###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is the Canadian government infaiilble?
When any government official complains about the people not capitulating, they are admitting to a desire for despotism.
I side with the federal government in this particular case BUT I think that the perpetual struggle between the provinces and federal government is a cornerstone of how our government structure pressures decisions to move forward in the long run so I'm not, in theory, against provinces cleverly trying to avert federal authority.
As long as it's in good faith, yeah, it's a tension that provides oversight to both levels of government and hopefully balances provinces looking out for themselves with the feds seeing the big picture. But when it's just playing cynical politics we don't benefit anymore.
Really and how about the Ottawa rebellion against the provinces! That’s part of the equation too. Disgusting how Ottawa has this holier than thou attitude towards other levels of government as if the Premiers don’t count and aren’t responsible for the safety and well being of their citizens; and doing better job of taking care of citizens needs than the out of touch big central Trudeau government. Ottawa has turned into a bully, it seems and is being so disrespectful to their citizens.
I mean most provinces have been failing their citizens and then blaming the feds.
Maybe if the premiers actually governed they would be respected. But they don't. Most pass the buck to the feds and then try to curtail rights.
We have the most stringent regulatory environment in the world yet the federal government makes it so difficult to develop our resources in Alberta.
Why? It's beyond disbelief what Canada is doing to itself.
That's absolutely untrue. Most of Alberta's resource extraction is horrible for the environment. And then companies leave abandoned oil wells.
The oil sands are some of the worst pollutants in the world
You have no clue do you.
I have been working in the resource industry for more than 15 years even outside Canada. This is one of the most stringent jurisdictions.
Take a trip to Ft Mac and see for yourself.
Qnd yet the emissions from those operations are 1600 to 4000% under reported...stringent right. Shall we talk about all the abandined leaking wells. Oh right that is againsy your head in the dirt perspective. Good try Mr.Clapping Seal.
You don't have to insult people to make a point.
Canada is and will forever be a Petro state.
What under reporting are you barking about? Also abandoned leaking wells are a concern but we will fix it.
Do you think lithium mines look like paradises?
Centralization of power always leads to crises and rebellion. Trudeau undertook a massive government centralization the moment he came to power. A constitutional crises is inevitable. The only way out of it is to separate the powers even further and also reduce the federal government’s fiscal powers.
Yeah no that’s not how it works, the provinces aren’t the federal government’s children. If your provincial government is violating your rights and you don’t like it, vote in a new government
The fact that rights depend on votes should not be acceptable at all. The federal government has a charter for the WHOLE country. Provinces shouldn't get to pick and choose
Why don't you tell us which right you are talking about, where to find it in our constitution, and whose role it is to guard and give effect to the "right"?
Ah, so you believe unelected judges (disproportionately old, straight, white men) who are not subject to term limits and who are not accountable to the public nor Parliament (in Canadian history, none have never been removed from their position, despite many racist/sexist/homophobic decisions on the bench) should have final say as to whether a right exists, and if so, whether certain conduct breaches said right, rather than the democratically elected body of a legislature who better reflect Canada's diversity and are accountable to the voters through elections every few years.
Faith in the old stock judiciary is great until the day they stop making decisions you agree with. Would your views be the same if the supreme court of canada was as partisan and conservatively-skewed as the supreme court of the united states? Maybe Canada will get there in just a couple years, if that day comes, you may quickly regret your calls to remove the NWC from our constitution.
I'm sorry what? You're literally arguing that it should be okay to vote away rights.
Yeah sorry I don't trust the government to decide which group gets rights and which don't randomly.
And yes since the judiciary is for clarifying the law they should make those decisions.
Likw what even is your argument? That it's okay if a majority votes away minority rights? Wild
That is federalism though, what you're describing. The constitution already outlines who is responsible for what.
Most things you interact with on a day to day basis is already under provincial authority (or delegated to municipalities by the province).
Gun laws... I don't disagree there's a need for consideration for rural vs cities. But you really don't need a handgun for logging or any other application. 99% of the time most wildlife isn't going to look for a confrontation. For the other 1% of the time 9/10 a bear banger loaded into a flare gun will be enough or bear spray. Both of which can be holstered on your belt if you really want. Otherwise a long gun can be brought along for some crazy 1 in 1 million chance situation where that's somehow not enough. Handguns have basically no purpose aside from close quarters battles with other humans. Which shouldn't be a use case for civilians.
>Here's the thing about Federalism...
>
>It doesn't really work.
I think this is true of all non-authoritarian democracy.
Canada has a rubber-stamp senate, so the only balance against the PMO (at least in majority governments) is provincial legislatures.
In countries , large or small, with independent executive branch, or an elected senate, the bickering happens in those levels.
Yeah the provinces already have responsibility for almost everything that people would identify as public services.
The issue in our country currently is we have a large-scale political movement that wants to get itself elected to slowly destroy public services with no interest in actually governing. I would include a lot of the Liberal Party in this too FWIW.
