# Its all Greek to Quebec



## Jed (4 Mar 2012)

An article from the Calgary Herald dealing with equalization payments between the Feds and the provinces.

Please repost in the correct spot if I have not done this correctly.

I am interested in the opinion of the more financially astute folks on this forum as to the validity of this position.

Subject: It's all Greek to Quebec
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 08:33:52 -0500
Calgary Herald
In Greece , citizens can, on average, retire with a full government pension at the age of 58. In Germany , the citizens expected to help bail out the bankrupt Greeks must work until the age of 67 before they can retire.
Naturally, German citizens are wondering how this can be considered fair. Why should they have to work nine years longer so Greek citizens can live a life of leisure?
What's more, in Germany , most working people pay taxes. In Greece ,
only 20 per cent pay taxes. Again, unfair.
And yet equalization between "have" European Union states and "have not" European Union states continues, even though it's not making things equal -- it's rewarding laziness, leisure and possibly even criminal tax evasion. Why pay taxes if some hard-working Germans will do it for you? Thus the riots in Greece . They believe they are entitled to those entitlements.
Dysfunctional? You bet. We Canadians would never stand for such a thing. Right? Think again.
Equalization in Canada was established to ensure that "have-not" regions could enjoy the same programs as "have" regions and most Canadians wouldn't quibble with that. But that has not happened. In fact, the reverse has occurred. The have provinces have fewer services than the have-nots.
In Quebec -- which opted out of the Canada Pension Plan and administers its own pension plan -- citizens can retire with a full pension at age 62. In the rest of Canada , the age contributors can receive full benefits is 65.
In light of the fact that Quebec received $8.6 billion in equalization payments in 2010-11 out of a total equalization pot of $14.4 billion, it's safe to say that citizens in Canada 's "have" provinces -- British Columbia , Alberta and Ontario -- are paying for Quebecers' early retirement, as theirs is the only province which has such a generous, early retirement benefit.
In other words, equalization is not very equal.
What's more, Quebecers can take advantage of $7-a-day day care, whereas, in most other provinces, $7 wouldn't even buy you an hour of day care or babysitting.
Quebec has a very generous pharmaceutical program unlike any other in the country and Quebec university students pay considerably less for tuition within Quebec than students from anywhere else in the country.
For instance, to attend McGill University in 2010, Quebec students pay $3,475 for tuition and fees. An out-of-province student attending McGill pays $7,008, or $3,533 more than a Quebec student -- more than double! Five of the six cheapest universities in Canada are in Quebec -- but they're only the cheapest for Quebecers. Those same universities are among the most expensive in Canada for non-Quebecers.
Sherbrooke has the lowest university tuition and fees in the entire country -- but again, only for Quebecers, who pay just $2,381. To attend the same university, a non-Quebecer, from Alberta , for instance, must pay $5,914 or $3,533 more than his Quebec colleague. In other words, when that Alberta student works through the summer in Alberta to save up for tuition and living expenses, the taxes he or she will pay will actually help subsidize the Quebec student's tuition.
Lately, Quebecers, like Conservative MP Maxime Bernier, have criticized Quebec 's overreliance on equalization, saying Quebecers are "spoiled children."
But that's got Quebec 's Liberal provincial government fighting back. In its 2010-11 budget document, the Jean Charest government is actually arguing that it should receive even more equalization than it's getting because Alberta 's oil industry is keeping the Canadian dollar high, which in turn harms Quebec 's manufacturing sector. This is not a joke.
"A rise in the world price of a barrel of oil favours provinces that have that resource," states the budget document in Section E.
"However, the rise in the Canadian dollar that accompanies the rising price of oil hampers the exports of the other provinces. An adequate equalization program can mitigate this phenomenon by increasing the revenues of provinces that are negatively affected by the rise in the dollar, without reducing the revenues of provinces that benefit from the higher price of oil."
In other words, Quebec , which received $8.6 billion of the $14.4 billion doled out in equalization this year, is arguing that it's not enough! It wants more and it blames Alberta 's oil industry for its troubles. It's a curious argument since it can be argued that Alberta 's oil industry is literally fuelling Canada 's economy and largely provided the money that was sent as equalization to Quebec in the first place.
In 2007, the last year Statistics Canada figures are available for all provinces, B.C., Alberta and Ontario were the only provinces that paid more into Confederation than they received. Alberta paid a total of $37.064 billion in taxes and transfers to the federal government and the feds returned $17.567 billion in services and programs, meaning that Alberta contributed $19.5 billion net to the rest of Canada.
But Charest, who complained in Copenhagen that Alberta 's oil sands industry "embarrassed" him, is actually making the argument that despite Alberta 's largesse, it's to blame for the trouble Quebec is in.
In short, it's all Greek to Quebec -- and that's frightening.


----------



## Dog Walker (4 Mar 2012)

I wonder how much tax money Ottawa collects from Quebec citizens vs. the amount of money it sends back as equalization payments. 
Quebecers pay the highest taxes in Canada. We pay income taxes to both Ottawa and Quebec. We pay the GST of 5% and a PST of 9.5%.
None of the oil used in Quebec comes from Alberta; it is all imported from overseas, and is taxed by both Ottawa and Québec. Gas prices in Montreal last week reached about $1.44 per litre. 
Users of the Québec Prescription Drug Plan pay premiums which are payable when they complete their Provencal income tax forms. 
The Quebec daycare plan is paid for by another tax deducted from the pay checks of all Quebecers (QPIP). 
That article makes it sound like Quebecers are getting a free ride from the rest of Canada. That is certainly not the case and I have the holes in my wallet to prove it.


----------



## ballz (4 Mar 2012)

Dog Walker said:
			
		

> I wonder how much tax money Ottawa collects from Quebec citizens vs. the amount of money it sends back as equalization payments.
> Quebecers pay the highest taxes in Canada. We pay income taxes to both Ottawa and Quebec. We pay the GST of 5% and a PST of 9.5%.
> None of the oil used in Quebec comes from Alberta; it is all imported from overseas, and is taxed by both Ottawa and Québec. Gas prices in Montreal last week reached about $1.44 per litre.
> Users of the Québec Prescription Drug Plan pay premiums which are payable when they complete their Provencal income tax forms.
> ...



That's completely missing the point of the article. 

The point is, Quebec collects all these equalization payments as a *have-not* province, yet *has more* than the apparent "have" provinces. They spend money out the @$$ on social programs that they clearly can't afford. Guess who's paying for those social programs? The provinces that don't have those social programs. Why don't they have those social programs? Probably because they're paying for Quebec's.

If Quebec, with it's obscenely high tax rates, can't afford to pay for a retirement age of 62, for a daycare plan, etc., then it shouldn't have them. It's called being fiscally responsible. It shouldn't just collect more money (in other words, tax the rest of Canada) in order to pay for the things it *wants.* Equalization payments were supposed to help have-not provinces meet their *needs,* not give them everything they *want.*

The article, IMO, has hit the nail right on the head. The comparison of Quebec and Canada, and Greece and the EU, is something I hadn't considered before.



			
				Dog Walker said:
			
		

> I wonder how much tax money Ottawa collects from Quebec citizens vs. the amount of money it sends back as equalization payments.



Ottawa gets the exact same amount of federal taxes from Quebec citizens as it does any other citizen. Your province has chosen to tax higher at the *provincial* level, and it's the *provincial* government that gets those tax revenues, not the federal government. If you don't like the tax rates in Quebec, talk to the provincial government about it, Ottawa has nothing to do with it.


----------



## larry Strong (4 Mar 2012)

:goodpost:

Read this:

http://ideefederale.ca/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/if-imbalance-final.pdf


----------



## George Wallace (5 Mar 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> ......... If you don't like the tax rates in Quebec, talk to the provincial government about it, Ottawa has nothing to do with it.



 >

Or emigrate to the ROC.


----------



## Bam (5 Mar 2012)

Comparing Québec to greece is actually a myth. Québec's debt rate is not even close to the greek one. Nor are many other economic factors.
Another thing, it's not that quebecers work less, they have a smaller pay check than other workers from other provinces for the same amount of time and work.

Also, Québec can maintain most of the important services even without equalization. Many of those services are paid by quebecers simply with high taxes. Just our sales tax makes more than 12 billion. I don't know how good is your french but this explains most of it.

http://www.budget.finances.gouv.qc.ca/Budget/2011-2012/fr/documents/TransfertsFederaux.pdf


As for Charest, I don't know he would complain...political strategy? Anyway,  he's actually building plan Nord wich is a big resources investment plan for quebec's economic future(mineral mines, oil plants and transformation plants in northen quebec)


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Mar 2012)

Bam said:
			
		

> Also, Québec can maintain most of the important services even without equalization. Many of those services are paid by quebecers simply with high taxes. Just our sales tax makes more than 12 billion.



