Nfld Wants More Federal Money...

[punked]

If you can do math, you'll see that means that Nova Scotia is getting more. He is wrong though in that Quebec gets much more than Ontario or BC.

Gets more per capita but no one ever said that. In my world 17>2.5 maybe it works differently in yours.

Ohhhh and BTWs if we look at just transfer payments NS only gets more per capita by a very small amount. AND if we use this years numbers of EQ payments NS is getting the same amount as Quebec. Roughly 1.1 per every million people. See this is the crap that is stupid. People say these blanket statements which aren't even close to true. If we look at this years numbers Quebec and NS are the same per capita end of story.

[Smallc]

Gets more per capita but no one ever said that. In my world 17>2.5 maybe it works differently in yours.

The total numbers are quite meaningless.

Ohhhh and BTWs if we look at just transfer payments NS only gets more per capita by a very small amount.

Maybe, it's still more.

AND if we use this years numbers of EQ payments NS is getting the same amount as Quebec. Roughly 1.1 per every million people. See this is the crap that is stupid. People say these blanket statements which aren't even close to true. If we look at this years numbers Quebec and NS are the same per capita end of story.

Actually, you're wrong:

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

[punked]

The total numbers are quite meaningless.

Maybe, it's still more.

Actually, you're wrong:

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

Actually you are wrong.

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

Lets do some math here because apparently you don't understand that subject. Quebec gets 8,552 million in equalization with roughly 7.5 million people. NS gets 1,110 million with roughly .93 million people.

8.552/7.5= 1.14 for every million. 1.110/.93=1.19 for every million people. We are looking a difference of 5 million dollars between the two provinces for every million people or around 5 bucks more per capita. What a huge difference they are getting almost the same amount per person. It might however interest you know that would make up about 1/13th of NS total provincial budget however it makes up around 1/8th-1/9th of Quebec's.

[Smallc]

We were talking about transfer payments, not just equalization. The numbers are right there in front of you.

[Smallc]

Actually you are wrong.

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

Lets do some math here because apparently you don't understand that subject. Quebec gets 8,552 million in equalization with roughly 7.5 million people. NS gets 1,110 million with roughly .93 million people.

On, and by the way, Quebec has roughly 7.9M people, while Nova Scotia has roughly .94M people.

[punked]

We were talking about transfer payments, not just equalization. The numbers are right there in front of you.

Really because I will just quote from the post for you.

PUNKED:

"AND if we use this years numbers of EQ payments NS is getting the same amount as Quebec. Roughly 1.1 per every million people. See this is the crap that is stupid. People say these blanket statements which aren't even close to true. If we look at this years numbers Quebec and NS are the same per capita end of story."

SmallC

"Actually, you're wrong:

http://www.fin.gc.ca...rov/mtp-eng.asp"

Now I don't see anywhere in that post where I TALK ABOUT EQ PAYMENTS that says anything about Transfer payments. Please don't move the goal posts. As for the population Numbers you are right I was using out dated numbers. However still doesn't change the fact that we are talking a difference of 5-9 million per million people or 5-9 dollars per person. Those numbers are roughly the same.

On the topic of transfers when talking health care or most others if you have larger transfers it means you are spending more of your provincial budget and so on in those areas. That isn't helpful to the province at all.

[Smallc]

Now I don't see anywhere in that post where I TALK ABOUT EQ PAYMENTS that says anything about Transfer payments. Please don't move the goal posts. As for the population Numbers you are right I was using out dated numbers. However still doesn't change the fact that we are talking a difference of 5-9 million per million people or 5-9 dollars per person. Those numbers are roughly the same.

The numbers are not the same. Anyway, the post you were replying to originally talked about equalization AND other transfers. Both are higher for Nova Scotia. You'll also notice that Nova Scotia gets payments for the offshore accords in lieu of some equalization...so the numbers are definitely not the same.

On the topic of transfers when talking health care or most others if you have larger transfers it means you are spending more of your provincial budget and so on in those areas. That isn't helpful to the province at all.

