Quebec Language Police Strike again

[Boges]

I didn't know an acronym could sound "English"

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/teen-quebec-entrepreneur-fights-back-against-overbearing-french-140514747.html

It has been a while since Quebec's language police have done anything notably heavy-handed, but fear not. Because droughts never last forever.

CTV Montreal recently reported on the end of that streak, detailing the story of 17-year-old entrepreneur Xavier Menard and his failed attempt to launch a business because his company name sounded too English.

What did Menard do? He took to YouTube to eviscerate the Quebec government over its idiotic stance on business and employment.

Menard, a clear anglophone scourge as evidenced by his name alone, tried to register his graphics company under the name of "Wellarc," which is a combination of French words that happens to sound a bit bilingual.

He says he was refused by the Quebec business registry because it didn't live up to the Charter of the French language, or Bill 101 -- which requires all businesses to feature French in their names and signs.

An Office de la langue francaise representative confirmed to CTV Montreal that the name did not pass muster.

I guess when the rest of the country supports you financially you can be so ridiculously picky about how people do business in your province. Edited August 1, 2013 by Boges

[guyser]

I guess when the rest of the country support you financially you can be so ridiculously picky about how people do business in your province.

Had to fix that , the ROC doesnt.

[The_Squid]

Ridiculous ruling...

Bringing up transfer payments - rhetorical, irrelevant and silly.

[hitops]

Ridiculous ruling...

Bringing up transfer payments - rhetorical, irrelevant and silly.

Actually it isn't, you can't afford as many cultural whims when you have to fully account for your own revenues. Transfer payments remove some of the necessary feedback between bad policy - bad outcome. This is specifically relevant to the economy, since this guy was an entrepreneur.

As a SK-er, I have to personally contribute to this malcontent provincial government in the east, disproportionately more than those from any other province (possible exception Alberta). It's quite grating. We manage our budget, so therefore we have to give to those that choose not to.

Edited July 31, 2013 by hitops

[guyser]

As a SK-er, I have to personally contribute to this malcontent provincial government in the east, disproportionately more than those from any other province (possible exception Alberta). It's quite grating. We manage our budget, so therefore we have to give to those that choose not to.

Hey , many of know how you feel, we recall those decades when we paid for Saskatchewan

Oh, you dont remember or forgot huh?

[GostHacked]

Reply function is broken on this site

Several attempts to hit POST .. and says I need to make a reply .. so I do.. and it says .. hey make a reply .

Anyways

Opening a place there called Le Frite Englaise... La Frite?? Les Frites??

Edited August 2, 2013 by GostHacked

[hitops]

Hey , many of know how you feel, we recall those decades when we paid for Saskatchewan

Oh, you dont remember or forgot huh?

I didn't agree with it then either. But we did something about it, we kicked out the NDP and things are different now. We also got rid of the wheat board, and it's been going just fine. Getting by on your own really beats assuming everybody owes you something.

I also disagree with other free handouts I benefit from. Examples include new homeowner credits (years ago), child tax benefit, tuition tax benefits, income splitting, personal incorporation or even charitable donations. I may be forgetting some. I also have a mortgage but I would never vote for a home mortgage tax deduction like they have in the US. Why should other people pay for my choices?

This may be hard to believe, but it's actually possible for people to vote based on principles rather than just immediately sell your vote to whoever hands you free candy the fastest. I love politicians who actually take a stand on good economic policy, but most are just bed-wetters who can't explain fast enough how they will be buying your vote with somebody else's money.

Edited August 2, 2013 by hitops

[westguy]

The ROC has subsidized Quebec $257b over the last 50 yrs. How can anyone think this is fair?

[jacee]

The ROC has subsidized Quebec $257b over the last 50 yrs. How can anyone think this is fair?

How much did the west get subsidized then and prior to that?

[hitops]

How much did the west get subsidized then and prior to that?

A negative amount, if you are including Alberta.

But really what difference does it make? Does a bad idea become a good one just because the deck chairs got re-shuffled?

Edited August 4, 2013 by hitops

[Smallc]

How is it a bad idea to ensure that all Canadians share a similar standard of government service?

