Myself and my family have requested our mail in ballots as of yesterday and today. We are going to make sure our voice is counted without having to deal with long lines.
I am an unapologetic federalist - not because I think it's perfect, but because I understand that the grass is never greener on the other side and I value the things I have in Canada far too much to let some discontented complainers ruin it. So the best thing I can do is make sure that I'm counted on referendum day. I would've otherwise stayed home because I think the referendum questions are a joke. I am going to have to closely review whether I can skip answering the other 9 questions. If I can't, then I'm going to just vote for whatever looks like the status quo because I think the whole referendum is a giant waste of taxpayer dollars.
"The grass is never greener on the other side"? Were your ancestors wrong to come here? Or to move to Alberta? If so, would they have also been wrong to go home?
It’s a shame that all those taxpayer money that will be paying for the referendum won’t be going to social services, that many Albertans , really need. As many have been saying, what we really need is an election. When one finally does come about I hope we all remember what Danielle Smith has done during her time in office. I for one hope it will be her last.
None of these are "credible arguments why Alberta should stay in Canada". Because the only actual such argument is that Canada might well harm itself in order to punish a secessionist Alberta. Which is, of course, a valid argument. But not necessarily one that makes secession less likely.
The thing is, there doesn't actually TRULY need to be a "credible" argument for staying in Canada. Those who want to disrupt the status quo before the full burden of providing all of the details of why change is necessary, what it will look like, and how it will benefit the citizens. I have not seen any serious discussion from separatists about currency, licensure, banking, insurance, trade, and citizenship.
Though just for kicks and giggles I would like to hear how separatists think they'd determine "Alberta" citizenship. If it's anyone who lives in Alberta at the time of separation, then you'd gain a whole bunch of people who aren't even Canadian citizens. If it's anyone born in Alberta, then it divides families including siblings and couples.
And then you'd have to negotiate whether Canadians would actually be willing to give up their Canadian passports. (I can't imagine anyone trading a Canadian passport for a country's passport that has no organized democratic government, no currency, and no true structures of society, but I guess there are many who have never travelled and don't care about passports.)
$20 billion a year in a population of under 5 million is a credible argument.
I hope, when they go, they have the following citizenship rules: all Canadian citizens resident in Alberta, plus all Alberta born resident elsewhere, plus all with parents born in Canada who move to Alberta within two years. That would turn Alberta into an economic powerhouse.
"There doesn't need to be a credible argument" seems like an interesting position to take, under yet another article in the series which purports to do exactly this:
"The Line is partnering with Lead Not Leave TO PROVIDE CREDIBLE ARGUMENTS for why Alberta should stay in Canada."
...but has yet to post a single article which provides ANY credible argument to stay, other than to continually pound the drum of "separatists are scary".
So basically Albertans should be afraid of change, like a toddler. That's a very solid argument for Canadians. We didn't earn our reputation for being less ambitious and dynamic than peer nations easily, this appeals to that.
It's curious how the federalists aren't using the "Canada is awesome and this is why..." line. They have reverted to fear instead of success. The thinking being "sure we are underachievers, but going independent would be so much worse..."
One note, the "business will fear change" angle assumes the rest of the world's business community is as timid and fearful as Canada's. Looking at the people and investment continuing to come into Alberta, that just can't be assumed.
If Canada can't achieve real independence from the US, Canada exists only because the US allows it to exist after all, thinking Alberta can be independent next to the US superpower is hilarious.
This isn't about being afraid of change. The whole separatist project is riddled with flawed assumptions, omissions, and errors. You don't even have to look far to see the negative impact on business: Quebec went down this path starting in the '70s, and is a case study of business flight.
Also interesting that you're applying a couple of very tactics outlined in this article: flipping the burden onto the federalist side, and also accusing them of "fearmongering."
The difference of course being that Quebec wanted to become less business friendly, have higher taxes, more union and cartel nonsense and language laws. Alberta is moving towards a direction that is more business friendly with lower taxes and less government paternalism. To be fair, I’m not sure some separatists understand that yet to be fair.
