Guy M

Most people in Canada are also blissfully unaware that Quebec sends 46BN a year in taxes to Ottawa... Nearly 21% of the total budget.

A large percentage is Hydro-Quebec, and is associated with assets that have value and earn money. I'll still agree that Quebec is living beyond it's means. We can't afford to subsidize electricity and encourage people to waste it. I see the proposed rate increase as a good thing on that front. It will increase revenu to the province, hopefully reduce consumption, meaning we can also export more, hopefully enough to turn off a coal generator or two in New-England, Ontario or the martimes. Our tuitions are low, although graduates tend to pay back the differences over time with their increased revenue. Tuitions need to follow inflation too which hasn't really been happening. Our daycare program largely pays for itself with the income of mothers, but should have been indexed to inflation when it came in.

I don't think equalization payments come primarily from Alberta, they come from federal taxes same as any other program. If you look at the 14BN dollars equalization program as a whole, Alberta probably pays ~14% of it (1.96BN, Alberta is 14% of Canada's economy) and Quebec pays around 21% (2.94BN, Quebec is 21% of Canada's GDP). The crucial difference is of course that Alberta won't receive equalization, while Quebec is the largest recipient, but also the second largest contributor of taxes to the feds, amounting to roughly 45BN a year. Every province sends more in taxes than they receive back in transfers/equalization, if you think about it equalization at 14BN/year is only about 5% of an overall federal budget that's in the 250BN dollar range. As for being heavily dependant, that's a mixed bag. Per Capita Quebec receives more than Ontario, but less than Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PEI. Looks like BC may be joining us all next year too. Being a 'have not' in Canada circa 2010 simply means having no oil in your backyard. The other sectors, manufacturing, research, high tech, mining, fisheries, pulp & paper ect that are the mainstay of our economy are not doing that great in the rest of the country either... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_gross_domestic_product http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/eqp-eng.asp

How do you come up with theses opinions? I'm genuinely curious how you could come to think this? I don't think anyone in Quebec thinks themselves superior to 'les anglais'. It's very obvious that California for example is ahead of Quebec on the environment and has been for a long time. I think the overwhelming feeling in Quebec is not that we are that great, but that we should be doing more, and that the feds should be too. As for the rest of Canada outperforming Quebec and shipping us money, again I would say that the only sector that is significantly outperforming Quebec is oil. Alberta, NL and Saskatchewan are eclipsing the rest of the country, very little of this could arguably be related to language or culture. To insinuate that the rest of the country is outperforming Quebec because of it's work-centric values is ludicrous. Anglophones in BC, Manitoba or Nova-Scotia are not really generating anymore wealth per capita than Francophone Quebec, or contributing more to federal coffers.

The explanation is simply that Quebec is 21% of Canada's economy and 23% of it's population, therefore has a smaller than average capacity to leverage taxes to provide services like health care and education. I don't know if anyone could detail to me the net receiver thing. I doubt any province is a net receiver in the sense that they receive more in transfers and services than they pay in taxes. The federal goverment has a huge operating cost and probably spends most of it's money on things like salaries, utilities, equipment, the military, the RCMP, Coast Guard... Equalization for example, as a percentage of federal spending, is in the ballpark of 14BN out of ~250BN, or roughly 5 percent of the total budget. I will agree with you that the current setup isn't competely to Alberta's immediate advantage, however the broader principle is not fundamentally bad. If for example tommorow morning someone comes out with a groundbreaking fuel cell concept and the price of oil winds up dropping by 70%, Alberta could become a recipient and receive help to deliver services and invest in it's economy. As a country this means that our economic diversity is leveraged to help provide services throughout the country. Another factor is that prosperity in one sector can negatively impact another. A good example is that the demand for oil inflates the value of the Canadian dollar, which in turns hurts manufacturing in central Canada.