Then why is there constant complaining about how they need more money in equalization payments? You make it sound as if Quebec would flourish if we cut off the $6 Billion they get every year. If thats the case, I can think of a few provinces that could use the money better, and not dump it into unaffordable social programs.


----------



## ballz (5 Mar 2012)

Bam said:
			
		

> Also, Québec can maintain most of the important services even without equalization.



THEN DO IT!

You can post all you want, when you receive 8.6 billion in equalization payments and still run a deficit, you're not going to pull the wool over my eyes and tell me you have your finances in order.

As for Quebec's debt not being as bad as Greece's, of course it's not, how could it be? Greece doesn't receive a bailout every single year like Quebec does.

The article seems to ask "why does Quebec continue to have these crazy social programs, early retirement, etc, despite the fact that it can't pay for them without the rest of Canada's help?" The answer is so blatantly clear, because we keep letting them.


----------



## armyvern (5 Mar 2012)

Please don't take their equalization payments away from them until I get the hell out!! 

Despite being deployed last year, I just figured out my taxes at the Quebec rate (9erD got posted here while I was deployed, thus I am a Quebec resident this year) and at the Ontario rate (for shits and giggles). 1500 and change difference in my refund between the two provinces for 4 months of "taxable work". This province is retarded.

I can only imagine what the other *working* inmates of this province are forced to fork over with no tax-free tour and no equalization. I won't be sad to get the hell out of here.

1500 less on my refund divided by 7 dollar per day babysitting = Canada should not have to support this utopian place.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Mar 2012)

The humourous, or sad, fact of this, is the ugly head of the Separatist Movement who want to take Quebec out of Confederation, and we keep crying "NOooooooo".  They still want all these benefits, use of the Canadian Dollar, etc., yet no part of Canada.   Sounds worse than WELFARE to me.

Anyone remember the members of the FLQ who we caught and sent off to Cuba in a Herc?  They are all back.  Some have made very good livings off the ROC.  One has even become a staunch Federalist.   Once Quebecer's get out of Quebec, they usually see life through a completely different light.   Quebec politicians never really leave Quebec (mentally, not physically).

This is a story of the "Thirty-year old child living in the basement of their parent's house".  They need a swift kick in the butt to get their heads on straight.


----------



## Remius (5 Mar 2012)

Although this was published last year it offers an interesting counter point.  

http://www.unlimitedmagazine.com/2011/04/why-everything-your-uncle-says-about-transfer-payments-is-wrong/


----------



## George Wallace (5 Mar 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Although this was published last year it offers an interesting counter point.
> 
> http://www.unlimitedmagazine.com/2011/04/why-everything-your-uncle-says-about-transfer-payments-is-wrong/



Does it really offer a counter point or just clarify how this takes place?  In the end Albertans are taxed and watch their tax dollars (along with the rest of Canadians) go to Ottawa who then passes subsidies to provinces like Quebec and the Maritimes.   Quebec has the potential and resources.  It should not be a "HAVE NOT" province, nor should Newfoundland, if we want to sidetrack.

Let's just stick with the "Thirty-year old child in Mommies and Daddies basement".    >


----------



## MJP (5 Mar 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> nor should Newfoundland, if we want to sidetrack.



NFLD no longer receives equalization payments


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Mar 2012)

Two points:

1. For better or worse _equalization_, in some form, is enshrined in the Constitution ~ we can fiddle with the formula but, unless we amend the Constitution (an idea which is not popular in Canada because it has HUGE unforeseen consequences) we cannot rid ourselves of the _principle_; and

2. As the article Cantor posted says, the problem is not, necessarily, with wanting and trying to be _*fair*_, the problem is that we do not measure the results. Absent a sensible _performance measurement_ system we are just pissing billions and billions of dollars up against a wall that stretches from Cape Breton to to the Manitoba/Saskatchewan border.


----------



## Bam (5 Mar 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Then why is there constant complaining about how they need more money in equalization payments? You make it sound as if Quebec would flourish if we cut off the $6 Billion they get every year. If thats the case, I can think of a few provinces that could use the money better, and not dump it into unaffordable social programs.



Complaining is what politicians do. Québec is not flourishing, nor is it stagging but you have to take in account that economy goes up and down in certain sectors and part of this money is used to invest in certain areas to get out of the "poor" zone. Equalization exist for more than 50 years and in all those years wich at some points, Québec was out of the poor zone and actually paid to ther provinces.

Didnt the CPC want to change the formula?


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Mar 2012)

McDinky figured out the Quebec formula long ago and is applying it in earnest now.

ERC: 





> ......the Constitution ~ we can fiddle with the formula but, unless we amend the Constitution (an idea which is not popular in Canada because it has HUGE unforeseen consequences ......



Canada should grow up and amend the Constitution. Take the pain (to some), gain to others.

ERC has got my vote to represent sane Canadians at the table.


----------



## Sadukar09 (5 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Two points:
> 
> 1. For better or worse _equalization_, in some form, is enshrined in the Constitution ~ we can fiddle with the formula but, unless we amend the Constitution (an idea which is not popular in Canada because it has HUGE unforeseen consequences) we cannot rid ourselves of the _principle_; and
> 
> 2. As the article Cantor posted says, the problem is not, necessarily, with wanting and trying to be _*fair*_, the problem is that we do not measure the results. Absent a sensible _performance measurement_ system we are just pissing billions and billions of dollars up against a wall that stretches from Cape Breton to to the Manitoba/Saskatchewan border.


Quebec never formally endorsed the 1982 constitution.  > 

You can see where this is getting to.


----------



## MJP (5 Mar 2012)

Sadukar09 said:
			
		

> Quebec never formally endorsed the 1982 constitution.  >
> 
> You can see where this is getting to.



But are still bound by it so it is a moot point.


----------



## fraserdw (5 Mar 2012)

Bam said:
			
		

> Equalization exist for more than 50 years and in all those years wich at some points, Québec was out of the poor zone and actually paid to ther provinces.



Are you sure, I have been unable to find any point at which Quebec was a net payer.  Can you specify dates and a source?


----------



## ballz (5 Mar 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> ERC:
> Canada should grow up and amend the Constitution. Take the pain (to some), gain to others.



Not sure of Mr. Campbell's feelings on equalization, but personally I'm not against equalization payments. It benefits Canada as a whole. Alberta might be paying them now, but that wasn't always the case, and receiving equalization payments from other provinces helped Alberta become the economic powerhouse it is now. In my experience, Albertans memory is very short when it comes to that.

Equalization payments are a part of a Federation of provinces working together, and really no different than having a welfare system, which is necessary and good. However, Quebec has no interest in "working together," only how much they can maraud the rest of Canada for their own gain.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Mar 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> Not sure of Mr. Campbell's feelings on equalization, but personally I'm not against equalization payments. It benefits Canada as a whole. Alberta might be paying them now, but that wasn't always the case, and receiving equalization payments from other provinces helped Alberta become the economic powerhouse it is now. In my experience, Albertans memory is very short when it comes to that.
> 
> Equalization payments are a part of a Federation of provinces working together, and really no different than having a welfare system, which is necessary and good. However, Quebec has no interest in "working together," only how much they can maraud the rest of Canada for their own gain.




I am ambivalent towards equalization ~ on it's face it is counter-productive: it keeps people in "have not" areas when there are jobs available elsewhere by, artificially, providing affordable social services. That being said, I do agree that some form of _generosity_ is implicit in a federation and not everyone can or should be driven by tooth and claw capitalism.

I think the formula needs constant review, but I don't want to force a "race to the bottom," either - if "have not" province _X_ can, for the same money per capita, innovate and produce better healthcare outcomes than "have" province _Y_ then more power to them.

Unfortunately it is health care that drives provincial budgets and the equalization process ~ maybe there needs to be some sort of "claw back" from provinces that either: a) increase health care spending by more than _x_%, or increase healthcare spending by more than the BC, AB, SK and NL average, or c) spend more than _n_% of their provincial budget on health care.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Mar 2012)

The GoC seems to be trying to decouple healthcare from driving ever escalating equalization payments. They gave the provinces a 6% per year increse in block grants to 2017(?) followed by funding tied to GDP thereafter. It is up to the provinces to manage this money however they wish, with minimal input from the Federal Government.