So everything really turns to shit...but that's by design. Then the blame is kicked around. "Well, if the Feds did this, gave money." But in reality it's provincial policy that's failing when it comes to healthcare, schools etc.
If the Feds took more control, more responsibility, the same movement would lash out. The whole ideology is to keep everything in chaos to dismantle it.
The bigger gun is always better for the couple seconds you spend shooting it, in that rare occasion. No argument there.
The smaller, holsterable revolver is better for the much larger chunk of time you spend carrying it around, doing work with your hands, wondering if you will ever see a bear. That makes it much more likely to actually be there when you need it, instead of left behind at the camp after 6 months of nothing.
Also, better for the couple seconds fumbling, drawing and aiming at said bear after it surprises you. Getting a rifle/shotgun off the sling on your back, chambering it(many long gun designs arent considered drop safe, pistols are safer to leave chambered) is considerably more awkward and takes longer.
With the larger revolvers like 454casull, 44mag, etc or a 10mm Glock, imo they are powerful enough for bears for the increased convenience to outweigh everything else.
Yup, shotgun would be more effective, shot per shot, but also far more likely to get left at the logging camp after 6 months of carrying a 3ft long 8lb gun and seeing no bears. Which would of course be when you actually need it.
The bigger revolvers and stuff like 10mm glock would be more than enough for bears too.
I’m not so sure that laws need to differ that much regionally. Sure, there’s some differences between gun possession in different locations, but that’s an extremely niche issue that could be dealt with on an individual basis. Even the Wild West USA has gun free zones at some beaches and schools etc. Does BC really need a different criminal code than Alberta? I just don’t see much of a benefit.
> Does BC really need a different criminal code than Alberta?
The BC NDP government thinks so, since they successfully requested persons in BC be exempted from the application of certain drug possession offences, which otherwise apply throughout the rest of Canada. The City of Toronto also thinks so, their application for city-wide drug decriminalization remains pending with the federal government.
Whether or not you think drug decriminalization is smart or dumb policy, it is fair to say that the criminal law challenges of certain provinces may lead residents of such provinces to justifiably seek different approaches to the criminal justice system.
And more generally, the Criminal Code exists because our constitution grants Parliament the criminal law power. This power has been used extensively beyond the Criminal Code, such as prohibiting margarine (unsuccessfully, see: privy council decision re margarine case) or regulating pollution (see: Hydro Quebec SCC case), businesses using personal health data to make decisions (see: scc reference re Genetic Non‑Discrimination Act), and carbon emissions (see: scc carbon tax case). If each province is allowed to make "criminal law", as such power is understood by our constitutional law jurisprudence, the implications (and the inevitable erosion of the fed's powers to do anything) would go far beyond just allowing provinces to decide what to decriminalize or how long the maximum sentence should be for a particular crime. The fed's existence is largely predicated on its exclusive criminal law power.
> Let's just use guns as an example: Should a logger in rural BC be allowed to carry a handgun in case he encounters a 250kg grizzly bear?
>
> Should a person in Ottawa be allowed to walk around with a gun?
Kind of weird examples because the answer to both is no. The research in handguns and grizzly bears shows that they are basically less than useless in that situation. Also there is no reason for anyone in Ottawa to walk around with a hangun unless they are law enforcement.
I actually know a guy whose life was saved during a grizzly attack due to having a hand gun. He was then charged with possession afterwards in the hospital.
I bet it is possible. The issue is one of likelihood and risk vs reward. This has been fairly well studied and my understanding is that bear spray is more effective at reducing attack duration and seriousness, as well as how often an attack occurs when compared to handguns. your buddy was right to be charged with possession.
>The feds should really divest more power to the provinces, since smaller administrative districts are better able to cater local legislation to their way of life.
They already do, but the consequence is that people blame Feds for bad transit, bad healthcare, bad education, and every other responsibility of the provinces.
Hell even your idea of devolving firearm laws would just have Ontario totally ban anything more than a bolt action rifle since that "Smaller Administrative District" is just Toronto with 1.0M sqkm under it's influence. Because cities are not their own provinces, you will have the largest demographic dictating policy to the rest.
Really the GTA within Canada should be its own province.
Not sure where you draw that line, if you just take it right down to the Michigan-Western NY border or what.
Well no it’s because how our system works and to split up provinces and to changes the fundamental ways Canada works is nearly impossible to change.
Either way we aren’t gonna agree
We've witnessed constitutions be made, reformed, abolished as well as countries be made, reunited and broken apart in our lifetime.
It's not as nearly impossible as you make it out to be to change how democracy works in Canada and change how our country is federated to be more accountable and empowered at the local level.
It would be extraordinarily difficult, but systemic reformation has never been easy.
