# The great, ongoing Canadian current events and politics thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [May 16, 2011, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059 "2011-05-16T03:05:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2011, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/162 "2011-06-22T19:38:53Z")
Regardless of the cause, and I would argue the uncertainty of separatism was a bigger driver than language given the coincident time periods, everyone would be better off if Ontario and Quebec were “have” provinces. Still, equalization and transfers are there to allow for comparable levels of service are available to all Canadians regardless of where they are. They’re also to help the province develop economically and so, if the daycare project actually manages to do that it’s not necessarily a waste of time. I went and dug into the various provincial budgets for 2011 and tried to make a coherent picture. ```auto Equalization as Transfers as Prov. Equal Transfers Revenue % Transfers % of Revenue Population ON 2200 21731 108453 10% 20% 13210 QC 7815 15039 65376 52% 23% 7907 BC 0 7580 41337 0% 18% 4530 AB 0 5273 33982 0% 16% 3720 MB 1666 3647 10772 46% 34% 1235 SK 0 1568 10794 0% 15% 1045 NS 1167 3199 8390 36% 38% 942 NB 1483 2494 7306 59% 34% 751 NL 0 1141 6877 0% 17% 509 PE 329 613 1489 54% 41% 142 All 14660 62285 294776 24% 21% 33991 ``` ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/163 "2011-06-23T00:16:14Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > I saying there is no guarantee that anyone is a majority anywhere. Say tomorrow all Albertans want to speak Chinese instead of English. There is no consitutional reason it couldn’t happen. Same for Quebec. If they want to change the language from French to something else nothing in the constitution prevents it. What type of force do you think should be used to stop it? And languages do change naturally over time. Are you going to act like language luddites? And tomorrow all citizens of the Swiss canton of Grisons (Graubünden) could decide that three official languages is just too complicated, and all adopt Nepalese instead. But I wouldn’t bet on it, and their government isn’t going to bet on it either. So for now they recognize three official languages, and it’s reflected in their institutions. Hey, tomorrow all Americans could decide that guns are just _scary_ and something nobody should own! I mean, it _could_ happen. Doesn’t prevent them from guaranteeing the right to bear arms right in their constitution, until then. > [@](#): > > Yes, you may have immigrants who come to Quebec who speak French, but culturally, they are very different. They adapt kind of well. > [@](#): > > Can you blame them when they are in North America to assume that most people are likely to have at least a smattering of English? It is more likely that the French speakers know more English than the English know French. People who think that the guy isn’t talking to because he is just being rude are stupid. Okay, so they’re stupid. Let’s tell them the next time they start a Pit thread about it. > [@](#): > > My desire, more lack of interest, in visiting Quebec applies to most other Canadian provinces, so it shouldn’t be considered a French/English thing. The ‘vanillaness’ of Canada itself, I find boring. Which is why I live in China now. You want actual differences in culture, come here. Perspective is a wonderful thing. Well, okay, you just don’t think Canada (or, I suppose, the Western world as a whole) is exotic enough. Doesn’t mean Canada is _objectively_ “vanilla”, just that from your perspective, it is. > [@](#): > > This is the main point. My perception is that the French think they are NOT the same as any other Canadian, they are superior and should have something that those lesser people don’t. Your perception is wrong. I said it earlier in this thread: I’d very much like it if francophones in Quebec were as proud a people as other Canadians. I, for one, am proud of what I am. But I don’t think we’re in any way better than any other people. We’re just unique (like all other peoples). > [@](#): > > Please read your own words again. You have a problem with this Alberta lady who wants people to speak her language in her presence, yet you then say this. No, I said that in Toronto’s (or any other English-speaking city) Chinatown, I will have no trouble at all finding someone who speaks English. If that old Chinese lady doesn’t speak it, her granddaughter will speak it with a perfect Canadian accent. I’m not saying it would _bother_ me if she then speaks, say, Cantonese with the grandma, because it wouldn’t. And if you’ll allow me, I suspect that Albertan lady in **alphaboi** ’s anecdote would have thought the same, but it was the fact that she was in _Quebec City_ and they were speaking _French_ that irritated her. And this is why I say that Canada’s claims of multiculturalism sound hollow to me. And I assume to you as well, which is why you now live in Hong Kong and not in Toronto’s Chinatown. > [@](#): > > And I have a sneaking suspicion that if I was to visit Quebec, I’d not have any culture shock, either. I might have some problem communicating, but otherwise not so much. Meh, perhaps. If you’re _visiting_, you’re probably right. But if you went to _live_ there, you’d probably find that you need some adaptation. (Not as big as the adaptation needed to move to China, I agree.) > [@Uzi](#): > > You do realize that Alberta does hold Senatorial elections? Are we violating the constitution by doing so? No, we aren’t. Of course I “realize” it: I’m the one who described the process to **Cunctator** in the other thread. Doesn’t anybody pay attention to what I’m saying here? And no, that doesn’t violate the constitution: Alberta (and Saskatchewan as well, I believe) holds _non-binding_ senatorial elections, and the PM can decide to appoint the winners. Or to do nothing. Harper’s decided he would. That’s quite different to _mandating_ senatorial elections. > [@](#): > > But, I guess if a province doesn’t want to participate by holding their own elections they can have their senators picked at the whim of the PM as it is currently done. OK, so you’re telling me that Harper’s plan for Senate reform is the complete _status quo_. To paraphrase Colbert, now that’s change I can believe in! 