The desired "ends" of equalization may be served better through changing the tax code and providing more money directly to low income Canadians (through tax credits, lower tax rates or rebates on GST or other means) rather than providing money to bureaucracies as is the case now. While I'm sure Quebec politicians would try to swoop down and seize tax refunds or vouchers from low income citizens, the optics would look very bad and this might provoke a huge backlash against such actions.

As Edward says, the key problem with the entire system is there is no sets of metrics to define how successful or effective "equalization" is, hence Quebec politicians can say (with a straight face) they are being cheated and not getting enough money without any real way of disputing them. Just look upthread if you disbelieve me.


----------



## fraserdw (5 Mar 2012)

"I am ambivalent towards equalization ~ on it's face it is counter-productive: it keeps people in "have not" areas when there are jobs available elsewhere by, artificially, providing affordable social services."

Roger that, here in NB it is seemingly to most un-productive and disruptive that stay, while so much talent leaves.  An end to some of the welfare transfers would turn NB in rural paradise if it convinced these goobers to leave.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Mar 2012)

Quebec's income tax rates are incontrovertible evidence that Quebec has enough money to cover its needs without equalization.  All equalization does is allow Quebec to turn its safety net into a hammock at the expense of other Canadian taxpayers.


----------



## a_majoor (13 May 2012)

Simmering resentment even after all this time. Of course, a separate Quebec would probably disintegrate as portions separated from Quebec; and the entire idea has more pitfalls than positives for both sides in the short to medium run:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/12/paul-russell-its-time-for-quebec-independence-nat-post-readers-says/



> *Paul Russell: It’s time for Quebec independence, Nat Post readers say*
> Paul Russell  May 12, 2012 – 4:30 PM ET | Last Updated: May 12, 2012 6:00 PM ET
> 
> Jim Young / REUTERS
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 May 2012)

I don't know if Québec separation/independence is inevitable. I am about 99.99% certain that the _process_ would be painful and expensive for Québec and Canada. I think I have said before:

1. Québec will not be required to take a "fair share," much less a full share of the national debt because the bond market will not allow it. An independent, sovereign Québec would be barely able to sustain its own, current, provincial debt - it would not be able to sell bonds to cover, say, 20% of Canada's national debt. The consequence is that Canada, _sans_ Québec, has the same national debt ($583 Billion) as today but only 28 Million Canadians are on the hook for it, not 35 Million as now;

2. An independent, sovereign Québec will not look very much like _la province de Québec_ today. The Ungava Peninsula will go - the UN will recognize it, but not Québec, as a _colonized_ place that deserves, by the UN Charter, to be independent. The _Pontiac_ and a few other regions of a newly indepenednt Québec will have large, aggressive _separatist_ movements - some will succeed in leaving Québec and rejoining Canada; and

3. Québec's economy will have to shift from the so called _Québec model_ to a less statist version in order to be allowed in to the NAFTA.

All in all both Canada and Québec will be measurably poorer places as a result of the separation exercise. It is wasteful and counter-productive. That doesn't mean it's not going to happen because neither Canadians nor Québecers are famous for putting reason ahead of passion.

But, Québec will not be Greece or even Portugal; it will be Belgium and Canada will be Australia.

It seems better, to me, to further decentralize Canada - which is already one of the most decentralized federations in the world (and I'll cite an authoritative refernce for that statement, if someone reminds me, when I get back home later this month): ALL provinces can and should be required to take over full responsibility (with tax points) for all of the areas assigned to provinces in the BNA Act - in other words 100 years of federal (mostly Liberal) _intrusion_ into areas of provincial jurisdiction can and should be undone. The result will be a smaller, less visible, and less _interesting_ federal government. Less intersting because it will have less and less _wealth_ to redistribute. Canadians will depend,more and more, on their home provinces - some of which should form sub-national "unions" to lower costs of services resulting, perhaps, in a federaton of six _de facto_ provinces: BC, AB, the prairie "union," ON, QC and the Atlantic "union."

My "new model" Canada will look more like the EU than the USA; provinces will be, pretty much, as "sovereign" as are Belgium, France, Germany and Spain - which share a common currency and trade and commerce policies and, increasingly _similar_ foreign and defence policies.


----------



## foresterab (14 May 2012)

Don't forget the impact of the aboriginal groups in Quebec...all of which as far as I know have stated they want to be part of Canada not Quebec.  And if it's okay for Quebec to seperate from Canada then they will seperate from Quebec...especially as their presence of inhabitants pre-European is well recognized in law.

That basically means northern Quebec is gone...oh and also alot of the hydro power sites.  And alot of the south shore areas due to the influence of the 6 nations down there.  Tough for Quebec to maintain it's economy without resources and cash flow from elsewhere.

To be fair this is not just Quebec...northern, rural areas of Canada and it's resources affect most provincies budgets signifantly.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (14 May 2012)

foresterab said:
			
		

> Don't forget the impact of the aboriginal groups in Quebec...all of which as far as I know have stated they want to be part of Canada not Quebec.  And if it's okay for Quebec to seperate from Canada then they will seperate from Quebec...especially as their presence of inhabitants pre-European is well recognized in law.
> 
> That basically means northern Quebec is gone...oh and also alot of the hydro power sites.  And alot of the south shore areas due to the influence of the 6 nations down there.  Tough for Quebec to maintain it's economy without resources and cash flow from elsewhere.
> 
> To be fair this is not just Quebec...northern, rural areas of Canada and it's resources affect most provincies budgets signifantly.



Don't forget the international implications. If Quebec separates what do you think the Americans would do? 

*Quebec separatists say hello to 82nd Airborne Division - 82nd AB say hello to separatists!*


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 May 2012)

foresterab said:
			
		

> Don't forget the impact of the aboriginal groups in Quebec...all of which as far as I know have stated they want to be part of Canada not Quebec.  And if it's okay for Quebec to seperate from Canada then they will seperate from Quebec...especially as their presence of inhabitants pre-European is well recognized in law.
> 
> That basically means northern Quebec is gone...oh and also alot of the hydro power sites.  And alot of the south shore areas due to the influence of the 6 nations down there.  Tough for Quebec to maintain it's economy without resources and cash flow from elsewhere.
> 
> To be fair this is not just Quebec...northern, rural areas of Canada and it's resources affect most provincies budgets signifantly.




Which is what I said: "the Ungava Peninsula  will go" and there will be aggressibe separatist movements in  "a few other regions."


----------



## Haletown (14 May 2012)

Couple of points.

"Canada 's "have" provinces -- British Columbia , Alberta and Ontario -- are paying for Quebecers' early retirement, as theirs is the only province which has such a generous, early retirement benefit."

Ontario, thanks to the current Liberal regime, has driven the Ontario economy into a ditch or two and Ontario is now a Have Not province - actually #2 on the Transfer payment list, after Quebec.

Without the  huge amount of transfer money, Quebec wouldn't even be close to being able to afford the services they now provide - they can't do it now with the Transfers.

The very first Quebec Referendum was held in Northern Quebec, organized by an Inuk guy named Charlie Watt, now thanks to Trudeau, Senator for life.  The vote was about 99% to leave Quebec if Quebec left Canada. That vote would hold again today.


The Transfers do not include other large financial benefits that accrue to Quebec. For example, Quebec has about 50% of the Canadian Milk Quota, a very, very lucrative business model.  The irony is the Quebec Farmers Union, a group that supports independance, actually believe they would keep that quota if the became a separate nation.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 May 2012)

The sad part is that the _separatists_, in QC and including the (many?) Canadians who want QC to leave, are almost all innumerate dreamers who are unwilling or unable to count up the costs. An independent, sovereign Quebec will be a poor place, not third world poor but not able to provide its people with anything like today's subsidized lifestyle. But Canada will also be poorer - not just culturally: "losing" Quebec will have real economic costs. Canada can and, probably, will recover in a generation or so ~ Quebec will require more time and considerable social and economic pain.


----------



## DonaldMcL (14 May 2012)

I also question how Quebec's aerospace and ship building industries would survive... its not like they could whine and moan to Canada then.


----------



## dimsum (14 May 2012)

I try to follow Canadian news as much as possible, but when did the Quebec situation change from protesting tuition fees to talking about separation?  Did I miss something in the past few weeks?


----------



## dogger1936 (15 May 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Does it really offer a counter point or just clarify how this takes place?  In the end Albertans are taxed and watch their tax dollars (along with the rest of Canadians) go to Ottawa who then passes subsidies to provinces like Quebec and the Maritimes.   Quebec has the potential and resources.  It should not be a "HAVE NOT" province, nor should Newfoundland, if we want to sidetrack.
> 
> Let's just stick with the "Thirty-year old child in Mommies and Daddies basement".    >



Hopefully Quebec can get some excellent fiscal managers and people with vision into their politic arena. Newfoundland benefits from Mr Danny Williams work even years after his retirement. While we spent quite a while as a "have not" province after joining Canada in 1949; our future is looking very bright. Quite a different place than the "rock" from my youth.


