• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Federal Election 44 - Sep 2021

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,574
Points
1,160
The problem with transit fare hikes is if it becomes more of a hassle then people won’t take it. In Ottawa it costs about 110$ for pass. Then a gold pass for the park and ride is what? 60$? So I would pay 170$ a month when I could just pay 200$ for parking and save me the hassle. I gave up on public transit after the last strike we had.
…and in the particular case in Ottawa, the transit would be much more friendly if the wheels didn’t keep coming off the (SNC Lavelin-supplied) train…literally.
 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
113
Points
430
Those things being less in economic value than what the city produces. Not to mention that rural areas then to produce more of whatever they produce than the city needs, which means its usually destined for international markets, or interprovincial markets, which is of less immediate importance to the city in question.

Moving back to Quebec, as they have less urban areas in comparison to Ontario and thus makes for a less messy picture, the two metro areas, Montréal and Quebec City, combined population 2.33 million do not require all of the 6.2 million rural Quebec to function.
They might if all goods were sourced in house. The global market distorts the picture. GDP is an incomplete picture as the value is not always comparable and where the source of the value originated. Head office may "generate" a lot of GDP or may just be transporting it from elsewhere. The worlds primary industries (farming,fishing,logging and hard rock mining) tend to operate on a public loss function and are heavily subsidized yet pretty hard to live without them. An imperfect system and valuation
 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
113
Points
430
Instead of subsidizing childcare so that more people can enter or participate in the workforce. We should just put these kids to work directly that way their parents are freed up to participate but we will get the benefit of the greater labour participation of the children and their economic participation and contribution as well. Not only will we save on daycare costs we will be able to cut our education costs substantially as well:devilish:
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
4,316
Points
1,060
Instead of subsidizing childcare so that more people can enter or participate in the workforce. We should just put these kids to work directly that way their parents are freed up to participate but we will get the benefit of the greater labour participation of the children and their economic participation and contribution as well. Not only will we save on daycare costs we will be able to cut our education costs substantially as well:devilish:

Sadly, they're removing that as an option

 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
562
Points
910
They might if all goods were sourced in house. The global market distorts the picture. GDP is an incomplete picture as the value is not always comparable and where the source of the value originated. Head office may "generate" a lot of GDP or may just be transporting it from elsewhere. The worlds primary industries (farming,fishing,logging and hard rock mining) tend to operate on a public loss function and are heavily subsidized yet pretty hard to live without them. An imperfect system and valuation
It is an imperfect system, and definitely a lot of the big cities GDP can be attributed to the human and resource capital of the surrounding regions.

That said, it cannot be ignored that even accounting for this fact, cities do punch well above their weight when it comes to economic output, both in terms of area and human production. A lot of services provided to outlying regions could not be financed without money coming from these urban centers.

So back to what @KevinB was saying, that cities are unsustainable is just incorrect. Its simply that municipalities, in charge of servicing these big cities do not have the means to do so as currently constructed. They don't have access to revenue gathering mechanisms that allow them to take advantage of their economic output, and they often have to service those who do not live in the city in question.

Which brings me back to my original point. If the feds were to provide a steady source of funding to the cities, using a portion of the carbon tax for example, in return for loosening zoning restrictions at the municipal level, that is one step closer to solving the problem
Instead of subsidizing childcare so that more people can enter or participate in the workforce. We should just put these kids to work directly that way their parents are freed up to participate but we will get the benefit of the greater labour participation of the children and their economic participation and contribution as well. Not only will we save on daycare costs we will be able to cut our education costs substantially as well:devilish:
Babies and toddlers are not terribly productive.

Unless there is something that can be produced with dirty diapers, in which case they are incredibly productive.
 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
113
Points
430
It is an imperfect system, and definitely a lot of the big cities GDP can be attributed to the human and resource capital of the surrounding regions.

That said, it cannot be ignored that even accounting for this fact, cities do punch well above their weight when it comes to economic output, both in terms of area and human production. A lot of services provided to outlying regions could not be financed without money coming from these urban centers.

