Is Quebec listed as a have not province?

QUEEN'S PARK
By MURRAY CAMPBELL
Thursday, November 10, 2005 Page A9
E-mail Murray Campbell Read Bio Latest Columns

We interrupt the all-politics all-the-time orgy in Ottawa with this announcement: The Canadian federation is falling apart. Okay, it's not happening at lightning speed, but it's becoming clear that the arrangements that sustained this country for the past half-century aren't working. What's worse, the seeds are being planted for a decline in Canada's prosperity.

That's the gist of a report issued yesterday by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, which has taken upon itself to find out whether the federal-provincial equalization scheme is doing what it is supposed to do -- reduce disparity among the provinces -- and whether it is "fair."

On both counts, the chamber finds huge shortcomings in the 48-year-old equalization scheme under which huge amounts of money, most of it from Ontario and Alberta, are transferred around the country.

The chamber believes the scheme is beggaring Ontario and may not even be helping the so-called have-not provinces that have been its beneficiaries.

You might recall that the chamber made a splash a couple of months ago when it issued a report that said Ontario is getting such a raw deal within Confederation that it is in danger of joining the have-not ranks by 2010.

The conclusion was enormously popular around Queen's Park, where the government of Dalton McGuinty has been waging a fitful war with its Liberal cousins in Ottawa over a $23-billion gap between the tax money Ontarians send to the federal capital, and the value of the services they receive in return.

It was less popular on Parliament Hill.

Prime Minister Paul Martin reacted skeptically, saying Ontario remains an economic powerhouse. Revenue Minister John McCallum sniffed that "the idea that Ontario is headed for have-not status is something I find hard to believe."

The second part of yesterday's report elaborates on this theme by saying that the current level of transfers out of Ontario is not sustainable, and that the province is in danger of losing its ability to act as one of the two dependable quartermasters in the federation.

"This province is on shaky ground and the fault lies with the federal government's practice of trying to equalize everything," chamber president Len Crispino said.

The problem, as the chamber (and the McGuinty government) see it, is that the principle of equalization has become distorted.

For a start, changes to the equalization scheme last fall set a floor for it at $10.9-billion with annual growth at 3.5 per cent. Bear in mind that 44 per cent of federal tax revenue comes from Ontario and that the province's growth rate this year is just 2.2 per cent, and ask yourself how long this can last.

Beyond that, Ottawa uses different formulas for different regions to finance such things as employment insurance, postsecondary education and social services. Ontario's Intergovernmental Affairs Minister, Marie Bountrogianni, reckons that the City of Hamilton loses $150-million a year compared with other regions because of this.

And then add to this the side deals that Ottawa has negotiated, particularly the arrangements that allow Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to keep about $3.7-billion in offshore oil and gas royalties without facing an equalization-payment penalty.

Given all this, it's no surprise that Ontario's gross domestic product per capita has dropped to 103 per cent of the national average, compared with 112 per cent in 1990.

In other words, its ability to help other provinces is deteriorating.

What's worse, as the report's author, David MacKinnon, noted, is that no system is in place to determine whether equalization has brought comparability in service delivery.

He said that six provinces have not escaped the have-not status they were burdened with when they started receiving transfer payments in 1957, and he questioned whether an "unintended side effect" of equalization is "an unhealthy dependence on such financial arrangements in recipient jurisdictions."

Critics will charge that the chamber has reduced Canada to little more than a balance sheet. But surely the point is to have a conversation about whether the country is set up the way it should be to achieve its desired aim of fairness.

A federal election campaign would be a fine time to talk about this, but don't count on it.

If equalization worked, the Trans Canada highway would be a highway :)

In most of Northern Ontario, it's worse than most Toronto side streets :)

That's the gist of a report issued yesterday by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.

I agree equalization is flawed, but any report by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce is obviously going to be slanted.

If equalization worked, the Trans Canada highway would be a highway :)

In most of Northern Ontario, it's worse than most Toronto side streets :)

I dont know about that...i was up there in the summer and there seems to be alot of work going on there.

Equalization is like watering your weeds and pulling out your flowers. McGuinty would like that one.

I dont know about that...i was up there in the summer and there seems to be alot of work going on there.

Just so you know, northern Ontario doesn't include Parry Sound, or Muskoka. their Central Ontario at best.

There is work, though. Uh, they put in a turning lane near Nipigon, and fixed a bridge in Dorion, and they repaved a small part near Kakabeka.

If you emant Sault Sainte Marie, the government is building a super highway (like the 400 series) connecting Sault Sainte Marie and Sudbury. They also built a major highway on the southeatern corner of sudbury Proper. And, look how much that got used!!

All Thunder Bay wanted was four laning the entire highway, no need for interchanges, or anything fancy, just four lanes, and near busier areas (there are lots, since it's the only major highway through the region) a divider.