----------



## larry Strong (15 May 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Hopefully Quebec can get some excellent fiscal managers and people with vision into their politic arena. Newfoundland benefits from Mr Danny Williams work even years after his retirement. While we spent quite a while as a "have not" province after joining Canada in 1949; our future is looking very bright. Quite a different place than the "rock" from my youth.



That would call for someone with the intestinal fortitude to do unpleasant things..........none visible on the horizon at this point in time..........


----------



## Remius (15 May 2012)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Don't forget the international implications. If Quebec separates what do you think the Americans would do?
> 
> *Quebec separatists say hello to 82nd Airborne Division - 82nd AB say hello to separatists!*



Riiighhhhht.....


----------



## ettibebs (15 May 2012)

Although I agree that Quebec pension plan should be the same as the rest of Canada, I have to say that the 7$ day care are not costing money at all to the Quebec government. It's actually making money out of it, it's just not politically sound to say it. Because of the high taxes we have the government is making more money from the women going back to work than it cost to run the program.


----------



## Remius (15 May 2012)

Frankly I don't see it happening.  

Seperatism is pretty much dead.  If the PQ get re-elected it won't be because of a referendum platform.  i t will be becasue of a rejection of the PLQ.

I think that people see the youth in the streets and think this is some kind of separatist thing again.  It isn’t.  Quebec’s youth today is just as militant as it ever was but they have a different cause.  Right now it is education but it goes deeper.  It is almost an extension of the occupy movement.  These kids are adopting a more socially conscious temperament.  The strike they are in is as much about perceived inequality as it is about tuition fees.  For the most part they aren’t interested in separatism.  Neither is the immigrant population that is growing in Quebec.  And the separatist movement has lost its message.  They do not have a charismatic leader type either and even if they did, he’d get eaten by his own as evidenced in the past.

Now in a “what if” scenario, Quebec were to separate it would likely be negotiated.  I think it would be naïve to think that Quebec wouldn’t keep its current borders.  Like anything it would be negotiated in exchange for certain things.  

Canada would require unfettered access to the St Lawrence Seaway as well as airspace rights for commercial flights over Quebec.  

Quebec would likely keep our currency but in doing so surrenders its economic control to a large extent.  

The borders would truly be seamless, similar to Europe.  

Quebec citizens would be able to keep their passports because unless we remove the dual citizen rule  and strip Quebecers of their citizenship we wouldn’t be able to stop that but the next generation of Quebecers born there would not benefit.  

Quebec wouldn’t really have a standing army.  It wouldn’t really need it.  Likely though they would have a small territorial defence force likely drawn from existing reserve units with training exchange agreements with Canada.  In fact many Quebecers would still serve in the CF.  Quebec would likely have it in their constitution that they would not have any expeditionary force.

Quebec would strengthen its economic ties to the states that border them.

Social programs in QC would take a hit and likely they would run deficit budgets for a very looong time.

As for the aboriginal populations, if Quebec was smart, it would emphasise that they are no better in Canada under the Indian Act and offer them the chance to form a northern territory similar to Nunavut with certain self governing powers.  An expansion of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

The English populations would not likely revolt.  It isn’t in their nature.  A more likely scenario would be an exodus of Anglo speaking Quebecers and some federalist French speaking populations.  This would hurt their economy the most.  As would an exodus of some established companies as well.

The Francophonie and its member states would be the first to recognize Quebec then the rest of the world for the most part would follow.  Remember that Canada would be negotiating this with Quebec so it would make this much more legitimate.

French populations outside Quebec would continue, they’ve managed without Quebec this long, albeit the official languages act would likely be scrapped.

I could go on, but in short Quebec will get more than what some Canadians would want to grant them but in the end they would become the poor relative in North America having far less than it does now.  It will try to get everyone’s attention but will largely be ignored by everyone in terms of any kind of influence it may think it has in North American geo political affairs.


----------



## Loachman (15 May 2012)

Dog Walker said:
			
		

> Quebecers pay the highest taxes in Canada.



Talk to your provincial government.

Elect one that exercises fiscal responsibility.



			
				Dog Walker said:
			
		

> We pay income taxes to both Ottawa and Quebec.



Citizens of other provinces pay taxes to Ottawa and their own provinces. So what?



			
				Dog Walker said:
			
		

> We pay the GST of 5%



So do the citizens of all other provinces. So what?



			
				Dog Walker said:
			
		

> and a PST of 9.5%.



And some other provinces have higher PSTs.

Talk to your provincial government.

Elect one that exercises fiscal responsibility.



			
				Dog Walker said:
			
		

> None of the oil used in Quebec comes from Alberta; it is all imported from overseas,



So is the oil used in many other provinces. So what?

The oil produced in Alberta and other oil-producing provinces is sold at world market prices. The base price is the same to all.



			
				Dog Walker said:
			
		

> and is taxed by both Ottawa and Québec.



Citizens of other provinces pay taxes on fuel to Ottawa and their own provinces as well. So what?



			
				Dog Walker said:
			
		

> IGas prices in Montreal last week reached about $1.44 per litre.



Talk to your provincial government about its fuel tax rate.

Elect one that exercises fiscal responsibility.



			
				Dog Walker said:
			
		

> Users of the Québec Prescription Drug Plan pay premiums which are payable when they complete their Provencal income tax forms.



Citizens of other provinces pay premia for their drug plans, too - if they have one.

Many do not have one. Isn't it nice of them to help pay for yours, even if they do not have one of their own?



			
				Dog Walker said:
			
		

> The Quebec daycare plan is paid for by another tax deducted from the pay checks of all Quebecers (QPIP).



And another tax deducted from the citizenry of some other provinces.



			
				Dog Walker said:
			
		

> That article makes it sound like Quebecers are getting a free ride from the rest of Canada.



Yes, it does. Funny, that.



			
				Dog Walker said:
			
		

> That is certainly not the case and I have the holes in my wallet to prove it.



Many citizens of other provinces have holes in their wallets that would indicate otherwise.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 May 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> As for the aboriginal populations, if Quebec was smart, it would emphasise that they are no better in Canada under the Indian Act and offer them the chance to form a northern territory similar to Nunavut with certain self governing powers.  An expansion of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.


From what little I know, a lot of Aboriginals and Aboriginal leaders see their relationship with "The Crown" going all the way back to the Queen.  Given that (and I don't know how the modern Treaties in northern QC work), I agree with those who've said they'd likely choose to stay with Canada/the Queen.


----------



## bridges (15 May 2012)

WRT various groups & regions "opting" to stay in Canada in the event of separation, I'd be curious about the legality of that.  Would each legal or municipal jurisdiction have its own separate referendum?  What if the jurisdictions opting to stay in Canada weren't contiguous - would there be Canadian enclaves within Quebec?

I'd think a provincial referendum would end up being just that - everyone within the borders of the province, and a straight majority (or not) - but I really have no idea, and would be interested to hear from someone with expertise in international law about this.

And to pick up on a couple of earlier comments in this thread about "unaffordable " and "crazy" social benefits, I have a theory:  nifty things like affordable daycare, stable pensions and affordable post-secondary education actually _benefit_ our society as a whole, in the long run, and it would be more costly NOT to have them.  

It seems to be a basic philosophical difference generating a constant tug-of-war in Canadian politics.   Just my  :2c:


----------



## Jed (15 May 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> And to pick up on a couple of earlier comments in this thread about "unaffordable " and "crazy" social benefits, I have a theory:  nifty things like affordable daycare, stable pensions and affordable post-secondary education actually _benefit_ our society as a whole, in the long run, and it would be more costly NOT to have them.
> 
> It seems to be a basic philosophical difference generating a constant tug-of-war in Canadian politics.   Just my  :2c:



I have a real problem with the current attitude of many people, at least people who seem to have the attention of the mainstream media, that can not comprehend some of the basic economic facts of life.  One quote I like is " There is no such thing as a free lunch".

Whether it is striking Quebec students, Occupy movement people, or upset Saskatchewan Filmboard and Actors' grant recipients, it just plain baffles me.


----------



## bridges (15 May 2012)

One quote I like is "privatizing the profits, socializing the losses."   Well, "like" isn't quite the right word, but the quote is an apt descriptor of a certain economic model that seems to be the subject of protest - at least in some of the media I've seen.   And some of those media sources are pretty far from mainstream.   

