Nunavut, the Yukon and the Northwest Provinces?
November 23, 2004 10:09 AM Subscribe
Photographs of Nunavut, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories: the three northern territories of Canada which are possibly one step closer to becoming the 11th, 12th and 13th provinces and further establishing "Canadian sovereignty" of the Arctic. (Perhaps as a rebuke to the Denmark's plans to claim the North Pole?) [more au verso]
This is so bad in so many ways. I wish I could say more. I am furious at the PM right now.
posted by loquax at 10:20 AM on November 23, 2004
posted by loquax at 10:20 AM on November 23, 2004
I kind of like being from a Territory and I'm just moving back. I hope they don't change it, just because I prefer the name. Also, I'm 100% certain that with the change to a province, PST won't be far behind. :)
Thanks for the post, myopicman. I'm homesick now. I'll be sure to check it out in detail when I'm not at work.
posted by ODiV at 10:38 AM on November 23, 2004
Thanks for the post, myopicman. I'm homesick now. I'll be sure to check it out in detail when I'm not at work.
posted by ODiV at 10:38 AM on November 23, 2004
loquax: for the benefit of your neighbors to the south who really don't know one-tenth as much about your internal politics as we should, could you explain why?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:41 AM on November 23, 2004
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:41 AM on November 23, 2004
(Yes, excellent post.)
I really don't see a problem in making those regions "provinces". Being a province could give those north-north-northerners a bit of extra pride and control. We need the country working together up there.
As much as I dislike Paul Martin, I really think Canada needs to get moving on this Arctic stuff. All these other ridiculous countries are trying to frolic in our jurisdiction without permission.
I really couldn't care less about this North Pole shit, though. Wow, does Denmark want to say Santa Claus lives in their country? Whatever. I guess it's important for resources.
But everyone knows Santa lives in Canada. This means fucking war, you fuckers.
posted by Kleptophoria! at 10:45 AM on November 23, 2004
I really don't see a problem in making those regions "provinces". Being a province could give those north-north-northerners a bit of extra pride and control. We need the country working together up there.
As much as I dislike Paul Martin, I really think Canada needs to get moving on this Arctic stuff. All these other ridiculous countries are trying to frolic in our jurisdiction without permission.
I really couldn't care less about this North Pole shit, though. Wow, does Denmark want to say Santa Claus lives in their country? Whatever. I guess it's important for resources.
But everyone knows Santa lives in Canada. This means fucking war, you fuckers.
posted by Kleptophoria! at 10:45 AM on November 23, 2004
For those who are confused about some things, Canada's got very loose control over its rather sizable Arctic lands. The historical/legendary "Northwest Passage" is basically right through Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. So right through Canada. As global warming continues and the ice melts, more and more countries are going to be trying to mess around in there. They already are.
This "territory-to-province" stuff is seemingly part of a plan to make it easier to keep a hold on things up north. (Keep in mind that virtually all of Canada's population lives near the border with the United States... there are maybe only 30,000 people in Nunavut.) Generally a province has more control over its own business (sort of like a "state" in the United States, although not as extreme) while a territory has less control.
Recently Canada was doing military exercises in the northern territories and so on. It's all about asserting soverignty.
I'm a bit shady on all of this, but that's my non-expert take on things.
posted by Kleptophoria! at 10:52 AM on November 23, 2004
This "territory-to-province" stuff is seemingly part of a plan to make it easier to keep a hold on things up north. (Keep in mind that virtually all of Canada's population lives near the border with the United States... there are maybe only 30,000 people in Nunavut.) Generally a province has more control over its own business (sort of like a "state" in the United States, although not as extreme) while a territory has less control.
Recently Canada was doing military exercises in the northern territories and so on. It's all about asserting soverignty.
I'm a bit shady on all of this, but that's my non-expert take on things.
posted by Kleptophoria! at 10:52 AM on November 23, 2004
loquax, for your countrymen who obviously don't know 1/10th as much as they should, why is this such a bad thing?
posted by sauril at 11:01 AM on November 23, 2004
posted by sauril at 11:01 AM on November 23, 2004
Yes, sorry, my first comment was rather unhelpful.
Canadian provinces have far *more* power and sovereignty than, say American states, and most other sub-state entities. To give Yukon, the NWT and Nunavut full provincial powers would be to make them equal partners to Quebec, Ontario, BC and the rest of the provinces when it comes to constitutional and federal issues (again very different from the American system, and would take far too long to go into properly). Already I think is is a shame that PEI is a province with full control over the delivery of healthcare, taxation, education and welfare, but the city of Toronto, say has no control over those same services. Adding three other tiny (in terms of population) provinces will only serve to highlight the disparity between regions and cities, while ultimately just ensuring that more and more people in the North become civil servants as government agencies expand. It is possible to devolve relevant powers without creating provinces (as has been done in NWT, or even in the splitting of NWT into two territories).
Sovereignty over the North is not an issue here, as it is already Canadian land. What is the difference to Norway or Russia or whomever if the land is designated by the government as Provincial or Territorial?
If Canada is really concerned with Norway invading and annexing land, we don't need provinces - we need to invest in our decrepit and neglected military and stop assuming that the US will take care of all of our needs.
The other big issue is a constitutional one. The federal government cannot just up and create provinces. The other provinces must (theoretically, although there are differences of opinion) approve of any creation of provincial entities, as they will now have to share the transfer payments with more (presumably) have-not provinces. If the government is serious about this and isn't just posturing (which is my guess, and why I'm upset with Martin), it will reinvigorate Quebec and even moreso Alberta secession movements, as well as a renewed and serious call to create a new Province of Toronto.