😛 I’ll admit that he’s planning to cap senators to one nine-year term, which is still more (better? I don’t know) than nothing, and can plausibly be done without going through the constitutional amendment formula. (Does anybody know how it was done when senators’ terms were reduced from lifetime appointments to terms ending at their 75th birthday? Though that might have been before the current constitution.) > [@](#): > > He is giving you the choice to elect your own representatives and you say you don’t want it?😕 That’s disingenuous. Who says that since Albertans want to directly elect their senators in provincial at-large elections, that’s how all Canadians should want to do it? An elected Senate will drastically change how Parliament works, and will also change the roles of the provincial governments. Should I just want to jump in because whooo, an election!? And **Cat Whisperer** claims that we Quebecers don’t think of the consequences of our political decisions while she, like mature and right-thinking Albertans, is coolly weighing the pros and cons. Allow me a measure of skepticism. :dubious: > [@](#): > > The wonders of a democracy. You have to put up with the silly ideas of those you don’t agree with if they can get enough like minded people to support them. Erm, okay? 😕 (To be clear: I don’t think I would agree with how Pratte or **Le Ministre** would describe “Canada and the principles and values that are the foundation of the federation”. I don’t think you would either.) > [@Spoons](#): > > Emphasis added. “A reference” in this context is simply a question–in this case, I would imagine the question would be something like, “Can the federal government enact legislation that effectively changes the Constitution without following the formal amending formula?” The Court answers the question with a “yes” or “no,” and gives reasons. Note that technically, a reference case is an opinion, and is not binding; but in practice, the Court’s answer and advice in reference cases is almost always followed. Fair enough, thanks. I thought I’d seen an article claiming that the government of Quebec was considering suing the federal government. Either I’m misremembering or the article was imprecise. ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/164 "2011-06-23T01:28:18Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > It could be. 🙂 Describe the process. Or do you think your presence is the only thing preventing Quebec from looking like the Democratic Republic of the Congo? > [@](#): > > I don’t think this is a very realistic attitude towards Quebec’s economic future if it separated from Canada. It sounds to me like Quebecers are perhaps not completely cognizant of just how much they benefit from being a part of Canada and not doing it all on their own. And you’re definitely not completely (or any way) cognizant of Quebec’s economy. We all _know_ it would be a challenge for a Canadian province (any province, yes, even yours!) to become an independent country. There are strong economic ties between Canadian provinces. But you’re telling me that _my people is basically third world level_ if it weren’t from the rest of Canada. That’s insulting, lady. And it confirms my suspicions that English Canadians just don’t see us as a modern people equal to them. Do educate yourself. Perhaps talk to a few Quebecers, perhaps you’ll figure out that some of us are actually intelligent, and some even educated. > [@](#): > > As for my culture, cultures change. Trying to force a culture to stay the same is a recipe for failure. Change, yes. Disappear? I’d prefer avoiding it. It may happen, in which case, see ya! > [@Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](#): > > Did someone coin and use the term before Lucien Bouchard? In the Canadian context? Certainly, since it happened in 1981 and Bouchard was basically some labour negotiator for the Quebec government at the time. As far as I know he didn’t really become a public figure until Mulroney became PM. > [@](#): > > See, I’m a hard federalist descended from Anglo-Quebeckers. As far as I’m concerned, that was the night that Pierre Trudeau realized that Rene Levesque was not bargaining in good faith, and that he wasn’t going to sign anything that the rest of the country had agreed to anyway. Here’s another one who should educate himself before speaking. Lévesque was trying his best to hold his ground along with the other provincial premiers. (I’m basing myself on Pierre Godin’s biography of Lévesque here.) He was apparently counting especially on Peter Lougheed, premier of Alberta, whom he considered a true statesman. Lévesque’s mistake was to bite when Trudeau suggested a national referendum on a new constitution. The idea seemed