[hitops]

How is it a bad idea to ensure that all Canadians share a similar standard of government service?

It's not, it's just a really bad way to accomplish it. It promotes waste and discourages observational learning about how different behaviors/policies lead to different outcomes. It anything, money from 'have' provinces should be used to help people move to areas of better employment opportunity, rather than used to simply make it easier to stay in an area of low employment.

[Smallc]

It's not, it's just a really bad way to accomplish it. It promotes waste and discourages observational learning about how different behaviors/policies lead to different outcomes.

No, it really doesn't. You see, have provinces still have more money to work with than have nots. Have not provinces just don't have the same kind of discretion when it comes to spending and taxes. The goal is always to improve economically so that you have more money to work with.

[jacee]

A negative amount, if you are including Alberta.

But really what difference does it make? Does a bad idea become a good one just because the deck chairs got re-shuffled?

It's not a bad idea for all Canadians to have the same services.

It wasn't a bad idea when Alberta was collecting either.

It's just a 'bad idea' when Albertans want to dump on Quebec ... right?

Not the other 'havenot' provinces ... just Quebec.

Why is that?

[Boges]

It's just a 'bad idea' when Albertans want to dump on Quebec ... right?

Not the other 'havenot' provinces ... just Quebec.

Why is that?

Because they do things like telling a 17-year-old his company name has to be changed because it sounds too English.

[segnosaur]

...have provinces still have more money to work with than have nots. Have not provinces just don't have the same kind of discretion when it comes to spending and taxes. ...

It's not a bad idea for all Canadians to have the same services.

It wasn't a bad idea when Alberta was collecting either.

It's just a 'bad idea' when Albertans want to dump on Quebec ... right?

Not the other 'havenot' provinces ... just Quebec.

Why is that?

This issue was already discussed in the Canadian politics forum in the 'ROC' thread.

For many of us, the issue is not that Quebec is a 'have not' province. the issue is why they're a have-not province. Quebec is not like Newfoundland of the 1990s, coping with the collapse of the fisheries, or 1930s-era Western Canada dealing with a drought. They've got a relatively large population (potentially leading to a strong industrial base), and significant resources (hydro, mineral, etc.) They should be one of the success stories. Instead, they seem to be more content with driving their economy into the ground.

The story from the opening post is a prime example. Rather than telling the kid "Good luck with your company. Make sure you pay your taxes and everyone will be happy", they're wasting time (and taxpayer money I might add) putting up barriers to his business. The kid's business would not harm Quebec's tax base. In fact, it could potentially add to it (giving the province the money it needs to pay for its own infrastructure.)

[The_Squid]

I hear a lot of contentions about how it is Quebec mismanagement of government spending that is the issue, but I don't seen any facts/figures from those posters showing that this is the case.

I am not saying that it is or isn't an issue, but if you can't make your case with some statistics, then it is just hyperbole.

[segnosaur]

I hear a lot of contentions about how it is Quebec mismanagement of government spending that is the issue, but I don't seen any facts/figures from those posters showing that this is the case.

I am not saying that it is or isn't an issue, but if you can't make your case with some statistics, then it is just hyperbole.

Not sure exactly what you're looking for in the way of statistics, but here are a few:

- Immediately before and after Quebec's referendums, net immigration into the province reached low points. Given the fact that immigration is necessary to maintain the tax base in the face of declining birth rates, having more people move out of the province than move in is not a 'good thing'. (It should also be noted that Quebec's language policies tend to favor those speaking french, which attracts individuals from poorer demographics. Meanwhile, many of the wealthier immigrants, such as those from China and India, favor destinations in English Canada.)

- In roughly 2 decades (between 1990 and 2011) the number of corporate head offices located in Montreal declined by 22%. Yet the corporate tax rate in Quebec is 11.9%. This is higher than the corporate tax rates in Toronto (11.5%) Calgary and Vancouver (10%), competitors for Montreal in attracting corporate offices.