In short, this isn't a bone being thrown to the Northeners, or a nice gesture to the Inuit. This is a major change to the fundamental structure of Canadian Confederation, and a major change to all of the people living in the territories. I also believe it is a slap in the face of regions that are more deserving of "devolved government powers" that are instead abused by this same federal government. To casually throw this out while in Chile in a response to a reporter smacks of arrogance and stupidity to me, and a real lack of understanding of what's really going in Canada.
None of this should be interpreted in any way as being critical of the territories and their people. I think this would harm them more than it would ever help
posted by loquax at 11:06 AM on November 23, 2004
Canadian provinces have far *more* power and sovereignty than, say American states, and most other sub-state entities. To give Yukon, the NWT and Nunavut full provincial powers would be to make them equal partners to Quebec, Ontario, BC and the rest of the provinces when it comes to constitutional and federal issues (again very different from the American system, and would take far too long to go into properly). Already I think is is a shame that PEI is a province with full control over the delivery of healthcare, taxation, education and welfare, but the city of Toronto, say has no control over those same services. Adding three other tiny (in terms of population) provinces will only serve to highlight the disparity between regions and cities, while ultimately just ensuring that more and more people in the North become civil servants as government agencies expand. It is possible to devolve relevant powers without creating provinces (as has been done in NWT, or even in the splitting of NWT into two territories).
Sovereignty over the North is not an issue here, as it is already Canadian land. What is the difference to Norway or Russia or whomever if the land is designated by the government as Provincial or Territorial?
If Canada is really concerned with Norway invading and annexing land, we don't need provinces - we need to invest in our decrepit and neglected military and stop assuming that the US will take care of all of our needs.
The other big issue is a constitutional one. The federal government cannot just up and create provinces. The other provinces must (theoretically, although there are differences of opinion) approve of any creation of provincial entities, as they will now have to share the transfer payments with more (presumably) have-not provinces. If the government is serious about this and isn't just posturing (which is my guess, and why I'm upset with Martin), it will reinvigorate Quebec and even moreso Alberta secession movements, as well as a renewed and serious call to create a new Province of Toronto.
In short, this isn't a bone being thrown to the Northeners, or a nice gesture to the Inuit. This is a major change to the fundamental structure of Canadian Confederation, and a major change to all of the people living in the territories. I also believe it is a slap in the face of regions that are more deserving of "devolved government powers" that are instead abused by this same federal government. To casually throw this out while in Chile in a response to a reporter smacks of arrogance and stupidity to me, and a real lack of understanding of what's really going in Canada.
None of this should be interpreted in any way as being critical of the territories and their people. I think this would harm them more than it would ever help
posted by loquax at 11:06 AM on November 23, 2004
Great post. I'd like to read more on this topic. Recommendations?
posted by Succa at 11:07 AM on November 23, 2004
posted by Succa at 11:07 AM on November 23, 2004
sort of like a "state" in the United States, although not as extreme
Other way around actually. A Canadian premier is far more powerful that an American governor. And a Province is far, far more powerful than a territory, which is essentially an arm of the federal government. Constitutionally (from 1867, and reinforced in 1981), the provinces in Canada have exclusive domain over health, welfare and education provision, by far the services most required by citizens these days (which was an oversight for the most part by the founding fathers, but an understandable one). When a Canadian pays taxes to the federal government, most of the money will end up being redistributed among the provinces and spent by the provinces. The federal government these days is more of an accountant that anything else, ensuring that everyone has an "equal"slice of the pie. Just think about your day to day lives. How often do you come across a federal agency compared to a provincial one?
posted by loquax at 11:21 AM on November 23, 2004
Other way around actually. A Canadian premier is far more powerful that an American governor. And a Province is far, far more powerful than a territory, which is essentially an arm of the federal government. Constitutionally (from 1867, and reinforced in 1981), the provinces in Canada have exclusive domain over health, welfare and education provision, by far the services most required by citizens these days (which was an oversight for the most part by the founding fathers, but an understandable one). When a Canadian pays taxes to the federal government, most of the money will end up being redistributed among the provinces and spent by the provinces. The federal government these days is more of an accountant that anything else, ensuring that everyone has an "equal"slice of the pie. Just think about your day to day lives. How often do you come across a federal agency compared to a provincial one?
posted by loquax at 11:21 AM on November 23, 2004
loquax: I'm mostly in agreement, simply because it seems like it would create more government and expense for no reason. We certainly have enough of both in the NWT.
What I don't get though is how you don't think they (and PEI) should be able to allocate their own healthcare and education simply because Toronto is not allowed. Is this some sort of "If I can't have it, no one else should?" feeling?
I think that arguing for provincial rights based on population is a strange thing for a Canadian to be doing. If Toronto were given this power it would take a lot more effort and expense than it does for PEI, so it's not exactly fair to compare them on that level.
posted by ODiV at 11:26 AM on November 23, 2004
What I don't get though is how you don't think they (and PEI) should be able to allocate their own healthcare and education simply because Toronto is not allowed. Is this some sort of "If I can't have it, no one else should?" feeling?
I think that arguing for provincial rights based on population is a strange thing for a Canadian to be doing. If Toronto were given this power it would take a lot more effort and expense than it does for PEI, so it's not exactly fair to compare them on that level.
posted by ODiV at 11:26 AM on November 23, 2004
I agree that, yes, as Layton mentioned about 300 times during the last election, the cities are woefully in need of better federal and provincial representation. A lot of Canadians feel that they already get their fair-share (and more) but don't realize that one-fifth of Canada's population lives in the GTA area alone. This should afford greater bargaining power in a vast majority of the decision making policies (be it federally, or provincially).