That isn't true. Quebec spends more on health as a percentage of its budget than almost anywhere else.

[punked]

That isn't true. Quebec spends more on health as a percentage of its budget than almost anywhere else.

I have no idea where you get your numbers but if talk per capita again. So nope nice try.

"Alberta and Manitoba at $6,266 and $6,249, respectively. British Columbia and Quebec are forecast to have the lowest health expenditure per capita at $5,355 and $5,096, respectively."

http://www.cihi.ca/cihi-ext-portal/internet/en/document/spending+and+health+workforce/spending/release_28oct10

[Smallc]

I have no idea where you get your numbers but if talk per capita again. So nope nice try.

"Alberta and Manitoba at $6,266 and $6,249, respectively. British Columbia and Quebec are forecast to have the lowest health expenditure per capita at $5,355 and $5,096, respectively."

http://www.cihi.ca/cihi-ext-portal/internet/en/document/spending+and+health+workforce/spending/release_28oct10

Per capita, you're probably right. As a percentage of government expenditures, it's higher in BC than in Manitoba, and I believe it's higher in Quebec. Those are interesting figures though, I wasn't aware of them. Thanks.

Edited November 22, 2010 by Smallc

[punked]

Per capita, you're probably right. As a percentage of government expenditures, it's higher in BC than in Manitoba, and I believe it's higher in Quebec. Those are interesting figures though, I wasn't aware of them. Thanks.

Anytime I can not find per budget figures for the last 2 years.

[Smallc]

Anytime I can not find per budget figures for the last 2 years.

I believe (if I remember correctly), Ontario, Quebec, and BC are all spending over 40% of their budgets on healthcare. Manitoba is spending 37% (manitoba has much lower administration costs, which helps).

[Guy M]

To clarify, in the grand scheme of things we (Quebecers) receive more transfer payments than the average, but near the median. We actually get some of the lowest transfers per capita, but of course the largest total equalization payment. We also have fewer federal public service jobs per capita than the average, unlike say Ontario. Yes Ontario gets less direct transfers than Quebec, but a lot of goverment business which is an indirect transfer. Then there is the topic of corporate subsidies... And stimulus funding...

All this tangent to say that federal transfers to Quebec are not the determining factor in explaining the power situation in eastern Canada.

As I've said earlier in this thread, I'm all for this underseas cable, and federal help to make it happen... just stop blaming Quebec for all your problems. Quebec and eastern Canada are in the same boat, facing the same problems. We are wasting energy being at each other's throats and avoiding the real issues.

Your politicians love that no matter how badly they mess up this massive project in the lower Churchill, they can divert the blame to the frenchies and most of you will eat it up, and ask for seconds. Things often work the same way in Quebec of course

Edited November 22, 2010 by Guy M

[blueblood]

To clarify, in the grand scheme of things we (Quebecers) receive more transfer payments than the average, but near the median. We actually get some of the lowest transfers per capita, but of course the largest total equalization payment. We also have fewer federal public service jobs per capita than the average, unlike say Ontario. Yes Ontario gets less direct transfers than Quebec, but a lot of goverment business which is an indirect transfer. Then there is the topic of corporate subsidies... And stimulus funding...

All this tangent to say that federal transfers to Quebec are not the determining factor in explaining the power situation in eastern Canada.

As I've said earlier in this thread, I'm all for this underseas cable, and federal help to make it happen... just stop blaming Quebec for all your problems. Quebec and eastern Canada are in the same boat, facing the same problems. We are wasting energy being at each other's throats and avoiding the real issues.

Your politicians love that no matter how badly they mess up this massive project in the lower Churchill, they can divert the blame to the frenchies and most of you will eat it up, and ask for seconds. Things often work the same way in Quebec of course

Here's what we know

1) The gov't of Quebec is soaking NFLD on the original Churchill project. As Wild Bill puts it, it's highway robbery. Being as there is a left-right consensus on this, I'll take that as fact.