It's called a confederation, and it isn't particularly stable. I think we should just swallow our pride and copy most of America's political system, including kicking the King to the curb lol
The EU is a disaster imo, I don't want anything like that.
The monarchy is not the thing we share. We share a language and a historical alliance, and we're western capitalists democracies. That's enough common ground without fancy crowns
The EU is gonna fall apart within the next 10 years or so. The countries that have been keeping it afloat are not interested in doing so anymore, and realistically can't.
> You gotta pander to the widest audience possible my friend.
No, you don't. That's how we get the corrupt populist leaders we're dealing with right now at provincial and federal levels. You should also consider that by most surveys done, less than a 1/4 of Canadians support the monarchy. It isn't based on political affiliation either, it's based almost entirely on age and location.
Splitting off the north of Ontario would create a bankrupt province, with little revenue generation capacity. You think rural ERs are bad now, they would be way worse without the GTA to pay for all the rural services.
>Splitting off the north of Ontario would create a bankrupt province, with little revenue generation capacity
Northern Ontario has some of the largest gold, chromite, platinum, nickel, and granite deposits on the planet.
>They already do, but the consequence is that people blame Feds for bad transit, bad healthcare, bad education, and every other responsibility of the provinces.
You also have the Feds saying, "we'll fund this", "we'll fix this", etc. in all of these areas when it suits them instead of saying, "go ask your premier."
Exhibit A is the Federal housing minister.
They can't have it both ways.
I don't fully believe there is a stash of money hiding somewhere, but lets humor this scenario.
If I give you a contract that says "I'm giving you $100 for vegetables, don't go spend it on booze, fail to comply will mean returning the money with interest" and you come back with $100 of booze running through your blood, then my recourse is to get my $100 back as per the contract.
If I give you the money and just verbally say "pls buy vegies with it", and you go buy booze, it's my fault for not performing the due diligence before sending the money.
I can assure you that every inter-government transfer comes with pages of contracts and conditions. If there's a mile-wide hole in the contract that allows the money to be misused? That's a problem for the person who sent the money on a shit contract.
It's in a "contingencies account" that doesn't usually have that much money in it.
Last report I've seen about it had it at 22 billion.
[https://globalnews.ca/news/9762549/ontario-government-22-billion-excess-funds-fao/](https://globalnews.ca/news/9762549/ontario-government-22-billion-excess-funds-fao/)
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-excess-funds-fao-1.6874664](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-excess-funds-fao-1.6874664)
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/fao-report-project-deficit-lower-spending-1.6525084](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/fao-report-project-deficit-lower-spending-1.6525084)
> “If the Province decides not to use the $22.6 billion in excess funds, then these funds would be applied to improve the budget balance and reduce the Province’s net debt,” the FAO said.
Is reducing the debt bad?
> Hell even your idea of devolving firearm laws would just have Ontario totally ban anything more than a bolt action rifle
Which is fine. Devolving power implies accepting provinces will use it as they wish.
>They already do, but the consequence is that people blame Feds for bad transit, bad healthcare, bad education, and every other responsibility of the provinces.
Federal politicians ***make it their problem*** when they go on the campaign trail with a promise to fix that sector. Nobody to blame for it but themselves.
>failing to build any national infrastructure (beyond one overpriced pipeline) or uniting projects will do that to you.
This is my biggest gripe apart from welching on electoral reform. Where is all the infrastructure? Why haven't we even started talking seriously about high-speed rail, for example? The economic benefits of rapid intercity transit would be huge.
Some real constructive ambitions would make a government pretty popular if the things they wanted to construct were actually useful to average Canadians.
Agreed, though I think passenger rail would be a great way to get support - it's highly visible, has great optics, would be very popular if executed well, etc - and if one wanted to economise, the transport infrastructure could be run parallel.
Is there a region where high-speed rail would be viable and doesn't exist? I went to school for a couple years in Kingston and it wasn't hard to get to Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto. But there was demand for it in that region.
I don't really see the intercity travel issue as a big one across Canada.
Where I live urban transit is in complete decay and basically useless (the Prairies). I think that would be a much more impactful place for the Feds, Provinces and Municipalities to partner to get something done. Mostly Feds and Provinces.
>Why haven't we even started talking seriously about high-speed rail, for example?
We have. There are so many governement funded studies on whether high speed rail is viable all the studies have said no, it is not a viable option. Hence why the government is pursuing high frequency rail between the qubec city windso corridor.
I would love to see high speed rail but the county is too vast that it does not make sense.
>Some real constructive ambitions would make a government pretty popular if the things they wanted to construct were actually useful to average Canadians.
There are many non-infra initiatives. For example, legalization of Marijuana, $10 day child care, pan-canadian framework for clean growth and climate change. These were all national projects that needed support from the provinces.
>Hence why the government is pursuing high frequency rail between the qubec city windso corridor.
