Toronto as #2

[ErickMontreal]

Originally Posted by Robertpuant

The funny thing is, transfer payments to Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba and, up until very recently to Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan and never get mentioned in these discussions. It's like Quebec is the only recipient. We should accept that from the beginning of time to the end of time, there is always going to be a 50% who gives more than it receives and a 50% who receives more than it gives. No matter how rich/poor we get, this is going to be the reality under the current system.

Mon ami, as simple as it is... they are on the "right" side of the fence, they literally worship the flag around here hence they are forgiven...

They are ssssssso proud !

[big W]

Originally Posted by Robertpuant

The funny thing is, transfer payments to Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba and, up until very recently to Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan never get mentioned in these discussions. It's like Quebec is the only recipient. We should accept that from the beginning of time to the end of time, there is always going to be a 50% who gives more than it receives and a 50% who receives more than it gives. No matter how rich/poor we get, this is going to be the reality under the current system.

Actually I would bet that much of it is due to Quebec getting about half of the total pot. But most people forget that Quebec is a significant proportion of Canadas population. In other words PEI gets 337 million which on a per captia basis is higher but well its peanuts as a mass transit line in any major city in the county would run for more than that.

Anyways the numbers (in millions of $) for the upcoming budget appear to be

MAN - 1,671

NB - 1,495
NS - 1,268
PEI - 337

ONT - 3,261

QUE - 7,391

Clearly Quebec gets the most in total dollars but in reality on a per capita basis, it is the second lowest. The other issue with equalization is at the moment the 3 westernmost provinces and NL have 28.8% of the population and it appears as if they are paying everyone. In reality as described the money is collected throughout Canada and some is directed to each province. In this way Ontario actually pays more into equalization at it currently stands even though `they are considered a "have not" and recieve equalization.


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

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Robertpuant

The funny thing is, transfer payments to Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba and, up until very recently to Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan never get mentioned in these discussions. It's like Quebec is the only recipient. We should accept that from the beginning of time to the end of time, there is always going to be a 50% who gives more than it receives and a 50% who receives more than it gives. No matter how rich/poor we get, this is going to be the reality under the current system.

2 reasons:

1) NS, NB, PE, MB are small. Helping small provinces to delay the inevitable is more sustainable than doing so for the second largest province.
2) Quebec's economic underperformance is self-inflicted.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Doug

1) NS, NB, PE, MB are small. Helping small provinces to delay the inevitable is more sustainable than doing so for the second largest province.

Yes, I'm sure the $100B economy of the Atlantic region would grind to a halt immediately without that $3B annual gravy train.

Much of what I hear about equalization is just empty rhetoric ("have" vs. "have not"). It is particularly ridiculous when Ontario is presented as being on life support.

[Xelebes]

I think it's important to ponder why the vote was even close. Why was there so many separatists? Why were there so few federalists? We know the separatists were launched by not only de Gaulle's speech but also the Richard Incident, but that was at least thirty years prior to the Referendum. What made those two incidents so potent? Why are those two incidents losing their potency? There is obviously more to it than the equalisation payments. The equalisation payment argument seem to be masking something here.

[Razor]

I'm just baffled why Quebec is continuously a "Have not" province?...
To me, they are a powerhouse in Natural resources and hydro electric power.
They have a decent population to contibute, and there is still a lot of Corporations running out of Quebec. I'm no economist, but it just doesn't make sense. At least from a lay-man's point of view here.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Razor

I'm just baffled why Quebec is continuously a "Have not" province?...
To me, they are a powerhouse in Natural resources and hydro electric power.
They have a decent population to contibute, and there is still a lot of Corporations running out of Quebec. I'm no economist, but it just doesn't make sense. At least from a lay-man's point of view here.

One explanation is that a large part of Quebec (basically starting just east of Quebec City) is actually quite similar to the Maritimes socio-economically. This area has roughly one million people or approx. 15% of the province's population. Ontario for example doesn't have such a large proportion of the province that is economically challenged in this way.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

I think it's important to ponder why the vote was even close. Why was there so many separatists? Why were there so few federalists? We know the separatists were launched by not only de Gaulle's speech but also the Richard Incident, but that was at least thirty years prior to the Referendum. What made those two incidents so potent? Why are those two incidents losing their potency? There is obviously more to it than the equalisation payments. The equalisation payment argument seem to be masking something here.

One interesting thing to ponder is that many separatist bigwigs started off their political careers in one capacity or another with the federalist Liberals or some other federalist party. This is true of:

René Lévesque
Bernard Landry
Jacques Parizeau
Lucien Bouchard

I've never really heard anyone seriously pose the question as to why these guys soured on Canada at one point...