I have a hunch that our society has enough resources to make certain things available to everybody - and if we think we don't, then I wonder where the money is going-?


----------



## GAP (15 May 2012)

> "privatizing the profits, socializing the losses."



I get the profits, you pay the losses. 


Meh, seems right...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (15 May 2012)

I have been looking at this thread develop and must say that I have seldom seen so much ignorant, bigoted and yes, some times asinine commentary in such a short thread. And it all started with an article attacking the Quebec situation without any factual basis. My understanding was that these forums require us to deal with verifiable facts. I have noted that many times when Quebec issues come up, the responses are full of bile and must say that I do not know where this comes from in people that have worked in the field with Quebeckers. 

Let me try to just input some facts in here.

First, lets deal with the crazy, unaffordable retirement at 62 scheme: First of all, it is not universal, it is optional. And if you elect to take this early retirement scheme, your monthly payments are REDUCED BY 12% for the rest of your life, so that basically, it has exactly the same actuarial cost to the scheme as if you took your full pension at the standard age (which is still 65 for everyone else - the plan being copied exactly on the CPP). Now, how much of this is paid for by the "Have" provinces? Nothing, zilch, zero, the big nada. The pension plan is ENTIRELY paid from the money collected as premium on every single quebecker's salary - just like your CPP contribution- and nowhere else. There is not a cent that comes  from the general revenues of the province - thus none from outside the province. These contributions are managed by the CDP (Caisse de dépot et placement) and currently, even though it took a hit when the market crashed a couple of years ago, it has no actuarial deficit nor is any such deficit forecasted. BTW, the measure was not adopted out of excess of largesse. It was adopted because about 20 years ago, three of Quebec's largest industrial sectors started to melt from the delocalisation connected with globalization and the soft wood lumber conflict. Quebec was canada's home to the textile and clothing industry. When that went to Asia and the forestry sector suffered at the same time, massive layoffs put elderly workers in the street. After unemployment stopped, the optional retirement at 62 (with lower payments) was meant to bridge the gap - at no extra cost (otherwise, these workers would have had to sell their home and possessions until left with no choice but to go on welfare).

Lets get to the "have" / "have not" provinces now. Haletown got them wrong. For the last few years, Ontario  has been a have not, while Newfoundland has been a have province. Basically, there are now (and for the next few years for sure) four "have" provinces: BC, AB, SK and NL. But is Quebec really a province in such bad economic order on the scale of Greece whilst the other "have not" are OK? The following table is taken from the Federal Government site on the latest round of equalization payments - made under the new Conservative government formula allegedly "fairer":

Province :	         Equalization :	         Per capita :
PEI	                 337 M$	                 $ 2,390.07
Nova Scotia	 1,268 M$	                 $ 1,351.52
New Brunswick	 1,495 M$	                 $ 1994.66
Québec	         7,391 M$	                 $ 944.07
Ontario	         3,261 M$	                 $ 249.52
Manitoba	         1,671 M$	                 $ 1,367.43

So if Quebeckers are living in luxury at the expenses of the "have provinces", what does that tell you about Manitobans and the residents of the "have not" Atlantic provinces?

And is Quebec a "greek" economy in canada?

Lets look at some current facts. They come from the following sources: Pop. figures: Federal government numbers for 2009; current provincial deficits, debt to GDP ratio, Federal transfers as % of province revenues: come from each province's latest budgets, as compiled by CBC, finally, net debts of provinces: TD Canada economic forecast figures.

	                                                               Ontario	Québec	Manitoba 	Nova Scotia
Pop. (2009) (x 1000)	                               13,029	7,829	1,222	938
Budget Deficit	                                           15.3 B$	1.5 B$	460 M$	211 M$
Net Debt	                                                   260.4 B$    178.5 B$	15.4 B$	13.7 B$
Debt to GDP ratio	                                     37.2 %     35.2 %	27.4 %	34.8 %
Federal transfers as % of provincial revenue  19.4 %	22.8 %	28.1 %	32.1 %

The federal transfer payments include ALL transfers to the province's revenue. It is interesting to add here that on that basis, Alberta gets 12% of its provincial general revenue from Federal transfers.

If Quebec is like Greece, with a small deficit of $1.5 B$ this year (and a forecasted return (Yes! return)  to balanced budget next year), what does that say of Manitoba at double the deficit in proportion, and Ontario at five times! And how could the Manitoba and Nova Scotia government fare - extravagant as they are - without the huge Federal transfer that buoy them up?

So, Loachman, which provincial governments are exercising fiscal responsibility in this country now?

Finally, here are a couple of little facts about the "$7-a-day daycare program in Quebec: 1) All economic studies so far (and there have been a few) have concluded that the program generates for the province's government approximately $1,5 B$ in revenue a year ABOVE the cost of the program. 2) the very existence of this program is cited in the annual UN Human Development Index as having helped Canada up two positions in the index, with a complaint that it had not been adopted by all provinces. Go figure, Alberta!


/RANT OFF


----------



## Jed (15 May 2012)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Lets get to the "have" / "have not" provinces now. Haletown got them wrong. For the last few years, Ontario  has been a have not, while Newfoundland has been a have province. Basically, there are now (and for the next few years for sure) four "have" provinces: BC, AB, SK and NL. But is Quebec really a province in such bad economic order on the scale of Greece whilst the other "have not" are OK? The following table is taken from the Federal Government site on the latest round of equalization payments - made under the new Conservative government formula allegedly "fairer":
> 
> Province :	         Equalization :	         Per capita :
> PEI	                 337 M$	                 $ 2,390.07
> ...



Funny thing about those have not provinces: Who is the political party running the shop? Are they the most fiscally responsible for managing business?


----------



## bridges (15 May 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> Funny thing about those have not provinces: Who is the political party running the shop? Are they the most fiscally responsible for managing business?



If memory serves, there's been a fairly steady variety of NDP/Tory/Liberal/PQ (as applicable) leadership for most, if not all, of those provinces - and for some of the "haves" as well.   So whom is their economic status pinned on, again?


----------



## aesop081 (15 May 2012)

Quebec is an economic disaster. Look for the rest of the province's infrastructure to crumble as proof. Its ok, the province will just whine some more to get Federal money to fix its own mess.

One good thing about those student protests is that the RoC gets a preview of what the province's future leaders will be like: More of the same self-entitled morons.


I'm from there and hope to never have to go back.


----------



## Jed (15 May 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> If memory serves, there's been a fairly steady variety of NDP/Tory/Liberal/PQ (as applicable) leadership for most, if not all, of those provinces - and for some of the "haves" as well.   So whom is their economic status pinned on, again?



If memory serves me, for the last 5 to 8 years for Manitoba and the East Coast, Quebec it has been predominately NDP / Liberal provincially and now it is Ont provincially.


----------



## Haletown (15 May 2012)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Lets get to the "have" / "have not" provinces now. Haletown got them wrong. For the last few years, Ontario  has been a have not



Nice rant,  but nooooooo  . . .   I got them right.  

Go back, calm down, read what I wrote . . . 

hint . . .  look at the quote marks around the first para.

I was pointing out the original text was incorrect.  Ontario's economy has suffered under the Dalton regime and Ontario now is a Have Not province.

Wonder how many factories you can power with solar panels and windmills.

Someone should ask Dalton for his windless nights solution.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 May 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> bridges said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



For the record:
MB - NDP since 1999
NB - PC 2003; Liberal, 2006; PC, 2010
NS - PC 1999-2006, NDP since 2009
ON - PC 1999; Liberal since 2003
PEI - Liberal since 2003
QC - Liberal since 2003


----------



## Haletown (15 May 2012)

By  the way, I did like your rant and have a good degree of agreement.

Quebec has enormous levels of natural resources, especially energy.

The real test will come when Quebec turns the corner, just like NFLD did by exploiting their energy sources   and becomes self-sufficient and they start paying into the Transfer system.

I can just imagine the Montreal intellectual class getting all knicker twisted when they realize "their" money is back stopping Ontario programs.


----------



## exabedtech (15 May 2012)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Finally, here are a couple of little facts about the "$7-a-day daycare program in Quebec: 1) All economic studies so far (and there have been a few) have concluded that the program generates for the province's government approximately $1,5 B$ in revenue a year ABOVE the cost of the program. 2) the very existence of this program is cited in the annual UN Human Development Index as having helped Canada up two positions in the index, with a complaint that it had not been adopted by all provinces. Go figure, Alberta!
> 
> 
> /RANT OFF



Really?  I'd LOVE to see that $7 daycare out here in AB.  $650 a month per kid is more like it... keeps people out of the workforce at a time when we are short workers.  Then again, nothing is free.  If its such a great program and injects $1.5B into the economy, why is it not universally adopted by the rest of Canada?  I'm guessing there is more to it.   