Many Albertans I know want to stay but also want to vote yes on the option of a referendum so that Ottawa will know the status quo on seat allocation in both the house and senate as well as equalization payments are no longer acceptable. We view it as playing the same cards Quebec always has. People are sick and tired of being taken advantage of when it comes to how we are treated in Confederation. If they make concessions and clean up the inequities, it all goes away.
We used this to fight the Quebec separatists; If Alberta can separate from Canada, then X (name your city, town, village) can separate from Alberta.
Montreal had and still has a large anglophone population. The idea that parts of Montreal and parts of the Eastern Townships could separate from Quebec, was something the separatists never wanted to talk about. Separation for me but not for you.
While people (including the author) make comparisons with Brexit, I wonder if the 2014 Scotland independence referendum in 2014 (which failed) is a better comparison. The Scots made the whole David-Goliath argument, and argued that they would retain ownership of North Sea oil resources, and that they would automatically remain a member of the EU. They also used the tactic (not listed in this article, but I'm sure it would be used by Separatists here) of dismissing any counter-argument from an English person as "Scots don't like to be talked down to by posh southern Londoners, and any attempt to will be counterproductive" -- in other words, anything you say to decrease support for independence will end up increasing it, so the rest of the UK should just be quiet.
Canada’s equivalent to posh southern Londoners are (is?) the Quebec French carpetbaggers who have taken over the Canadian Civil Service and support the Central Canada elites who want to keep things as they were.
You lost me at " similar far right populist movements ". Although I will vote to stay, it infuriates me how " our side" papers over the manifest disparities that the west endures as some kind of a far right invention. Instead of fear mongering, how about coming up with some real suggestions to get the Eastern Laurentian's boot off of our necks?
This is a very good reminder of what kind of dirty, low-down, no-account dogs these kind of people are. They will lie, cheat and steal just to get their unintelligent, nonsensical fantasy ways.
Thanks for the column. Any chance you and the rest of the LEAD NOT LEAVE crowd might want to write a column regarding what the separatist issues are? Is Ottawa and the rest of Eastern Canada willing to negotiate some real change that gives equality to Western Canadians and address our Western values? I'm not seeing Eastern Canadians LEADING even a discussion regarding any concession's to Western Canada. You want to keep the status quo, in my book that's not LEADING.
Don, if there is such a thing as 'western values' or even 'western Canadians' then I believe negotiating in good faith with Canada requires the aggrieved parties to lay out their grievances and their preferred path forward to a mutually satisfactory conclusion within the Canadian community.
We all know what the threats to hold our breath until we are blue in the face results.
Are you seriously trying to take the position that Alberta has not ALREADY tried numerous times to have this conversation with Canada.....?
That we have simply not made our grievances known...?
The issue, my friend, is that Alberta has been yelling about this stuff for DECADES.
We've expressed ourselves VERY democratically, as through special elections and referenda, we've repeatedly tried to raise issues with how Canada's constitution, programs and policies can disproportionately affect us - and we've railed against the heavy hand of the feds routinely reaching into matters of CLEAR provincial jurisdiction.
....ALL of which has been soundly IGNORED by Ottawa, and most egregiously so this past decade.
The current round of referendums are NOT the first time we've mentioned that there are issues - far from it. So how do you propose we should "lay out our grievances" to a government which has made it clear it will not listen to us....?
Yeah, that's right ... you all been YELLING! For decades.
Nobody is ignoring you. You all simply cannot be ignored, you've been yelling and bullying your way and normal folks of good character are just trying to get out of your way.
Also, in a negotiation (which you all been asking for) you are required to communicate your position, or in your case, your multiple contradictory positions. So let's, both of us, assume you have communicated this. That you have done so does not translate into instant complete acceptance of your position. No mature, thinking person thinks that simply articulating a demand should result in acceptance.
Additionally, you all are getting a shit load of so much what you demand. Only Quebec gets more of what they demand, simply by demanding it, than Albaturda does. You people get so much from the federal government, even if it's at the expense of the rest of Canada ROC. But like a spoiled petulant child, it's never good enough.
So. Your argument is specious. Every part of your argument is facetious. You people do not negotiate in good faith. You want special treatment because you think you are special. You are not!