So back to what @KevinB was saying, that cities are unsustainable is just incorrect. Its simply that municipalities, in charge of servicing these big cities do not have the means to do so as currently constructed. They don't have access to revenue gathering mechanisms that allow them to take advantage of their economic output, and they often have to service those who do not live in the city in question.

Babies and toddlers are not terribly productive.

Unless there is something that can be produced with dirty diapers, in which case they are incredibly productive.
Cities have the ability to tax their land within the provincial mandate and switching to a land value taxation would in my opinion alleviate a lot of these issues. The strain a lot of municipalities are under is due to the cost of servicing these low density areas with low tax revenue. It would help if they exercised some control over the number of vanity projects and underemployed people driving around all day
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
956
Points
910
I doubt cities lack revenue-raising capability. What many lack is fiscal discipline. A little mission creep here and there might be harmless; a few decades' worth adds up and suddenly the politicians of today can't manage what their predecessors did. Those who insist on expensive solutions to problems with less expensive alternatives (eg. rail transit, especially overhead and underground) create imbalances and then whine about the revenue side of the equation.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
972
Points
860
I doubt cities lack revenue-raising capability. What many lack is fiscal discipline. A little mission creep here and there might be harmless; a few decades' worth adds up and suddenly the politicians of today can't manage what their predecessors did. Those who insist on expensive solutions to problems with less expensive alternatives (eg. rail transit, especially overhead and underground) create imbalances and then whine about the revenue side of the equation.
The biggest creep in budgets in most big cities has been Law enforcement. Not sure what the solution is but I suspect it will come to a head at one point.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,014
Points
910
It is an imperfect system, and definitely a lot of the big cities GDP can be attributed to the human and resource capital of the surrounding regions.

That said, it cannot be ignored that even accounting for this fact, cities do punch well above their weight when it comes to economic output, both in terms of area and human production. A lot of services provided to outlying regions could not be financed without money coming from these urban centers.

So back to what @KevinB was saying, that cities are unsustainable is just incorrect. Its simply that municipalities, in charge of servicing these big cities do not have the means to do so as currently constructed. They don't have access to revenue gathering mechanisms that allow them to take advantage of their economic output, and they often have to service those who do not live in the city in question.
It is or it isn't.
You're stating that these Cities bring in massive #'s which isn't (as you admit 100% true due to your using the Corporate Earnings of a HQ in those numbers - the same way Calgary will spike during Oil price increases), but I agree with you in principle as generally urban areas have higher salaries than rural, and it is magnified due to population density.

My point is simply that IF those Cities are non self-supportable - let them rot.

They are self-supportable - it is simply that it is more palatable for Municipalities to pass the buck and rely on Federal Subsidies.
Which spreads the burden over everyone - which is very socialist - probably why dense urban folks gravitate to a socialist agenda over more rural folks.



Which brings me back to my original point. If the feds were to provide a steady source of funding to the cities, using a portion of the carbon tax for example, in return for loosening zoning restrictions at the municipal level, that is one step closer to solving the problem
Which brings me back to my point - why in all that is Holy is it a Federal responsibility?
The Federal Gov isn't mandating that people live in cities - so why should Federal transfer payments go towards municipalities?

I would suggest a better method would be for Cities/Municipalities strive towards a more balanced budget - and raise property taxes to support the needs of the local area.

This in turn would lower the Federal Tax Burden over all Canadians.

The more people you can cut out of a Government Loop - the better off every one is - as reduces overall costs, and makes the local elected officials directly accountable to their voters.

Babies and toddlers are not terribly productive.

Unless there is something that can be produced with dirty diapers, in which case they are incredibly productive.
Looking at most of the Politicians in Canada - I suspect the Babies and Toddlers win in productivity even without a City Diaper Energy Solution -- at least there is Future potential in the children.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,237
Points
890
Only one wheel fell off, most recent was a train derailment on entering a station that no one noticed so it set off again.

Plus defective construction.

And odd smells in some stations.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,014
Points
910
The biggest creep in budgets in most big cities has been Law enforcement. Not sure what the solution is but I suspect it will come to a head at one point.
Higher Population Density combined with a vast disparity of wealth is a recipe for crime - look at any Big City and the crime rate is significantly larger than rural areas (where people have their own guns :cool:).
That bears out across the world (other than areas where the Populace doesn't have guns, then they are just slave labor...)
 