appealing to him and he said so. The other premiers feared they’d lose their bargaining position and decided to settle that evening, and Lévesque found himself in front of a _fait accompli_. But the premiers’ front had already begun to crack, and not because of Lévesque. If Lévesque’d been negotiating in bad faith, he wouldn’t have felt betrayed (even by Trudeau!) and the premiers wouldn’t have felt ashamed. As it happened, both were true. > [@](#): > > I love Quebec culture I’m sure you think you do. But let me phrase my thought this way: do you love Quebec’s culture _as it stands_ (keeping in mind, as mentioned, that cultures change), or an idealised image of “French Canadians”? > [@Ibanez](#): > > If you dig deep enough. The complaints will eventually lead back to 1759. > > Just say sorry I wasn’t there, and move on. I know **Ibanez** actually lives in Quebec, though I don’t know his background (anglophone, francophone, something else?) But let me ask this: why am I even taking time out of my day to try to post intelligent arguments on this board, when I get this kind of turd in response? I don’t want to blame **Ibanez** of English Canadians, because he might very well be a francophone Quebecer who just really hates Quebec. But, this attitude is common among anglophone Canadians as well. So what do I do? I may spend hours trying to discuss Canada, what this country is, what this country should be, what is it that we want to build, but in the mind of my interlocutor, I’m just sore about the Conquest and nothing I can say will change his mind. Is what I’m saying taken the slightest bit seriously here? I can spend hours writing posts that explain as best as I can what it is that I feel about this whole issue, but if to most people I’m just a little frenchie who doesn’t know what he’s talking about and who’s just angry he lost the war, what’s it worth? Should I just let the English Canadians here pat themselves on the back about how they’ve got such a wonderful country that’s perfect in any way, but it’s oh so sad that Quebec doesn’t want to come play along and is being so bad and ethnocentric and stuck on peccadilloes? What do I care, really? > [@mnemosyne](#): > > […]though not all are taking advantage of it since Québec has one of the highest high school drop out rates in the country. My 60 year old father-in-law was part of the very first year of students to have access to Cégep. I know people who don’t actually think even finishing high school is necessary for them _or their children_, because they will only work in a factory or on a farm anyways. That is, unfortunately, a cultural shift that hasn’t happened yet, though it does seem to be changing slowly. It’s just going to take time. Add to that the cost of education - Cégep is cheap, but a weaker and increasingly less desirable degree than university - and consider that incomes are already low in Québec… even with access, you don’t necessarily have ability to go to school. Careful with the autocriticism, they view it as a sign of weakness. Seriously, Quebec’s certainly got some problems to solve, but are they really any worse than in the rest of the Western world? Should we really have to hang our collective heads in shame? I don’t think so. And really, I’m extremely proud of what Quebec society managed to do in the last few decades. And more to the point, do English Canadians _ever_ criticize their country in any way? (Well, other than Quebec of course, and Vancouver rioters as well I suppose.) Seriously, when I say that I’d like Quebecers to be as proud a people as other Canadians, I mean it. Though perhaps it’s better that we keep an ability to see what should be improved. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/165 "2011-06-23T01:50:05Z")
“A culture of defeat…” - Stephen Harper refering to Atlantic Canada and equalization payments “Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status, led by a second-world strongman appropriately suited for the task.” - Stephen Harper “bums and creeps” from Eastern Canada coming to Calgary and committing crime. - Ralph Klein There was also something about us being the shrill voice of virtue while doing nothing - something that re-emerged with the whole “soft power” debate - but I’ll be damned if I can find it. And calm down, the discussion around equalization is just that. As my numbers show Quebec does receive a fair bit in equalization _BUT_ it has a fair number of people to be equalized for. Combined with transfer payments every province gets their numbers drop down into rough parity with everyone else. The why and how to correct that would be a much better discussion that stupidly focusing on mean words. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/166 "2011-06-23T01:50:19Z")
> [@Ibanez](#): > > If you dig deep enough. The complaints will eventually lead back to 1759. > > Just say sorry I wasn’t there, and move on. Definitely. So, we can say that the two founding nations thing is no longer applicable today, too? The Natives should just move on? Just wondering what is on the table and what isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Ibanez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a4c791/32.png) [@Ibanez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibanez)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/167 "2011-06-23T02:21:04Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Definitely. So, we can say that the two founding nations thing is no longer applicable today, too? The Natives should just move on? > > Just wondering what is on the table and what isn’t. Actually I think Native people have a legitimate claim to make all of their dialects official languages as well. Trilingual country would be fun. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/168 "2011-06-23T02:36:43Z")