Come to the table as a Canadian and negotiate, from your point of view, a good deal for all Canadians. We need you to do this; PM Carney needs you to do this, you need to do this. It's a big country with big problems. In the 21rst Century.
Let's make a solution that works for all, or at least most, of us.
Alberta separatism is rooted in emotion, just like Quebec separatism. The rationalizations and arguments are constructed to support their conclusion. Consequently, separatists aren't going to be dissuaded by rational arguments. However, pointing out the defects in separatist rationalizations and the fundamentally emotional character of the position can be effective at prevent others from getting swept away in the sentiment.
While I appreciate Mr. Wesley's effort in producing his list, it seems to me that it's the press taking this issue seriously is what's causing it to be a serious issue. Why? Because it makes great press. And frankly, avoiding that sort of coverage is a major reason why I signed onto The Line.
Anybody else knows that it's best to avoid being the kind of person that argues with a fool.
(Which is sort of like being the kind of person who tries to make a deal with a grifter, but I digress ...)
And no, just because I'm from Ontario doesn't mean I'm any more happy with the feds or even many aspects of confederation as it stands now. In fact, I haven't been my entire adult life. But I'd rather try and change things than move or insist that my patch of ground secede.
But it does make you question the efficacy of our education system ... (yes, all of ours)
It is endemic that no one wants any change they don't understand, or that negatively affects their current situation, even when the current situation is built on indefensible policy, including historical policy that has become indefensible.
But it's not limited to Eastern Canada. (Did you mean east of Manitoba, not just the Maritimes/NL?)
I posted a comment elsewhere just a few days ago asserting that provinces were a relic of mid 19th century communication and transportation limitations, not to mention 19th century social (tribal) attitudes that some people still haven't managed to shake off yet, and was told by another poster that that "Only an Ontarian would write some BS like this."
I've also suggested that provincial equalization and provincial responsibility for individual welfare should be replaced by an individual federal basic income (NOT livable - half that maybe). Have-not province residents wouldn't countenance that (their own tax rates would go through the roof) and the right sees red anytime you mention basic income, regardless of how much more efficient it would be than current welfare policy. Current supporters of basic income demand that it be livable, regardless of the effect on tax rates for everyone else.
People with money think government (i.e. other taxpayers) owes them a rate of return (no, that's the market's job) because that's the implicit argument behind an exclusion rate for capital gains (as opposed to a simple CPI adjustment). Those same people also think that capital gains tax replaced inheritance taxes. No it didn't - read the Carter Commission report: capital gains tax (which was 0 until 1972) was supposed to facilitate a reduction of top marginal rates (which was why the Commission was struck by Diefenbaker in 1962), although the drop wasn't significant until the 1980s. In the Carter Commission, inheritance taxes were supposed to be replaced by a gift tax, but that idea was shelved by PETs government and all the inheritance tax due on capital gains up to Dec71 ... was never taxed.
Nobody with a house wants principal residences to be taxed, even though their exclusion is a major factor in the house price bubble. When it gets mentioned, many think that would necessitate making house operating expenses (which are personal!) tax deductible too. No, they'd still be personal, only capital improvements would be added to the cost base (not deducted).
Shareholders think taxing corporate income and shareholder dividends is double taxation. No, a corporation is a different and distinct entity from its shareholders. It's not much different than an executive expecting a deduction for what s/he pays their housekeeper, or the housekeeper expecting their income to be tax free because the executive already paid tax on it! The concept of double taxation implies that corporations should get all the benefits they receive from government (access to capital, limited liability, unlimited lifespan etc.) for free. Obviously those benefits have value - that's why people create corporations. They owe their very existence to government. If you don't want to pay the government for those benefits, then don't incorporate. Clearly there's a big discussion to be had about how much they should pay, but that's a matter of degree, not existence.
Almost nobody thinks current elections should be replaced by sortition (the process of appointing representatives by lottery). Nobody seems to understand statistics or representative democracy, the point of which is representation, not elections. And a random selection is the only statistically valid method for sample selection. Heck, BC had a (semi) random citizen's assembly over 20 years ago to discuss electoral reform and didn't even talk about random selection - which was the basis for the assembly! Ironic or what? Politicians are obviously unlikely to support the idea and the press doesn't get it any more than anyone else, besides, partisan politics is major source of raw material for them.
