Quebec Language Police Strike again

[guyser]

Irrelevant comparison.

Why because it shoots holes in the bash Quebec meme ? For one such see next point...below

The point was, at the time Alberta was getting theirs, they would have receievd the same as any other province as per the guidelines that existed at the time.

So there's no justification for them receiving such transfers.

Yeah riiight....

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?

Dont have any, dont need any either.

All provinces would have rec'd funding based on the rules at the time.

Unless of course you feel that Alberta was somehow shortchanged

Edited August 7, 2013 by Guyser2

[jacee]

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?

Hmmm ... one would think that before you throw stones at other people, you would inform yourself well about your own people.

You really have no idea how much Federal money has and does go into Alberta?

Let us know when you find out.

You could start with current corporate welfare to the tar sands and work backwards.

And don't forget the $60m OF OUR MONEY that Harper gave to fraudster Bruce Carson to schill for the tar sands.

You do realize that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?

Here's a start on your research:

http://www.greenparty.ca/vision-green/p1.6

the accelerated capital cost allowance to the tar sands industries totals over $1.3 billion a year.

Edited August 8, 2013 by jacee

[Sandy MacNab]

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

Could corruption have a little bit to do with that?

[Sandy MacNab]

Hmmm ... one would think that before you throw stones at other people, you would inform yourself well about your own people.

You really have no idea how much Federal money has and does go into Alberta?

Let us know when you find out.

You could start with current corporate welfare to the tar sands and work backwards.

And don't forget the $60m OF OUR MONEY that Harper gave to fraudster Bruce Carson to schill for the tar sands.

You do realize that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?

Here's a start on your research:

http://www.greenparty.ca/vision-green/p1.6

the accelerated capital cost allowance to the tar sands industries totals over $1.3 billion a year.

Are you trying to tell the good folks that the OIL sands industries are receiving, in cash, $1.3 billion per year. If so, you have absolutely no idea what capital cost allowance is OR anything about income taxes in general. That accelerated CCA also gave a big shot in the arm to Ontario's economy too. So, as 'tis often said, "don't look a gift horse in the mouth".

And, I read that propanda spewed out by the Green Party. If, that represents a good start to research, we'd still be hunters and gatherers.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Sandy MacNab

[hitops]

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.

How does that refute the point? The have-not provinces still aren't forced to deal with their actual situation, and the have provinces and not allowed to fully benefit from it. This is a perverse incentive, otherwise known as moral hazard.

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?

I don't know, I can't respond to something you made up. Not sure what this has to do with my post, which has nothing to do with Alberta specifically.

I didn't claim that it was bad for all Canadians to have the same services, I claimed that it was a terrible way to accomplish it which promotes waste and moral hazard.

Edited August 10, 2013 by hitops

[Smallc]

If have not provinces ever want to increase fiscal capacity above the average (where that's even possible) then they need to improve their economy. In other words, yes they still have to deal with their situation.

[cybercoma]

If have not provinces ever want to increase fiscal capacity above the average (where that's even possible) then they need to improve their economy. In other words, yes they still have to deal with their situation.

As if "their situation", whatever that actually means, is even relevant to the funding formula.

[Smallc]

As if "their situation", whatever that actually means, is even relevant to the funding formula.

Yeah, there's that too.

[westguy]

Jacee - I don't know how much the west got when the west did not own their resources like the east. Can you show me that the west received more than $257B, if not I wonder what your point is?

[guyser]

Jacee - I don't know how much the west got when the west did not own their resources like the east. Can you show me that the west received more than $257B, if not I wonder what your point is?

So your point is not dollars per person the west got, but the overall amount that Quebec got is what slays you?

If so....we all see thru that ruse.

[hitops]

It causes Canadian a net harm to have any transfer payments at all. It doesn't matter which direction it goes. It's important for governments to deal with what they have, not what they can demand from others. Likewise it's educational for people to see the results of different policies, instead of just taking from success and giving to failure. It's also healthier for the economy, to allow for the natural incentives for people to move to the work, instead of propping up areas that have no work. It's better for both regions with lots of work and those without. Those with lots benefit from gaining more workers and those without benefit from having fewer individuals to provide for.