There is good news though: The Shabaqua extentsion is under way. It's going to be 2 lanes (instead of four) but then expanded in about 10 years, and will only cost about 200% of what building the four land now would have. :) I think it's a great way to spend tax dollars ;)

And if you really want an adventure, drive the 11-17 between Thunder Bay and Nipigon on a winter night! Careful you dont get side swiped by a transport and smash into a rock cut, though. Those hurt!! :D

Also, the unbelieveable fact that more of our tax dollars go out of the region than into it. And Thunder Bay only gets 5% of the revenue from "it's charity casino"

The rest built a highway in Parry Sound :|

Ontario is starting to become a have not province. We are like a father who is court ordered to pay child support for 5 or 6 kids.

^ You could think about it this way though: what if the father had just stuck with the woman in the first place?

It is near impossible for Ontario to become a have not. The chance that both Quebec and Ontario slip into have not territory while having 2/3's of the population is very slim.

It is near impossible for Ontario to become a have not. The chance that both Quebec and Ontario slip into have not territory while having 2/3's of the population is very slim.

Ontario's situation is somewhat unique because of Northern Ontario. Northern Ontario is considered a have not province set aside from Southern Ontario, though while we receive equalisation we also pay into it.

And, if the province get's in enough debt we very well could become a have not province. Alberta is catching up really fast.

Alberta is catching up really fast.
Catching up in what regard?

They're far better off this decade financially, although Ontario and Alberta have traded spots a few times.

Population wise? Probably not unless they make a significant discovery like the no-water bathroom or something. Alberta has a fairly low maximum capacity in the form of water supply unless they reverse a few oil pipelines and push water through them the other direction.

Second to that, Toronto and Ottawa regions are growing faster or at the same rate as the regions of Calgary and Edmonton respectively on a per-capita basis. Raw numbers put Ontario cities far ahead.

Economic growth? Alberta Cities appear to have a much larger boom/bust cycle where growth in Ontario Cities is much more consistent. It is not surprising that Alberta would be growing very rapidly at the peak of their boom, but averaged over a 20 year time frame it rounds out.

Canadian cities don't change position (population or otherwise) more than once every 50 years (if that) which makes a 10 year period of good or bad times irrelevant to their overall health.

I don't see any major moves over the next 20 years. Montreal is recovering from the 70's; Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa and Winnipeg are all picking up steam; Calgary and Edmonton are wild cards but even if they sustain their peak growth rate they will still take 30+ years to catch up to Vancouver and will probably stay at approx. the same level as Ottawa. Ottawa has an advantage in proximity to Toronto and Montreal.

Remember Sask & BC are both now considered "have" provinces. Funny but by 2014/15 NFLD is expected to be a "have" province due to its rapid and sustained growth.

And NS is moving in the right direction as well when it comes to equalization payments in that they are going to be getting less per capita going forward if current trends continue.

It is near impossible for Ontario to become a have not. The chance that both Quebec and Ontario slip into have not territory while having 2/3's of the population is very slim.

Mathematically, I understand your point. However, Alberta's GDP is on a tear - it was held back by MC - but now it is starting to fire on all 8 cylinders, plus BC and Sask. are growing nicely. And with the auto industry in some difficulty, it may be more likely than you think for Ontario to slip below the line for a few years.

Remember Sask & BC are both now considered "have" provinces. Funny but by 2014/15 NFLD is expected to be a "have" province due to its rapid and sustained growth.

Actually, right now the GDP/capita of NFLD is way ahead of the other Atlantic provinces. The reason Williams needed the deal with Ottawa was because NFLD may become a "have" province in the near future (2 years?) not in 2014/15. If what you said was correct (it wasn't) he wouldn't have needed the deal in the first place.

Ontario's no one trick pony. It has a very diversified economy.

It is like a mutual fund. It will fall to corrections but over the long haul does well.

Quebec needs to privatize more for competition. Alberta needs to invest in more subsidiary fields.

Then in 2015, these 'equalization' payments can stop.

Remember Sask & BC are both now considered "have" provinces. Funny but by 2014/15 NFLD is expected to be a "have" province due to its rapid and sustained growth.

BC was only a "have-not" province for the last 5 years. Before that it was always BC, AB & Ontario who were the "have" provinces of Canada.

Quebec is clearly the biggest sink hole of equalization payments. They complain the most, want the most, and get the most.

Well BC still collects equalization money. I guess it isnt considered have-not per-say, the amounts arent very large but it is still recieving it.

^^ BC is have per se, there is simply a lag time between being considered "have" and the stopage of equalization of a year or 2.

BC was only a "have-not" province for the last 5 years. Before that it was always BC, AB & Ontario who were the "have" provinces of Canada.

