well published economist and whether or not your left or right leaning he’s a good read, though those right leaning will come away nodding as apposed to shaking their heads.
Believe me, I know who he is. Founder of monetarism and a modern libertarian, he's a more extreme version of me.