Canada, it seems, has become a society of "I'm all-right Jack, keep your hands off of my stack" people. Of course, there's always been that element, but it seems to be pervasive now.
But I keep trying ... occasionally I get some agreement.
Great example of name calling in lieu of logical argument. The “cowering cuckolds” of Canada can now rest easily in the shady side of the Laurentian hills. The Order of Canada awaits in Ottawa - “where dreams go to die”
So long as Alberta is not treated with the same asymmetrical federalism as Quebec, this movement is going to grow, and it will be far better organized than what is seen currently. Should Alberta separatists find a leader who is a strong communicator who has a clear direction for the movement.; someone who presents a convincing option for the fence sitters rather than the status quo.
For me, the separatists should form a political party: that's the logical next step.
There is a hitch though: that will take time and there's still the matter of the massive fiscal imbalance. Alberta is a mega-massive net contributor to federal revenues. Its citizens sends of billions more to Ottawa in taxes than they receives back in federal spending or transfers.
We are in big trouble if the strategic approach of the separatists is "Quebec has never actually "contributed" to the equalization program as a donor province in modern history" and that Quebec doesn't actually contribute to this place called Canada. For me, it will change everything.
It does not matter where you go (save for Quebec) in Canada, you will always hear that Quebec gets better treatment in confederation.
Thank you to Jared Wesley for writing this clear-headed, well-reasoned and compelling op-ed, and to The Line for publishing it.
Myself and my family have requested our mail in ballots as of yesterday and today. We are going to make sure our voice is counted without having to deal with long lines.
I am an unapologetic federalist - not because I think it's perfect, but because I understand that the grass is never greener on the other side and I value the things I have in Canada far too much to let some discontented complainers ruin it. So the best thing I can do is make sure that I'm counted on referendum day. I would've otherwise stayed home because I think the referendum questions are a joke. I am going to have to closely review whether I can skip answering the other 9 questions. If I can't, then I'm going to just vote for whatever looks like the status quo because I think the whole referendum is a giant waste of taxpayer dollars.
"The grass is never greener on the other side"? Were your ancestors wrong to come here? Or to move to Alberta? If so, would they have also been wrong to go home?
So you've never left home?
Sometimes the grass is indeed greener.
It’s a shame that all those taxpayer money that will be paying for the referendum won’t be going to social services, that many Albertans , really need. As many have been saying, what we really need is an election. When one finally does come about I hope we all remember what Danielle Smith has done during her time in office. I for one hope it will be her last.
None of these are "credible arguments why Alberta should stay in Canada". Because the only actual such argument is that Canada might well harm itself in order to punish a secessionist Alberta. Which is, of course, a valid argument. But not necessarily one that makes secession less likely.
The thing is, there doesn't actually TRULY need to be a "credible" argument for staying in Canada. Those who want to disrupt the status quo before the full burden of providing all of the details of why change is necessary, what it will look like, and how it will benefit the citizens. I have not seen any serious discussion from separatists about currency, licensure, banking, insurance, trade, and citizenship.
Though just for kicks and giggles I would like to hear how separatists think they'd determine "Alberta" citizenship. If it's anyone who lives in Alberta at the time of separation, then you'd gain a whole bunch of people who aren't even Canadian citizens. If it's anyone born in Alberta, then it divides families including siblings and couples.
And then you'd have to negotiate whether Canadians would actually be willing to give up their Canadian passports. (I can't imagine anyone trading a Canadian passport for a country's passport that has no organized democratic government, no currency, and no true structures of society, but I guess there are many who have never travelled and don't care about passports.)
$20 billion a year in a population of under 5 million is a credible argument.
I hope, when they go, they have the following citizenship rules: all Canadian citizens resident in Alberta, plus all Alberta born resident elsewhere, plus all with parents born in Canada who move to Alberta within two years. That would turn Alberta into an economic powerhouse.
