Licia Corbella on Quebec hypocrisy

[wyly]

If "wyly" were literate, the post would still be highly ignorant. I cannot condone that type of slur on one of the most brilliant, articulate, honest, and insightful journalists in Canada. I suspect the real reason "wyly" doesn't read the excellent article by Licia is because he/she/it can't.

from your post count of 1 I can only assume you hit on this topic while googling her name, you're what? her mom? dad?...

it's not a slur when it's true...Corbella should do movie reviews or a recipe column, serious investigative journalism is not her forte... when a journalist offers an opinion without investigating the story/facts objectively from multiple positions he/she is no more than blogger...

serious investigative journalism should be left to people more competent but what can you expect from a tabloid like the Herald masquerading as a Newspaper that has the likes of Mark Milke, Nigel Hannaford and Susan Martinuk (she's dumber than whole truckload of hammers) contributing to that rag and the CanWest chain...

people like Don Martin, Chantal Hebert, Andrew Coyne, Tim Sabastian just to name a few, those are the real deal in journalism...

Edited January 9, 2010 by wyly

[ironstone]

from your post count of 1 I can only assume you hit on this topic while googling her name, you're what? her mom? dad?...

it's not a slur when it's true...Corbella should do movie reviews or a recipe column, serious investigative journalism is not her forte... when a journalist offers an opinion without investigating the story/facts objectively from multiple positions he/she is no more than blogger...

serious investigative journalism should be left to people more competent but what can you expect from a tabloid like the Herald masquerading as a Newspaper that has the likes of Mark Milke, Nigel Hannaford and Susan Martinuk (she's dumber than whole truckload of hammers) contributing to that rag and the CanWest chain...

people like Don Martin, Chantal Hebert, Andrew Coyne, Tim Sabastian just to name a few, those are the real deal in journalism...

Again,can you point to something specific in Corbella's article that is inaccurate?Or is the truth just that painful?

[Guy M]

Frighteningly, I know people who live in Quebec who honestly believe this. When presented with evidence to the contrary, they simply accuse you of lying.

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?

Edited February 3, 2010 by Guy M

[Hydraboss]

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%.

Actually, you don't pay a red Canadian cent to "the equalization pot". Not a dime. Not a dollar. YOU RECEIVE AS A HAVE-NOT province. Some people in Kwebek pay federal taxes, but the province has always, and always will, stand with their tin cup in hand DEMANDING that the rest of Canada pay them for the honor of La Spoiled Province staying in Canada.

Get your math right...use the "search" function for "equalization" threads and read the real numbers.

[Guy M]

Actually, you don't pay a red Canadian cent to "the equalization pot". Not a dime. Not a dollar. YOU RECEIVE AS A HAVE-NOT province. Some people in Kwebek pay federal taxes, but the province has always, and always will, stand with their tin cup in hand DEMANDING that the rest of Canada pay them for the honor of La Spoiled Province staying in Canada.

Get your math right...use the "search" function for "equalization" threads and read the real numbers.

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.

[Alta4ever]

As to where the money goes, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island collectively take in $3.4-billion and Manitoba garners almost $2.1-billion. Quebec takes in the largest share of the $14.2-billion federal honey pot at almost $8.4-billion (or 59 per cent of equalization).

http://www.albertalocalnews.com/reddeeradvocate/opinion/It_is_time_to_re-think_its_equalization_payments_82623972.html

Why is it if Quebec makes up 21% of GDP it takes the largest amount of equalization, while Alberta who contributes less to GDP according to you receives far less back.

Alberta transferred $21 billion more to Ottawa than it got back in 2009. That equates to more than $5,700 for each Albertan. Fairness is not part of this equation. Why?