Quebec is clearly the biggest sink hole of equalization payments. They complain the most, want the most, and get the most.


I know BC was as "have" province til the late 1990s. Quebec is a noose around Canada's financial and economic growth.

Actually on a per capita basis right now Quebec is the least needy after BC. There are 3 have provinces right now as Saskatchewan is a have province. BC will soon become one and it looks like Newfoundland with continued growth will become one as well.

sissiguy, you never cease to amaze me.

Quebec is clearly the biggest sink hole of equalization payments.

no its not, get your facts straight :sleepy:

Not per-capita but by total numbers it sure as hell is.

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/Sask/photos/sk_equal-chart.jpg

sigh

About 48, 49% goes to Quebec.

Wow. They better think of us next time they go to their free Daycare.

Malek: Got a case of "no, no, we're not that bad! NO! NO!" denial, do ya?

sigh


Sign what. Prove me wrong if you wish. I have no hidden agenda against Quebec, my grandfather came from Quebec, my last name is as french as they come. You never prove anything other than telling people that they are wrong without anything to back it up.

So much money wasted.

I have no problem with equalisation per se but it has got completly out of hand.
There should be a definate limit as to what a province gives or receives on a percapia basis. Right now equalisation punishes you if you get too wealthy and helps you if you are very poor. Their is no incentive for the poorer provinces to help themselves as they will loose a lot of their equalisation. Ontario has become the cash-cow that is going broke trying to help everyone except, primarily Alberta.

BTW Malek, it doesn't bother me that a province gets equalisation {including Quebec} its just that Quebec keeps complaining about the fact they are not getting enough.
Quebec is the only province that actually bitches about getting equalisation and that its never enough.
I tell you one thing, if Quebec ever was a "have" province they sure as hell wouldn't share any of their largess with the ROC.
Most Quebecers have a somewhat suspiciuos attitude towards Canada and always thinks its being treated unfairly by the federal government. They bitch and moan about Quebec being ruled by the feds but don't mind cashing the cheques.

It's time we call Quebec's bluff, stop all equalization payments to the province, and then see as they cry to get our money. Maybe when their infrastructure is crumbling like Ontario's we can throw them our spare change.

I don't understand Canadians. They don't want Quebec to seperate and they don't want them to get their money either. Hey, you can't have it both ways.

As I've always said, please, for the love of god, let them seperate, so we can improve our crumbling Toronto.

i wouldn't mind not recieving that 5b$ a year, but we stop sending that 50B$ of taxes of all kind to Ottawa.

^^ I understand that you guys want your own military. Did you think it would be free? Canada spends what $15 billion/year? If you want to be an equal partner, then you will have to spend that much too. Ohhhhhh???? I wonder how many other surprises would slap you in the face? Maybe what you end up having to spend would make what you pay in taxes to Ottawa look like a real deal. A Mercedes is nice - until you have to make the payments. LOL.

I don't understand Canadians. They don't want Quebec to seperate and they don't want them to get their money either. Hey, you can't have it both ways.

As I've always said, please, for the love of god, let them seperate, so we can improve our crumbling Toronto.

First of all, while I'm not making any certain claims one way or the other, I think that it's silly to predict with any degree of certainty that things in Ontario will improve drastically if Quebec were to leave confederation.

Secondly, I think that people are simply bitter about paying billions into a province that, to many, seems to care nothing for the nation that it's a part of, and will eventually seperate without any form of restitution. Nobody whines about giving BC or Manitoba money because we feel secure in the fact that if our positions were to be reversed in the future, they'd return the favour (as Alberta is doing now in a BIG way).

Perhaps qualization needs to be tweaked, but please try to stop all this Quebec loathing. As long as she decides to remain in Canada, this money is her right (though, of course, we all hope for a Quebec that can perform on an equal footing with the rest of Canada).


i wouldn't mind not recieving that 5b$ a year, but we stop sending that 50B$ of taxes of all kind to Ottawa.

Of course... because none of that money makes it back to Quebec in the end, right? Or are you going to "enlighten" us with more baseless speculation... claiming that the provincial government would do a better job with it?

Of course... because none of that money makes it back to Quebec in the end, right? Or are you going to "enlighten" us with more baseless speculation... claiming that the provincial government would do a better job with it?

obviously it does it way back, if you look in some other threads i repeat and i repeat the same thing (its kind of annoying but the likes of oceanmdx and his mafia don't get it).

Quebeckers send 50B$ and recieve about the same in services and transfers (including military if we count soldiers stationned in Quebec). At the end of the day, we may be the only province that pays as much as it recieves.

Alberta is in my opinion, the only real cash cow atm, Ontario while giving alot to Ottawa, gets a good return on taxes from all the wages of the federal bureaucrats in Ottawa, but thats another story all together.

