Because there’s a limited number of different kinds of booze containers and they’re easily identified and sorted. There’s like a billion different kinds of plastic things.
This thread is like the election. It started off cheesy and ended with wines.
I represent that remark!
Not really anything for this past election but the folks Elections Canada have come out with new seat allocations. We will see what happens but it does up the seats in Alberta & BC (3 and 1 respectively) while Ontario and Quebec remain flat (1, and -1) each. House of Commons Seat Allocation by Province 2022–2032 – Elections Canada
| Province/ Territory | Population estimate | ÷ Electoral quotient | = Initial seat allocation | + Senatorial clause | + Grandfather clause | + Representation rule | = Total seats | Current | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| British Columbia | 5,214,805 | 121,891 | 43 | - | - | - | 43 | 42 | 1 |
| Alberta | 4,442,879 | 37 | - | - | - | 37 | 34 | 3 | |
| Saskatchewan | 1,179,844 | 10 | - | 4 | - | 14 | 14 | 0 | |
| Manitoba | 1,383,765 | 12 | - | 2 | - | 14 | 14 | 0 | |
| Ontario | 14,826,276 | 122 | - | - | - | 122 | 121 | 1 | |
| Quebec | 8,604,495 | 71 | - | 4 | 2 | 77 | 78 | -1 | |
| New Brunswick | 789,225 | 7 | 3 | - | - | 10 | 10 | 0 | |
| Nova Scotia | 992,055 | 9 | 1 | 1 | - | 11 | 11 | 0 | |
| Prince Edward Island | 164,318 | 2 | 2 | - | - | 4 | 4 | 0 | |
| Newfoundland and Labrador | 520,553 | 5 | 1 | 1 | - | 7 | 7 | 0 | |
| Yukon | 42,986 | n/a | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||||
| Northwest Territories | 45,504 | n/a | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||||
| Nunavut | 39,403 | n/a | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||||
| Total | 38,246,108 | 342 | 338 | 4 |
+3 seats in Alberta looks like it might be good for the Conservatives, but they likely will be in Edmonton/Calgary so might end up as NDP or Liberal seats.
Urban Alberta is really starting to look different from Rural Alberta, especially with the latest round of municipal elections and the new mayors of Edmonton and Calgary.
They don’t call it “Redmonton” for nothing
Fewer than 1.1 million Albertans voted, of around 3 million registered voters.
Factoring in turnout, province-wide, 22.6% of Albertans voted “FOR” “removing equalization from the Constitution”
Thought that number would be bigger. Even factoring in turnout (which usually is not done). Equalization is a mess and Albertans are probably right to dislike it. Fixing or changing it, however, is likely a bigger mess and contentious enough few federals have the appetite to do so. Unilaterally changing the constitution is possibly easier in some provinces than others?
Unilaterally changing the constitution is impossible for all provinces. That’s by design; our constitution and Charter were designed to be difficult, but not impossible, to change. At any rate, one province cannot change the constitution–the minumum is two (for changing the provincial boundaries of the provinces involved; Charter, s. 43(a)), but all ten provinces must agree to get rid of the monarchy (Charter, s. 41(a)). Most often, the “7/50” formula would be used, where 7 provinces containing 50% of Canada’s population must agree on a change (Charter, s. 38(1)). Of course, the assent of the federal Parliament is required for all changes.
As an Albertan lawyer who has studied our constitution extensively, I knew this question, as posed, would result in nothing changing, no matter how many Albertans voted in favour. So they did vote in favour, and now Mr. Kenney has a mandate to go to Mr. Trudeau, and say, “Albertans want change to equalization in the constitution. Let’s get started.” To which Mr. Trudeau will reply, “Great. Get six other provinces with at least 42-43% of the population on board, and we’ll get started. Until you do, the federal Parliament won’t even begin to entertain the idea.”
I hope, Dr_Paprika, that you can see that one province cannot unilaterally change the constitution. It will take, in this case, at least six others (one of which, by the force of population numbers, must be Ontario or Quebec) besides Alberta to get rid of equalization.
That isn’t their plan. As I said in the Alberta Referendum thread:
And hey, take a look at this post on Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/comments/qgnf91/not_photoshopped_kenney_is_trying_to_project_an/
Tag line: “Thank you to all Albertans who said “Yes” to a fair deal from Ottawa!”, over a picture of Kenney “talking tough” to Trudeau.
Called it.
Albertans who think Kenney can talk tough to Trudeau on this issue are deluded. I know they are, because I know such people here in Alberta, and I’ve heard them speak, and when I have, it’s usually a good time to go out for a breath of of air, lest I lose my cool and rip my friends a new one using facts (as I have done here), not wishes. So I step away for a few minutes. But they are wrong, wrong, wrong; just as wrong as when Rene Levesque thought Quebec could negotiate a different constitutional deal for Quebec in 1980 (pre-Charter), and then, when Quebec tried again in 1995 (post-Charter). No single province can change the constitution, as Levesque found out, and as Kenney will find out.
They can post all the memes they like on Reddit or elsewhere; they are wrong if they think equalization will be scrapped because a few Albertans said so.
To be clear, the folks on Reddit are laughing at this meme as well.
Apparently it was Kenney and the UCP who put this image out.
And yes, it’s directed at the delusional Albertans, in order to keep them deluded and riled up.
I think Trudeau is smiling because he just refused to pull Kenney’s finger.
It may be worth considering that Alberta and Quebec politicians are adept at playing up the grievances suffering at the hand of an uncaring federal government and that much of this is posturing to get some compromise or goody from the federal government, while convincing a segment of voters that this feigned anger is the same as political conviction.
Meanwhile, Ontario, as it has done since confederation, sits by quietly and makes sure it too gets whatever crumbs Alberta and Quebec have managed to scrounge from the federal table.
An interesting thought would be to adjust the 5:5 dispensation of funds to the lower 3
As it stands we drop a dividing line between have and have nots but like any normal curve you have the tails on either side. So those in the middle (say 4) should be excluded from receiving funds while providing funding to the bottom (say 3) provinces.
That most likely pulls Quebec out and potentially cuts the amount of Canadian federal taxes applied to equalization. Both would seem to be crowd pleasers in Alberta.
Note: I haven’t actually dug into this idea but I sort of like it.
Although always pleased to hear from the learned @Spoons, I was being a bit facetious when suggesting that one province could change the Constitution. However, I did not recall the specific details which are interesting, and I thank you.
What bothers me most about equalization is not the money, but the distorting effect of the formula itself. The formula is based on ‘fiscal capacity’, which includes the ability to raise taxes. So Alberta gets punished for not having a sales tax, or for not having as much social spending. Equalization is therefore a tool for advancing a certain set of assumptions about the role and size of government in society.
I would be more open to having equalization money be distributed on a case-by- case basis wherever it is needed in a given year, rather than being a constant wealth transfer from some provinces to others based on a formula that assumes what the correct levels of taxation and soending should be.
Although the principle of equalization can’t be easily removed from the constitution, the formulas can be changed. They were last revised in 2007, when Jason Kenney was working in the Conservative government in Ottawa.
Funny note: I just looked at Wikipedia on the subject, and the articles are quite different in French vs English.
Jason Kenney says that in 2007, Jason Kenney did a terrible job changing the equalization formula. Jason Kenney is very angry at Jason Kenney.