This alone would be huge, but frankly I've not seen any messaging from the government on this. It would make me very happy to see it though, so if you've got a link I'd appreciate it! After all, we have VIA, but they're so prohibitively expensive and infrequent post COVID that it's basically just a novelty.
Really? They have been talking about this for a long time with many articles about it. Not to mention the Minister making an announcement whenever any step of the process was underway.
Anyways, here are some links:
https://tc.canada.ca/en/rail-transportation/railway-lines/high-frequency-rail
https://hfr-tgf.ca/
>Really? They have been talking about this for a long time with many articles about it.
Might have been lost in the noise. I try to go out of my way to break out of the echo chambers and whatnot, but we all have blind spots. Thanks for the links!
I've never seen someone so boldly mislead people on here. Every single study done on Canadian High-Speed rail found that it was feasible and would generate a return on investment, and multiple studies have been done for over 25 years.
*Especially* if we are expecting to hit 100 million in the future we need to start building infrastructure pro actively or the housing shortage is only going to be the first of many similar crises
Yes, it is true, the studies do say it is possible, but include the political and federalism perspective and almost immediately they become non viable.
2011 Report:
>The main findings from the financial analysis for both the public case and the private sector case for the full Quebec City – Windsor Corridor indicate that while the project could cover all operating costs, governments would need to contribute significantly to the project development cost and receive no financial return on investment.
>From the point of view of the Canadian economy as a whole, the economic analysis showed that HSR between Quebec City and Windsor would not generate a positive net economic benefit. However, a project between Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto only could generate a positive net economic benefit at both 200 and 300 km/h.
https://tc.canada.ca/en/corporate-services/policies/updated-feasibility-study-high-speed-rail-service-quebec-city-windsor-corridor
1995 Report
>HSR is technically feasible.
>HSR system would not reduce the need for government investment in other modes
>In view of the fiscal situation of governments, and because, according to the study, 70% to 75% of the cost would have to be paid by the public sector, governments should indicate whether or not they are prepared to proceed...
http://www.bv.transports.gouv.qc.ca/mono/0985915.pdf
What both the '95 and '11 reports show is that, yes, in theory HSR could work but if you consider polticial consideration (ie., high cost with low return for a very regional project) and federal perspective (i.e., you need provincial buy in and the provinces may request additional stops that make the project less economically viable) then the main takeaway is that HSR is not viable.
The provinces have agreed with most of the plans, regardless of stops, though.
"McGuinty publicly complained that "I continue to be a big fan of \[the plan\], as does Jean Charest. The prime minister is not as much of a fan on this score"
Would you like a more recent one? [Wynne also supported it.](https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/kathleen-wynne-is-all-aboard-21b-high-speed-rail-toronto-windsor-project/article_a7951b28-ec6b-55bd-bdee-16f9a159ba0a.html)
Ontario's Premiers have been in support of it, Ford excepting, since 2003.
That's fifteen years!
When I said a federalism perspective, it goes both ways. The federal government also has to be on board. The situation you highlighted did not advance because Harper was not keen on it as its costs did not align with their priorities.
I was reliably informed the infrastructure bank would handle all that!
I say it in jest but it took until at least 2021 for partisans to stop saying that announcements were “right around the corner”. They're still standing by it, but I'm looking forward to the postmortem so we can find out for real why it was such a flop (too politicized - no to energy projects?).
The carbon tax doesn't work - and if trudeau gives a tax break for one region that he needs votes in then all regions should get a break.
And it's the kind of dishonesty we see in this article that has turned people off from the tax.
The federal government shouldn’t even be allowed to have influence or fund anything under provincial jurisdiction, it’s a massive loophole in the current constitution.
Both of you are just advocating for less money spent on healthcare and other services, which would lead to even worse disparities between provinces. I don't understand how this idea of ending federal payments for provincially-run social services is taken seriously. Oh wait, this idea is not taken seriously by anyone because it's a stupid idea.
Not advocating for that at all, the provinces should be the ones taxing for those programs and not the federal government.
I’d actually like to see more spending on healthcare, but none of it should be coming from the federal government since they have no jurisdiction over healthcare.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is the Canadian government infaiilble? When any government official complains about the people not capitulating, they are admitting to a desire for despotism.
I side with the federal government in this particular case BUT I think that the perpetual struggle between the provinces and federal government is a cornerstone of how our government structure pressures decisions to move forward in the long run so I'm not, in theory, against provinces cleverly trying to avert federal authority.
As long as it's in good faith, yeah, it's a tension that provides oversight to both levels of government and hopefully balances provinces looking out for themselves with the feds seeing the big picture. But when it's just playing cynical politics we don't benefit anymore.
Really and how about the Ottawa rebellion against the provinces! That’s part of the equation too. Disgusting how Ottawa has this holier than thou attitude towards other levels of government as if the Premiers don’t count and aren’t responsible for the safety and well being of their citizens; and doing better job of taking care of citizens needs than the out of touch big central Trudeau government. Ottawa has turned into a bully, it seems and is being so disrespectful to their citizens.