2) NFLD and NS are planning another project and are going around Quebec. NFLD and NS are going to get all the benefits in perpetuity, and the Quebec gov't being the schiesters they are, will be milking a dry cow. Had the Quebec gov't been more reasonable, NFLD would gladly work with them to put cable across the province. There is a potential Quebec revenue stream gone.

3) Here's the fun, Quebec is in financial trouble. In 2030 the conference board predicts a deficit of 45 billion dollars. Had the Quebec gov't been reasonable, this project could have helped out with that. Now they will either have to cut spending, raise taxes, or ask the provinces for even more money.

In conclusion, the Quebec gov't couldn't run a hamburger stand. That gov't is hurting Quebecers with their vision of a socialist paradise paid for by the entire country and high taxes. Their vision is unsustainable and one day they will have to pay the piper for their incompetance. Canada and Quebec cannot afford the gov't of Quebec.

[Guy M]

Here's what we know

1) The gov't of Quebec is soaking NFLD on the original Churchill project. As Wild Bill puts it, it's highway robbery. Being as there is a left-right consensus on this, I'll take that as fact.

2) NFLD and NS are planning another project and are going around Quebec. NFLD and NS are going to get all the benefits in perpetuity, and the Quebec gov't being the schiesters they are, will be milking a dry cow. Had the Quebec gov't been more reasonable, NFLD would gladly work with them to put cable across the province. There is a potential Quebec revenue stream gone.

3) Here's the fun, Quebec is in financial trouble. In 2030 the conference board predicts a deficit of 45 billion dollars. Had the Quebec gov't been reasonable, this project could have helped out with that. Now they will either have to cut spending, raise taxes, or ask the provinces for even more money.

In conclusion, the Quebec gov't couldn't run a hamburger stand. That gov't is hurting Quebecers with their vision of a socialist paradise paid for by the entire country and high taxes. Their vision is unsustainable and one day they will have to pay the piper for their incompetance. Canada and Quebec cannot afford the gov't of Quebec.

1) The goverment of Quebec is "soaking" a corporation named Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited, a business it largely backed and funded in order to get this project going... a business which 1/3 belongs to Hydro-Quebec. CF was not funded and built by the NL goverment, but by this holdings corporation... It would not have been built without the long term rates deal. No one else was putting forth any financing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_Falls_Labrador_Corporation_Limited

2) That's all fine and dandy, there is plenty of Hydro to go around, and plenty of demand for power

3) Yes... The truth hurts... Can you look in the mirror and say that funding healthcare for an aging population will be easy in your province? Can your province run this proverbial hamburger stand?

Edited November 22, 2010 by Guy M

[Wild Bill]

3) Yes... The truth hurts... Can you look in the mirror and say that funding healthcare for an aging population will be easy in your province? Can your province run this proverbial hamburger stand?

No one is saying that the other provinces don't have inept governments. Just that Quebec is perhaps the worst!

Let's face it, your choices are basically Charest with his scandals or the PQ, who are mostly NDP types who hopped about the separatism train. They appeal to the heart but not the head. In all these decades they have never talked about Quebec's finances after the separation, except to BS Quebecers that they will somehow still get their CPP, Old Age Security, Disability and EI cheques when they have become a separate country. They seem to have forgotten what Trudeau told them at the beginning of their movement, that if they leave they are OUT! ALL THE WAY OUT!

Quebec governments have enjoyed an easy ride. Ottawa essentially has bribed them with transfer payments to stay in the country. The amount of federal money pouring into Quebec has made budgets very easy. Today all of Canada except Alberta has been experiencing tough economic times. Quebec is feeling pressures it's not used to recognizing, let alone managing.

Hence the latest forecasts in the mainstream media that Quebec is heading for bankruptcy.

[Battletoads]

Anything that takes power away from Quebec is good in my books.

And the Government of Canada investing in Canadian infrastructure? Never.

/Sarcasm

[Guy M]

No one is saying that the other provinces don't have inept governments. Just that Quebec is perhaps the worst!

