Grow the Eff up Quebec!

[fellowtraveller]

An accident of nature under Alberta's soil (discovered in 1935) and a curious clause in our Constitution (the 1867 BNA Act) explain equalization payments. It has nothing to do with work effort or innate ability.

Don't let facts get in the way of your bigotry. The price of a barrel of oil in 1965- when Albertans first started paying equalization to la Belle Province- was $3. It was $12 as recently as 1998. They balanced their provincial budget when oil was at $15. They have the lowest welfare participation in the country.

I doubt you'd know much about work effort, the best examples of work ethic left Quebec for the Rockies long ago, out of necessity.

[Smallc]

Don't let facts get in the way of your bigotry.

Yeah, sure. Alberta did everything without resources (and you know as well as anyone that the budget was balanced on natural gas.

[capricorn]

That was coordinated, and almost looks like a dry run of something bigger. I just hope it does not pan out to be a prelude to a real terror attack.

The ease with which smoke bombs were strategically positioned in parts of the Montreal subway highlights the vulnerability of security measures presently in place. This will surely result in the application of additional security and surveillance measures that Montreal taxpayers and subway commuters will ultimately pay for.

[fellowtraveller]

Yeah, sure. Alberta did everything without resources (and you know as well as anyone that the budget was balanced on natural gas.

and you should know that Alberta also had the highest or second highest agricultural revenue in the country, and significant forestry until that collapsed.

It was not all oil and gas by any means, there was plenty of hard work and austerity at times.

[Boges]

The ease with which smoke bombs were strategically positioned in parts of the Montreal subway highlights the vulnerability of security measures presently in place. This will surely result in the application of additional security and surveillance measures that Montreal taxpayers and subway commuters will ultimately pay for.

That's the price we must pay to live in a free society.

[Smallc]

and you should know that Alberta also had the highest or second highest agricultural revenue in the country, and significant forestry until that collapsed.

And having the second most agricultural land, a huge natural tourist industry, and a massive supply of timber in the north did nothing for that.

It was not all oil and gas by any means, there was plenty of hard work and austerity at times.

And...you know...geography. Most Canadian provinces are at or above the average economically for the western world (in terms of per capita GDP). Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador (3 guesses what they have in common) are in a league of their own, with places like Norway, Oman, Qatar (again, 3 guesses).

There's nothing wrong with where Alberta gets it's money, but denying it makes you look foolish.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Smallc

[GostHacked]

The ease with which smoke bombs were strategically positioned in parts of the Montreal subway highlights the vulnerability of security measures presently in place. This will surely result in the application of additional security and surveillance measures that Montreal taxpayers and subway commuters will ultimately pay for.

Or could have been an undercover police action to warrant more police/camera presence in the undergrounds. I would not put it past the police to do this. Creating the problem to offer the solution. Happens quite often as we are finding out.

[Boges]

Or could have been an undercover police action to warrant more police/camera presence in the undergrounds. I would not put it past the police to do this. Creating the problem to offer the solution. Happens quite often as we are finding out.

That's one Hell of a claim.

Do you believe Rosevelt and Churchill knew Pearl Harbour was going to happen beforehand too?

Edited May 10, 2012 by Boges

[g_bambino]

Canadian Spring is a reality and this country will become even more militant with the growing gap between rich and poor, between the right wing Harper fascists and those of us who want our country back.

Um, who said it was your country in the first place?

[g_bambino]

Imagine in Stephen Harper did what PET did then? People would freak.

They would. But, then, for all their immature stupidity, the student protesters haven't yet made overturning the state their main priority, nor have they resorted to bombs, kidnapping, and murder to achieve their desired end.

[GostHacked]

That's one Hell of a claim.

Yes it is. It's a possibility.

Do you believe Rosevelt and Churchill knew Pearl Harbour was going to happen beforehand too?

It's a possibility.

[Guest Manny]

They would. But, then, for all their immature stupidity, the student protesters haven't yet made overturning the state their main priority, nor have they resorted to bombs, kidnapping, and murder to achieve their desired end.

Smoke bombs in three train stations in Montreal yesterday.

[g_bambino]

Smoke bombs in three train stations in Montreal yesterday.

Which is nothing at all like a real bomb in a mailbox.

[Guest Manny]

Which is nothing at all like a real bomb in a mailbox.

Yeah but it's still "terrorism", if it creates havoc and makes people afraid.

That's all terrorism needs to do, for the most part.

[jacee]

Yeah but it's still "terrorism", if it creates havoc and makes people afraid.

That's all terrorism needs to do, for the most part.

Fear ... of SERIOUS harm.