"There doesn't need to be a credible argument" seems like an interesting position to take, under yet another article in the series which purports to do exactly this:
"The Line is partnering with Lead Not Leave TO PROVIDE CREDIBLE ARGUMENTS for why Alberta should stay in Canada."
...but has yet to post a single article which provides ANY credible argument to stay, other than to continually pound the drum of "separatists are scary".
So basically Albertans should be afraid of change, like a toddler. That's a very solid argument for Canadians. We didn't earn our reputation for being less ambitious and dynamic than peer nations easily, this appeals to that.
It's curious how the federalists aren't using the "Canada is awesome and this is why..." line. They have reverted to fear instead of success. The thinking being "sure we are underachievers, but going independent would be so much worse..."
One note, the "business will fear change" angle assumes the rest of the world's business community is as timid and fearful as Canada's. Looking at the people and investment continuing to come into Alberta, that just can't be assumed.
If Canada can't achieve real independence from the US, Canada exists only because the US allows it to exist after all, thinking Alberta can be independent next to the US superpower is hilarious.
This isn't about being afraid of change. The whole separatist project is riddled with flawed assumptions, omissions, and errors. You don't even have to look far to see the negative impact on business: Quebec went down this path starting in the '70s, and is a case study of business flight.
Also interesting that you're applying a couple of very tactics outlined in this article: flipping the burden onto the federalist side, and also accusing them of "fearmongering."
The difference of course being that Quebec wanted to become less business friendly, have higher taxes, more union and cartel nonsense and language laws. Alberta is moving towards a direction that is more business friendly with lower taxes and less government paternalism. To be fair, I’m not sure some separatists understand that yet to be fair.
Jared,
Many Albertans I know want to stay but also want to vote yes on the option of a referendum so that Ottawa will know the status quo on seat allocation in both the house and senate as well as equalization payments are no longer acceptable. We view it as playing the same cards Quebec always has. People are sick and tired of being taken advantage of when it comes to how we are treated in Confederation. If they make concessions and clean up the inequities, it all goes away.
And Quebec’s economy boomed after its referendum!
Oh, wait…
We used this to fight the Quebec separatists; If Alberta can separate from Canada, then X (name your city, town, village) can separate from Alberta.
Montreal had and still has a large anglophone population. The idea that parts of Montreal and parts of the Eastern Townships could separate from Quebec, was something the separatists never wanted to talk about. Separation for me but not for you.
Thank you Jared, the devil is in the details.
Rural Alberta should separate from Edmonton and Calgary.
Yep. Might open a huge pandora's box.
While people (including the author) make comparisons with Brexit, I wonder if the 2014 Scotland independence referendum in 2014 (which failed) is a better comparison. The Scots made the whole David-Goliath argument, and argued that they would retain ownership of North Sea oil resources, and that they would automatically remain a member of the EU. They also used the tactic (not listed in this article, but I'm sure it would be used by Separatists here) of dismissing any counter-argument from an English person as "Scots don't like to be talked down to by posh southern Londoners, and any attempt to will be counterproductive" -- in other words, anything you say to decrease support for independence will end up increasing it, so the rest of the UK should just be quiet.
Canada’s equivalent to posh southern Londoners are (is?) the Quebec French carpetbaggers who have taken over the Canadian Civil Service and support the Central Canada elites who want to keep things as they were.
You lost me at " similar far right populist movements ". Although I will vote to stay, it infuriates me how " our side" papers over the manifest disparities that the west endures as some kind of a far right invention. Instead of fear mongering, how about coming up with some real suggestions to get the Eastern Laurentian's boot off of our necks?
This is a very good reminder of what kind of dirty, low-down, no-account dogs these kind of people are. They will lie, cheat and steal just to get their unintelligent, nonsensical fantasy ways.
Beware! These are not your friends.
You must be referring to the Lead not Leave crowd. No?
Hey Jared.
Thanks for the column. Any chance you and the rest of the LEAD NOT LEAVE crowd might want to write a column regarding what the separatist issues are? Is Ottawa and the rest of Eastern Canada willing to negotiate some real change that gives equality to Western Canadians and address our Western values? I'm not seeing Eastern Canadians LEADING even a discussion regarding any concession's to Western Canada. You want to keep the status quo, in my book that's not LEADING.