Let's face it, your choices are basically Charest with his scandals or the PQ, who are mostly NDP types who hopped about the separatism train. They appeal to the heart but not the head. In all these decades they have never talked about Quebec's finances after the separation, except to BS Quebecers that they will somehow still get their CPP, Old Age Security, Disability and EI cheques when they have become a separate country. They seem to have forgotten what Trudeau told them at the beginning of their movement, that if they leave they are OUT! ALL THE WAY OUT!

Quebec governments have enjoyed an easy ride. Ottawa essentially has bribed them with transfer payments to stay in the country. The amount of federal money pouring into Quebec has made budgets very easy. Today all of Canada except Alberta has been experiencing tough economic times. Quebec is feeling pressures it's not used to recognizing, let alone managing.

Hence the latest forecasts in the mainstream media that Quebec is heading for bankruptcy.

I think there's a large movement in the rest of Canada that likes the idea of Quebec going bankrupt - or otherwise failing in one way or another. Thoses that don't like social-democracy, thoses that think the private sector knows best. Those that write articles for CANWEST or the Fraser Institute, as told by their bosses on Bay street...

In reality we've had average growth and average unemployment for the last 6 or 7 years, and an economy that is not that dynamic, but diverse, maybe one of the most diverse in Canada. There will be pressure to change the model and financing of public services in the coming years, as there will be elsewhere.

As I've said earlier, federal transfers to Quebec are on pace with many other provinces... It's nice to know that you guys are out there anxiously awaiting our demise, however. Hope that works out well for you.

Edited November 30, 2010 by Guy M

[Oleg Bach]

GIVE the Newfies what they want - make them rich..after all they are the door step to the nation when entering from the east...Why is it that Canada left the eastern end so poor for so long? Kind of like having a run down front entrance to a nice house where you let your old drunken uncle sleep - who never had a proper pension because he was to busy fishing and living off the land...and sea...Until our federal fathers offered no protection wheh the invaders came and plundered the cod stock...What's with that? Newfoundland was just fine as long as they could fish..why did the feds NOT stop other nations from destroying the only wealth that NFLD had?

[bloodyminded]

It's nice to know that you guys are out there anxiously awaiting our demise, however. Hope that works out well for you.

Some of us don't wish ill on any province; but then, some of us aren't mean-spirited and...provincial in our thinking, if I may use the term in that way.

Further, I think that many Canadians, while perceiving a sort of tiresome whining from Quebec, are beginning to sense a worse, woe-is-me, victim-mentality whining coming from the province of Alberta.

[Wild Bill]

I think there's a large movement in the rest of Canada that likes the idea of Quebec going bankrupt - or otherwise failing in one way or another. Thoses that don't like social-democracy, thoses that think the private sector knows best. Those that write articles for CANWEST or the Fraser Institute, as told by their bosses on Bay street...

In reality we've had average growth and average unemployment for the last 6 or 7 years, and an economy that is not that dynamic, but diverse, maybe one of the most diverse in Canada. There will be pressure to change the model and financing of public services in the coming years, as there will be elsewhere.

As I've said earlier, federal transfers to Quebec are on pace with many other provinces... It's nice to know that you guys are out there anxiously awaiting our demise, however. Hope that works out well for you.

I think you've missed the point, Guy. No one WANTS Quebec to become an economic basket case! It's just that many of us don't believe that this "social democracy" is self-sustaining on its own.

Obviously, it has worked for Quebec in the past. It has worked for a number of the other provinces. However, it only worked for them because other provinces followed a different approach and made enough money to support the ones that didn't.

If "social democracy" works so well economically then why is Quebec a "have not" province? Why isn't Quebec a "have" province like Alberta or how Ontario used to be? Historically, why hasn't Quebec been one of those supporting the poorer provinces?

Why don't ALL the provinces follow this path of "social democracy"? Surely it will make us all rich!

[Guy M]

I think you've missed the point, Guy. No one WANTS Quebec to become an economic basket case! It's just that many of us don't believe that this "social democracy" is self-sustaining on its own.

Obviously, it has worked for Quebec in the past. It has worked for a number of the other provinces. However, it only worked for them because other provinces followed a different approach and made enough money to support the ones that didn't.

