8 ms·

TL;DR — Fishing villages [...] sent into a tailspin by a fishery collapse, oil-price slump and mounting debt that left it with Canada’s most severe fiscal and d

TL;DR — Fishing villages [...] sent into a tailspin by a fishery collapse, oil-price slump and mounting debt that left it with Canada’s most severe fiscal and demographic crisis. The provincial government now is pushing to close places like Little Bay Islands altogether rather than service them, offering [...] at least C$250,000 ($189,000) each to leave—and spurring a bitter, three-year fight over whether to cash out or endure. (Actually, the article is not that long, but the title is clickbait) I thought the reason was going to be related to the increment of sea levels, as villages near the coasts will surely be affected sooner than later by the constant floods in the coming years. Anyway, I agree with the sentiment of the people mentioned in the article, it is not clear when the Canadian government will pay that money, some people with houses near the coast are retired, they just want to live a peaceful life near the sea, they don't want to relocate, so it is logical to think that this strategy of the government to offer money to leave the place will not work, at least not very well.

msbarnett 10y ago
It's not even "the Canadian government". This was purely a Provincial scheme to lower costs.
- ersii 10y ago
  Isn't a province... government? Might not be the State/Federal government, but yet surely it's government one way or another?
  - msbarnett 10y ago
    > Isn't a province... government? Might not be the State/Federal government, but yet surely it's government one way or another? To me, saying "The Canadian government is doing X", is a statement about the activities of the Federal government. The use of the definite article implies singularity. A provincial government is not the Canadian government -- it's one of many in a federal system. It might in some narrow sense be technically accurate to rewrite the headline "Texas Urges Court To Ban Enforcement Of All Federal Pro-Transgender Restroom Policies In Workplaces" to read "the US Government Urges Court To Ban Enforcement Of All Federal Pro-Transgender Restroom Policies In Workplaces", but it's misleading to the reader and drops a lot of important context. It leads to an impression of a much broader situation than actually exists.
    - sandworm101 10y ago
      Texas is a bad example. The US is a federation of what are essentially 50 different countries, or at least different sovereign governments. Texas is not part of the US federal government, not even a subset. It's its own government with its own constitution and areas of absolute authority (See 'states rights'). Canada is under a single sovereign, with the provincial governments being smaller pieces without absolute authorities. So to describe a provincial government as "the government of Canada" is far more accurate than calling Texas part of the US government.
      - jhbadger 10y ago
        There's not really much difference between the idea of states and provinces. Just like US states, they have laws and elected officials to themselves. It's the same in many other countries as well. It's pure American exceptionalism to think their "states" are somehow unique in this.
        sandworm101 10y ago
        Does any other country have separate courthouses for the local and federal governments? Courthouses that hear virtually identical cases, but apply different rules of evidence and procedure depending upon in which states the litigants reside? Courthouses that literally cannot be allowed touch each other? There are four or five standard courses at US law schools virtually dedicated to state/fed splits. The American system of divided sovereigns is exceptional. It's weird.
        jhbadger 10y ago
        Yes. Provincial courts are a thing in Canada in addition to Federal courts. I'm not sure about the "not touching" rule, but they are separate, because many offenses at the provincial level (i.e. not having a sign in French for your business in Quebec) aren't offenses at the Federal level.
        10y ago
dmix 10y ago
> some people with houses near the coast are retired, they just want to live a peaceful life near the sea, they don't want to relocate, What about social services? We have public health care in Canada and seniors are the most expensive. Plus, with no industry where are they going to get medication and food? And it's not all seniors, the person in the article isn't leaving because he scared he won't be able to find work elsewhere. So they also have a bunch of non-seniors they have to support as well. And no industry for them to participate in, whereas elsewhere in the province they could contribute to the economy and pay taxes. Instead of just being an economic drain on the state. There is a reason the province decided it would be more economical to offer them money to leave than paying for the services for them to stay.
- paavokoya 10y ago
  Believe it or not, not everyone wants to participate in society once they've done their fair share (retired)
  - dmix 10y ago
    I didn't say anything about seniors needing to 'participate in society' after retirement. I specifically said "non-seniors" have no industry to participate in there... which makes economic sense to relocate them. My point related to seniors was related to the increased medical care costs required for remote poorly serviced communities. They don't even have a fire department...
    - ersii 10y ago
      I'd seriously be fine with that. I would not mind giving up all social services, especially not if I got a cashback. That said, I would expect this to come with 'no taxation in the future' as well. That said, I am not everybody.
      - tjl 10y ago
        Would you be seriously fine with the nearest grocery store being an hour away (over deteriorating roads) and it possibly being 3x as expensive? Plus, what are you going to do about garbage? People forget that is also a social service.
8note 10y ago
Newfoundland is mostly cliffs around the ocean.
SamBam 10y ago
> I thought the reason was going to be related to the increment of sea levels It's still probably a good test-case for that soon-to-be-more-common situation.