I'm just sick and tired of hearing that we get that 5B$ but we do nothing for the federation, which is completely false.

We could make a case that small is beautiful, smaller countries are better managed and more prosperous, we could manage that 50B$ by ourselves and spend it on our priorities, we would basically spend the same money as the federal does (army, borders, embassies, etc.) but with less redundancy, there wouldn't be two depts doing the same thing (immigration, culture, revenue, RCMP/SQ,...), one in Ottawa and one in Quebec... in these cases there that we would save money.

^^ LOL. Quebec would be more prosperous than Canada? That's is what you implied.
Quebec's GDP/capita would decrease and Canada's would increase! Even a separatist should have enough brain cells to realize that.

Secondly, I think that people are simply bitter about paying billions into a province that, to many, seems to care nothing for the nation that it's a part of, and will eventually seperate without any form of restitution.

Quebec will never separate, there's too much money at stake for them to separate. They simply know that we will never call their bluff, everytime they scream "separation!" the feds throw a money blitzkrieg at them.

obviously it does it way back, if you look in some other threads i repeat and i repeat the same thing (its kind of annoying but the likes of oceanmdx and his mafia don't get it).

Quebeckers send 50B$ and recieve about the same in services and transfers (including military if we count soldiers stationned in Quebec). At the end of the day, we may be the only province that pays as much as it recieves.

Alberta is in my opinion, the only real cash cow atm, Ontario while giving alot to Ottawa, gets a good return on taxes from all the wages of the federal bureaucrats in Ottawa, but thats another story all together.

I'm just sick and tired of hearing that we get that 5B$ but we do nothing for the federation, which is completely false.

We could make a case that small is beautiful, smaller countries are better managed and more prosperous, we could manage that 50B$ by ourselves and spend it on our priorities, we would basically spend the same money as the federal does (army, borders, embassies, etc.) but with less redundancy, there wouldn't be two depts doing the same thing (immigration, culture, revenue, RCMP/SQ,...), one in Ottawa and one in Quebec... in these cases there that we would save money.

I can respect that response.

But I still don't really buy the argument that Quebec leaving Canada will make things any better for people in Quebec (or, adversely, for those in the rest of Canada).

what do anglo-saxons see in quebec that they try to keep it by bribing them -- the money that they need even more than quebecois?

(seriously i really want to know!)

what do anglo-saxons see in quebec that they try to keep it by bribing them -- the money that they need even more than quebecois?
Montreal, Quebec City, about 1/4 of Canada's population, a landmass that seperates Ontario and New Brunswick, 1/4 of the founding provinces.... etc?

BTW, not sure "anglo-saxon" is exactly the right word,

Conscription.

^^ LOL. Quebec would be more prosperous than Canada? That's is what you implied.
Quebec's GDP/capita would decrease and Canada's would increase! Even a separatist should have enough brain cells to realize that.


It would be prosperous, maybe less maybe more, it would be better than now for sure.

look at the fiascos the federal created... Gun registry, used submarines, broken helicopters, Gomery scandal, ... and for us Mirabel airport was a major fiasco done by the Federal in Quebec, what a waste of money and time. How about the fat bureaucratic machine in Ottawa? Lots of civil serveants, where are the services?

It would be prosperous, maybe less maybe more, it would be better than now for sure.
I had a nice long speech with examples of other breakups including Quebecs own economic history as it tied to political shake-ups, but then I realized that you may have a different meaning for "better" than I do despite using finance as an example.

Anyway, you might want to check out the Quebec budget sometime. I found it enlightening when I started reading them regularly.

It would be prosperous, maybe less maybe more, it would be better than now for sure.

look at the fiascos the federal created... Gun registry, used submarines, broken helicopters, Gomery scandal, ... and for us Mirabel airport was a major fiasco done by the Federal in Quebec, what a waste of money and time. How about the fat bureaucratic machine in Ottawa? Lots of civil serveants, where are the services?

Yes, there have been scandals. The gun registry was initiated by Chretien (another Quebec PM) sometime after Mark Lepine's (another Quebecker) actions in Quebec. It is a big waste of money and Quebec was in favor of the registry.

The submarine fiasco was caused by delays in procurement initiated by Chretien (Quebec PM). The subs sat in harbor and rusted while Chretien fiddled. Chretien also cancelled the new helicopters. Quebec is in favor of social spending - not miliary spending.

Mirabel was a white elephant, but whether it was due to incompetence at the Federal or Provincial level, the signatures of Quebeckers are all over the contracts.

Then there is Gomery; the hearings were in French perhaps 98 % of the time for a reason. It was about a bunch of Quebeckers screwing Canadians out of their tax dollars.

I once read that the province with the highest rate of tax evasion was Quebec.