Edited August 19, 2013 by hitops

[cybercoma]

Transfer payments do not "prop up areas that have no work." If you're going to criticize the transfer system, you need to spend more time learning how it works because it sounds like you have absolutely no idea. Meanwhile, people on this forum have continually corrected your errors and false assumptions. Take some time to educate yourself, then come back with arguments that make sense.

[westguy]

Quebec has received $257b in transfer payments that come either directly or indirectly from ROC. In addition, they have a provincial deficit of $200B. I would suggest that Quebec has been able to access all available advantages that any province has had. I challenge any posters to prove that Alberta ever received as much as Quebec and still they sh_t on the ROC and pass unconstitional language laws "to protect" the French language. Onkly in Canada......pity

[Smallc]

Yes only in repressive unfair Canada. There are so many better places.

[guyser]

Quebec has received $257b in transfer payments,,,,,,,, I challenge any posters to prove that Alberta ever received as much as Quebec and still they sh_t on the ROC and pass unconstitional language laws "to protect" the French language. Onkly in Canada......pity

Still stuck on the wrong gear huh?

If only Alberta had lots of people, they too would have consumed billions (probably have) and we could have fun wrongly accusing them of negligent.

For the record, saying it again and again doesnt make it magically come true. <sigh>

[westguy]

One poster said he/she had not seen any facts to back up their contention of Quebec mismanagement. I would think tst having received $257B in transfer payments and $200B in provincial debt is evidence of mismanagement.

[cybercoma]

One poster said he/she had not seen any facts to back up their contention of Quebec mismanagement. I would think tst having received $257B in transfer payments and $200B in provincial debt is evidence of mismanagement.

And every time you post this, someone's going to point out to you that Québec's debt has absolutely nothing to do with transfer payments. Nothing is worse than someone who is intentionally ignorant. People from all over the political spectrum have corrected you dozens of times about how transfer payments work, but you still repeat the same completely false arguments about it.

[Rocky Road]

Read The Big Shift by John Ibbitson

[jbg]

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

And Canada should subsidize this ****?

[guyser]

And Canada should subsidize this ****?

No, and thats why the ROC doesnt . Never did actually

[jbg]

And Canada should subsidize this ****?

No, and thats why the ROC doesnt . Never did actually

Equalization? And the biased way that contracts are awarded?

[guyser]

Equalization? And the biased way that contracts are awarded?

Yup, they dont.

[Locutus]

Equalization is based on a complex calculation which includes a variety of factors including resources. Similar schemes to equalization are seen all around the world for example in Europe the "Structural and Cohesion Funds" - there is no shame in giving or receiving equalization in any form. You also have to consider Quebec's economy before hitting on them, they have a large paper and pulp industry which has really been hard hit with the collapse/sluggish housing sector, and the overall decline in the pulp industry with changes in technology. All provinces are dealing with aging populations and inter-provincial migration, believe it or not the prosperity of the west along with labour mobility has left most of the young unemployed leaving their provinces and migrating towards the more wealthy provinces taking the future tax base (which otherwise would have paid for social assistance, provincial daycare programs, healthcare and other entitlements and even infrastructure) with them.

In terms of "biased" contract award decisions, those familiar with internal and international trade rules on government procurement would tell you that language is a legitimate form of discrimination on any tender document for government contracts. All governments discriminate and support their own states/provinces be it in Quebec, the United States or even the European Union - simply because the public investment dollars are funded from provincial coffers.

On the issue with the 17 year old - our Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives Quebec or any province the right to override portions of it - including the language law. If the kid had a name that sounded too English, perhaps he should have chosen a more French name? When in Rome - you follow the rules.

[jbg]

On the issue with the 17 year old - our Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives Quebec or any province the right to override portions of it - including the language law. If the kid had a name that sounded too English, perhaps he should have chosen a more French name? When in Rome - you follow the rules.

So you're saying people don't have rights as Canadians, as distinguished from rights as Quebeckers?