However, I'm not 100% against the devolution of the Territories and don't foresee it being quite the problem that loquax envisions.
Yes, Quebec and Alberta will most likely bring up secessionist talk, but that would have happened anyway. Yes, the Territories will be subject to GST, but given the native status that a majority of the population in those areas already have, most will be exempt.
I believe the strongest argument in favour is their ability to affect the Constitution. These are people that have been left with little, or no, representation in Canadian parliament (and yeah, this is arguable) and this hands it back (in a small way).
Martin's off-hand remark was ill-advised, but just that. He was expressing a personal opinion (at least, based on the article that I read) and in no way said that this had even been proposed to the provinces.
I'm withholding my final feelings/opinions about this matter until I see more conclusive proof that this may actually happen.
posted by purephase at 11:28 AM on November 23, 2004
However, I'm not 100% against the devolution of the Territories and don't foresee it being quite the problem that loquax envisions.
Yes, Quebec and Alberta will most likely bring up secessionist talk, but that would have happened anyway. Yes, the Territories will be subject to GST, but given the native status that a majority of the population in those areas already have, most will be exempt.
I believe the strongest argument in favour is their ability to affect the Constitution. These are people that have been left with little, or no, representation in Canadian parliament (and yeah, this is arguable) and this hands it back (in a small way).
Martin's off-hand remark was ill-advised, but just that. He was expressing a personal opinion (at least, based on the article that I read) and in no way said that this had even been proposed to the provinces.
I'm withholding my final feelings/opinions about this matter until I see more conclusive proof that this may actually happen.
posted by purephase at 11:28 AM on November 23, 2004
This thread basically proves why I study international history at school, and not the history of my own country. I was never good with details.
Random link: Northwest Passage, the Inuit (native group), and Arctic Sovereignty
posted by Kleptophoria! at 11:32 AM on November 23, 2004
Random link: Northwest Passage, the Inuit (native group), and Arctic Sovereignty
posted by Kleptophoria! at 11:32 AM on November 23, 2004
Thanks myopicman - interesting post. Here's a great photo from the NWT photo site.
posted by louigi at 11:49 AM on November 23, 2004
posted by louigi at 11:49 AM on November 23, 2004
What a great post.
Representation is good. Martin is an idiot. It's neat to watch my country evolve.
posted by digifox at 11:50 AM on November 23, 2004
Representation is good. Martin is an idiot. It's neat to watch my country evolve.
posted by digifox at 11:50 AM on November 23, 2004
Ooookay. I just had a look at the photos you linked. (I'm on dial up. {sigh})
How incredibly beautiful the north is. It's all I can do to stop myself from up and moving to a territory right this moment.
posted by digifox at 12:01 PM on November 23, 2004
How incredibly beautiful the north is. It's all I can do to stop myself from up and moving to a territory right this moment.
posted by digifox at 12:01 PM on November 23, 2004
Glad to hear there are some north of 60° people here along with those curious about this.
I'll see if I can dig up some more links regarding territorial history once I have a bit more time, but there are some additional news stories popping up in Canada now covering possible angles, including the incident on Hans Island earlier this year.
But a lot of this is speculation. The territories should definitely get more representation, as should the major urban parts of Canada. But I'm not sure how securing the north can be done or how the current government will promote this.
I hope I get a chance to travel up there one day, though. I know the northern parts of Finland (Lapland around 67°N) look utterly mystical. And after that old link on Metafilter with the guy who rode his scooter or motorbike from Toronto to the Alaska Highway, I was further compelled.
posted by myopicman at 12:06 PM on November 23, 2004
I'll see if I can dig up some more links regarding territorial history once I have a bit more time, but there are some additional news stories popping up in Canada now covering possible angles, including the incident on Hans Island earlier this year.
But a lot of this is speculation. The territories should definitely get more representation, as should the major urban parts of Canada. But I'm not sure how securing the north can be done or how the current government will promote this.
I hope I get a chance to travel up there one day, though. I know the northern parts of Finland (Lapland around 67°N) look utterly mystical. And after that old link on Metafilter with the guy who rode his scooter or motorbike from Toronto to the Alaska Highway, I was further compelled.
posted by myopicman at 12:06 PM on November 23, 2004
Great post, myopicman, thanks. I loved Milich's photos - I have a small collection of stone carvings, and I was struck by how many of these photos are similar to carvings I've seen. Here's a map of the regions under discussion with pointers to some of the major art regions.
Beautiful photos. Some of the photographer's other series are cool, too.
The territory vs province issue is very interesting - thanks for posting it, and thanks to those who are shedding light on the issue.
posted by madamjujujive at 12:14 PM on November 23, 2004
Beautiful photos. Some of the photographer's other series are cool, too.
The territory vs province issue is very interesting - thanks for posting it, and thanks to those who are shedding light on the issue.
posted by madamjujujive at 12:14 PM on November 23, 2004
Does anyone else think it’s strange that Nunavit was created on April Fool’s Day? (April 1, 1999) “Here’s your land back, my Inuit brothers and sisters. Now we can all work together as equal partners... Ha! Just Kidding!”
Side note: my spellchecker just suggested “Nonnative” instead of “Nunavit.”
The 'ironing' is delicious.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 12:17 PM on November 23, 2004
Side note: my spellchecker just suggested “Nonnative” instead of “Nunavit.”
