Right. If those Nova Scotians would just get some gumption, they’d have massive oil fields to float their economy on.
Actually, they are floating their economy on the oil revenues that others, not them, are working to exploit. Lucky for them that it isn’t their back yard that gets torn up to produce it, ain’t it?
If Canada broke down, America would pat her on the shoulder and give her a tissue. 
No, but if they didn’t have their fishing subsidized by allowing them to go on UI during the off-season, we’d have less overfishing and they would have been forced to develop an off-season economy.
Have a look at Maine. Maine doesn’t get the big handouts Nova Scotia does, yet it’s largely a seasonal fishing economy. So how come Maine appears to be doing so much better? Because the residents adapted. They built secondary economies to take advantage of the availability of all those seasonal workers in the off-season.
There was a very interesting episode of W5 a few years back which specifically compared the Canadian maritimes with Maine. Not only was Maine’s economy more healthy, the people seemed happier even though they didn’t get any handouts. The Canadians got heavy subsidies, and yet were angry and bitter with the governmnent for not giving them more. Typical interviews looked like this:
Canada:
Reporter: “Why are you protesting in front of the legislature?”
Fisherman: “We want our UI increased. Have you tried living on a maximum UI benefit? It can’t be done. It’s unfair! We’re hurting out here in the Maritimes, and the government is throwing us peanuts!”
Reporter: “But why should you get UI in the first place? Isn’t it supposed to be for emergencies, when you unexpectedly lose a job? You know that you won’t be working in the winter. So you’re using it as an employment subsidy.”
Fisherman: “Fishing is a way of life here. And there’s nothing to do in the off-season. Take away the UI, and an important part of Canada’s heritage will be lost! Plus, we’re every bit as valuable to Canada as other industries, and yet we’re forced through circumstances not of our own to stand down for part of the year. How is that our fault? The bare fact is that Canada needs fishermen, but fishermen can’t survive and support their families in a seasonal job! So the government gives us enough to survive, but just barely. We’re being punished! It’s like being a second-class citizen. It’s not fair, and we’re not going to stand for it! That’s why we’re marching today.”
Cut to same reporter interviewing a fisherman in Maine:
Reporter: “You seem happy. And you don’t receive subsidies. How do you survive in a seasonal job like fishing?”
Fisherman: Well, in the off-season I set up a business repairing boat tackle. It was hard at first, and we scrimped by for a few years while I invested my fishing income into the business, but it paid off. My buddy Tom is a warehouse foreman in the offseason - because of our excess labor capacity in the winter, Maine does a lot of winter warehousing and there are a lot of maintenance shops like mine that repair seasonal equipment.
Reporter: But why should Tom have to work in a warehouse. He’s a fisherman. Does it seem fair that he has to take a second job like that just to survive?
Fisherman: ??? I don’t understand. He can’t survive on a fishing income. It’s not an option. So this is what he does. He makes a damned good living. There really aren’t any other options. It’s not like the money fairy is going to come along and give us money to drink beer all winter long. Besides that would be boring.
Anyway, that’s how the interviews came off. The Maritimes economies were struggling, high unemployement in the off-season, bitter, depressed people living on pogey.
That’s what a culture of entitlement does for you. That’s how governments distort markets, stifle innovation, and kill the spirit of people. You can see it in subsidized housing projects, on native reservations, and writ large in the Maritimes.
Government subsidies damage the economies in many other ways. Subsidizing the fish means people fish the subsidy. Instead of working harder to catch the best quality fish, and working hard to take good care of the catch, the fishermen just need to meet the subsidy quota to get the guaranteed price. So they mishandle the fish, fish lower quality fish, etc. This weakens the economy and forces government to support them even more. It also leads to over-fishing. Subsidize something, and you get more of it. Subsidize fishermen, and more people will remain fishermen even when the fish populations dwindle.
The same thing happened in New Zealand with the sheep industry. To ‘help’ the farmers, the government subsidized fertilizer and feed, subsidized farmland by the acre, and set fixed rates for sheep by weight. The result? Predictable as rain. Over-fertilization, over-feeding, inefficient use of land (unsuitable land was used for sheep because the subsidy made it worthwhile). The sheep themselves were fat and of poor quality. At one point, the government was buying them and using them for tallow instead of selling them on the meat market. The New Zealand farming industry became non-competitive, requiring even more subsidies to stay afloat. Luckily for them, the government went bankrupt and had to cut almost all farm subsidies. There was a furor, and predictions of the death of the New Zealand farmer, and all that. But in the end, the farms were forced to revamp their procedures and re-learn how to compete on quality. The rivers became cleaner as the over-fertilization stopped. The sheep quality rose, and the price of New Zealand sheep increased. The farming industry became much healthier than it had been.
How do you suppose you will convince the feds to cut off equalization? Do you think the poorer provinces have no to little political power? Ha! We are not as polictically weak as you think, however you can hold off bowing down to your Atlantic kings for now.
If the feds did find a way to stop the payments then all there is left to do is seperate. Without federal money or any political power, we can’t effect Canada and thus we/she don’t need her/us.
Side note: Only a foolish people thinks that Danny Williams speaks for “the poorer provinces”. Danny speaks for Newfoundland… Period.
Lucky? Most provinces would kill the strike it rich like Alberta, reguardless of the digging required. I have little doubt in my mind that Alberta is shedding about one tear-a-day on this issue.
BTW Sam if this is just your way of saying that Nova Scotia should get rid of all the fishers then you’ll find little resistance over here (minus from fishers themselves).
You’re right. The name was officially changed.
Not Labrador?