Quebec is wasting its time trying to separate - this has been attempted twice already and where did it get you beyond frustrated? The exercise has been yet another example of Quebeckers wasting money. If Quebec wants change it should work within confederation. But understand, Quebec's views aren't the only ones that should count.

Actually Malek, you have done little more than provide reasons why other Canadians might want to get rid of Quebec. If Ottawa is a mess it is largely because Quebeckers are running it. You should consider yourself lucky to be a Canadian.

Like I said, I don't mind helping poorer provinces but it has gone overboard.
I don't mind some of the money going to Quebec but I get irritated when they complain its not enough.

I think a lot of Canadians are also miffed because one of the reasons Quebec has performed badly since 1970 is due to the separaist ideals and referendums. In other words its of her own making. Look at the 70s. With all the separist talk and eventually referendum, companies and jobs left Montreal en mass. They packed their bags and headed south right down the 401. It certainly wasn't anything Toronto did, it has one of the highest property/business tax rates in N.A.
Montreal lead to the demise of Montreal, not Toronto.
Quebec thru its own economic and political actions have made things in Quebec worse but gets equalization to make up the difference. When the Bank of Montreal moves to Toronto, its more than economics, its politics and if there is one thing business hates its uncertainty.
The Quebec economy has had a rennisance of late but yet another referendum will negate all that progress, again.

guys leave Malek alone. You are making harsh insults with reagards to his home province, what is he supposed to do, sit there and agree with you? Life is good, and this country is not as bad as we all make it. It could be worse a lot worse.

^^ Yeah right! In most countries separatists are considered as traitors. That's not a harsh insult, it is a simple fact.

Montreal lead to the demise of Montreal, not Toronto.

Are not u overexaggerating a bit? Montreal is doing fine for itself; it has been able to shead the blue collar town image where manufacturing and longshoring were the king and move into the 21st century. There was no such a thing as a demise of Montreal. Just because it does not have as many HQ as TO or Calgary does not indictate collapse of the city, far from it ...

Manybe u should visit Mtl once a while cause it is hard to talk about something that is 3000 km away and frankly makes some of your comments sound pretty dumb ...

^^ Yeah right! In most countries separatists are considered as traitors. That's not a harsh insult, it is a simple fact.
Comparing Canada to some third world country? Great.

Comparing Canada to some third world country? Great.

Oh? And you don't think that seperatists would considered traitors in the United States? France? Britain?

^^ Yeah right! In most countries separatists are considered as traitors. That's not a harsh insult, it is a simple fact.

Your problem is you equate Quebec bashing with your heroic struggle against separatism. As TreeBeard points out correctly, it offends Quebecers who love their province, regardless of their opinion on the national question.

Oh? And you don't think that seperatists would considered traitors in the United States? France? Britain?

Ever heard of SNP? Plaid Cymru? You think Britain should still be hanging Irish Republicans like they did a hundred years ago?

Oh? And you don't think that seperatists would considered traitors in the United States? France? Britain?

Are Scots or Welsh traitors for wanting independance from Britain? Perhaps by British government, but so what?

PS. essentially the same post as above ...

Are Scots or Welsh traitors for wanting independance from Britain? Perhaps by British government, but so what?

PS. essentially the same post as above ...

Basically, yes - they are traitors. All that matters is that they are considered traitors by the British government. I would assume that the British populace considers them traitors as well.

No, I don't know the first two, but I would assume that these are the Welsh and Scottish seperatists? I have little respect for the Irish Republicans, from whom the IRA was born - a terrorist organization despite their public "apologies" a few years ago.

And what is the point? One side views them as traitors, the other as freedom fighters ... depends on what side of the fence you're standing. This has little to do with Quebec and Canadian democracy.

One thing: I don't think separatists feel as traitors cause they don't feel they are Canadian in the first place

Ah, but it doesn't really matter how they feel. All that matters is that we seem as traitors.

EDIT: We also see them as Canadian, despite their protests.

Ah, but it doesn't really matter how they feel. All that matters is that we seem as traitors.

EDIT: We also see them as Canadian, despite their protests.

Yeah. Gandhi was a 'British subject' too, what a bloody traitor!

Isn't it amazing that people use this kind of subjective language to justify Quebec bashing?

don't think it matters to them how they are perceived by ROC;
we can say the worst of them, but they have an agenda and will stick to it.

Boris - you would be surprised by how few Quebecers (even federalists) describe themselves as Canadian ;) It is mindboggling, I don't think there is a state/province/region in NA like this.

don't think it matters to them how they are perceived by ROC;
we can say the worst of them, but they have an agenda and will stick to it.

^ True enough.

So, enough of seperation talk, let's get back to equalization.

I don't really know whether I am for or against equalization. On one hand, everyone should recieve a standard of public services across the country. That doesn't mean, for example, that Nova Scotia's health care should be as good as Alberta's, but it should meet a minimum level that is set across the country.