> [@Ibanez](#): > > Actually I think Native people have a legitimate claim to make all of their dialects official languages as well. Trilingual country would be fun. Would be a lot more than trilingual. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/169 "2011-06-23T04:05:18Z")
> [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](#): > > And tomorrow all citizens of the Swiss canton of Grisons (Graubünden) could decide that three official languages is just too complicated, and all adopt Nepalese instead. But I wouldn’t bet on it, and their government isn’t going to bet on it either. My point being is that there is nothing in the constitution guaranteeing a province for one language group. > [@](#): > > Well, okay, you just don’t think Canada (or, I suppose, the Western world as a whole) is exotic enough. Doesn’t mean Canada is _objectively_ “vanilla”, just that from your perspective, it is. And given that perspective, the cultural differences between French and English are minor. > [@](#): > > And this is why I say that Canada’s claims of multiculturalism sound hollow to me. And I assume to you as well, which is why you now live in Hong Kong and not in Toronto’s Chinatown. I do find it hollow. Cultures should survive on their own merits, not be enforced, promoted or protected by the government. > [@](#): > > Of course I “realize” it: I’m the one who described the process to **Cunctator** in the other thread. Doesn’t anybody pay attention to what I’m saying here? And no, that doesn’t violate the constitution: Alberta (and Saskatchewan as well, I believe) holds _non-binding_ senatorial elections, and the PM can decide to appoint the winners. Or to do nothing. Harper’s decided he would. That’s quite different to _mandating_ senatorial elections. Was he saying it should be mandated? If so, I agree that would probably require a constitutional change. But, by consistently appointing ‘elected’ senators over time, it becomes increasingly difficult for future PM’s to avoid doing so themselves. > [@](#): > > That’s disingenuous. Who says that since Albertans want to directly elect their senators in provincial at-large elections, that’s how all Canadians should want to do it? And they can do what they want. A choice is a bad thing? > [@](#): > > An elected Senate will drastically change how Parliament works, and will also change the roles of the provincial governments. The Senate will not have any ability to do anything they currently could not do now if they chose to do so. They just don’t have the ‘authority’ to do it as they are not currently elected. If there is a problem with their powers then they should be changed because at anytime, given the right circumstances, they can exercise them and then it would be too late to complain about it. And if they can’t be trusted with those powers, even when elected, it should be eliminated completely. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/170 "2011-06-23T05:38:12Z")
> [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](#): > > There are strong economic ties between Canadian provinces. I think you’d be surprised how protective each province of its own interests in confederation. IIRC, in many cases easier to trade north/south than east/west. > [@](#): > > Is what I’m saying taken the slightest bit seriously here? I can spend hours writing posts that explain as best as I can what it is that I feel about this whole issue, but if to most people I’m just a little frenchie who doesn’t know what he’s talking about and who’s just angry he lost the war, what’s it worth? Well, personally I’d be far more derisive if I thought you weren’t worth talking to. But, I don’t have to agree with you to talk to you. At most, I might think that you are spening a large amount of effort protecting, defending, whatever, a ‘culture’ that isn’t any different than the one you are protecting it against. More importantly, you are protecting it from the very people who live within it and tacitly want it to change. Because if they didn’t want it to change, it wouldn’t and you would have no need to protect it. > [@](#): > > And more to the point, do English Canadians _ever_ criticize their country in any way? (Well, other than Quebec of course, and Vancouver rioters as well I suppose.) It’s like when you buy a new car. You all of a sudden see many more of them on the road than previously. Did the number increase overnight? Nope, you are more attuned to seeing them. Honestly, there are only a few reasons that Quebec is ever singled out in my mind: 1. Separation - you have to admit that Quebec is the only one in confederation that keeps trotting that horseshit out with any chance of it occurring, 2. Equalization payments (usually when Quebec trots out some other social benefit that no other province can realistically afford, yet we are paying for it for them), and 3. Language laws. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/171 "2011-06-23T14:12:46Z")