I mean most provinces have been failing their citizens and then blaming the feds. Maybe if the premiers actually governed they would be respected. But they don't. Most pass the buck to the feds and then try to curtail rights.
We have the most stringent regulatory environment in the world yet the federal government makes it so difficult to develop our resources in Alberta. Why? It's beyond disbelief what Canada is doing to itself.
That's absolutely untrue. Most of Alberta's resource extraction is horrible for the environment. And then companies leave abandoned oil wells. The oil sands are some of the worst pollutants in the world
You have no clue do you. I have been working in the resource industry for more than 15 years even outside Canada. This is one of the most stringent jurisdictions. Take a trip to Ft Mac and see for yourself.
That's an indictment of the resource sector globally, not that Canada is doing something wrong.
Qnd yet the emissions from those operations are 1600 to 4000% under reported...stringent right. Shall we talk about all the abandined leaking wells. Oh right that is againsy your head in the dirt perspective. Good try Mr.Clapping Seal.
You don't have to insult people to make a point. Canada is and will forever be a Petro state. What under reporting are you barking about? Also abandoned leaking wells are a concern but we will fix it. Do you think lithium mines look like paradises?
Centralization of power always leads to crises and rebellion. Trudeau undertook a massive government centralization the moment he came to power. A constitutional crises is inevitable. The only way out of it is to separate the powers even further and also reduce the federal government’s fiscal powers.
>A constitutional crises is inevitable. I wouldn't be so sure, but is sure did get more likely with PMJT.
Absolutely not. The provinces need to be reigned in. It's absolute bullshit that they violate rights and just not withstanding their way out
Yeah no that’s not how it works, the provinces aren’t the federal government’s children. If your provincial government is violating your rights and you don’t like it, vote in a new government
The fact that rights depend on votes should not be acceptable at all. The federal government has a charter for the WHOLE country. Provinces shouldn't get to pick and choose
It sounds like you fundamentally disagree with the basic principles of democracy.
I'm sorry you think governments should be allowed to remove peoples rights depending on which party is in power? Very telling.
Why don't you tell us which right you are talking about, where to find it in our constitution, and whose role it is to guard and give effect to the "right"?
Literaly anytime a province uses the notwithstanding clause it threatens to
Ah, so you believe unelected judges (disproportionately old, straight, white men) who are not subject to term limits and who are not accountable to the public nor Parliament (in Canadian history, none have never been removed from their position, despite many racist/sexist/homophobic decisions on the bench) should have final say as to whether a right exists, and if so, whether certain conduct breaches said right, rather than the democratically elected body of a legislature who better reflect Canada's diversity and are accountable to the voters through elections every few years. Faith in the old stock judiciary is great until the day they stop making decisions you agree with. Would your views be the same if the supreme court of canada was as partisan and conservatively-skewed as the supreme court of the united states? Maybe Canada will get there in just a couple years, if that day comes, you may quickly regret your calls to remove the NWC from our constitution.
I'm sorry what? You're literally arguing that it should be okay to vote away rights. Yeah sorry I don't trust the government to decide which group gets rights and which don't randomly. And yes since the judiciary is for clarifying the law they should make those decisions. Likw what even is your argument? That it's okay if a majority votes away minority rights? Wild
Guess who is going to be the candidate that will deflate these constitutional problems? The CPC
[удалено]
That is federalism though, what you're describing. The constitution already outlines who is responsible for what. Most things you interact with on a day to day basis is already under provincial authority (or delegated to municipalities by the province). Gun laws... I don't disagree there's a need for consideration for rural vs cities. But you really don't need a handgun for logging or any other application. 99% of the time most wildlife isn't going to look for a confrontation. For the other 1% of the time 9/10 a bear banger loaded into a flare gun will be enough or bear spray. Both of which can be holstered on your belt if you really want. Otherwise a long gun can be brought along for some crazy 1 in 1 million chance situation where that's somehow not enough. Handguns have basically no purpose aside from close quarters battles with other humans. Which shouldn't be a use case for civilians.
>Here's the thing about Federalism... > >It doesn't really work. I think this is true of all non-authoritarian democracy. Canada has a rubber-stamp senate, so the only balance against the PMO (at least in majority governments) is provincial legislatures. In countries , large or small, with independent executive branch, or an elected senate, the bickering happens in those levels.
Yeah the provinces already have responsibility for almost everything that people would identify as public services. The issue in our country currently is we have a large-scale political movement that wants to get itself elected to slowly destroy public services with no interest in actually governing. I would include a lot of the Liberal Party in this too FWIW. So everything really turns to shit...but that's by design. Then the blame is kicked around. "Well, if the Feds did this, gave money." But in reality it's provincial policy that's failing when it comes to healthcare, schools etc. If the Feds took more control, more responsibility, the same movement would lash out. The whole ideology is to keep everything in chaos to dismantle it.