- The Fraser institute did surveys of businesses and found that Quebec ranked last among provinces in labor market regulation, and 8th out of 10 in 'red tape'. (Note: I do recognize that the Fraser Institute is regarded as a 'right wing' organization. However, some of their figures were obtained through the Canadian Federation of independent business. I am including them as a 'source' because I have a certain trust for their sources.)

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/talk-sovereignty-promoting-french-culture-bad-quebec-economy-165025318.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/quebec-committing-slow-motion-suicide/article4488827/?cmpid=rss1

http://www.mining.com/web/anti-business-policies-hurting-corporate-montreal/

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/display.aspx?id=17060

[Demosthenes26]

I hear a lot of contentions about how it is Quebec mismanagement of government spending that is the issue, but I don't seen any facts/figures from those posters showing that this is the case.

I am not saying that it is or isn't an issue, but if you can't make your case with some statistics, then it is just hyperbole.

I can make the case Quebec government mismanagement without hyberbole or statistics

The language law is itself an example of government mismanagement. The language law bounds Quebec to French as its language of business. French is of course not the language of today's economy. For any business working within Quebec this is major inconvinence and can discourage non-quebec companies from moving into Quebec. Also as the topic article demonstrates. At time just plain ridiculous.

Like wise students/workers who receive their education In French are confined to employment in Quebec unless they can speak English and vice versa.

Pre - 1950s montreal used to be the economic center of Canada. It has since fallen from that height. The language laws certainly did not help with its decline.

[The_Squid]

You can point to plenty of mismanagement in any other province. No one has shown that it is any worse in Quebec.

Edited August 7, 2013 by The_Squid

[segnosaur]

You can point to plenty of mismanagement in any other province. No one has shown that it is any worse in Quebec.

Wow.... just totally wow. I'm amazed.

You asked for statistics.... I pointed out that:

- The corporate tax rate is higher for Quebec/Montreal than for competing cities that would serve for corporate headquarters. So in this case, Quebec is worse (at least worse than its competition)

- I pointed to statistics that show Quebec's regulatory barriers are 8th and 10th out of all provinces in Canada.

Yes, mismanagement occurs in other provinces. But if you really think that "other provinces are just as bad", then please... point out some statistics that shows Quebec is more business-friendly than other provinces.

[carepov]

You can point to plenty of mismanagement in any other province. No one has shown that it is any worse in Quebec.

Here's a good indicator of gross mismanagement in Quebec compared to the ROC:

"One kilometre of road cost 37 per cent more to build in Quebec in 2008 than the average cost for the rest of the country, according to the study."

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/montreal-mafia-controls-80-per-cent-of-road-contracts-whistleblower-says/article4288973/?service=mobile

[westguy]

We should remember that Alberta did not receive ownership of its own minerals until the Great Depression. I hardly think the Alberta government had money to deveop those resources at that time. I also submit that Alberta never received anything close to what Quebec has received ($257B)over the last 57 years and yet they demand more. Their business and government has proven they are both corrupt.

[guyser]

. I also submit that Alberta never received anything close to what Quebec has received ($257B)over the last 57 years and yet they demand more. Their business and government has proven they are both corrupt.

Smaller population , per capita it would have been in the same ballpark.

So....Alberta business and government were corrupt then? Hmmm...interesting.

[segnosaur]

Smaller population , per capita it would have been in the same ballpark.

Irrelevant comparison.

As has been pointed out before... a small population (which in turn leads to a smaller tax base, which might have applied to Alberta in the 1930s), along with minimal revenue from resources would at least partly justify larger per-capita payments to a western province.

Quebec does not have those issues.... it has a large population (i.e. large potential tax base) along with resources which are actually in demand (e.g. electricity, minerals). So there's no justification for them receiving such transfers.

Although I am curious... where exactly are your figures backing up the claim that payments to Alberta were comparable (on a per capita bases) to those received by Quebec? Nobody here has denied that Alberta received equalization payments in the past, but its citizens have also been net contributors at other points in time, something that Quebec has never done, to the best of my knowledge. Where is your proof that if you add up all the net benefits and subtract the years it contributed, that Alberta's reception of equalization payments is near that of Quebec's?