What were the main recommendations of the Rowell-Sirois Commission? why did the wealthier provinces dislike it
467923
The Royal Commission on Dominion and Provincial Relations (more commonly known as the Rowell-Sirois Report) was commissioned unilaterally by the Federal government in 1937. It's mandate was to re-examine "the economic and financial basis of Confederation and the distribution of legislative powers in the light of the economic and social development of the last 70 years."\n\nChairmen N. W. Rowell and Joseph Sirois released their findings in 1940. The 3-volume report recommended (among other things) a transfer of functions and a shifting of taxation power to the Federal government, and the creation of grants to the provinces to equalize provincial tax revenues. This principle has been enshrined in the 1982 Constitution. \n\nThe wealthier provinces objected to having the revenues generated by their citizens distributed to other provinces rather than staying in their own treasury.\n\nFor much more information concerning the Rowell-Sirois Report check the link below.
387016
you could argue it helped bring the issues back into presidential elections for the first time in a few elections. Since deflation was crippling the farmers and farming was still a major economic activity in the united states local coops were created. Also there was the creation of the populist party which although they werent succesful in presidential elections, they did help get some reforms eventually passed outside of elections. with many people seeking some form of solution to the money problems in the era, the candidates for elections had to take stands on how they were going to solve the problems, which was not as necesary in the previous decades of election.
1011553
No respect for the law, and must be put down.\nDestruction of private property, that hurts small business in the area.\nThey attempted to frame Native Americans with thier disguises.\nThey polluted the water in which Locals fish in.\nThey have not fullided their responsiblity to pay England back from defending them against the French and Indians.\nAre tratiors for not paying the taxes which as territorty of England is treason.\nTratitors to the crown who protects them.\nThey don't support the troops but instead arming themselves.
1100731
The French tried Bribery and it got them invaded anyways.\n\nLearn from History people, by the way we have lsot less lives in this War than any other War.\n\nWe spent tons of money on World War II\n\nobing is better than Bribery anyways cause if ya Bribe you'll get more demands for more Money, The Roman Empirenearly went Bankrupt cause they kept raising the Taxes to bribe the Visigoths and other tribes that launched Roman Invasions.
627736
The punishment for bigamy is that you have to live with all your wives.  No thank you.  Living with one is punishment enough.\n\nSeriously, though, in legal circles the brass tax is this.  Does the government have a compelling interest in the state of marriage?  If it does, then they can regulate it.  If it does not, then they cannot.  If they can regulate it, then how they do so is the will of the people.
907144
Here 'ya go:\nhttp://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/cabinet.asp?featureId=8\n\nHope that helps!
921773
They were all democratic to a degree.  It IS a republic.  They tried to govern themselves and discovered that in the bigger picture, there was little to no unity.  Each state had its own currency, trade between states became a nightmare.  The Articles of Confederation prooved itself to be too flawed.  I like to think of it as Swiss Cheese...
688258
I have no idea. But I'm looking forward to an informed response to the question, as I would like to know myself. I CAN give you one example of their policies that works. I went on a hunting trip to Canada with some friends from work a few years back. A trip we had planned for months, and spent thousands of dollars on each. When we arrived at the Canadian border, because we had firearms, the Canadian RMP ran a background check on each of us. One guy had a 15 year old charge of drunk driving on his record. He got to spend the week in a motel STATESIDE, waiting on us to pick him up on our way home. He was denied entry. Not only to hunt, not ony with a firearm, but PERIOD. He was placed on a list of undesireables, and barred from any future entry into the country, because of a 15 year old traffic violation. A serious one (I do not condone drinking and driving), to say the least, but a traffic violation nonetheless. So I would say they have some pretty strict rules.
614455
Federal subsidies to private industry like the oil companies are not only socialist, they come very close to what Mussolini called Fascism. This completely circumvents the idea of risk and supply/demand, and it also degrades the federal government from the position of honest broker over the economy because it is showing favoritism to one competitor over another.
877440
Some would say that it wasn't economic policy. The problem was one of overproduction combined with the inflated values of stocks. \n\nThe policies of Hoover and Roosevelt differed little. FDRs was more of a PR campaign. For all Roosevelt did, his policies affected little change in the economy. \n\nPerhaps it can be said the the use and issuance of credit was a leading economic factor.
608830
This is probably an oversimplification, but to me the problem was caused by too much doctor training capacity being utilised on the training of overseas students, the majority of whom don't stay in Australia. This was done so that uni's could make a fast buck at a time of funding cutbacks. The thinking seems to be, we can make lots of money by doing this, and we can import some cheaply-trained doctors from India and like countries to make up the shortfall. As with many such neo-liberal schemes, the full implications were never thought through, and the costs never properly calculated.\n\nSolutions? Not my area of expertise, but recognising what caused the problem is a start. It's easy to say spend more money, but then you have to decide where it's coming from.
545009
a lot of people didn't like it because the government was spending so much money.  I think it was a good thing though.  You need to put money into the economy if you want to make it better.  An analagy my history teacher used was priming the pump.  You need to put water in the pump or nothing will happen.  The pump will burn up if there is nothing to pump.
120338
In what way are we doomed?\n\nSocial program overspending? passing Medicare responsibilty onto the provinces? political corruption? higher taxes? not paying down the deficit? lost departmental money (in the billions)? cronyism in appointments? increase in quebec separatism or western Canadian alientation? rediculous language laws? unfair equalization program? federal business corruption in Quebec? no repealing GST and other middle income taxes? regional favouritism?\n\nThis is Cretien's legacy.\n\nSorry but your question is melodramadic and no we are not doomed.
711286
It's the first thing that crossed my mind.\n\nFunny that they went against their own advisor!\n\nIf it is supposed to be "a level playing field", with similar levels of duties etc, how come there's so much difference between countries.\n\nIs there a right of appeal?
689476
Canada is one of the richest countries in the world so it should use that wealth to help poorer countries.  This should be done, not by handing out money but by Fair Trade.  The rich West keep poor countries poor by subsidizing their own crops and factories and forcing poor countries to let them in under cutting local prices, putting farmers out of business.  FAIR TRADE not Free Trade
1032508
Bad distribution of wealth from the beginning.  Too much corporate, colonial, and land-baron greed.\nThe United States was built by pioneers who owned what they built.\nNot so in South America.
640075
Generally they responded in inappropriate ways. Many of them nationalized economic resources and since they lacked expertise they generally destroyed their economies.  They tended to beome more and more authoritarian and militaristic over time not to mention corrupt.  The end result was that most of these countries threw out the baby with the bath water. They got rid of colonial rule and with it most of the technical and governmental expertise that made any kind of government possible.