Don, if there is such a thing as 'western values' or even 'western Canadians' then I believe negotiating in good faith with Canada requires the aggrieved parties to lay out their grievances and their preferred path forward to a mutually satisfactory conclusion within the Canadian community.
We all know what the threats to hold our breath until we are blue in the face results.
Are you seriously trying to take the position that Alberta has not ALREADY tried numerous times to have this conversation with Canada.....?
That we have simply not made our grievances known...?
The issue, my friend, is that Alberta has been yelling about this stuff for DECADES.
We've expressed ourselves VERY democratically, as through special elections and referenda, we've repeatedly tried to raise issues with how Canada's constitution, programs and policies can disproportionately affect us - and we've railed against the heavy hand of the feds routinely reaching into matters of CLEAR provincial jurisdiction.
....ALL of which has been soundly IGNORED by Ottawa, and most egregiously so this past decade.
The current round of referendums are NOT the first time we've mentioned that there are issues - far from it. So how do you propose we should "lay out our grievances" to a government which has made it clear it will not listen to us....?
Yeah, that's right ... you all been YELLING! For decades.
Nobody is ignoring you. You all simply cannot be ignored, you've been yelling and bullying your way and normal folks of good character are just trying to get out of your way.
Also, in a negotiation (which you all been asking for) you are required to communicate your position, or in your case, your multiple contradictory positions. So let's, both of us, assume you have communicated this. That you have done so does not translate into instant complete acceptance of your position. No mature, thinking person thinks that simply articulating a demand should result in acceptance.
Additionally, you all are getting a shit load of so much what you demand. Only Quebec gets more of what they demand, simply by demanding it, than Albaturda does. You people get so much from the federal government, even if it's at the expense of the rest of Canada ROC. But like a spoiled petulant child, it's never good enough.
So. Your argument is specious. Every part of your argument is facetious. You people do not negotiate in good faith. You want special treatment because you think you are special. You are not!
Come to the table as a Canadian and negotiate, from your point of view, a good deal for all Canadians. We need you to do this; PM Carney needs you to do this, you need to do this. It's a big country with big problems. In the 21rst Century.
Let's make a solution that works for all, or at least most, of us.
Wow, I can feel the love...
Why would anyone even possibly WANT to leave a country which loves us as much as this?
Alberta separatism is rooted in emotion, just like Quebec separatism. The rationalizations and arguments are constructed to support their conclusion. Consequently, separatists aren't going to be dissuaded by rational arguments. However, pointing out the defects in separatist rationalizations and the fundamentally emotional character of the position can be effective at prevent others from getting swept away in the sentiment.
Hey George. How about pointing out the defects of our Canadian Constitution and addressing them? Huh.
While I appreciate Mr. Wesley's effort in producing his list, it seems to me that it's the press taking this issue seriously is what's causing it to be a serious issue. Why? Because it makes great press. And frankly, avoiding that sort of coverage is a major reason why I signed onto The Line.
Anybody else knows that it's best to avoid being the kind of person that argues with a fool.
(Which is sort of like being the kind of person who tries to make a deal with a grifter, but I digress ...)
And no, just because I'm from Ontario doesn't mean I'm any more happy with the feds or even many aspects of confederation as it stands now. In fact, I haven't been my entire adult life. But I'd rather try and change things than move or insist that my patch of ground secede.
But it does make you question the efficacy of our education system ... (yes, all of ours)
Unfortunately Mark, Eastern Canadians aren't talking change.
It is endemic that no one wants any change they don't understand, or that negatively affects their current situation, even when the current situation is built on indefensible policy, including historical policy that has become indefensible.
But it's not limited to Eastern Canada. (Did you mean east of Manitoba, not just the Maritimes/NL?)
I posted a comment elsewhere just a few days ago asserting that provinces were a relic of mid 19th century communication and transportation limitations, not to mention 19th century social (tribal) attitudes that some people still haven't managed to shake off yet, and was told by another poster that that "Only an Ontarian would write some BS like this."