Fabius

Member
Reaction score
12
Points
230
The LPC is winning in rural maritime and some rural Quebec ridings, so they are not being shut out.
But they have been and still are largely shut out of the Prairie Provinces.
Gun control policies are popular. If the people didn't want them, the politicians would push them, and the CPC wouldn't back down on the matter
They are not popular in rural areas, nor are they popular in the west. The LPC stance on this is a key factor for a large region not voting for them I think.
I also do not believe that "popular" should be the main or even significant factor in policy making. That's a recipe for disaster.
They made their electoral strategy pretty clear. They will give Quebec a lot to try to squeeze out the extra 12-15 seats they need for 170. But they don't really need to get much more rural ridings than they already do.
Not surprised by this answer but again its an answer that is driven by power and ego and implicit is an acceptance that the rural population and western prairie provinces don't matter because we can gain power without them. Is that really the approach that a truly inclusive NATIONAL party would take, one with a statesman at its helm or is it one that a party solely driven by ego and desire for power would take? Note I am not aiming that sentence at any one party but its a philosophical question.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
4,316
Points
1,060
But they have been and still are largely shut out of the Prairie Provinces.

They are not popular in rural areas, nor are they popular in the west. The LPC stance on this is a key factor for a large region not voting for them I think.
I also do not believe that "popular" should be the main or even significant factor in policy making. That's a recipe for disaster.

Not surprised by this answer but again its an answer that is driven by power and ego and implicit is an acceptance that the rural population and western prairie provinces don't matter because we can gain power without them. Is that really the approach that a truly inclusive NATIONAL party would take, one with a statesman at its helm or is it one that a party solely driven by ego and desire for power would take? Note I am not aiming that sentence at any one party but its a philosophical question.

An interesting article on the subject, from 2019:

Untangling Canada’s East-West Political Divide​


"Between 2015 and 2019, the Trudeau government tried to strike a balance between stimulating the Prairies’ economy and enforcing better environmental regulation. Ultimately, this has failed to create support for Liberals West of Manitoba – and with reason, some might argue. Economic data shows that Alberta’s economy has faced numerous downturns since 2015, when it entered into a severe recession. As of 2019, the province faces mild recession, with an economic growth rate of -0.8%. Saskatchewan faces a similar economic reality. Individuals losing income and jobs now view continuous economic hardship as going hand in hand with a Liberal government, pushing them further into the conservative base.

An interesting observation can be made about the geography of this divide. Generally speaking, support for progressive parties stems largely from urban, densely populated areas. According to data collected during this past campaign, the opposite is also true: less populated and rural ridings mostly lean blue. Due to their large territory and relatively small population, the Prairies’ ridings tend to be less densely populated, which is coherent with their strong preference towards the Conservative Party. This rule extends well beyond the Prairies, with similar observations ringing true in most provinces across the country. Seen this way, the East-West political divide appears to stem from a more widespread urban-rural divide."

 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,014
Points
910
An interesting article on the subject, from 2019:
The US has a somewhat similar divide -- makes one wonder if a cross border merger would do better.
Of course then you would also need to adopt our habit of picking the worst possible candidate from a political party and having them be the chosen leader -- not a big stretch though in the last bit for Canada though either...
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
562
Points
910
But they have been and still are largely shut out of the Prairie Provinces.
Hey, they have 2 Alberta MPs now.
They are not popular in rural areas, nor are they popular in the west. The LPC stance on this is a key factor for a large region not voting for them I think.
And the CPC isn't winning in the 3 largest cities, and they are starting to lose the in the urban areas of Alberta. They too have a problem.

Never mind Quebec, when minus the enclave around Quebec city they largely shut out as well.
I also do not believe that "popular" should be the main or even significant factor in policy making. That's a recipe for disaster.
What are elections really?
Not surprised by this answer but again its an answer that is driven by power and ego and implicit is an acceptance that the rural population and western prairie provinces don't matter because we can gain power without them. Is that really the approach that a truly inclusive NATIONAL party would take, one with a statesman at its helm or is it one that a party solely driven by ego and desire for power would take? Note I am not aiming that sentence at any one party but its a philosophical question.
I'm going to reminiscent a little bit.