You can't get something for nothing.  I'd keep going, but I need to get out and buy lottery tickets.


----------



## ballz (15 May 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Really?  I'd LOVE to see that $7 daycare out here in AB.  $650 a month per kid is more like it... keeps people out of the workforce at a time when we are short workers.  Then again, nothing is free.  If its such a great program and injects $1.5B into the economy, *why is it not universally adopted by the rest of Canada?*  I'm guessing there is more to it.
> 
> You can't get something for nothing.  I'd keep going, but I need to get out and buy lottery tickets.



Ideology over reason.

Childcare is a fairly simple investment to figure out.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 May 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> From what little I know, a lot of Aboriginals and Aboriginal leaders see their relationship with "The Crown" going all the way back to the Queen.  Given that (and I don't know how the modern Treaties in northern QC work), I agree with those who've said they'd likely choose to stay with Canada/the Queen.




When it comes to _independence_, aboriginal peoples who have been _colonized_ have a special place in the UN Charter; they have a _prima facie_ *right* to self determination. This was debated, quite extensively, during both previous referenda debates - perhaps OldGateBoatDriver can elaborate, it involves legalistic bits that are beyond me - and it appears to me that Quebec cannot, automatically, expect to "take" e.g. the Ungava Peninsula with them if they were to vote to separate. My reading of the discussions is that, at the very least, the aboriginal peoples - those who are on their "own" land - must agree, through a second referendum, to either join a new, independent Quebec or "go it alone." It is not clear to me that they can decide to stay in Canada ... but I would be reluctant to say that they cannot.

My understanding is that aboriginal peoples occupying defined areas can invoke (and, indeed, during a separation negotiation, must be allowed to invoke) an _inherent_ right to self determination. I'm not sure how many groups that involves: the Cree in James Bay and the Innu, certainly; the Mohawks on the South Shore, too, I suppose - but what about the Mohawks in Ontario? Would be not be _obliged_, during separation negotiations to allow them to decide for themselves, too? And, and, and ...? 


Edit: typo


----------



## bridges (15 May 2012)

Interesting stuff...  thanks for your posts, E.R. Campbell.   Presumably the possibility of these subsequent referenda would be made known to all voters ahead of time, and the various potential sizes & shapes of an independent Quebec publicized.  

I'd imagine that some 'yes' voters might feel differently if their new country were to end up quite a bit smaller than the current province.   All speculation, of course.


----------



## GeorgeD (15 May 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Now in a “what if” scenario, Quebec were to separate it would likely be negotiated.  I think it would be naïve to think that Quebec wouldn’t keep its current borders.  Like anything it would be negotiated in exchange for certain things.



For the last referendum there was a book that gave one what if scenario, its from 1995 but it is a what if that goes in detail.

http://global-economics.ca/dividing%20the%20house.pdf


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 May 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... My reading of the discussions is that, at the very least, the aboriginal peoples - those who are on their "own" land - must agree, through a second referendum, to either join a new, independent Quebec or "go it alone." It is not clear to me that they can decide to stay in Canada ... but I would be reluctant to say that they cannot ....


Depending on the political organization of various Aboriginal organizations, it's not impossible that this sort of "we want to stay" intent could be invoked without a referendum of individual First Nation members.  I'd like to think it would be tough for Quebec to say "we, as a minority, feel it's fair that we be allowed to make our own way" while denying a minority within its borders exactly the same argument.  

Also, I'm guessing there's long memories of how Quebec has dealt with Aboriginals in the past, leading to more ammunition to the cause if Quebec separation from Canada were to happen.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 May 2012)

Actually, Native Law is a fuzzy and ill defined area of law that is neither quite international law, nor quite domestic law. Canada and New Zealand are probably the two places where it is most advanced and developed. On the international side, the driving force often appears to be from the ex-colonial powers and aimed at making sure that their old colonies treat the natives better than they ever did: sort of an "ex post facto" guilty conscience imposed on us by the original invader.

This said, the undefined "right" to self-determination has never been interpreted anywhere in the world as a right to chose your "colonial" overseer. Otherwise, with what Canada gives natives compared to many countries, what would stop the "Tilapa" indians to chose to join Canada, for instance? And how would that force Canada to take them in? You can see where that would lead. No: the right does not even include (so far in the development of the law anyway) the right to all together "secede" from the country where they happen to be and create their own "country". The right is more clearly defined as encompassing the capacity for the various native groups to make their own decisions concerning their relationship with the "white" man and organize it as they  freely negotiate through treaties. 

One such aspect that can be dealt with in treaties is a formal renunciation to territory or the recognition of the "country" within which the natives are located as the proper counterpart. 

In the James Bay Agreement  (considered the world's first "modern" treaty), the Inuit and Cree completely renounced any right to any territory in the North and recognized formally the Quebec 1912 borders (the ones that incorporated the North). 

The first operating article of the Agreement reads as follows:

"In consideration of the rights and benefits herein set forth in favour of the James Bay Crees and the Inuit of Québec, the James Bay Crees and the Inuit of Québec hereby cede, release, surrender and convey all their native claims,  rights, titles and interests, whatever they may be, in and to the land in the Territory and in Quebec, and Quebec and Canada accept such surrender."

This pretty exhaustive extinction of rights is quite likely to be given great weight by other countries in any case of secession of Quebec, so its far from clear that they would be able to do anything to "secede" from Quebec under the circumstances. All in all, it is a very complex matter and many legal papers have been published on the mater, on both side, I might add. If I am not mistaken, many can be gleaned on the internet, including on various sites of the Government of Quebec.

Just don't think it would be automatic.

Note of disclosure: It is difficult at the best of time to make any definitive statement concerning Native Law, so I do not claim that any of my representations above are anything but a quick summary of potential interpretations and may be inexact in many final aspects after a determination by courts. On the other hand, the Kativik (Inuit) school board is one of my clients and I have had to, on occasion, delve for them in matters of self-governance and self-determination, and have had to work extensively with the James Bay Agreement.


----------



## Jed (16 May 2012)

Ahhh, Great work for lawyers if then can get it. I wonder how much of this work will be 'productive' for the people of Canada.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 May 2012)

Child care at $7 per day cost to government is reasonably assured of being a revenue generator, since it is less than the nominal income tax ($12.67 from $9.90/hr min wage x 8 hr x 16%).  I suppose it might sound like an impressive claim to the innumerate.  Try reworking the benefit to the government if government pays the full shot.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 May 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Child care at $7 per day cost to government is reasonably assured of being a revenue generator, since it is less than the nominal income tax ($12.67 from $9.90/hr min wage x 8 hr x 16%).  I suppose it might sound like an impressive claim to the innumerate.  Try reworking the benefit to the government if government pays the full shot.



Brad, I am a little slow on the uptake tonight.  Can you dumb it down?


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 May 2012)

The real point is that of course the government benefits when people work - it doesn't have to pay for their food, shelter, clothing, diversions, child care, etc; and employed people pay income taxes.  The notion that it justifies public child care makes no more sense to me than public meal programs and public residences for everyone.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 May 2012)

So, your point is that being employed is a virtue that does not need to be further dressed up?


----------



## ModlrMike (19 May 2012)

I think that the problem is more one of perspective. Good governments provide the people with most of what they need, and some of what they want. Quebec has take the opposite approach: all of what they want, and less of what they need. They've done so by having an outrageous tax regime, and when the cupboard is bare, coming cap-in-hand to the ROC saying "you owe us, we want more" (the supposed fiscal imbalance).  The real fiscal imbalance for Quebec (and Ont) is one of spending priorities.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 May 2012)

>So, your point is that being employed is a virtue that does not need to be further dressed up?

I don't think being employed needs to be dressed up; but that was not my point.  However, my point is *void* due to the fact I misunderstood who pays the "7$".  The fee is what the parents pay.  I presume the province picks up the rest of the tab.  That would mean a higher cost to the province, and less net benefit unless the effect was to persuade more high-income earners to enter the work force.  However, I doubt that the cost of childcare discourages people with the potential to earn high income and a desire to work.  What hinders employment is the availability of daycare spaces.


----------



## aesop081 (20 May 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I presume the province picks up the rest of the tab.



Exactly. $7 is what the user pays. The cost of providing the service is considerably more than that.


----------



## ballz (20 May 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The fee is what the parents pay.  I presume the province picks up the rest of the tab.