> [@Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](#): > > It’s interesting - when Saskatchewan and Manitoba have received equalization payments, I don’t remember people from the rest of the country telling them they ought to scrap SGI/Autopac. People simply don’t care as much about a province that’s one seventh as big as Quebec and that has limited political influence. It’s just not as big an economic issue. If Ontario goes a few decades getting huge equalization payments, hoo boy. There will be screaming. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/172 "2011-06-23T15:07:28Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > \ > If Ontario goes a few decades getting huge equalization payments, hoo boy. There will be screaming. I think there must be different ways of interpreting the question of transfer payments - I read a site recently (I think it was a government of Canada site) that indicated that Ontario is getting transfer payments equal to Quebec’s. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/173 "2011-06-23T15:18:56Z")
Everyone gets transfer payments from the Federal Government. Alberta alone gets 5 Billion - see my table above. The statement is about _equalization_ payments which are based on some of the following 1. Provincial Revenue _capacity_ 2. Mean GDP per capita 3. Natural Resources So Ontario’s Mean GDP per capita dropped below the average of the 10 provinces. It consequently now receives 2 billion in equalization payments. Note that it is an average and so at least half of the provinces will be below it - hence there will always be equalization payments. Federal transfers for federal programs like health care are different. ---
**Author:** ![mnemosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c4cdca/32.png) [@mnemosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mnemosyne)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/174 "2011-06-23T17:49:57Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Honestly, there are only a few reasons that Quebec is ever singled out in my mind: 1. Separation - you have to admit that Quebec is the only one in confederation that keeps trotting that horseshit out with any chance of it occurring, 2. Equalization payments (usually when Quebec trots out some other social benefit that no other province can realistically afford, yet we are paying for it for them), and 3. Language laws. 1. Fair enough for questioning political decisions, though unfair, obviously, to paint an entire province’s people with that brush, and too often used as an excuse to attack, insult, belittle, condescend to or otherwise disparage the people of Québec. 2. Given all the different sorts of transfer and equalization payments, doesn’t this all work out so that everyone is more or less working from a similar funding/ability to pay level? Isn’t that the idea, or am I totally of the mark? Québec trots out social benefits that other provinces don’t have, but _does so at the expense of other spending_. Montreal is falling apart - the most important city in the province is on the verge of (hyperbollically) no longer being accessible as it’s bridges and highway and infrastructure ages and collapses. Perhaps money put into cheap/accessible education and daycare could/should have been used to repair those bridges and roads (no, I have no idea what the equivalent costs are, I don’t care, this is just an example), but at the expense of still living (hyperbollically) in the Dark Ages in terms of educated population and access to work by women. As a woman educated in Québec, I struggle to say that that’s the route we should have taken, but I also struggle to get to work because of all the damn construction! It’s a trade-off, and one that needs to be better balanced for sure, but it’s not simply that Québec “has more money than everyone else” because that simply isn’t true. Québec just chooses to spend money differently. Do you resent us our [de la Concorde overpass collapse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_la_Concorde_overpass_collapse), as well as our daycares? And despite all that self-criticism about the consequences of those choices, I still maintain that they were, and should remain, Québec’s choices to make, which isn’t really being argued here, but is just an opportunity to re-iterate that independence. 1. I’m not really sure why these language laws make you so angry. I just don’t understand that. For one, the “language laws and language police” that Québec regulates occur in Québec, and as someone who is an anglophone in Québec (via my dad’s side of the family - personally I identify as bilingual) I support these laws, feel they are valid in most cases and don’t really see why they should offend you. The laws mostly limit the rights of _francophones_ anyways. Sure, there are some problems, sure there are still issues that need to be worked out and perhaps some adjustments to be made (the lack of immigrant access to English language schools is having an impact on the viability of some smaller schools, for example), but overall, I have no problem with these laws. People here speak French - making efforts to do business with them in that language makes sense. I’d like to see Québec become more bilingual, but I still have no problem with the language of the workplace being officially French. As someone who doesn’t live here, doesn’t have any intent to live here, and is unaffected whatsoever by them, I don’t see why you’re so bothered by them. If it’s the federal French-language laws only that bother you, then I suppose that’s different, but given the non-trivial numbers of French-Canadians in other provinces, I don’t see why you’d want to limit _their_ access to services in their language - an official Canadian language - simply because you dislike Québec. Frankly, that just makes it seem like you dislike all French people, which is kind of a stupid thing to do. I would imagine that even without Québec in Canada, French-Canadians would still maintain their right to federal services in French. I know I’d be fighting for it, even though I could easily get through life in English only. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/175 "2011-06-23T18:13:12Z")
> [@mnemosyne](#): > > 1. Given all the different sorts of transfer and equalization payments, doesn’t this all work out so that everyone is more or less working from a similar funding/ability to pay level? Isn’t that the idea, or am I totally of the mark? Québec trots out social benefits that other provinces don’t have, but _does so at the expense of other spending_. Montreal is falling apart - the most important city in the province is on the verge of (hyperbollically) no longer being accessible as it’s bridges and highway and infrastructure ages and collapses. Perhaps money put into cheap/accessible education and daycare could/should have been used to repair those bridges and roads (no, I have no idea what the equivalent costs are, I don’t care, this is just an example), but at the expense of still living (hyperbollically) in the Dark Ages in terms of educated population and access to work by women. As a woman educated in Québec, I struggle to say that that’s the route we should have taken, but I also struggle to get to work because of all the damn construction! It’s a trade-off, and one that needs to be better balanced for sure, but it’s not simply that Québec “has more money than everyone else” because that simply isn’t true. Québec just chooses to spend money differently. Do you resent us our [de la Concorde overpass collapse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_la_Concorde_overpass_collapse), as well as our daycares? I’d say, and I’m not **Uzi** , that the _apparent_ expansion of social services not available elsewhere _while_ possessing perceived higher taxes and larger debts (Ontario seems to skate by this issue) is an irresponsible use of those fees. Now if the daycare program could be presented as an economic driver reducing the need for equalization payments then the story would change. Albertans could just as easily manage a daycare program _if they choose_ to actually enact a provincial sales tax, which they choose not to. Similar resentment is thrown at the Atlantic provinces and their continual need for equalization/EI costs. ---
**Author:** ![mnemosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c4cdca/32.png) [@mnemosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mnemosyne)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/176 "2011-06-23T19:16:29Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > I’d say, and I’m not **Uzi** , that the _apparent_ expansion of social services not available elsewhere _while_ possessing perceived higher taxes and larger debts (Ontario seems to skate by this issue) is an irresponsible use of those fees. Ok, I can see that. But it is just an _apparent_ thing - it’s an interpretation that doesn’t consider the reality of everything else in the province. Yes, Québec has expensive social programs, because _culturally_ it is something that is desired, and it is part of the ongoing effort to have an educated, healthy workforce that includes women/parents and \*francophones \*- something that wasn’t true or even possible only a couple of generations ago. Is it really that irresponsible to try and give 90% of the population access to these things? Other provinces have focused on other priorities, but have done so at the expense of social programs. Ontario has beautiful roads and highways (compared to Québec!) and much more efficient bridge replacement processes, but is only now beginning to offer full-day kindergarten, something I had access to as a kid (I’m 30) and feel is important for children’s development. As I said, it’s a trade-off. That isn’t to say that I’d go back and always make the same choices - we have a ton of problems here, things that were ignored in favour of trying to fix/address other problems. _But so do you, so does every other province._ > [@](#): > > Now if the daycare program could be presented as an economic driver reducing the need for equalization payments then the story would change. Albertans could just as easily manage a daycare program _if they choose_ to actually enact a provincial sales tax, which they choose not to. The daycare program can, perhaps, eventually lead to increased productivity and a reduced need for equalization payments. It allows more women to enter or remain the workforce, more women with kids to become more educated… aren’t these things that can accomplish that? It just might take time. Though I read that the current equalization formula is such that it kind of discourages certain types of economic growth and development because it isn’t a 1:1 tradeoff… incremental improvements in one factor of the formula lead to a disproportionate decrease in funding, so that there’s no incentive to make those improvements. I think we can examine the formula and improve it, but personally, I’m not against the existence of it. > [@](#): > > Similar resentment is thrown at the Atlantic provinces and their continual need for equalization/EI costs. I just don’t understand the resentment. Encourage programs and methods to improve the situation, but why hate on the people in those provinces? We haven’t all had the same history, we don’t all have the same resources, we don’t all have the same population. There just seems to be so much anger directed towards people in other provinces…it comes across as the rich wanting to punish the poor for being poor. What the rich don’t have, the poor can’t even dream of having without help…that’s why we try and balance things out via equalization. As I said, are we all equals, or aren’t we? It almost sounds sometimes like some people don’t want us to be. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/177 "2011-06-23T19:43:10Z")
It’s money, people and politicians - how on earth could it not, at points, devolved into recriminations and disagreements. 🙂 That said, I’d say most people don’t understand equalization vs. transfers, let alone _how_ the formula works. I thought it was hilarious the Quebec government had a bloody document explaining why the were getting equalization and how it worked and not one other province has anything similar. Quebec equalization payments don’t bother me quiet so much as Ontario’s own internal fiscal issues. Services in excess of revenue and no real plan to fix it. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/178 "2011-06-23T20:13:08Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > Everyone gets transfer payments from the Federal Government. Alberta alone gets 5 Billion - see my table above. > > The statement is about _equalization_ payments which are based on some of the following > > 1. Provincial Revenue _capacity_ > 2. Mean GDP per capita > 3. Natural Resources > > So Ontario’s Mean GDP per capita dropped below the average of the 10 provinces. It consequently now receives 2 billion in equalization payments. Note that it is an average and so at least half of the provinces will be below it - hence there will always be equalization payments. > > Federal transfers for federal programs like health care are different. Ah, that’s probably where I’m getting confused - mixing up equalization and transfer payments. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/179 "2011-06-23T20:34:24Z")
> [@mnemosyne](#): > > \ I would imagine that even without Québec in Canada, French-Canadians would still maintain their right to federal services in French. I know I’d be fighting for it, even though I could easily get through life in English only. If you mean after Quebec hypothetically separates, I don’t think Canada would remain bilingual (with the possible exception of the province of New Brunswick). I could be wrong, though. ---
**Author:** ![Ibanez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a4c791/32.png) [@Ibanez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibanez)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/180 "2011-06-23T21:35:57Z")
> [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](#): > > I know **Ibanez** actually lives in Quebec, though I don’t know his background (anglophone, francophone, something else?) But let me ask this: why am I even taking time out of my day to try to post intelligent arguments on this board, when I get this kind of turd in response? I don’t want to blame **Ibanez** of English Canadians, because he might very well be a francophone Quebecer who just really hates Quebec. But, this attitude is common among anglophone Canadians as well. So what do I do? I may spend hours trying to discuss Canada, what this country is, what this country should be, what is it that we want to build, but in the mind of my interlocutor, I’m just sore about the Conquest and nothing I can say will change his mind. My sincere apologies Hypnagogic Jerk, yourself nor anyone else here has gone the 1759 route. From my experiences talking politics with other Québecois/Québecoise usually leads to some claim of injustice caused against them at some point in the conversation. And some of the claims are real no doubt. I’m just not a fan of living in the past when the present is relatively good for Quebecers as it stands for the most part. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059/181 "2011-06-23T23:04:56Z")
> [@mnemosyne](#): > > Ok, I can see that. But it is just an _apparent_ thing - it’s an interpretation that doesn’t consider the reality of everything else in the province. Yes, Québec has expensive social programs, because _culturally_ it is something that is desired, and it is part of the ongoing effort to have an educated, healthy workforce that includes women/parents and \*francophones \*- something that wasn’t true or even possible only a couple of generations ago. If you want to spend every penny you earn on your social programs that is one thing. If you want to spend everything you earn and then more that is another. To what level should anyone else subsidize your choices? That is the point, not what you spend it on. By you spending more than you generate someone else has to make up the difference. By introducing new programs that others have to support and don’t have (we all have to repair roads and manage just fine to have an educated workforce without public daycare), you act like a greedy child especially when you say something like it is our ‘culture’, like it is an excuse that you can’t help yourself in spending so much. Re. Language laws. I am bothered because as a Canadian, everyone should have the same rights regardless of where they are in Canada. Not less, not more, the same. Freedom of expression rights, to say what you want in whatever language you want, are particularly important. That is my ‘culture’. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-canadian-current-events-and-politics-thread/582059.md?page=10)