The 'ironing' is delicious.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 12:17 PM on November 23, 2004
D'oh! My Own Damn Fault: Nunavut, not Nunavit.
You win again, Spell Check!
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 12:18 PM on November 23, 2004
You win again, Spell Check!
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 12:18 PM on November 23, 2004
But everyone knows Santa lives in Canada. This means fucking war, you fuckers.
Of course he does! His postal code is HOH OHO after all. You don't get assigned a wicked postal code like that if you aren't Canadian.
Love the photographs. Have dreamed of going up North since I was a child, and even of living there. My husband just thinks I'm nuts. At midnight the day Nunavut became a territory, I danced and held a party. I'm reserving judgment on the provinces issue though because I just haven't thought it through enough yet.
posted by livii at 12:34 PM on November 23, 2004
Of course he does! His postal code is HOH OHO after all. You don't get assigned a wicked postal code like that if you aren't Canadian.
Love the photographs. Have dreamed of going up North since I was a child, and even of living there. My husband just thinks I'm nuts. At midnight the day Nunavut became a territory, I danced and held a party. I'm reserving judgment on the provinces issue though because I just haven't thought it through enough yet.
posted by livii at 12:34 PM on November 23, 2004
madamjujujive: I tried looking for other photos with Milich's touch, but had no luck. I found two galleries from Andrew Hoshkiw that had a personalized touch to the north, but not much writeup. That stone carving map is quite the find, though. Thanks!
Fuzzy: it gets better. As part of the selection process to naming the new territory (Nunavut meaning "our land"), 2nd place went to a crafty campaign for the name Bob. Seriously, Bob. The Northwest Territories might become Alluvit.
But I'm not getting into any Santa Claus fights, no. Santa Claus lives in Finland, where the reindeer run wild. And that's that.
posted by myopicman at 12:41 PM on November 23, 2004
Fuzzy: it gets better. As part of the selection process to naming the new territory (Nunavut meaning "our land"), 2nd place went to a crafty campaign for the name Bob. Seriously, Bob. The Northwest Territories might become Alluvit.
But I'm not getting into any Santa Claus fights, no. Santa Claus lives in Finland, where the reindeer run wild. And that's that.
posted by myopicman at 12:41 PM on November 23, 2004
With the greater power would also come greater responsibility. The territories would have to FUND these programs as well as make the legislation governing them. There would certainly be transfer payments to offset much of the costs, but no province can budget on transfer payments alone. Currently, though, the federal government spends money directly on administration in the North, so handing responsibility over to these new provinces would free-up some money to add to the transfer payment formula, wouldn't it?
posted by raedyn at 12:43 PM on November 23, 2004
posted by raedyn at 12:43 PM on November 23, 2004
I wrote Santa (at H0H 0H0) all the time as a youngster. He never brought me a Nintendo. Ever. :( :( :( :( :(
On second thought, the Danes can have him.
posted by Kleptophoria! at 12:50 PM on November 23, 2004
On second thought, the Danes can have him.
posted by Kleptophoria! at 12:50 PM on November 23, 2004
livii: heh, heh. I love that postal code.
Whenever I buy something at a store and they ask for my postal code (invariably to collect some evil marketing data about how far I travel to shop), I give them H0H 0H0. Some of them are smarter now though. So I use the postal code for Iqaluit, Nunavut: X0A 0H0.
posted by chuma at 12:52 PM on November 23, 2004
Whenever I buy something at a store and they ask for my postal code (invariably to collect some evil marketing data about how far I travel to shop), I give them H0H 0H0. Some of them are smarter now though. So I use the postal code for Iqaluit, Nunavut: X0A 0H0.
posted by chuma at 12:52 PM on November 23, 2004
Myopicman: Bob was actually the runner up for the Northwest Territories. The majority voted to keep the old name. I think the best joke about this (and there are many) was that if we switched to Bob then our two letter abbreviation would be "BO".
posted by ODiV at 12:52 PM on November 23, 2004
posted by ODiV at 12:52 PM on November 23, 2004
There would certainly be transfer payments to offset much of the costs, but no province can budget on transfer payments alone.
That depends. Ontario's provincial revenue is 18% comprised of federal transfer dollars. Newfoundland's is 42% (roughly). The territories would be much higher. No detriment to them, that's just the fact of the matter, for the time being. Giving them what essentially amounts to independence without the self-sufficiency to fund the programs they will be responsible would be tragic, in my opinion.
I believe the strongest argument in favor is their ability to affect the Constitution. These are people that have been left with little, or no, representation in Canadian parliament (and yeah, this is arguable) and this hands it back (in a small way).
Actually, these are two very different things. And so much depends on the Canadian amending formula. Basically, 7 out of 10 provinces currently have to agree before the constitution is changed (with exceptions). Will it be 7/13 if they become provinces? Or 10/13? What will happen to the 50% (of the population) rule? Will the Province of the Yukon (population 30,000 with 1 city and 7 towns) have an *equal* say in Canada's future as the Province of Quebec, or British Columbia? To me, this marginalizes the voice of the larger provinces more than it empowers the smaller ones.
In terms of parliament, however, it does nothing. Provinces, despite being as powerful and important as they are, have no say whatsoever in federal politics and federal lawmaking. In the US, senators somewhat serve this function, giving a voice to their states, but in Canada, MP's represent their party, period. Becoming a province probably lessens the territories representation in Ottawa.
What I don't get though is how you don't think they (and PEI) should be able to allocate their own healthcare and education simply because Toronto is not allowed. Is this some sort of "If I can't have it, no one else should?" feeling?