Yes.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> That would mean a higher cost to the province, and less net benefit unless the effect was to persuade more high-income earners to enter the work force.



No, the effect is that instead of paying a single mom with two kids 20k+ a year in social assistance, you pay for her children's daycare (much less than 20k a year) which persuades her to go to work because now that she doesn't have to pay extremely high childcare fees, there is actually something to gain from going to work (why would she work 40 hrs a week for minimum wage if she also has to pay childcare? She would get more money for sitting at home and not working? Economic incentive...)

So the point is, instead of paying 20k a year for them to stay at home and look after their ids, you pay maybe 10k a year for someone else to look after their kids in a centre-based daycare, and then you even collect some small amount of tax revenue from them since they are now working full-time.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> However, I doubt that the cost of childcare discourages people with the potential to earn high income and a desire to work.



It discourages them from having more children though (because kids are expensive, and they have to pay for them, unlike those who are on social assistance), and the statistics exist to show that people living in poverty tend to have more kids. And since income has a high correlation with IQ, it's safe to say that discouraging high-income earners from having kids while encouraging zero-income earners to have more kids is probably not going to be very good for society in the long run for obvious reasons.


----------



## ModlrMike (20 May 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> It discourages them from having more children though (because kids are expensive, and they have to pay for them, unlike those who are on social assistance), and the statistics exist to show that people living in poverty tend to have more kids. And since income has a high correlation with IQ, it's safe to say that discouraging high-income earners from having kids while encouraging zero-income earners to have more kids is probably not going to be very good for society in the long run for obvious reasons.



Minor thread hijack:

If you can find this movie, watch it. It underscores the above point in an hilarious, tongue in cheek manner.

Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 May 2012)

I know a lot of people with good to high incomes, and the reason they don't have more children - or any children - is because they don't want to.  Economics does not really factor into it.  Subsidized child care is just gravy for high earners who have children.

Subsidized child care might move a few non-working single mothers (whose only prospects are low wage jobs) into the work force, but the calculation involves more benefits (programs) than just "wage" and "childcare".  The assumption that all of the social program costs disappear when a person enters the work force at a low wage level is invalid.  It is entirely possible - likely, at the lowest income levels - that the foregone benefits and/or clawbacks will not equal the cost of the childcare.  Finally, the "$20K wage" - "$10K childcare" is only valid for the first child.  Now assume there are two, or three, and even that oversimplified accounting ends up as a net loss.


----------



## ballz (21 May 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I know a lot of people with good to high incomes, and the reason they don't have more children - or any children - is because they don't want to.  Economics does not really factor into it.  Subsidized child care is just gravy for high earners who have children.



As much as I appreciate individual mileage, I'll take this argument with a grain of a salt. You pretty much said the reason they don't want to have to children is "just because..." That's not an actual reason... Whether they tell you about it or not, whether they actually consider and think out loud precisely why they don't feel like having any or any more children, to think that the economics behind it doesn't factor into at least most people's decision is pretty unrealistic in my opinion. So far out of all the people I know, the economics of it has certainly been one of the bigger topics.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Subsidized child care might move a few non-working single mothers (whose only prospects are low wage jobs) into the work force, but the calculation involves more benefits (programs) than just "wage" and "childcare".  The assumption that all of the social program costs disappear when a person enters the work force at a low wage level is invalid.  It is entirely possible - likely, at the lowest income levels - that the foregone benefits and/or clawbacks will not equal the cost of the childcare.  Finally, the "$20K wage" - "$10K childcare" is only valid for the first child.  Now assume there are two, or three, and even that oversimplified accounting ends up as a net loss.



The 20k and 10k actually comes from the Nfld numbers of a single mother with *two* kids (I researched this stuff when writing a paper about this). Individual provinces will vary, but being in Newfoundland and writing the paper for a university in Newfoundland, I was using Newfoundland numbers as an example. IIRC, it was still cheaper to put up to *four* kids into the centre-based childcare.

There was no assumption that the social program costs "disappear" when someone joins the workforce, I realize the small amount of taxes they would be paying would not offset the costs of the actual childcare. The "assumption" was that in Newfoundland, if a person works 40 hours a week at minimum wage, they will no longer qualify for social assistance (hence, the ~20k expense is gone). This is not an assumption, it is a fact. Yes, it will still cost ~10k a year to provide childcare for those two kids, but since the person no longer qualifies for social assistance which was costing the gov't 20k a year, then they have reduced their expenses by ~10k.

Like it or not, by paying a single mother with two kids over 20k a year in social assistance, the people in Newfoundland are really, at the end of the day, paying money to look after her kids anyway. It only stands to reason that you can get more "bang-for-your-buck" using centre-based systems, because it's cheaper to pay 3 workers 50k/year to look after 30 kids, rather than pay 15 moms each 20k a year to look after their own two kids (now, for the record, I acknowledge that *this* is oversimplifying things due to the costs of inefficiencies and bureaucracy associated with anything the government touches). 

My worry about these kind of calculations is that you cannot predict what's going to happen to these costs when unions and such become involved. The other thing of concern for me is, it is hard to predict just how many single mothers would actually join the workforce if this program became available. My gut-feeling says that if you told them "we are cutting your social assistance down to 15k a year, but we'll offer childcare for $7/day," most of them would prefer to work.

Also I know I keep drawing back to the Newfoundland example, but since any childcare programs in Canada would probably be provincially-run, it just makes sense to analyse it province-by-province. Whether it works for Quebec's specific case, I do not know, although I assume it does and apparently there has been evidence (stated earlier...although there was no source provided) that says it does.


----------



## a_majoor (21 May 2012)

In many societies, having lots of children is a way of providing for your own care in old age, as well as effectively having something to trade, either labour or marriageable daughters. Even in today's society, where children are a net cost rather than a net asset, some of these factors still come into play.

The real issue with subsidized anything is there is no proper signalling as to what the true cost is, so demand will ramp up, even if supply cannot be raised to meet the increased demand. Daycares charging artificially low prices to the parents will be overwhelmed by demand, and can only respond by rationing, much like what has happened to Canadian health care. The rationing may not be obvious like multi year waiting lists, general service decline and reduction of options offered at the daycare will be the most likely response, while expensive tax funded overhead will continue to increase.

What is not factored into any of these calculations is the well known observation that children raised at home by their parents (in a two parent household) are the ones who have the best life outcomes, whereare the incentives to promote that outcome?


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 May 2012)

The tradition of the 'squeaky wheel' is hundreds of years old in Quebec, and it has generally worked well for them. We shouldn't be too suprised by it. It would be nice to see them grow up a little one of these days though:

Thunder gusts: Popular disturbances in early French Canada

http://www.erudit.org/revue/hp/1979/v14/n1/030833ar.pdf


----------



## ballz (21 May 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> In many societies, having lots of children is a way of providing for your own care in old age, as well as effectively having something to trade, either labour or marriageable daughters. Even in today's society, where children are a net cost rather than a net asset, some of these factors still come into play.



Without a doubt there is more than just "money-in money-out" considered. But, the financial implications of children are surely considered by most people deciding whether or not to have kids.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> The real issue with subsidized anything is there is no proper signalling as to what the true cost is, so demand will ramp up, even if supply cannot be raised to meet the increased demand. Daycares charging artificially low prices to the parents will be overwhelmed by demand, and can only respond by rationing, much like what has happened to Canadian health care. The rationing may not be obvious like multi year waiting lists, general service decline and reduction of options offered at the daycare will be the most likely response, while expensive tax funded overhead will continue to increase.



Agree. The effect of subsidizing something that costs $450/month by $443/month is going to warp the market. Like I said about unions, one of my fears is that would should be a $40-50k/year profession could become a $100k/year profession once there is a big shortage of qualified people and a big push by the government to hire more.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> What is not factored into any of these calculations is the *well known observation* that children raised at home by their parents (in a two parent household) are the ones who have the best life outcomes, whereare the incentives to promote that outcome?



This I don't agree with. I am not saying it's not true, but I have found it hard to find any conclusive consensus about "stay-at-home vs 'working' mom," or "in-home care vs daycare," etc. The only thing that there seems to be a consensus on is that high-quality daycares produce good results, and low-quality produce poor results (big surprise, I know :). I would suspect this is the same for children with lazy/uninvolved parents vs children with involved/caring/nurturing parents in the stay-at-home situation.