msbarnett 10y ago

It's not even "the Canadian government". This was purely a Provincial scheme to lower costs.

ersii 10y ago
Isn't a province... government? Might not be the State/Federal government, but yet surely it's government one way or another?
- msbarnett 10y ago
  > Isn't a province... government? Might not be the State/Federal government, but yet surely it's government one way or another? To me, saying "The Canadian government is doing X", is a statement about the activities of the Federal government. The use of the definite article implies singularity. A provincial government is not the Canadian government -- it's one of many in a federal system. It might in some narrow sense be technically accurate to rewrite the headline "Texas Urges Court To Ban Enforcement Of All Federal Pro-Transgender Restroom Policies In Workplaces" to read "the US Government Urges Court To Ban Enforcement Of All Federal Pro-Transgender Restroom Policies In Workplaces", but it's misleading to the reader and drops a lot of important context. It leads to an impression of a much broader situation than actually exists.
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    Texas is a bad example. The US is a federation of what are essentially 50 different countries, or at least different sovereign governments. Texas is not part of the US federal government, not even a subset. It's its own government with its own constitution and areas of absolute authority (See 'states rights'). Canada is under a single sovereign, with the provincial governments being smaller pieces without absolute authorities. So to describe a provincial government as "the government of Canada" is far more accurate than calling Texas part of the US government.
    - jhbadger 10y ago
      There's not really much difference between the idea of states and provinces. Just like US states, they have laws and elected officials to themselves. It's the same in many other countries as well. It's pure American exceptionalism to think their "states" are somehow unique in this.
      - sandworm101 10y ago
        Does any other country have separate courthouses for the local and federal governments? Courthouses that hear virtually identical cases, but apply different rules of evidence and procedure depending upon in which states the litigants reside? Courthouses that literally cannot be allowed touch each other? There are four or five standard courses at US law schools virtually dedicated to state/fed splits. The American system of divided sovereigns is exceptional. It's weird.
        jhbadger 10y ago
        Yes. Provincial courts are a thing in Canada in addition to Federal courts. I'm not sure about the "not touching" rule, but they are separate, because many offenses at the provincial level (i.e. not having a sign in French for your business in Quebec) aren't offenses at the Federal level.
        10y ago

dmix 10y ago

> some people with houses near the coast are retired, they just want to live a peaceful life near the sea, they don't want to relocate, What about social services? We have public health care in Canada and seniors are the most expensive. Plus, with no industry where are they going to get medication and food? And it's not all seniors, the person in the article isn't leaving because he scared he won't be able to find work elsewhere. So they also have a bunch of non-seniors they have to support as well. And no industry for them to participate in, whereas elsewhere in the province they could contribute to the economy and pay taxes. Instead of just being an economic drain on the state. There is a reason the province decided it would be more economical to offer them money to leave than paying for the services for them to stay.

paavokoya 10y ago
Believe it or not, not everyone wants to participate in society once they've done their fair share (retired)
- dmix 10y ago
  I didn't say anything about seniors needing to 'participate in society' after retirement. I specifically said "non-seniors" have no industry to participate in there... which makes economic sense to relocate them. My point related to seniors was related to the increased medical care costs required for remote poorly serviced communities. They don't even have a fire department...
  - ersii 10y ago
    I'd seriously be fine with that. I would not mind giving up all social services, especially not if I got a cashback. That said, I would expect this to come with 'no taxation in the future' as well. That said, I am not everybody.
    - tjl 10y ago
      Would you be seriously fine with the nearest grocery store being an hour away (over deteriorating roads) and it possibly being 3x as expensive? Plus, what are you going to do about garbage? People forget that is also a social service.

8note 10y ago

Newfoundland is mostly cliffs around the ocean.

SamBam 10y ago

> I thought the reason was going to be related to the increment of sea levels It's still probably a good test-case for that soon-to-be-more-common situation.