The year was 2016. The LPC had a few seats in Alberta. Not many, but a few.

The environmental wing of the LPC was pushing for less pipelines. The environmental wing was much larger than the Alberta wing of the LPC. Trudeau nixed a few, but was more or less supportive of 1, transmountain. The LPC threw Alberta a bone, they could easily have watched that project die. But they bought it and assured it would would be completed.

What did Alberta do? Shut the LPC out.

So are you surprised that the LPC decided to look elsewhere for votes? Nomatter what they do Alberta will not be appreciative of it, and it costs them dearly with progressive voters. How many times did jagmeet singh attack Trudeau over buying a pipeline?

Voters, sometimes, get the governments they deserve.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
562
Points
910
Which brings me back to my point - why in all that is Holy is it a Federal responsibility?
Because, we the people, have made it so.

Enough Canadians locked out of the housing market stood up and made enough noise that the Federal parties looked down from their elevated station above us and took notice.

And all federal parties had a plan on how to deal with it.


Every now and again, the little guy gets a voice in Politics.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,014
Points
910
Because, we the people, have made it so.

Enough Canadians locked out of the housing market stood up and made enough noise that the Federal parties looked down from their elevated station above us and took notice.

And all federal parties had a plan on how to deal with it.


Every now and again, the little guy gets a voice in Politics.
That's a terrible example to set. no one thought to just maybe tell folks to suck it up?
1) Move out of a city
2) Buy a smaller home
3) Rent longer than you wanted?

The little guy isn't getting a voice - they are getting chocked out by more taxes - and they are being fooled into thinking it is salvation.

But you get the .gov you deserve -- I mean hey look at us down here, the Democracies of the Americas are living proof of Devolution in action..
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
377
Points
1,130
- look at any Big City and the crime rate is significantly larger than rural areas (where people have their own guns :cool:).
That bears out across the world (other than areas where the Populace doesn't have guns, then they are just slave labor...)
I've owned hunting rifles and shotguns all my life. Maybe that makes me safer. But, thats not why I own them.

If concerned about safest places in Canada, and the world,


The top 5 cities were Copenhagen, Toronto, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo, in that order.

Moronto makes itself a target - it thinks it is New York - or at least a significant portion of its population does.
No. NYC, LA, and Mexico City are are biggest in North America. Toronto comes in fourth. That does not include the GTA.

Part of the issue is that most of our municipalities are not organised along “party lines”
Thank God for that. There's no Liberal or Conservative way to fix a sewer.

I retired "a gazillion years ago", so am no longer as familiar with the upwards of 240 official and unofficial neighbourhoods within Toronto city limits as it seems some others are.

I tend to mostly stick to my own now.

Neighbourhood conversation is more likely to be about if they should, or should not, install sidewalks. Or, "Why don't the garbagemen pick up from their doorstep anymore, rather than us having to wheel it to the curb ourselves?" Fix the potholes, or leave them as they are. That sort of thing. Not party politics.

Lot of talk on here about funding. I'll leave that for those better informed on the subject than I am.

One thing I do recall was that funding for the department I worked for was a result of a mixed formula, with fifty percent of funding coming from the municipal tax base and fifty percent from the provincial government. Provincial funding was based on the census population, not the business day population. As a result, there were always more people requiring 9-1-1 service than the system was funded for.

But you get the .gov you deserve

Governor Long said, "One day the people of Louisiana are going to get good government. And they are not gonna like it!" :)
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
972
Points
860
Higher Population Density combined with a vast disparity of wealth is a recipe for crime - look at any Big City and the crime rate is significantly larger than rural areas (where people have their own guns :cool:).
That bears out across the world (other than areas where the Populace doesn't have guns, then they are just slave labor...)
Not sure about that. I think we have far more rural or small towns where the crime rate is significantly higher than most big cities.
 
Top