On the other hand, equalization tends to create a welfare state, where instead of getting back on their feet, have-not provinces piggyback on have provinces for all eternity. As a result, those have-not provinces become less competetive, and certain have provinces *cough* Alberta, Ontario *cough* get screwed out of a ton of cash.

EDIT: Oh wait, one final point from me:

Boris - you would be surprised by how few Quebecers (even federalists) describe themselves as Canadian It is mindboggling, I don't think there is a state/province/region in NA like this.

I feel that they simply take the feeling of indepence to an extreme. I myself feel more distinctly Albertan than Canadian. I know for sure that some of the few things I share with a person in Ontario is a bank and a language. It is more or less the same with people from BC, who are divided from us by the mountains. However I am an Albertan within a Canadian framework. Power to the Provinces.

true that :)
but hey, what is the alternative? US with fast growing regions that everybody envies, but also with places like Eastern Kentucky where folks live in trailer parks, eating majo sandwiches, fucking their cousins, ect ;)

I say keep the equalization payments, just lower the amounts transferred.

true that :)
but hey, what is the alternative? US with fast growing regions that everybody envies, but also with places like Eastern Kentucky where folks live in trailer parks, eating majo sandwiches, fucking their cousins, ect ;)

I say keep the equalization payments, just lower the amounts transferred.

Agreed. Equalization needn't be scrapped. It just needs to be reformed.

We agree way too much :)

We agree way too much :)

Look, national unity at work. Haha ;)

Comparing Canada to some third world country? Great.

Nowhere did I do that. So your comment was just dumb - plain and simple.

Your problem is you equate Quebec bashing with your heroic struggle against separatism.

That is not what I have done. You are putting your own spin on my comments.

Federal Equalization as it is hurts national unity. If you look at this board you will see that it is a huge stumbling block for most people here.

Yes, there have been scandals. The gun registry was initiated by Chretien (another Quebec PM) sometime after Mark Lepine's (another Quebecker) actions in Quebec. It is a big waste of money and Quebec was in favor of the registry.

The submarine fiasco was caused by delays in procurement initiated by Chretien (Quebec PM). The subs sat in harbor and rusted while Chretien fiddled. Chretien also cancelled the new helicopters. Quebec is in favor of social spending - not miliary spending.

Mirabel was a white elephant, but whether it was due to incompetence at the Federal or Provincial level, the signatures of Quebeckers are all over the contracts.

Then there is Gomery; the hearings were in French perhaps 98 % of the time for a reason. It was about a bunch of Quebeckers screwing Canadians out of their tax dollars.

I once read that the province with the highest rate of tax evasion was Quebec.

Quebec is wasting its time trying to separate - this has been attempted twice already and where did it get you beyond frustrated? The exercise has been yet another example of Quebeckers wasting money. If Quebec wants change it should work within confederation. But understand, Quebec's views aren't the only ones that should count.

Actually Malek, you have done little more than provide reasons why other Canadians might want to get rid of Quebec. If Ottawa is a mess it is largely because Quebeckers are running it. You should consider yourself lucky to be a Canadian.

Well put, especially that last paragraph. :applause:

What kind of national unity problems would we have if 'equalization' payments were never started?

And what is the point? One side views them as traitors, the other as freedom fighters ... depends on what side of the fence you're standing. This has little to do with Quebec and Canadian democracy.




An important issue that needs to be considered is the concept of "oppression". Since French-Canadians are not being oppressed by the Government of Canada in no way can Quebec separatists be considered "freedom fighters". It is very debatable whether Quebec should even have the right to separate since French-Canadians are not being oppressed. If a people within a country are being oppressed by the central government, then their legal case for separation is much stronger.

^I would tend to agree with that.

Actually it is arguable that many people outside of Quebec who join the military or persue a political career find themselves only being able to go so far because of the glass ceiling of Bi-Lingualism in Ottawa.

Yeah. Gandhi was a 'British subject' too, what a bloody traitor!

Isn't it amazing that people use this kind of subjective language to justify Quebec bashing?

What a pathetic example. India was a victim of British colonialism. Quebec is hardly a colony of Canada. Nor is Quebec being oppressed by Canada. All Quebeckers are Canadians, and the people of Quebec have voted in two referenda to remain a province within Canada. The separatists don't seem to respect the wishes of the majority. Ergo, they are a disruptive force in Quebec.

Quebec was one of the original provinces to join Confederation. As far as I know, Quebec's democratically elected representatives didn't have a gun held to their heads when they signed on back in 1867.

Boris - you would be surprised by how few Quebecers (even federalists) describe themselves as Canadian ;) It is mindboggling, I don't think there is a state/province/region in NA like this.