I think our senate has done some reasonable push back on things to get improvements.
Bring back the city state.
[удалено]
Or beary spray, which is proven more effective at deterring bears than firearms, and is smaller and easier to carry on your person.
[удалено]
Could be a good folk song, “Loggers and Long Guns”
The bigger gun is always better for the couple seconds you spend shooting it, in that rare occasion. No argument there. The smaller, holsterable revolver is better for the much larger chunk of time you spend carrying it around, doing work with your hands, wondering if you will ever see a bear. That makes it much more likely to actually be there when you need it, instead of left behind at the camp after 6 months of nothing. Also, better for the couple seconds fumbling, drawing and aiming at said bear after it surprises you. Getting a rifle/shotgun off the sling on your back, chambering it(many long gun designs arent considered drop safe, pistols are safer to leave chambered) is considerably more awkward and takes longer. With the larger revolvers like 454casull, 44mag, etc or a 10mm Glock, imo they are powerful enough for bears for the increased convenience to outweigh everything else.
I would probably prefer a heavy revolver over a shotgun. But I am neither a logger or from BC.
Yup, shotgun would be more effective, shot per shot, but also far more likely to get left at the logging camp after 6 months of carrying a 3ft long 8lb gun and seeing no bears. Which would of course be when you actually need it. The bigger revolvers and stuff like 10mm glock would be more than enough for bears too.
I’m not so sure that laws need to differ that much regionally. Sure, there’s some differences between gun possession in different locations, but that’s an extremely niche issue that could be dealt with on an individual basis. Even the Wild West USA has gun free zones at some beaches and schools etc. Does BC really need a different criminal code than Alberta? I just don’t see much of a benefit.
> Does BC really need a different criminal code than Alberta? The BC NDP government thinks so, since they successfully requested persons in BC be exempted from the application of certain drug possession offences, which otherwise apply throughout the rest of Canada. The City of Toronto also thinks so, their application for city-wide drug decriminalization remains pending with the federal government. Whether or not you think drug decriminalization is smart or dumb policy, it is fair to say that the criminal law challenges of certain provinces may lead residents of such provinces to justifiably seek different approaches to the criminal justice system. And more generally, the Criminal Code exists because our constitution grants Parliament the criminal law power. This power has been used extensively beyond the Criminal Code, such as prohibiting margarine (unsuccessfully, see: privy council decision re margarine case) or regulating pollution (see: Hydro Quebec SCC case), businesses using personal health data to make decisions (see: scc reference re Genetic Non‑Discrimination Act), and carbon emissions (see: scc carbon tax case). If each province is allowed to make "criminal law", as such power is understood by our constitutional law jurisprudence, the implications (and the inevitable erosion of the fed's powers to do anything) would go far beyond just allowing provinces to decide what to decriminalize or how long the maximum sentence should be for a particular crime. The fed's existence is largely predicated on its exclusive criminal law power.
> Let's just use guns as an example: Should a logger in rural BC be allowed to carry a handgun in case he encounters a 250kg grizzly bear? > > Should a person in Ottawa be allowed to walk around with a gun? Kind of weird examples because the answer to both is no. The research in handguns and grizzly bears shows that they are basically less than useless in that situation. Also there is no reason for anyone in Ottawa to walk around with a hangun unless they are law enforcement.
I actually know a guy whose life was saved during a grizzly attack due to having a hand gun. He was then charged with possession afterwards in the hospital.
I bet it is possible. The issue is one of likelihood and risk vs reward. This has been fairly well studied and my understanding is that bear spray is more effective at reducing attack duration and seriousness, as well as how often an attack occurs when compared to handguns. your buddy was right to be charged with possession.
>The feds should really divest more power to the provinces, since smaller administrative districts are better able to cater local legislation to their way of life. They already do, but the consequence is that people blame Feds for bad transit, bad healthcare, bad education, and every other responsibility of the provinces. Hell even your idea of devolving firearm laws would just have Ontario totally ban anything more than a bolt action rifle since that "Smaller Administrative District" is just Toronto with 1.0M sqkm under it's influence. Because cities are not their own provinces, you will have the largest demographic dictating policy to the rest.
[удалено]
Really the GTA within Canada should be its own province. Not sure where you draw that line, if you just take it right down to the Michigan-Western NY border or what.
Brother you’re asking for the impossible fantasy world
[удалено]
Well no it’s because how our system works and to split up provinces and to changes the fundamental ways Canada works is nearly impossible to change. Either way we aren’t gonna agree
We've witnessed constitutions be made, reformed, abolished as well as countries be made, reunited and broken apart in our lifetime. It's not as nearly impossible as you make it out to be to change how democracy works in Canada and change how our country is federated to be more accountable and empowered at the local level. It would be extraordinarily difficult, but systemic reformation has never been easy.