Well, this is a tough question. Constitutionally, I think it's wrong and problematic to give an equal say to 10 (or 13) very disparate provinces. I think this is a major problem with Canadian federalism, and I believe that this, along with the decentralized power structure that we have may ultimately be our downfall as a union.
In terms of service provision, I do think it's unfair. Not just for Toronto, but many urban centres that suffer the fate of being subject to administration by people who a) don't need them to win elections and b) don't understand how to run the major metropolises that Canada has been growing for the last 30 years.
Toronto, for example, kicks 18% more to the province than it takes in. This while the TTC is basically bankrupt and city services were slashed by amalgamation forced upon an unwilling public by the provincial government. While Ontario had two conservative majority governments, Toronto voted heavily liberal throughout, and was ignored and neglected. Toronto has far less power over taxation that comparable American cities, and thrives despite this handicap. The same is essentially true for Vancouver, Ottawa, Edmonton and Calgary, the cities that, take it how you will, subsidize the services that much of the rest of Canada enjoys through equalization payments. Adding three more provinces to compete for these resources and the limited political power that exists at the federal level, both for existing provinces and for cities, is a recipe for disaster.
Major change is needed in Canada, but to do what Martin proposes without addressing and fully resolving the problems that currently exist would bring a lot of new challenges. I don't think it's possible to resolve all of Canada's problems, which is what makes me really nervous about the future of the country, and furious when I saw his statement.
And besides, if anyone should become a province it's Turks and Caicos.
posted by loquax at 1:25 PM on November 23, 2004
That depends. Ontario's provincial revenue is 18% comprised of federal transfer dollars. Newfoundland's is 42% (roughly). The territories would be much higher. No detriment to them, that's just the fact of the matter, for the time being. Giving them what essentially amounts to independence without the self-sufficiency to fund the programs they will be responsible would be tragic, in my opinion.
I believe the strongest argument in favor is their ability to affect the Constitution. These are people that have been left with little, or no, representation in Canadian parliament (and yeah, this is arguable) and this hands it back (in a small way).
Actually, these are two very different things. And so much depends on the Canadian amending formula. Basically, 7 out of 10 provinces currently have to agree before the constitution is changed (with exceptions). Will it be 7/13 if they become provinces? Or 10/13? What will happen to the 50% (of the population) rule? Will the Province of the Yukon (population 30,000 with 1 city and 7 towns) have an *equal* say in Canada's future as the Province of Quebec, or British Columbia? To me, this marginalizes the voice of the larger provinces more than it empowers the smaller ones.
In terms of parliament, however, it does nothing. Provinces, despite being as powerful and important as they are, have no say whatsoever in federal politics and federal lawmaking. In the US, senators somewhat serve this function, giving a voice to their states, but in Canada, MP's represent their party, period. Becoming a province probably lessens the territories representation in Ottawa.
What I don't get though is how you don't think they (and PEI) should be able to allocate their own healthcare and education simply because Toronto is not allowed. Is this some sort of "If I can't have it, no one else should?" feeling?
Well, this is a tough question. Constitutionally, I think it's wrong and problematic to give an equal say to 10 (or 13) very disparate provinces. I think this is a major problem with Canadian federalism, and I believe that this, along with the decentralized power structure that we have may ultimately be our downfall as a union.
In terms of service provision, I do think it's unfair. Not just for Toronto, but many urban centres that suffer the fate of being subject to administration by people who a) don't need them to win elections and b) don't understand how to run the major metropolises that Canada has been growing for the last 30 years.
Toronto, for example, kicks 18% more to the province than it takes in. This while the TTC is basically bankrupt and city services were slashed by amalgamation forced upon an unwilling public by the provincial government. While Ontario had two conservative majority governments, Toronto voted heavily liberal throughout, and was ignored and neglected. Toronto has far less power over taxation that comparable American cities, and thrives despite this handicap. The same is essentially true for Vancouver, Ottawa, Edmonton and Calgary, the cities that, take it how you will, subsidize the services that much of the rest of Canada enjoys through equalization payments. Adding three more provinces to compete for these resources and the limited political power that exists at the federal level, both for existing provinces and for cities, is a recipe for disaster.
Major change is needed in Canada, but to do what Martin proposes without addressing and fully resolving the problems that currently exist would bring a lot of new challenges. I don't think it's possible to resolve all of Canada's problems, which is what makes me really nervous about the future of the country, and furious when I saw his statement.
And besides, if anyone should become a province it's Turks and Caicos.
posted by loquax at 1:25 PM on November 23, 2004
I'll be cold and dead in the ground before I recognize Nunavut.
posted by jon_kill at 1:30 PM on November 23, 2004
posted by jon_kill at 1:30 PM on November 23, 2004
Oh, and I meant to add, the Yukon is the most beautiful place I've ever seen, and the photos included of the whole region are incredible.
And does this conflict with Norway remind anyone of the glorious Great Turbot War? Or as I like to call it, the War of Spanish Fish Piracy?
posted by loquax at 1:33 PM on November 23, 2004
And does this conflict with Norway remind anyone of the glorious Great Turbot War? Or as I like to call it, the War of Spanish Fish Piracy?
posted by loquax at 1:33 PM on November 23, 2004
I was so, so, so disappointed that "Bob" wasn't the chosen name.
I might get over my disappointment if "Alluvit" becomes the NWT's new name.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:46 PM on November 23, 2004
I might get over my disappointment if "Alluvit" becomes the NWT's new name.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:46 PM on November 23, 2004
And for what it's worth, all of Toronto's problems could be solved if we just gave two weeks advance warning, and then nuked the city.