[Waterlooson]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

I think it's important to ponder why the vote was even close. Why was there so many separatists? Why were there so few federalists? We know the separatists were launched by not only de Gaulle's speech but also the Richard Incident, but that was at least thirty years prior to the Referendum. What made those two incidents so potent? Why are those two incidents losing their potency? There is obviously more to it than the equalisation payments. The equalisation payment argument seem to be masking something here.

The separatist movement certainly was not launched by either what de Gaulle had to say (I recall watching him on TV the day he said what he did) or the Richard incident... although they served to inflame emotions.

Why were there so many separatists you ask? Part of the answer (just one more piece) was due to the way the referendum question was molded. If the question was strictly clear and honest, like: "would you like Quebec to separate from Canada to form a new country?" Less than 30 % (IIRC) would vote "yes". So the PQ repeatedly polled as they watered down the question so that the referendum question might garner enough support to get just over the 50% benchmark. They found that they had to write into the question a promise of some form of an "association" with Canada.... In other words, they could have a new nation while still enjoying the benefits of an association with Canada.... or getting their cake and eating it too. So no wonder the "separatist" ranks increased greatly... they cheated! Where did Canada say that Quebec could be an independent nation while still having any association? No Where!

BTW, that book I referenced is titled: "Fearful Symmetry - the Fall and Rise of Canada's Founding Values"- is a must read, which is what I'm doing now after having just downloaded it from iTunes... for less than $5. It will give you more of the answers you seek.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by Waterlooson

The separatist movement certainly was not launched by either what de Gaulle had to say (I recall watching him on TV the day he said what he did) or the Richard incident... although they served to inflame emotions.

Why were there so many separatists you ask? Part of the answer (just one more piece) was due to the way the referendum question was molded. If the question was strictly clear and honest, like: "would you like Quebec to separate from Canada to form a new country?" Less than 30 % (IIRC) would vote "yes". So the PQ repeatedly polled as they watered down the question so that the referendum question might garner enough support to get just over the 50% benchmark. They found that they had to write into the question a promise of some form of an "association" with Canada.... In other words, they could have a new nation while still enjoying the benefits of an association with Canada.... or getting their cake and eating it too. So no wonder the "separatist" ranks increased greatly... they cheated! Where did Canada say that Quebec could be an independent nation while still having any association? No Where!

BTW, that book I referenced is titled: "Fearful Symmetry - the Fall and Rise of Canada's Founding Values"- is a must read, which is what I'm doing now after having just downloaded it from iTunes... for less than $5. It will give you more of the answers you seek.

I'm sorry, but I can't see the logic. The wording of the question, as circuitious as it was, could only sway the vote a couple percentage points unless the question was really silly. The question was just as confusing to the separatists as it was to the federalists.

[Waterlooson]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

I'm sorry, but I can't see the logic. The wording of the question, as circuitious as it was, could only sway the vote a couple percentage points unless the question was really silly. The question was just as confusing to the separatists as it was to the federalists.

By manipulating the question they increased their support from about 30% up to nearly 50%. The difference is the "soft nationalists". "Separatist" could be defined by who voted "yes".

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by Razor

I'm just baffled why Quebec is continuously a "Have not" province?...
To me, they are a powerhouse in Natural resources and hydro electric power.
They have a decent population to contibute, and there is still a lot of Corporations running out of Quebec. I'm no economist, but it just doesn't make sense. At least from a lay-man's point of view here.

Didn't Quebec just outlaw shale gas exploration? Do all the hard work and make the mess elsewhere...we will just sit back and line up at the federal trough.

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by Acajack

One interesting thing to ponder is that many separatist bigwigs started off their political careers in one capacity or another with the federalist Liberals or some other federalist party. This is true of:

René Lévesque
Bernard Landry
Jacques Parizeau
Lucien Bouchard

I've never really heard anyone seriously pose the question as to why these guys soured on Canada at one point...

Lucien Bouchard especially. Bouchard was Mulroney's right hand man. So much so that Bouchard was the best man at Mulroney's wedding. I think his defection is still a sore spot with Mulroney all of these years later.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

Lucien Bouchard especially. Bouchard was Mulroney's right hand man. So much so that Bouchard was the best man at Mulroney's wedding. I think his defection is still a sore spot with Mulroney all of these years later.

Yeah, I have heard from people that Mulroney will not attend parties or social gatherings if Bouchard is potentially anywhere near the same building.

[MTLskyline]

Originally Posted by Acajack

One explanation is that a large part of Quebec (basically starting just east of Quebec City) is actually quite similar to the Maritimes socio-economically. This area has roughly one million people or approx. 15% of the province's population. Ontario for example doesn't have such a large proportion of the province that is economically challenged in this way.

That is an interesting take. I take it you're including Chaudière-Appalaches, Bas-Saint-Laurent, Gaspésie–Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean and Côte-Nord?