If "social democracy" works so well economically then why is Quebec a "have not" province? Why isn't Quebec a "have" province like Alberta or how Ontario used to be? Historically, why hasn't Quebec been one of those supporting the poorer provinces?

Why don't ALL the provinces follow this path of "social democracy"? Surely it will make us all rich!

Well this is a fairly easy question to answer... Quebec used to be one of the furthest right leaning provinces in the 1950s, and still had appalling poverty much beyond the national average.

We are not going to be as rich as Alberta, no matter what social services model we have... the reason is easy... we don't have large oil deposits. Similarly, Alberta would be rich even if it were more left leaning, like say oil rich Norway is right now. Alberta would be much poorer without oil, small government or not.

Ontario is richer than Quebec, largely because of the presence of Canada's banking and financial systems, and federal goverment jobs in Ottawa. Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Windsor and Kingston are not really faring that much better than other medium sized cities in Canada and Quebec... The 'traditional' sectors in Ontario, manufacturing, natural ressources, knowledge economy, are comparable to Quebec, or BC, or Manitoba on most counts.

Massachusetts is one the richest US states, and has some the the highest taxes (hence the nickname taxachussets!!) There's no simple corrolation as to what your GDP will be depending on your level of services or tax model.

Edited December 1, 2010 by Guy M

[Wild Bill]

Well this is a fairly easy question to answer... Quebec used to be one of the furthest right leaning provinces in the 1950s, and still had appalling poverty much beyond the national average.

We are not going to be as rich as Alberta, no matter what social services model we have... the reason is easy... we don't have large oil deposits. Similarly, Alberta would be rich even if it were more left leaning, like say oil rich Norway is right now. Alberta would be much poorer without oil, small government or not.

Ontario is richer than Quebec, largely because of the presence of Canada's banking and financial systems, and federal goverment jobs in Ottawa. Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Windsor and Kingston are not really faring that much better than other medium sized cities in Canada and Quebec... The 'traditional' sectors in Ontario, manufacturing, natural ressources, knowledge economy, are comparable to Quebec, or BC, or Manitoba on most counts.

Massachusetts is one the richest US states, and has some the the highest taxes (hence the nickname taxachussets!!) There's no simple corrolation as to what your GDP will be depending on your level of services or tax model.

Oh-Kay! After reading your reply three times I think your answer boils down to "Quebec is poor, has always been poor and will always be poor. Therefore, our role is to always be a have-not province and take from the group's resources rather than add to them. We shall run "social democratic" governments and be quite comfortable."

Guy, you didn't address my point that "social democratic" government means always taking and never giving. You ignored my point that if every province acted like Quebec we would be a bankrupt country.

In the newspaper today there was an article about Portugal, which is now an economic basket case begging its EU neighbours to save its sorry ass. Apparently, they too have been proud to be a "social democratic" government for some decades now. Unfortunately, reality caught up with them and things fell apart. Is that the future you wish for Quebec?

Quebec has been wrestling with the separation question for years now. What do you think would happen if Quebec's "social democratic" style of government led to an economic collapse like that faced by Portugal? Isn't it possible that the rest of Canada might vote to kick Quebec out, rather than pay her debts? It's all well and good for everyone to call each other brothers and sisters and bruit how we have so much common history but if a referendum came out across "The Rest of Canada" that said "Are you in favour of paying double or triple your taxes to bail out Quebec, who believes that her "social democratic" government is a wonderful way to manage her economy?"

Everybody is friendly at a party until a few are stuck with the bill for the beer!

Why do you think that Quebec is so angry that Newfoundland has struck a new hydro-electric deal that cuts Quebec out of the loop to transport the power? They took it for granted that they would get another lucrative "Churchill Falls" type deal, to pay for the debts being run up by their "social democratic" economy.

How many "have" provinces are left to pay everyone's bills, Guy? Has "social democratic" government got a solution? As an Ontarioan, I'm willing to pay a bit extra for my 'imported' Bras d'Or beer but I think Quebec is going to need a lot more than that...