Heck, maybe some of the refugees would end up in Nunavit. Or Nunavut. I forget the spelling.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:48 PM on November 23, 2004
Heck, maybe some of the refugees would end up in Nunavit. Or Nunavut. I forget the spelling.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:48 PM on November 23, 2004
Canadian postal codes alterate letters with numbers, so Santa's is pronounced:
AitchZeroAitch ZeroAitchZero.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 1:56 PM on November 23, 2004
AitchZeroAitch ZeroAitchZero.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 1:56 PM on November 23, 2004
Santa Claus lives in Finland
And here is the proof.
posted by homunculus at 2:02 PM on November 23, 2004
And here is the proof.
posted by homunculus at 2:02 PM on November 23, 2004
purephase: We already pay GST.
I apologize. For some reason I thought the Territories were exempt from the GST. Thanks for letting me know.
Will the Province of the Yukon (population 30,000 with 1 city and 7 towns) have an *equal* say in Canada's future as the Province of Quebec, or British Columbia? To me, this marginalizes the voice of the larger provinces more than it empowers the smaller ones.
Well, common sense would hopefully prevail during any tabled legislation regarding the devolution of the Territories. As beautiful as the areas are, I doubt anyone would expect an "equal" voice due to the disparate population. Perhaps this could be the catalyst that would force a change that might benefit all provinces, particularly the areas of highest density.
Your point about Toronto, and other metropolitan areas, is bang on. Each time I see my cost of living increase, as well as my tax burden, and subsequently the degradation of services like the TTC (etc.) it is very upsetting. I'm not saying that Toronto (in particular) should not provide higher than average taxation back to the province, but 18%? Even if you knocked that down by a measly 5-7% it would make a big difference.
And besides, if anyone should become a province it's Turks and Caicos.
Haha. Agreed.
posted by purephase at 2:14 PM on November 23, 2004
I apologize. For some reason I thought the Territories were exempt from the GST. Thanks for letting me know.
Will the Province of the Yukon (population 30,000 with 1 city and 7 towns) have an *equal* say in Canada's future as the Province of Quebec, or British Columbia? To me, this marginalizes the voice of the larger provinces more than it empowers the smaller ones.
Well, common sense would hopefully prevail during any tabled legislation regarding the devolution of the Territories. As beautiful as the areas are, I doubt anyone would expect an "equal" voice due to the disparate population. Perhaps this could be the catalyst that would force a change that might benefit all provinces, particularly the areas of highest density.
Your point about Toronto, and other metropolitan areas, is bang on. Each time I see my cost of living increase, as well as my tax burden, and subsequently the degradation of services like the TTC (etc.) it is very upsetting. I'm not saying that Toronto (in particular) should not provide higher than average taxation back to the province, but 18%? Even if you knocked that down by a measly 5-7% it would make a big difference.
And besides, if anyone should become a province it's Turks and Caicos.
Haha. Agreed.
posted by purephase at 2:14 PM on November 23, 2004
I'd definitely be down with our Empire of Canada taking in T and C. We need our fingers in the warm waters of the south. I think it would be a pretty nice arrangement. We'd help them out with funds and many, many tourists. They'd give us, uh, a place to put tourists. Hey, why not?
See also: some thread about Canada conquering the Turks and Caicos and driving their women and children before the victorious army
posted by Kleptophoria! at 2:26 PM on November 23, 2004
See also: some thread about Canada conquering the Turks and Caicos and driving their women and children before the victorious army
posted by Kleptophoria! at 2:26 PM on November 23, 2004
I am also a fan of the postal code T0K 0K0, which is Pincher Creek, Alberta, or somewhere near it.
And if they do choose "Alluvit," they won't be able to use the abbreviation AL, if only so they're not confused with Alabama.
On preview: Here is the "proof" that Santa Claus lives in Finland.
posted by oaf at 2:33 PM on November 23, 2004
And if they do choose "Alluvit," they won't be able to use the abbreviation AL, if only so they're not confused with Alabama.
On preview: Here is the "proof" that Santa Claus lives in Finland.
posted by oaf at 2:33 PM on November 23, 2004
Am I the only one who scratches her head at the idea of tropical Canada? I'm sure annexing T&C makes all kinds of financial sense (or whatever), but I'm so very attached to our icy identity. (Even though it's sort of false because it gets so goddamn hot in the summers, but let's just ignore that. Hockey hockey hockey.)
posted by digifox at 3:41 PM on November 23, 2004
posted by digifox at 3:41 PM on November 23, 2004
Spanish Fish Piracy? loquax, I thought that the ones who illegally seized a foreign ship in international waters, then to lose the case in your own courts, were the Canadians. Judging from your record in that "war", I think you should exchange that maple leaf in your flag for a skull and crossbones.
Anyway, changing subjects, I spent a week in Svalbard last year, and I found the historic/legal situation of the Svalbard archipelago particularly amusing.
Anyway, you Canadians, Russians, Norwegians and other Northern eccentrics may fight about ownership of the Arctic as much as you like, if there really is oil under all that ice, then W will finally get it anyway...
posted by Skeptic at 4:53 PM on November 23, 2004
Anyway, changing subjects, I spent a week in Svalbard last year, and I found the historic/legal situation of the Svalbard archipelago particularly amusing.