Quebec, with huge renewable resources, is being subsidized by Alberta, a province with non-renewable resources. Quebec is able to subsidize its day care and university tuition, courtesy of Alberta, to the point where they are the cheapest in Canada.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/Making+equalization+equitable/2467233/story.html

Have a look at the graphs here they illustrate what you are trying to talk about guy, but it does show that your math is wrong.

http://communities.canada.com/calgaryherald/blogs/corbellareport/archive/2010/01/15/provincial-net-contributions-to-confederation.aspx

[Smallc]

Why is it if Quebec makes up 21% of GDP it takes the largest amount of equalization, while Alberta who contributes less to GDP according to you receives far less back.

Well first, it's a very complex formula. Second, compare the populations of the two provinces, and then get back to everyone. Poor old Alberta...always getting the short end of the stick...or so they seem to think.

[Gabriel]

Alta4ever - Let's talk broadly for a moment. Are you opposed to the very concept of equalization? Forget about the details of how it's implemented in Canada for a moment and tell me if you think it'd a good idea to transfer money for better performing provinces to poorer provinces in order to maintain some level or uniformity among provincial services. I'm unsure where I stand on it, I haven't thought much about it. My instincts tell me if shouldn't be a steady thing, some sort of dependable savior from poor economic performance rather than an option for the federal government to exercise in the event of great need - such as some natural disaster. Hopefully I'm not coming in too late into this conversation... perhaps this conversation has already been done to death around these parts.

Let me know if you're opposed to the very idea of equalization payments.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Gabriel

[dizzy]

The sense of an opinion stands on its own without regard to the person who utters it. It's sad you don't seem to understand that. Sad, but hardly surprising.

Why, I bet even you sometimes have an opinion which makes some degree of sense.

Alberta is the land of milk and honey and I don't begrudge its wealth. I'm grateful for the money it brings into the federation. But there's no intellectual capital there. Quebec is a world leader in aerospace, mass transportation, biotechnology. It has the only self-sustaining cultural industries in Canada. So, while I'm grateful for the incredible wealth produced from alberta's piece of earth, of the two provinces it's Quebec that gives us our 'first-world' stature.

Both provinces bring a distinct worldview into our society.

Canada has one-third of the world's brain power on alternative energies. When we do finally begin to wean ourselves from oil and coal, we should be in a good position to replace the economic loss.

[Smallc]

It has the only self-sustaining cultural industries in Canada.

Wait a minute. I love Quebec, but that's a bit over the top. There are other parts of Canada that have self sustaining cultural industries. Edmonton and Winnipeg are good examples...Calgary and Toronto...and so many other cities.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Smallc

[dizzy]

Wait a minute. I love Quebec, but that's a bit over the top. There are other parts of Canada that have self sustaining cultural industries. Edmonton and Winnipeg are good examples...Calgary and Toronto...and so many other cities.

I meant it in the sense of that what they produce in film & television actually makes money and sells to international audiences. I think the top grossing english canadian movie was men with brooms, which cost $7.5 million to make and grossed about $4 million.

But I wasn't clear (late night/early morning post) and you're right. In terms of the arts and in music and literature, there are amazing things going on across Canada. Even in Alberta!

Edited February 4, 2010 by dizzy

[Smallc]

Ok, now I see what you mean.

[Alta4ever]

Alta4ever - Let's talk broadly for a moment. Are you opposed to the very concept of equalization? Forget about the details of how it's implemented in Canada for a moment and tell me if you think it'd a good idea to transfer money for better performing provinces to poorer provinces in order to maintain some level or uniformity among provincial services. I'm unsure where I stand on it, I haven't thought much about it. My instincts tell me if shouldn't be a steady thing, some sort of dependable savior from poor economic performance rather than an option for the federal government to exercise in the event of great need - such as some natural disaster. Hopefully I'm not coming in too late into this conversation... perhaps this conversation has already been done to death around these parts.

Let me know if you're opposed to the very idea of equalization payments.