I always thought that Chaudière-Appalaches did reasonably well, but I've really only driven through there on Autoroute 20.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MTLskyline

That is an interesting take. I take it you're including Chaudière-Appalaches, Bas-Saint-Laurent, Gaspésie–Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean and Côte-Nord?

I always thought that Chaudière-Appalaches did reasonably well, but I've really only driven through there on Autoroute 20.

I admit I was a bit loosey goosey with my population numbers, but it's still probably 10% or more of Quebec's population that is in this region that I would describe as Maritime-like.

Chaudière-Appalaches it is true is doing fine in the immediate vicinity of Quebec City (many suburbs there), as well as the Beauce region to the south. But once you get further east it is not so prosperous and the eastern part of it is more similar to the Bas-St-Laurent region.

Also, north of the river the Quebec City administrative region is quite large and most of the eastern reaches of it are not as rich as the immediate environs of the city either.

I once did a quick statistical search on these regions of Quebec and once you pass a certain point going east or northeast incomes drop quite dramatically and the percentage of income from government sources (I am not talking about public servant jobs) increases substantially. Which is more consistent with what you find in Atlantic Canada outside of a handful of cities.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

Didn't Quebec just outlaw shale gas exploration? Do all the hard work and make the mess elsewhere...we will just sit back and line up at the federal trough.

No final decision has been made yet. The provincial environmental agency has recommended a moratorium on shale gas, but the Charest government would like to go ahead with it.

So we still have to wait a while for the true righteous indignation from our friends in the 403 and 780 area codes.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by Waterlooson

By manipulating the question they increased their support from about 30% up to nearly 50%. The difference is the "soft nationalists". "Separatist" could be defined by who voted "yes".

And I still think you are missing the point. Why is there so many separatists and "soft nationalists", whatever that means? What triggered the sentiment? What triggers the sentiment? Why are trucking out the same old soundbites?

I mean, it seems that you are only here to beat over the Quebeckers' heads with your ham of same-old, trucked-out canards. The Quebeckers here are trying to shake off the old coat while you are grappling them to don the coat once more, shaking a little itching powder into it. Showing so little respect for people in other regions is not condoned on the site. I'm going to have to ask you to stop and think about what you are doing.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

And I still think you are missing the point. Why is there so many separatists and "soft nationalists", whatever that means? What triggered the sentiment? What triggers the sentiment? Why are trucking out the same old soundbites?

I mean, it seems that you are only here to beat over the Quebeckers' heads with your ham of same-old, trucked-out canards. The Quebeckers here are trying to shake off the old coat while you are grappling them to don the coat once more, shaking a little itching powder into it. Showing so little respect for people in other regions is not condoned on the site. I'm going to have to ask you to stop and think about what you are doing.

Congratulations to you Xelebes for having the lucidity to ask the right questions - questions which are not frequently asked in this country to be quite honest.

Before and since moving to Quebec, I struggled to try and go beyond the classic "separatists are just a bunch of dummies who just don't get it" logic.

I mean, there are Quebec separatists who have PhDs who are renowned international experts in their fields...

Quebec separatists who speak multiple languages and are active in international business...

Quebec separatists who are English Canadians...

Quebec separatists who are Jewish...

Quebec separatists who are Africans...

Quebec separatists who founded some of the larger Canadian corporations...


The "dummy who doesn't get it" explanation just doesn't cut it...

[Waterlooson]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

And I still think you are missing the point. Why is there so many separatists and "soft nationalists", whatever that means? What triggered the sentiment? What triggers the sentiment? Why are trucking out the same old soundbites?

I mean, it seems that you are only here to beat over the Quebeckers' heads with your ham of same-old, trucked-out canards. The Quebeckers here are trying to shake off the old coat while you are grappling them to don the coat once more, shaking a little itching powder into it. Showing so little respect for people in other regions is not condoned on the site. I'm going to have to ask you to stop and think about what you are doing.

Hold the phone a minute here, it was you who asked me to "shit or get off the pot" as all can see a few posts up the page. Now, after having done so (at your request), and proved that you were wrong, you get resentful. Well that's just too bad. Thing is, I was/am factually correct in what I have stated... and that's all that should matter. Or are these forums just some exercise in PC? You continue to ask me more about Quebec separatism, then in the very next paragraph, you warn me to get off the topic? Really, what is it with you? Can't handle the truth? I gave you a book reference that supports what I have said... and goes a lot further, plus it debunks a major (but popular) myth. Don't take my word for it... read the dammed book!

Obviously, you didn't live through the same tumultuous times in Canadian history that I did. I think it is you who should be paying more respect to those of us with actual personal knowledge of those times because we lived through them.

I'll not going to be bullied by you into providing answers just because they are the ones you'd like to see.