Anyway, you Canadians, Russians, Norwegians and other Northern eccentrics may fight about ownership of the Arctic as much as you like, if there really is oil under all that ice, then W will finally get it anyway...
posted by Skeptic at 4:53 PM on November 23, 2004
Oh I was just kidding, Skeptic. I though we behaved foolishly and our politicians (especially Tobin) were grandstanding. I barely know what a turbot is, let alone the law of the high seas when it comes to overfishing them.
posted by loquax at 4:58 PM on November 23, 2004
posted by loquax at 4:58 PM on November 23, 2004
Grandstanding, maybe, but they should have commanded the military to sink the overfishing trawlers. There is a serious crisis in the oceans, and it's gonna bite everyone in the ass pretty soon.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:02 PM on November 23, 2004
posted by five fresh fish at 5:02 PM on November 23, 2004
Fair enough, loquax, I also think that "my" fishermen have an annoying tendency to leave empty seas behind them...
But five fresh fish, if they really wanted to sink overfishing trawlers, your naval forces wouldn't even have had to leave your own ports...neither Canada nor any other fishing nation can claim innocence to the charge of overfishing.
posted by Skeptic at 5:07 PM on November 23, 2004
But five fresh fish, if they really wanted to sink overfishing trawlers, your naval forces wouldn't even have had to leave your own ports...neither Canada nor any other fishing nation can claim innocence to the charge of overfishing.
posted by Skeptic at 5:07 PM on November 23, 2004
Fersure. I think it's damnably stupid that my government is allowing fishing of endangered stocks. Sink 'em all, national and foreign.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:41 PM on November 23, 2004
posted by five fresh fish at 6:41 PM on November 23, 2004
Sovereignty over the North is not an issue here, as it is already Canadian land. What is the difference to Norway or Russia or whomever if the land is designated by the government as Provincial or Territorial?
True enough; the land claims are certainly settled matters. The Northwest Passage, however, should it become a reliable route for shipping, would be in the character of an international strait with longstanding law of the sea guaranteeing safe passage. Gibraltar and Malacca are tricky enough -- they're between two countries but with sovereign littoral claims that are breached by shipping lanes. The Convention on the Law of the Sea guarantees signatories territorial sovereignty out to a 12 nautical mile limit and exclusive economic rights out to 200 nautical miles. At its narrowest point, the Strait of Gibraltar is just 7 nautical miles wide, meaning that there is no way to travel it without entering the territorial waters of either Spain or Morocco. It may or may not surprise you to learn that this is also true where both shores are of the same nation: the Strait of Magellan and the Bosporus are international shipping routes which pass completely through the territory of Chile and Turkey respectively (in fact, Turkey is a member of NATO, but could not refuse the Soviet Navy so-called innocent passage). So the precedent is that the Northwest Passage could have a similar legal regime to these other chokepoints. Ultimately, the risk is that much more of the north's waterways could lose their "internal waters" status, and become internationally recognized open sea amid an archipelago. This would open them to resource exploitation outside the jurisdiction of Canada.
At present, the Canadian government is able to defend its characterization of the Northwest Passage largely through default, because it is not really open for shipping. See Climate Change and Sovereignty in the Northwest Passage. Of particular note: the nation which has historically posed the greatest challenge to Canadian sovereignty is exactly who you think it is.
posted by dhartung at 10:08 PM on November 23, 2004
True enough; the land claims are certainly settled matters. The Northwest Passage, however, should it become a reliable route for shipping, would be in the character of an international strait with longstanding law of the sea guaranteeing safe passage. Gibraltar and Malacca are tricky enough -- they're between two countries but with sovereign littoral claims that are breached by shipping lanes. The Convention on the Law of the Sea guarantees signatories territorial sovereignty out to a 12 nautical mile limit and exclusive economic rights out to 200 nautical miles. At its narrowest point, the Strait of Gibraltar is just 7 nautical miles wide, meaning that there is no way to travel it without entering the territorial waters of either Spain or Morocco. It may or may not surprise you to learn that this is also true where both shores are of the same nation: the Strait of Magellan and the Bosporus are international shipping routes which pass completely through the territory of Chile and Turkey respectively (in fact, Turkey is a member of NATO, but could not refuse the Soviet Navy so-called innocent passage). So the precedent is that the Northwest Passage could have a similar legal regime to these other chokepoints. Ultimately, the risk is that much more of the north's waterways could lose their "internal waters" status, and become internationally recognized open sea amid an archipelago. This would open them to resource exploitation outside the jurisdiction of Canada.
At present, the Canadian government is able to defend its characterization of the Northwest Passage largely through default, because it is not really open for shipping. See Climate Change and Sovereignty in the Northwest Passage. Of particular note: the nation which has historically posed the greatest challenge to Canadian sovereignty is exactly who you think it is.
posted by dhartung at 10:08 PM on November 23, 2004
The problem with granting provincial status to Yukon, Nunavut, and NWT comes down to population - or, rather, lack of it. Granting Yukon (pop. 30,000) the same constitutional powers as Ontario (pop. 12 million) is simply not practical.
It would make more sense to sub-divide the bigger provinces to reduce such disparities.
Alternately, since:
"many urban centres ... suffer the fate of being subject to administration by people who a) don't need them to win elections and b) don't understand how to run the major metropolises that Canada has been growing for the last 30 years" (loquax)
... I'd support granting the major metropolitan areas quasi-provincial status as "free cities".
(PS - first MeFi comment! Yay me!)
posted by e-man at 11:12 PM on November 23, 2004
It would make more sense to sub-divide the bigger provinces to reduce such disparities.