No, Quebeckers are the only ones in NA to describe themselves as "profitable federalists". ;)

Actually it is arguable that many people outside of Quebec who join the military or persue a political career find themselves only being able to go so far because of the glass ceiling of Bi-Lingualism in Ottawa.

Do they have to completely give up English speaking culture like many prominent Francophone military and civil service families did before official bilingualism? It's not impossible for an Anglophone to become perfectly fluent in French and vice versa... Sheila Copps is a good example of an Anglophone speaking really good French.

What a pathetic example. India was a victim of British colonialism. Quebec is hardly a colony of Canada. Nor is Quebec being oppressed by Canada. All Quebeckers are Canadians, and the people of Quebec have voted in two referenda to remain a province within Canada. The separatists don't seem to respect the wishes of the majority. Ergo, they are a disruptive force in Quebec.

Quebec was one of the original provinces to join Confederation. As far as I know, Quebec's democratically elected representatives didn't have a gun held to their heads when they signed on back in 1867.

That is completely subjective. If there's a significant portion of the population feel they are oppressed, or have been oppressed, I'd say they have reason to fear for their future.

And if you think Canada was a democratic society in 1867, you really need to retake your Canadian history class in high school.

^The point isn't that a person from either side of the fence should be forced to learn the other language inorder to be successfull.

One should be perfectly able in political circles to be elected and function properly in either French or English without having to know both. This is clearly not an option for the Military.

In practice, an individual who speaks French first who has passable English will always and has for many years had an advantage over someone who speaks excellent English but barely speaks French. Infact there are many cases where Francophone politicians speak no English but do not have that fact limit there chances at promotion regardless of their ability. On the other hand, one who only speaks English can only go so far before hitting the glass ceiling.

English and French are both official languages and someone who only speaks one of each should be able to get by without the other but the reality is that it is near impossible for one to get along without French.

I'm not sure as I have been able to word this well enough to illustrate my point.

That is completely objective. If there's a significant portion of the population feel they are oppressed, or have been oppressed, I'd say they have reason to fear for their future.

Sorry, but that made no logical sense. First, you say it is completely objective, then you imply it is completely subjective. But then, no one should expect a separatist sympathizer to be logical. ;)

Whether a people are oppressed or not can be determined objectively. The issue of oppression is not primarily subjective.

To wit, I don't see too many political prisoners held in Quebec's jails.

And if you think Canada was a democratic society in 1867, you really need to retake your Canadian history class in high school.

You can't fairly judge Canada's version of democracy in 1867 from a 2005 framework. In 138 years from now, people may very well look back at our version of democracy and see its shortcomings too. However, that shouldn't deligitimize our choices made during this era.

The real point is that no one pointed a gun at Quebec's head in 1867 to join Confederation. If you don't know why Canada was formed, and why Quebec wanted in, then you need to retake your Canadian history classes.

oceanmdx:

you can argue with me for all you want, it won't change anything. There still will be a large part of Quebec population that will want nothing more than to be citizens of the Republic of Quebec, whether I or you like it or not. All the arguments for the federalism have been falling on deaf ears in Quebec for a long time. Whether you and rest of ROC forumers agree with this is out of question, what is important is what Quebecers think. From what I see the movement for independance is there to stay for a long time because it was there from day one, equalization payments or not ...

Well they voted for Canada - three times.

It is just as important what Canadians in the ROC think, because even if Quebec where to decide to secede, we still will be right where we are, and they will have to deal with us - whether they like it our not. And we will not be in a mood to do them any favors.

Sorry, but that made no logical sense. First, you say it is completely objective, then you imply it is completely subjective. But then, no one should expect a separatist sympathizer to be logical. ;)

Whether a people are oppressed or not can be determined objectively. The issue of oppression is not primarily subjective.

To wit, I don't see too many political prisoners held in Quebec's jails.

HA, I'm a separatist sympathizer? That's news to me, I'm not aware that federalists in Quebec should be all Trudeau clones, yet. :)

Ok, it was my bad, but my point still stays. I for one, can't agree with your view on oppression. When people feel they are oppressed, or have been oppressed in the past, they have the right to address that, and this in itself is legitimate. It's called self-determination.

You can't fairly judge Canada's version of democracy in 1867 from a 2005 framework. In 138 years from now, people may very well look back at our version of democracy and see its shortcomings too. However, that shouldn't deligitimize our choices made during this era.

The real point is that no one pointed a gun at Quebec's head in 1867 to join Confederation. If you don't know why Canada was formed, and why Quebec wanted in, then you need to retake your Canadian history classes.

The question is you seem to state that people should be bound by the corrupt political system in the past, and because it's legitimate in your view, no one has the right to question it... Which is quite undemocratic in my view.