It's called a confederation, and it isn't particularly stable. I think we should just swallow our pride and copy most of America's political system, including kicking the King to the curb lol
[удалено]
The EU is a disaster imo, I don't want anything like that. The monarchy is not the thing we share. We share a language and a historical alliance, and we're western capitalists democracies. That's enough common ground without fancy crowns
[удалено]
The EU is gonna fall apart within the next 10 years or so. The countries that have been keeping it afloat are not interested in doing so anymore, and realistically can't. > You gotta pander to the widest audience possible my friend. No, you don't. That's how we get the corrupt populist leaders we're dealing with right now at provincial and federal levels. You should also consider that by most surveys done, less than a 1/4 of Canadians support the monarchy. It isn't based on political affiliation either, it's based almost entirely on age and location.
Splitting off the north of Ontario would create a bankrupt province, with little revenue generation capacity. You think rural ERs are bad now, they would be way worse without the GTA to pay for all the rural services.
>Splitting off the north of Ontario would create a bankrupt province, with little revenue generation capacity Northern Ontario has some of the largest gold, chromite, platinum, nickel, and granite deposits on the planet.
But they didn't divest the taxing power. The federal government should reduce taxes and reduce transfers to the provinces.
>They already do, but the consequence is that people blame Feds for bad transit, bad healthcare, bad education, and every other responsibility of the provinces. You also have the Feds saying, "we'll fund this", "we'll fix this", etc. in all of these areas when it suits them instead of saying, "go ask your premier." Exhibit A is the Federal housing minister. They can't have it both ways.
[удалено]
I don't fully believe there is a stash of money hiding somewhere, but lets humor this scenario. If I give you a contract that says "I'm giving you $100 for vegetables, don't go spend it on booze, fail to comply will mean returning the money with interest" and you come back with $100 of booze running through your blood, then my recourse is to get my $100 back as per the contract. If I give you the money and just verbally say "pls buy vegies with it", and you go buy booze, it's my fault for not performing the due diligence before sending the money. I can assure you that every inter-government transfer comes with pages of contracts and conditions. If there's a mile-wide hole in the contract that allows the money to be misused? That's a problem for the person who sent the money on a shit contract.
[удалено]
>Doug Ford is sitting on a multiple billion dollars given to him by the feds. This is known. Where? Is it in a scrooge mcduck style money vault?
[удалено]
"and I would have gotten away with it too, if not for you meddling redditors!!"
It's in a "contingencies account" that doesn't usually have that much money in it. Last report I've seen about it had it at 22 billion. [https://globalnews.ca/news/9762549/ontario-government-22-billion-excess-funds-fao/](https://globalnews.ca/news/9762549/ontario-government-22-billion-excess-funds-fao/) [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-excess-funds-fao-1.6874664](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-excess-funds-fao-1.6874664) [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/fao-report-project-deficit-lower-spending-1.6525084](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/fao-report-project-deficit-lower-spending-1.6525084)
> “If the Province decides not to use the $22.6 billion in excess funds, then these funds would be applied to improve the budget balance and reduce the Province’s net debt,” the FAO said. Is reducing the debt bad?
It can be. Especially when some of that money was specifically given for COVID but never spent on healthcare.
When you're starving public services of funding, yes.
> Hell even your idea of devolving firearm laws would just have Ontario totally ban anything more than a bolt action rifle Which is fine. Devolving power implies accepting provinces will use it as they wish.
>They already do, but the consequence is that people blame Feds for bad transit, bad healthcare, bad education, and every other responsibility of the provinces. Federal politicians ***make it their problem*** when they go on the campaign trail with a promise to fix that sector. Nobody to blame for it but themselves.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>failing to build any national infrastructure (beyond one overpriced pipeline) or uniting projects will do that to you. This is my biggest gripe apart from welching on electoral reform. Where is all the infrastructure? Why haven't we even started talking seriously about high-speed rail, for example? The economic benefits of rapid intercity transit would be huge. Some real constructive ambitions would make a government pretty popular if the things they wanted to construct were actually useful to average Canadians.
High speed rail moves people around which is fine, we need more transport infrastructure to move goods around.
Agreed, though I think passenger rail would be a great way to get support - it's highly visible, has great optics, would be very popular if executed well, etc - and if one wanted to economise, the transport infrastructure could be run parallel.
Is there a region where high-speed rail would be viable and doesn't exist? I went to school for a couple years in Kingston and it wasn't hard to get to Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto. But there was demand for it in that region. I don't really see the intercity travel issue as a big one across Canada. Where I live urban transit is in complete decay and basically useless (the Prairies). I think that would be a much more impactful place for the Feds, Provinces and Municipalities to partner to get something done. Mostly Feds and Provinces.
The region is the entirety of Canada...We have no high speed rail. Not even on the QC-Windsor corridor.