Alternately, since:
"many urban centres ... suffer the fate of being subject to administration by people who a) don't need them to win elections and b) don't understand how to run the major metropolises that Canada has been growing for the last 30 years" (loquax)
... I'd support granting the major metropolitan areas quasi-provincial status as "free cities".
(PS - first MeFi comment! Yay me!)
posted by e-man at 11:12 PM on November 23, 2004
Canada has a dark past in its efforts to establish sovereignty in the high Arctic. In the 1930s the Canadian government and the Hudson Bay Company relocated Inuit, over a 13-year period, from Baffin Island to Devon Island. In the 1950s, Inuit from northern Quebec were also relocated. In both situations, the official explanation given was that the relocation would improve the lives of the Inuit families who were experiencing hardship due to lack of game for hunting. Taken from their land-based hunting areas and dumped on an island without provisions or equipment to aid their limited skills in water-based hunting these Inuit families suffered even more severe hardship.
There are stories of how the Inuit families dogs were killed by the government that led to the initial hardship in the community which gave the government the opportunity to relocate the families to new lands with promise of abundant animals for hunting. A lack of understanding of the land and increased darkness during the day led to many people dying of starvation.
Relocating Canadians to these remote areas demonstrated that the government an effective control and occupancy over the land, strengthening Canada’s sovereignty claims. The government has never admitted the sovereignty claim as part of its motivation in relocating the Inuit, despite strong evidence to the contrary.
I had dinner with an Elder a couple of days ago from one of those relocated communities and she was talking about the suffering she experienced as a child, the starvation and desperation.
myopicman: Hans Blohm is a well-known photographer with beautiful photos of the Inuit and the land. Check out the Northern Peoples, Scenics and Work and Play links in his gallery.
posted by KathyK at 8:38 AM on November 24, 2004
There are stories of how the Inuit families dogs were killed by the government that led to the initial hardship in the community which gave the government the opportunity to relocate the families to new lands with promise of abundant animals for hunting. A lack of understanding of the land and increased darkness during the day led to many people dying of starvation.
Relocating Canadians to these remote areas demonstrated that the government an effective control and occupancy over the land, strengthening Canada’s sovereignty claims. The government has never admitted the sovereignty claim as part of its motivation in relocating the Inuit, despite strong evidence to the contrary.
I had dinner with an Elder a couple of days ago from one of those relocated communities and she was talking about the suffering she experienced as a child, the starvation and desperation.
myopicman: Hans Blohm is a well-known photographer with beautiful photos of the Inuit and the land. Check out the Northern Peoples, Scenics and Work and Play links in his gallery.
posted by KathyK at 8:38 AM on November 24, 2004
Canada has never been shy about screwing its citizens. From incarceration of native children in school compounds, to the breaking-up of immigrant families, to the workcamps of the Depression era that incarcerated single young men from Toronto and other large cities, to the interrment camps during the World Wars, our government has been really lousy to its people, with a particular focus on being really lousy to everyone that isn't a white European.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:02 AM on November 24, 2004
posted by five fresh fish at 10:02 AM on November 24, 2004
Well, our motto is "peace, order and good government" after all. And you forgot the ludicrous use of the war measures act by Trudeau, which was roughly a billion times more extreme than the PATRIOT act, albeit temporary.
Some food for thought for dispirited Americans thinking that Canada is a utopia without the baggage of the lower 48.
That being said, provincial status will not help rectify past wrongs to the Inuit people, or improve standards of living today. It would just transfer institutional inefficiencies and mismanagement from one layer of government to another.
I don't understand the law with respect to inland waters though. Does that mean that Russia could set up an oil rig in the middle of the Hudson Bay, as it would be further than 12 km off shore? Do you know of any other area that is like that (in terms of having open sea in the midst of an archipelago)? would Indonesia qualify?
posted by loquax at 10:36 AM on November 24, 2004
Some food for thought for dispirited Americans thinking that Canada is a utopia without the baggage of the lower 48.
That being said, provincial status will not help rectify past wrongs to the Inuit people, or improve standards of living today. It would just transfer institutional inefficiencies and mismanagement from one layer of government to another.
I don't understand the law with respect to inland waters though. Does that mean that Russia could set up an oil rig in the middle of the Hudson Bay, as it would be further than 12 km off shore? Do you know of any other area that is like that (in terms of having open sea in the midst of an archipelago)? would Indonesia qualify?
posted by loquax at 10:36 AM on November 24, 2004
Actually, I kinda agree with Trudeau's use of the war measures act. The situation was quickly becoming extremely volatile and standard Canadian-style consensus-building would have gone nowhere in the face of such extremist demands. It was better to aggressively bitch-slap the hoodlums.
IM(mainlyuninformed)O.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:29 PM on November 24, 2004
IM(mainlyuninformed)O.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:29 PM on November 24, 2004
500 arrested and held without bail, only 30 of whom were ever convicted of anything. In response to a very localized, minor threat. It certainly did not threaten the fabric of Canada or social order at the time. Calling in the army to patrol the streets and impose curfews was the greatest moment of political grandstanding in Canadian history, IM(alsomainlyuninformed)O. Oh, and then we totally wimped out in the end and sent the hoodlums to Cuba. Bah.
posted by loquax at 1:49 PM on November 24, 2004
posted by loquax at 1:49 PM on November 24, 2004
« Older dolphins protect human swimmers | The Big What? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
This isn't Canadian government policy as of yet; all of this stems from a simple question by a Brazilian politician regarding the ownership of the territories.
posted by myopicman at 10:10 AM on November 23, 2004