[Smallc]

How many "have" provinces are left to pay everyone's bills, Guy?

There are four have provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador. I'll give you one hint as to what they all share in common - it's black (well, except BC, there it's...natural. Saskatchewan also has potash, and Alberta also has lots of gas...and hot air). Ontario though, still pays most of the bills, because despite being a have not province, they are still a net contributor to Canada to the tune of tens of billions of dollars.

[Guy M]

Oh-Kay! After reading your reply three times I think your answer boils down to "Quebec is poor, has always been poor and will always be poor. Therefore, our role is to always be a have-not province and take from the group's resources rather than add to them. We shall run "social democratic" governments and be quite comfortable."

That's not what I'm saying at all... Québec is not "poor" by any means. Not by international standards, not by the standards of other develloped countries. It's poorer than the Canadian average, when the Canadian average is severly skewed by oil revenu. It's true that we will likely not close that gap, because the gap with Alberta, Saskatchewan and NL is not caused by fiscal policy, or economic policy, but by the presence of ressources that are highly in demand. Other provinces are starting to fall behind as well, including Ontario. We're about median between the provinces, about average in unemployment... Average in growth, despite having higher taxes.

What I'm saying, is that if we were to drop our taxes to Alberta levels tommorow, our GDP per capita will not magically increase. Similarly, if large scale oil & gas operations takes off in Quebec, we could easily become a "have province" despite having 7$ daycare and cheap tuitions. I don't know how else to explain it.

[August1991]

You still don't get it, August. Or you're dodging it, perhaps. People understand perfectly that Newfoundland needed someone to ensure financing. They also understand that if the electricity had to be carried across Quebec she certainly would be entitled to be paid for the service.

What has caused the hard feelings is the EXORBITANT price Quebec has received! It is SO high that it is equivalent to robbery! And the fact that it was locked in for decades was salt in the wound.

Wild Bill, you don't get it.

If I own gold on the moon, am I rich? If someone provides a cheap way for me to bring this gold to Earth, does that make me rich? Or is the person who can bring the gold here the rich person?

Newfoundlanders believe that since this phenomenal waterfall is in Labrador, that makes them rich. What they fail to understand, from Smallwood to Williams, is that Churchill Falls has no value unless it can produce electricity of use to someone.

The critical ingredient is not the waterfall in Labrador - it is the ability to bring this power to people who want it.

This was the stumbling block of Churchill Falls in the 1960s. Smallwood took a succession of foreigners to see the falls but all walked away because it was simply "gold on the moon". Only when Quebec offered to provide access to consumers did investors talk to Smallwood seriously. And the investors wanted a credible guarantee from Quebec that it had customers.

Levesque, in 1962, offered a fair deal to Smallwood but Smallwood walked away. Like Williams, he thought that the Falls were in Newfoundland and he should get all the money. By 1966, the true situation was apparent even to Smallwood. To provide financing, investors wanted Hydro-Quebec's guarantee to buy the electricity: the critical resource is not the waterfall, it is access to markets.

----

Individually, we enjoy or suffer the chance genetics of our parents, grandparents, our ancestors. Similarly, many Canadians enjoy the chance geography of glaciers - we have waterfalls. Churchill Falls is an accident of glaciers, and Quebec's proximity to Boston and New York too. This natural wealth happened by accident. If your parents are tall, or beautiful, you benefit - by accident.

Newfoundland has no more claim to the wealth of Churchill Falls than Quebec. The true wealth is the ability to make this resource useful. Churchill Falls is of no value without a way to deliver the electricity.

====

As a final point, everyone in Canada is talking about how well-loved Danny Williams is in Newfoundland. Well, Joey Smallwood was well-loved in Newfoundland in the 1950s and the 1960s too.

History has a different view of Smallwood now, and no doubt Newfoundlanders will have a different view of Williams in the future too.

Danny Williams and Joey Smallwood are/were autocrats. Maybe it's something about island people -they're different. Like Cubans and Philippinos, they occasionally and foolishly admire autocrats.

Edited December 2, 2010 by August1991