Not on the flag issue. He pissed off a lot of Labradorians with that stunt.
As an Arizonan, I’ve always considered Texas a southeastern state.
No doubt. The fact remains, however, that there are more votes outside the Atlantic provinces than in. Ultimately, in this country, more votes wins.
Again, I’m not suggesting we do this. But if we keep seeing crap like Danny Williams and hearing not-stop whining that we don’t send enough, sooner or later Sam Stone’s perfectly correct assessment about the economics of the situation is going to become politically popular.
And what would separation bring, aside from bankruptcy and more poverty? A isn’t it kind of pathetic that in terms of your relationship to Canada the FIRST THING you typed was “Federal money”? How about someone think about how the Atlantic provinces develop some self-sufficient economy of their own, hmm?
Again, I must stress that I think equalization is, to a point, a good idea. You can’t just cut off every province that goes through hard times. But it should be structured in such a way that the expectation is that places like Nova Scotia will develop their own economies, not just sit around drinking Moosehead on my dime (and by the way, this applies to Quebec too, the champion welfare queen of them all, although in that case the circumstances are different.) What Danny Williams is trying to do is to set it up so that N&L will get payments even if they don’t need them anymore due to oil money. (He then chased the oil development away through greed and ineptitude.) I appreciate that he doesn’t speak for PEI, NB, and NS, but they’ve got some work to do too.
A few years back when I was in the Forces, my best friend taught a series of GMTs (General Military, e.g. Basic, Training) for reservists. Several classes were shipped up from the Maritimes. Every time he had a course he’d ask them at some point why they’d joined up, and the courses in the Maritimes answered in the overwhelming majority that they just wanted to get a job that would provide enough weeks of work to qualify for UI.
Wins? Wins what? A halt to Equalization payments? Ha! I really don’t see THAT happening. Every province (outside of Ontario) has benifited from federal equalization. Nomatter how much whining is done; the Atlantic provinces (+ the other have-not provinces) are not going to give up what is entiled to them. Yes, that is the only way equalization payments are going to stop. The provinces will have to **wave **their right to them. Good luck.
Let it become popular. Let them cry. Let them whine. It doesn’t matter. Danny Williams will continue to play to the Newfies and the Newfies will continue to elect only those people that defend Newfoundland. That is democracy. That is Canada. If you don’t like it, move to the province and vote for someone who will keep their mouth shut.
Ha! In your self made situation the poorer provinces will be cut off from federal equalization payments and hold no political power in Canada. The clear result is that the provinces will then accept this turn of events and go out alone. I think you fail to realize that, it’s Canada’s **job **to fight bankruptcy and poverty in the poorer provinces. That is the job of those federal equalization payments, so that **Canadians **across **Canada ** will have an **equal **quality of life. When Canada **stops **doing this, those poorer province will see no reason to stay. This is your situation, not mine.
Did you want me to say the Queen?
We are all to busy cashing our welfare check and drinking in the snow to do that.
Your dime is Canada’s dime which is also my dime. We all put into the federal pot, don’t cry now when the feds give it out. No. In fact you can cry, just don’t expect the poorer provinces to care.
Your appreciation is of little concern. It is common sence that each premier looks out of THEIR OWN PROVINCE AND NO ONE ELSE. If the premier makes a bonehead move (economically, politically, etc…) the people will vote them out. Populist premiers (like Danny Williams, King Ralph, all the separist Quebec ones) might tick off people in the other provinces, but why should the premier even care?
Good men, they know the value of cashing welfare checks and drinking in the snow. On a side note when I went to Ontario I saw someone screwing a dog (don’t ask me what I was doing there) is this common for Ontarians?
They have what, 25,000 people? Who would they join to?
As a southeasterner, I consider those shootin’ words! :mad:
Famous last words.
But after all, that’s the point of the thread. We’re discussing the breakup of Canada, and it was suggested the Atlantic provinces could go their own way. They can’t do that, not financially - the result would be a gigantic drop in the standard of living.
You’re not “entited” to other people’s money.
And again, you’re wrong. All it takes for the system to fall apart is Western separation; the country would effectively cease to exist in its current form if provnces separated, and the equalization program couldn’t continue at its current level without Alberta. A new deal would have to be struck, and why on earth would Ontario, by itself, voluntarily agree to be the sugar daddy for its ungrateful Eastern brethren? As long as Confederation continues as it is nothing’s going to change - but it can’t continue indefinitely. No country lasts forever in the same state.
Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Why would it be bad for the rest of Canada to lose the Atlantic provinces? They’d go bankrupt and be relying on the World Bank in a few years, and we’d save the money.
I agree. Cutting equalization payments would be a good start.
Please take that chip off your shoulder and eat it, because that is the most use you’ll get out of it. These aren’t last words, just some honest advice from me. The provinces don’t need to win some sort of absurd popularity contest from the other provinces. They want money. Cash. Enough of it to handle debts, healthcare, education, roads, etc… Your feelings matter very little. You can take all that rightous condamnation you have for the east coast swallow it.
If Canada breaks apart they can’t go their own way? What would happen to them then? Maybe the atlantic provinces will go to the moon? Jeeeez
The have-nots are entited to federal money. I really don’t know why you are arguing this point.
If Canada doesn’t work then it doesn’t work. The provinces will spilt up and everyone will take their marbles and go home. Until Canada explodes like this why should the “have-not” provinces throw away their federal money?
All I hear is crying and more crying. Canada isn’t going to “lose” the Atlantic provinces, not unless Canada desides to effectively break apart.
Try it. Here is Harper’s email pm@pm.gc.ca