Not fear of missing your train.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3066235&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&File=15

The definition of “terrorist activity” in section 83.01 of the Criminal Code has two components. The first component incorporates a series of offences enacted to implement international legal instruments against terrorism. The second, more“terrorist activity” is an act or omission undertaken“in whole or in part for a political, religious, or intended to intimidate the public or compel a from doing any act, if the act or omission intentionally causes a specified serious harm. Specified harms include causing death or serious bodily harm, endangering life, causing a serious risk to health or safety, causing substantial property damage where it would also cause one of the above listed harms and, in certain circumstances, causing serious interference or disruption of an essentia service, facility or system, whether public or private.

[g_bambino]

Yeah but it's still "terrorism", if it creates havoc and makes people afraid.

No, it's not. If it were, anything that some over-sensitive person was scared by could be classified as terrorism. I'm pretty sure actual danger of physical harm to civilians being deliberately created is necessary to consider an event to be terrorism.

[-TSS-]

I read about the stuff about the planned tuition-fees in Quebec today and I must say that I'm surprised.

[Boges]

No, it's not. If it were, anything that some over-sensitive person was scared by could be classified as terrorism. I'm pretty sure actual danger of physical harm to civilians being deliberately created is necessary to consider an event to be terrorism.

Would yelling fire in a crowded theatre be considered terrorism if it causes a stampede and people die?

Edited May 15, 2012 by Boges

[Guest Manny]

No, it's not. If it were, anything that some over-sensitive person was scared by could be classified as terrorism. I'm pretty sure actual danger of physical harm to civilians being deliberately created is necessary to consider an event to be terrorism.

This did not affect some over-sensitive person, singular. In this day and age, simultaneous smoke bombs going off in different parts of the city will cause a red-alert to be raised, and you will see special anti-bomb squads deployed, and military put on alert as well. People would be evacuated from the stations, maybe even a few blocks evacuated a around the stations to be sure. Until they found out it is a prank, this is a bomb-scare.

It's easy to say "no, it's not", once we all know they were fake bombs.

In fact the MP's debated the need for increased security in train stations. Whether they voted in favour of it or not, doesn't matter. What matters is, it raised an alarm and got a response frm the authorities, it got the attention of the public, and puts doubt in people's minds as to who might want to do things like that, and what they or someone else (copy-cat) may try and do next.

Point is, terrorism does not need to succeed in order to be effective. It only needs to raise the spectre of fear. Even by calling in false bomb threats.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Manny

[jbg]

So people should just roll over and take it? Ok.

Let's spend some more taxpayer money to shore up the banks. They're not making more than $1 Billion in profit... they need to keep making more money each year for the system to work. Prices of stuff does go up all the time.

Why should already deeply subsidized colleges be made even cheaper? These are schools for relative elites, not for the truly needy.

[Guest Manny]

Why should already deeply subsidized colleges be made even cheaper? These are schools for relative elites, not for the truly needy.

Because, I already demonstrated that relative incomes in Quebec are considerably lower than in other provinces. Keep dumbing down the workforce and outsourcing, see how far that gets you. It leads to economic stagnation. Exactly the situation most western countries are in right now. Paying out banks to rescue the economy, while freezing peoples wages, and raising costs is perpetuating the very problem itself. Then it's Lemmings, over the cliff you all go.

[fellowtraveller]

Because, I already demonstrated that relative incomes in Quebec are considerably lower than in other provinces. Keep dumbing down the workforce and outsourcing, see how far that gets you. It leads to economic stagnation. Exactly the situation most western countries are in right now. Paying out banks to rescue the economy, while freezing peoples wages, and raising costs is perpetuating the very problem itself. Then it's Lemmings, over the cliff you all go.

So waht if relative incomes are lower, that has not impact whatsoever on the ability of any demopgraphic to attend school, since low income students can get assistance to attend for free.

And isns't the prime purpose of that heavily subsidized education to obtain more income after graduation? Why can't grads go somewhere else to work, as is done elsewhere?

Despite the very easy path provided by taxpayers to a degree in Quebec, the province already has one of the lowest post secondary atteendance rates in Canada.

Why is that?

Alberta also has the same low rate, but we know why there. Why in Quebec?

[Guest Manny]

Alberta also has the same low rate, but we know why there. Why in Quebec?

Because.

Alberta Rate on Taxable Income: 10%

Quebec: 24%

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

Edited May 16, 2012 by Manny

[Smallc]

Alberta Taxable Income: 10%

Quebec: 24%

Because Quebec has a 24% flat tax.

[fellowtraveller]

Quebec has one of the lowest rates of attendance in Canada at university because they have a 24% flat tax?

You'll have to explain that.

Alberta has the lowest rate of attendance because good paying jobs that don't require degrees are plentiful.