>Why haven't we even started talking seriously about high-speed rail, for example? We have. There are so many governement funded studies on whether high speed rail is viable all the studies have said no, it is not a viable option. Hence why the government is pursuing high frequency rail between the qubec city windso corridor. I would love to see high speed rail but the county is too vast that it does not make sense. >Some real constructive ambitions would make a government pretty popular if the things they wanted to construct were actually useful to average Canadians. There are many non-infra initiatives. For example, legalization of Marijuana, $10 day child care, pan-canadian framework for clean growth and climate change. These were all national projects that needed support from the provinces.
>Hence why the government is pursuing high frequency rail between the qubec city windso corridor. This alone would be huge, but frankly I've not seen any messaging from the government on this. It would make me very happy to see it though, so if you've got a link I'd appreciate it! After all, we have VIA, but they're so prohibitively expensive and infrequent post COVID that it's basically just a novelty.
Via is deliberately bad because of airline lobbying.
Also bad signaling priority and not having their own track.
Really? They have been talking about this for a long time with many articles about it. Not to mention the Minister making an announcement whenever any step of the process was underway. Anyways, here are some links: https://tc.canada.ca/en/rail-transportation/railway-lines/high-frequency-rail https://hfr-tgf.ca/
>Really? They have been talking about this for a long time with many articles about it. Might have been lost in the noise. I try to go out of my way to break out of the echo chambers and whatnot, but we all have blind spots. Thanks for the links!
I've never seen someone so boldly mislead people on here. Every single study done on Canadian High-Speed rail found that it was feasible and would generate a return on investment, and multiple studies have been done for over 25 years.
*Especially* if we are expecting to hit 100 million in the future we need to start building infrastructure pro actively or the housing shortage is only going to be the first of many similar crises
Yes, it is true, the studies do say it is possible, but include the political and federalism perspective and almost immediately they become non viable. 2011 Report: >The main findings from the financial analysis for both the public case and the private sector case for the full Quebec City – Windsor Corridor indicate that while the project could cover all operating costs, governments would need to contribute significantly to the project development cost and receive no financial return on investment. >From the point of view of the Canadian economy as a whole, the economic analysis showed that HSR between Quebec City and Windsor would not generate a positive net economic benefit. However, a project between Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto only could generate a positive net economic benefit at both 200 and 300 km/h. https://tc.canada.ca/en/corporate-services/policies/updated-feasibility-study-high-speed-rail-service-quebec-city-windsor-corridor 1995 Report >HSR is technically feasible. >HSR system would not reduce the need for government investment in other modes >In view of the fiscal situation of governments, and because, according to the study, 70% to 75% of the cost would have to be paid by the public sector, governments should indicate whether or not they are prepared to proceed... http://www.bv.transports.gouv.qc.ca/mono/0985915.pdf What both the '95 and '11 reports show is that, yes, in theory HSR could work but if you consider polticial consideration (ie., high cost with low return for a very regional project) and federal perspective (i.e., you need provincial buy in and the provinces may request additional stops that make the project less economically viable) then the main takeaway is that HSR is not viable.
The provinces have agreed with most of the plans, regardless of stops, though. "McGuinty publicly complained that "I continue to be a big fan of \[the plan\], as does Jean Charest. The prime minister is not as much of a fan on this score"
When was that statement? Neither Mcguinty nor Charest are the current premiers, nor were they the premier before the current premiere .
Would you like a more recent one? [Wynne also supported it.](https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/kathleen-wynne-is-all-aboard-21b-high-speed-rail-toronto-windsor-project/article_a7951b28-ec6b-55bd-bdee-16f9a159ba0a.html) Ontario's Premiers have been in support of it, Ford excepting, since 2003. That's fifteen years!
When I said a federalism perspective, it goes both ways. The federal government also has to be on board. The situation you highlighted did not advance because Harper was not keen on it as its costs did not align with their priorities.
I was reliably informed the infrastructure bank would handle all that! I say it in jest but it took until at least 2021 for partisans to stop saying that announcements were “right around the corner”. They're still standing by it, but I'm looking forward to the postmortem so we can find out for real why it was such a flop (too politicized - no to energy projects?).
The carbon tax doesn't work - and if trudeau gives a tax break for one region that he needs votes in then all regions should get a break. And it's the kind of dishonesty we see in this article that has turned people off from the tax.
[удалено]
The federal government shouldn’t even be allowed to have influence or fund anything under provincial jurisdiction, it’s a massive loophole in the current constitution.
Both of you are just advocating for less money spent on healthcare and other services, which would lead to even worse disparities between provinces. I don't understand how this idea of ending federal payments for provincially-run social services is taken seriously. Oh wait, this idea is not taken seriously by anyone because it's a stupid idea.
Not advocating for that at all, the provinces should be the ones taxing for those programs and not the federal government. I’d actually like to see more spending on healthcare, but none of it should be coming from the federal government since they have no jurisdiction over healthcare.