I've also suggested that provincial equalization and provincial responsibility for individual welfare should be replaced by an individual federal basic income (NOT livable - half that maybe). Have-not province residents wouldn't countenance that (their own tax rates would go through the roof) and the right sees red anytime you mention basic income, regardless of how much more efficient it would be than current welfare policy. Current supporters of basic income demand that it be livable, regardless of the effect on tax rates for everyone else.
People with money think government (i.e. other taxpayers) owes them a rate of return (no, that's the market's job) because that's the implicit argument behind an exclusion rate for capital gains (as opposed to a simple CPI adjustment). Those same people also think that capital gains tax replaced inheritance taxes. No it didn't - read the Carter Commission report: capital gains tax (which was 0 until 1972) was supposed to facilitate a reduction of top marginal rates (which was why the Commission was struck by Diefenbaker in 1962), although the drop wasn't significant until the 1980s. In the Carter Commission, inheritance taxes were supposed to be replaced by a gift tax, but that idea was shelved by PETs government and all the inheritance tax due on capital gains up to Dec71 ... was never taxed.
Nobody with a house wants principal residences to be taxed, even though their exclusion is a major factor in the house price bubble. When it gets mentioned, many think that would necessitate making house operating expenses (which are personal!) tax deductible too. No, they'd still be personal, only capital improvements would be added to the cost base (not deducted).
Shareholders think taxing corporate income and shareholder dividends is double taxation. No, a corporation is a different and distinct entity from its shareholders. It's not much different than an executive expecting a deduction for what s/he pays their housekeeper, or the housekeeper expecting their income to be tax free because the executive already paid tax on it! The concept of double taxation implies that corporations should get all the benefits they receive from government (access to capital, limited liability, unlimited lifespan etc.) for free. Obviously those benefits have value - that's why people create corporations. They owe their very existence to government. If you don't want to pay the government for those benefits, then don't incorporate. Clearly there's a big discussion to be had about how much they should pay, but that's a matter of degree, not existence.
Almost nobody thinks current elections should be replaced by sortition (the process of appointing representatives by lottery). Nobody seems to understand statistics or representative democracy, the point of which is representation, not elections. And a random selection is the only statistically valid method for sample selection. Heck, BC had a (semi) random citizen's assembly over 20 years ago to discuss electoral reform and didn't even talk about random selection - which was the basis for the assembly! Ironic or what? Politicians are obviously unlikely to support the idea and the press doesn't get it any more than anyone else, besides, partisan politics is major source of raw material for them.
Canada, it seems, has become a society of "I'm all-right Jack, keep your hands off of my stack" people. Of course, there's always been that element, but it seems to be pervasive now.
But I keep trying ... occasionally I get some agreement.
I'm going to create a checklist and I feel more prepared for the coming weeks - thanks so much.
Great example of name calling in lieu of logical argument. The “cowering cuckolds” of Canada can now rest easily in the shady side of the Laurentian hills. The Order of Canada awaits in Ottawa - “where dreams go to die”
So long as Alberta is not treated with the same asymmetrical federalism as Quebec, this movement is going to grow, and it will be far better organized than what is seen currently. Should Alberta separatists find a leader who is a strong communicator who has a clear direction for the movement.; someone who presents a convincing option for the fence sitters rather than the status quo.
For me, the separatists should form a political party: that's the logical next step.
There is a hitch though: that will take time and there's still the matter of the massive fiscal imbalance. Alberta is a mega-massive net contributor to federal revenues. Its citizens sends of billions more to Ottawa in taxes than they receives back in federal spending or transfers.
We are in big trouble if the strategic approach of the separatists is "Quebec has never actually "contributed" to the equalization program as a donor province in modern history" and that Quebec doesn't actually contribute to this place called Canada. For me, it will change everything.
It does not matter where you go (save for Quebec) in Canada, you will always hear that Quebec gets better treatment in confederation.
And we all know it does.
Sounds like we need to make some bingo cards...
Good point! There's always a chance that the order could get re-arranged - what will we win? haha, just staying prepared is reward right now.