I am opposed to taxation with out representation. Alberta is subject to the tyranny of majority of the east. The way this program is set up is the very expression and root of the frustration of that tyranny. If Alberta was asked to join Canada today I with this "deal" on the table I doubt it would. With only 28 members to vote against this or try to re negotiate a deal it will never change, and the recipient provinces totaling more then 3/4 of the seats in the house we are nothing but the slaves of confederation. The net contribution to Canada of Alberta per person ranges from year to year but it is always between 3000 to 5000. Even when Ontario was a have province it was the next closest and contributed around $1700 per person. BC when it was a have province was the next at about $800 per person. The rest of the provinces of Canada are net recipients, in others words all of their federal taxes come back to the province and then they get a share of what the net contributors pay.

Per person Albertans carry more of the load of Canada then any other provincial jurisdiction yet have what amounts to no say on how any of this money is spend since they can be out voted by any other region in Canada. This really amounts to Taxation without meaningful representation, we need a EEE body in this country to counter the tyranny of majority we have now. This is why we feel like slaves to the ROC.

[Smallc]

and the recipient provinces totaling more then 3/4 of the seats in the house

Ummm...Ontario is a net contributor, and they have 1/3 of all of the seats. Try again.

[Smallc]

BC when it was a have province was the next at about $800 per person.

BC still is a have province.

[Alta4ever]

Ummm...Ontario is a net contributor, and they have 1/3 of all of the seats. Try again.

Not this year of 2010, they became a have not province.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/419848

Edited February 4, 2010 by Alta4ever

[Gabriel]

Ummm...Ontario is a net contributor, and they have 1/3 of all of the seats. Try again.

Ontario is a recipient in 2009-2010, though. Apparently it's the first year Ontario is on the receiving end.

[Smallc]

Ontario is a recipient in 2009-2010, though. Apparently it's the first year Ontario is on the receiving end.

Ontario is an Equalization recipient. It is still a net contributor (of over $20B from the numbers I've seen). The funny thing is, Ontario's economy is actually in better shape than BC's, but the way the formula works, based on many different factors, Ontario is eligible to receive, and BC isn't.

Edit: This is the first year Ontario has received, but it's not the first year that Ontario was eligible to receive. That's happened at various times in the past.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Smallc

[Gabriel]

BC still is a have province.

Although BC isn't qualifying for equalization payments this year, I think its contribution to these payments is minuscule.

[Smallc]

Although BC isn't qualifying for equalization payments this year, I think its contribution to these payments is minuscule.

That may very well be, but have and have not status is not based on how much, but rather, whether you receive equalization or not.

[Gabriel]

Anyone feel like posting links to figuring out how this formula works? I found this link to the governmental (MoF) website discussing this stuff. I'll be back later. I don't really know the first thing about this whole equalization thing. I imagine I'm not gonna like this program once I learn more about it, though.

[Smallc]

I'm not sure exactly how the program works, but it's based on a system of averages. The rational, as laid out in the Constitution Act, 1982, is as follows:

Commitment to promote equal opportunities

36. (1) Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to

(a ) promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians;

(b ) furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities; and

(c ) providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians.

Commitment respecting public services

(2) Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.(98)

Edit:

Jay's article on Equalization:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/equalization-program-canada-overview-and-contemporary-issues#operation

I believe that Equalization was again changed after this.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Smallc

[Alta4ever]

http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/eqp-eng.asp

This doesn't have the formula but its how the programs works. It from the government not someones interpretation. Although most of this all could be fixed by changing one word from average to median.

[Smallc]

What is basically comes down to is the fiscal capacity of the provincial governments of the provinces. All provinces must have an at least average fiscal capacity. If they are above that average already, they get nothing from Ottawa in the way of Equalization. If they are below that average, they are eligible to receive payments from Ottawa to top up their capacity so they at least meet the average.

[Alta4ever]

What is basically comes down to is the fiscal capacity of the provincial governments of the provinces. All provinces must have an at least average fiscal capacity. If they are above that average already, they get nothing from Ottawa in the way of Equalization. If they are below that average, they are eligible to receive payments from Ottawa to top up their capacity so they at least meet the average.

like I said it should be changed to the median.