1) I think my math is pretty good. 2) Contrary to what you may believe, nearly ALL people in Quebec pay federal tax the same as people in the rest of Canada. 3) Equalization money does come from federal taxes. It's not like they take money from Alberta directly and give it to the 'have nots'. They take money collected from everywhere in Canada (including Quebec, PEI, NB, NS and Ontario" and transfer it to the 'have nots'. http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/eqp-eng.asp And yes, actually Quebec is the second largest source of revenu for the feds after Ontario since it has the second biggest economy amounting to about 20.5% of Canada's total GDP (2008 figures, 2009 figures will be closer to 21%). Alberta's GDP is about 14% of Canada's total. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_gross_domestic_product All provincial goverments have their hands out to the feds, the rest of Canada just loves to think that Quebec is the cause of all their problems. In reality Quebec is, on the net receiver scale, somewhere between Ontario and Manitoba per capita.

Ok, I am one of theses uninformed Quebecers who 'believes' we receive 8BN in equalization from the federal goverment, but where said goverment also collects ~21% of it's revenu in Quebec. Quebec is the biggest recipient of equalization, but the other provinces that receive the remaining equalization (NB, NS, manitoba, PEI) combined have 1/2 of our population and approximately pay half as much tax to the feds, they receive 50-60% more per capita. Looking at the 14B equalization pot, and keeping in mind that Quebec pays 21% of it, or 3BN, Quebec is a net receiver of 5BN, out of which Alberta contributes about 2BN. Not a negligeable ammount of money, but as a percentage of our GDP it ammount to about 0.7%. Does this mean we can't wish our country would lower it's emissions footprint? Maybe you can present your hard evidence to the contrary and I can accuse you of lying?

You raise many good points. First 400 million is a lot of money. Didn't the Molsons just buy the habs and Bell center for 575 million? That is for one of the most financially sucessfull teams in the league and a 22000 seat arena in downtown Montreal. 400 million for just an arena in the suburds of Quebec is a lot of money... And I doubt they will get Charest and Harper to put in 175 million each. Labaume is throwing a line and seeing what he will catch. That said a less ambitious project that costs less may still be feasible with one or many private partners. As for market size, a tricky argument. Some small cities with so-so economies can sustain teams, a good example of this is the Green Bay Packers. The climate is not the same today as it was in the mid 1990s; For one there is a salary cap. For another, both Quebec and Winnipeg lost their teams during a tech Bubble era, when certain areas boomed while Quebec's economy for example stagnated and even contracted from the referendum. Today Quebec's economy is no tiger, but compares much better to similar sized cities, for example unemployment is around 5% compared to nearly 10% as the US average, and no toxic mortages to shoulder for the average hockey fan.

If Quebecor steps up as a potential buyer for a team and private partner for the arena, it very well could happen. They were going hard after the habs, but could do well with Quebec as well. The fact that they are the media monopoly in the province opens up many possibilities for them. Exclusive broadcast rights, sports shows, sports colums, sports publications, variety specials with NHL players... Potentially the new arena would become the center for cultural events in eastern / northern Quebec and they would be at the center of the action. In fact one of their TV stations, TVA, currently has a sitcom about the Canadiens-Nordiques rivalry and draws 1 million plus audiences. There is also a bigger potential fan-base in Quebec / Winnipeg than in Hamilton. Being so close to Toronto, many people in the area will remains leafs fans. I live in Ottawa and there as many blue shirts at the Scotia Bank place as red ones when the leafs are in town. Ditto for when the habs come (fewer shirts maybe, but they are louder!!).

Do you honestly believe the other 4/5 of politicans are entirely focused on the national good and exempt from regional interests?

That's mostly true. However I think most countries in europe did understand sea power, but were also exposed to prolongued landwars with their neighbors which tied down most of their ressources. This was certainly the case during what is known in continental Europe as the War of the Austrian succession New France was a strategic writeoff in the french war plan. Tactical victories were achieved by the french, in part because of their planned fortifications, in part because their militias and indian allies knew the terrain well and understood the climate and challenges thereof. However the difficulties of fighting such a large force (~40,000 men), the massive logistical effort required to deploy sufficient troops overseas, and the poor prospects against the Royal navy caused the french to think "euro-centrically". If sufficient progress could be made against Britains allies such as Prussia, lost colonies would be regained by treaty, as had happened in Louisbourg before.