^^ it is not about anybody's moods ;)
if it does happen, then rest assured there will be great pressure on Canadian and Quebec governments to spit up amicably so that the business does not suffer. The multinational companies that have billions invested in Canada don't want this shit to affect their bottom line.

PS. Your confrontational attitude is childish, there are more mature people in higher places that understand and know how to deal with various political outcomes.

I for one, can't agree with your view on oppression. When people feel they are oppressed, or have been oppressed in the past, they have the right to address that, and this in itself is legitimate. It's called self-determination.

It's not just my view on oppression. Organizations like the UN agree with my position. Plus, they are not happy that a model country like Canada can be broken up for essentially petty reasons.

The question is you seem to state that people should be bound by the corrupt political system in the past, and because it's legitimate in your view, no one has the right to question it... Which is quite undemocratic in my view.

Just more of your spin on my words. I hate the corruption every bit as much as the next person, but the ideals of Canada are not to blame. If some provinces - like Quebec - want Confederation to change, I have no problem with that. However, they must do it within Confederation. That's basically my main point.

^^ it is not about anybody's moods ;)

Au contraire, for the separatists, it's all about emotion.;)


if it does happen, then rest assured there will be great pressure on Canadian and Quebec governments to spit up amicably so that the business does not suffer. The multinational companies that have billions invested in Canada don't want this shit to affect their bottom line.

The last time I checked, the multinationals didn't vote in our elections. ;)

There would be a lot of "shit" happening whether we like it our not - it cannot be avoided. "Canada" would be immediately politically paralyzed. The Federal Government would have to resign and call elections. Canadians would demand a new constitution. Hardliners (read that Reform from the west) would sweep to power. I honestly can't see how a split would occur on friendly terms. It would be more like a cold war with each party fighting over the spoils.

PS. Your confrontational attitude is childish, there are more mature people in higher places that understand and know how to deal with various political outcomes.

As a Canadian it is my patriotic duty to confront those who are sympathetic to the separatists who want to destroy my country - nothing childish about that.

PS. Before you accuse someone else of being childish for being "confrontational", don't you think you should be innocence of the same charge first?

The last time I checked, the multinationals didn't vote in our elections. ;)

There would be a lot of "shit" happening whether we like it our not - it cannot be avoided. "Canada" would be immediately politically paralyzed. The Federal Government would have to resign and call elections. Canadians would demand a new constitution. Hardliners (read that Reform from the west) would sweep to power. I honestly can't see how a split would occur on friendly terms. It would be more like a cold war with each party fighting over the spoils.

Mutinationals have more power than any level of government and feds listen to them more than to their citizens. Especially if such condition would occur. That is globalization for you ... I repeat: govenments will do nothing to harm the business investements and will be very careful not to damage the business climate in ROC and in Quebec ... what the heck, if Ottawa won't do it, US will force them to. So will EU with French doing anything to stop any Canada/Quebec confronation ...

Political upheavals would occur, but who says Reform will gain power? You can not predict that, it is a possiblity thou. Whatever. It is like counting chickens before they hatch ;)


As a Canadian it is my patriotic duty to confront those who are sympathetic to the separatists who want to destroy my country - nothing childish about that.

PS. Before you accuse someone else of being childish for being "confrontational", don't you think you should be innocence of the same charge first?

You count me as a separatist symphatizer? :) I hope not ...
Honestly, Canadians are too laid-back for any confrontation ;) That is the main thing that separates us from Americans - laissez-faire attitude.

If the multinationals were so influential and powerful, we wouldn't have had two referenda.

The French have fomented Canada/Quebec confrontation in the past.

On the other hand, equalization tends to create a welfare state, where instead of getting back on their feet, have-not provinces piggyback on have provinces for all eternity. As a result, those have-not provinces become less competetive, and certain have provinces *cough* Alberta, Ontario *cough* get screwed out of a ton of cash.

I mean not to offend, but this passage has left me feeling that you don't quite understand the term "welfare state." I'm not saying you're right or wrong, just that you're attaching the wrong term to the situation you've described.

I mean not to offend, but this passage has left me feeling that you don't quite understand the term "welfare state." I'm not saying you're right or wrong, just that you're attaching the wrong term to the situation you've described.

Let me check...


welfare state - a system attempting to ensure the welfare of all citizens by means of state operated social services.


equalization - Federal transfer program that allows all provinces, regardless of their ability to raise revenue, to provide roughly comparable levels of services at roughly comparable levels of taxation. Eligibility to receive equalization funding is determined by a formula measuring each province's revenue-raising capacity against a five-province standard. Currently, eight provinces receive equalization: Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. See Federal Transfers to Provinces and Territories for more information.

So technically, it isn't literally a welfare state, since the federal government does not provide those services itself. However, the have-not provinces do begin to rely on the government as a source of funding for such social programs. Therefore it is sort-of a welfare state.

:|