I also think there is a some consensus that a child really needs to be socializing with other children and learning to play and share with others, etc, at around 3-4 years old, before they go to school, which is usually one of the arguments for some form of daycare.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (21 May 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> This I don't agree with. I am not saying it's not true, but I have found it hard to find any conclusive consensus about "stay-at-home vs 'working' mom," or "in-home care vs daycare," etc. The only thing that there seems to be a consensus on is that high-quality daycares produce good results, and low-quality produce poor results (big surprise, I know :). I would suspect this is the same for children with lazy/uninvolved parents vs children with involved/caring/nurturing parents in the stay-at-home situation.
> 
> I also think there is a some consensus that a child really needs to be socializing with other children and learning to play and share with others, etc, at around 3-4 years old, before they go to school, which is usually one of the arguments for some form of daycare.



An July 11, 2011 article from Maclean's that reports on Quebec's childcare program. Re-produced under the usual caveats of the Copyright Act.



> *A surprising new study says Quebec’s $7-a-day daycare is leaving children worse off*
> by John Geddes on Monday, July 11, 2011
> 
> In public policy, few subjects are as sure to spark fierce debate as child care. Prime Minister Stephen Harper portrays a stark divide when he talks about his Conservative policy of giving parents $100 a month for every child under six, and how he scrapped the previous Liberal government’s plan to pour billions into deals with the provinces to expand subsidized daycare. “We took money from bureaucrats and lobbyists,” he says, “and gave it to the real experts on child care, and their names are Mom and Dad!”
> ...



The actual study can be found  here.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 May 2012)

It isn't even a $40-50K profession for most people, yet.  Daycare owners and managers do OK, but I get the general impression of sh!t wages for the (mostly) women who are the rank and file.  Parents can be strangely thrifty when it comes to daycare fees.  I am confident that if childcare workers were members of a public service union and daycare were a public service for all, their compensation would soon be comparable to that of teachers.

Employee:child ratios (requirements) range from about 1:4 to 1:8 depending on age and program for non-school-age children in BC, so notwithstanding the age range being maybe 1/4 that of the range of school age, I believe we would quickly find the number of childcare employees similar to the number of teachers in each province.  It is not an end-state that is affordable within current budgets.


----------



## Remius (22 May 2012)

I doubt it.  ECEs (early childhood educators) already have a wage zone that's pretty established.  I doubt it would rise.  And not all daycare workers have their certifications.  I doubt that their salaries would ever come close to that of a teacher.  Especially if teachers have their say.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 May 2012)

On top of oldboatdriver's post. Native internal politics are complex and shifting constantly. My guess is that any band that accepts being part of a soverign Quebec would demand a pricey pound of flesh for that support. In fact there might even be a bidding war for their support between Canada and Quebec. Not to mention that some bands might even decide that it's a good time to cede from both Quebec and Canada. It would be very interesting.... 8)


----------



## foresterab (22 May 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> It isn't even a $40-50K profession for most people, yet.  Daycare owners and managers do OK, but I get the general impression of sh!t wages for the (mostly) women who are the rank and file.  Parents can be strangely thrifty when it comes to daycare fees.  I am confident that if childcare workers were members of a public service union and daycare were a public service for all, their compensation would soon be comparable to that of teachers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 May 2012)

My wife was using the "Ihope" centre which is a drop centre for parents with toddlers and infants. We took our oldest there and now our 2nd. Our 2nd kid is quite outgoing and needs to socialize, my wife calls her the "mayor" as she organizes the other kids into games. (she is almost 4). The parent has to remain at the centre, my wife is is diligent in supervision uses the place to relax and let the kid do her thing and only intervenes if there is an issue. In the meantime she reads a book. One of the social workers came up to here and told her that they no longer allow parents to read or use cellphones as they want the parent to "interact" with the child. My wife pointed out that the only reason she came is so the kid can play with other kids and she gets enough intereaction throughtout the week. They insisted, so she said she won't be coming back and likley their policy will drive people away. 
So now I get a kid that gets less play time and wife that is more stressed and a non-working stressed ex-lawyer wife/mother is a bit like a old stick of dyamite. There are times when I hate "Experts on child raising" What's amusing is when the experts assume my wife is a dumb village girl based on the colour of her skin, I have seen her shred a few of them it's not pretty.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 May 2012)

Teachers had a wage zone that was pretty established 40 years ago, and it was not what it is today (relative to everything else).  Give the ECEs a union and some time; I am sure they will do well.

I lament the loss of neighbourhoods in which the preschoolers could simply be turned out of the house to play with neighbouring preschoolers (as was the case in my own).


----------



## QORvanweert (23 May 2012)

I have been reading with much interest the link provided earlier in this thread to a book explaining the effects of separation on Canada. To save you the time searching for it here you are:
http://global-economics.ca/dividing%20the%20house.pdf

An absolutely fascinating read. You can imagine my surprise when I came across this nugget...

"Jean Charest, the interim leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party, apparently not having learned any lessons
from his party's disastrous defeat in the last federal election,
has called for a "third option" of renewed federalism. Charest's
plan includes making power-sharing deals with Quebec and other
provinces in such areas as manpower training and entrenching them
in the constitution."

Incredibly prescient for something written in 1995.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 May 2012)

Colin P said:
			
		

> On top of oldboatdriver's post. Native internal politics are complex and shifting constantly. My guess is that any band that accepts being part of a soverign Quebec would demand a pricey pound of flesh for that support. In fact there might even be a bidding war for their support between Canada and Quebec. Not to mention that some bands might even decide that it's a good time to cede from both Quebec and Canada. It would be very interesting.... 8)



Cans containing wriggling tube shaped animals are ... better left unopened.


----------



## Jed (23 May 2012)

:goodpost:


----------



## Remius (23 May 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Teachers had a wage zone that was pretty established 40 years ago, and it was not what it is today (relative to everything else).  Give the ECEs a union and some time; I am sure they will do well.



Teachers also didn't need a bachelor's degree 40 years ago either. 

ECE are already represented by a union in QC.  

It stands to reason that if you require more certifications and training, salaries will rise.  But they will never be on par with what a teacher makes.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 May 2012)

I'm not sure what the on-paper requirements were, but 50 years ago a bachelor's degree was common enough.  Certainly my father and my mom's sister and her husband all had one.

I don't dispute the creep of credentialism, or that some people are prone to thinking their salary has to be some rough multiple of someone else's.

Salaries don't have to rise with certifications.  Ask any journalist, who needs about the same level of education as a teacher.  Salaries rise with labour monopolies and political clout, particularly if there are political parties which tend to bend the knee to organized labour.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 May 2012)

Fifty plus years ago, in some jurisdictions, it was possible to become an elementary school teacher by attending something called "Normal School" for (I think) two years after high school. But, fifty_ish_ years ago was the last gasp of that old programme, common in the first half of the 20th century ~ most people who wanted to be teachers were taking bachelor's degrees, which were becoming easier to get (universities were expanding) and which could, therefore, be _required_.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 May 2012)

Well, now you're talking about the generation of teachers in my family before my parents.  Born shortly after the turn of the past century and "finished" in normal school.


----------



## a_majoor (25 May 2012)

For people who are advocating State child care as a cure all, consider the Abecedarian Early Intervention Project. The program was able to achieve results through long term and sustained intervention from age 4 months to 5 years, five days a week and 6-8 hours/day. This is far different from what passes for child care in most of the world and would certainly cost far more than most parents would be able or willing to pay (and the cost of subsidization would be right through the roof).

The other factors to consider are the small size of the study and the lack of follow up: there is no firm foundation to suggest implementing this on a large scale yet. There should also be some consideration to the student teacher ratio of this experiment; scaling and quality control will be very hard.

As a very targeted program with strict guidelines and limited scope, I would say this would be a far better expenditure of resources than "universal" state run child care.


----------



## Remius (25 May 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Well, now you're talking about the generation of teachers in my family before my parents.  Born shortly after the turn of the past century and "finished" in normal school.



My mother started teaching in the early 70's and she went to "La normal" some "40ish" years ago. In Ontario.

Teacher's salaries are directly proportionate to their levels of education as well as at what levels they teach.  You have a masters, you will make more that someone with a BA.

My is that in the Daycare world, universal or not, an certified ECE will make more than the person with zero credentials.  And daycare workers will never come close to the salaries of a teacher.  Education, qualifications, and teacher's unions will never allow for it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 May 2012)

You may be thinking about likely practical conditions.  However, education is not a necessary condition for setting a wage - plenty of well-paying jobs require less education - and teacher's unions have no say unless childcare workers choose to be represented by a teacher's union.  As to whether the teacher's unions can have their say by demanding higher salaries to keep their envelope at some higher multiple, good luck.


----------



## Remius (25 May 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> You may be thinking about likely practical conditions.  However, education is not a necessary condition for setting a wage - plenty of well-paying jobs require less education - and teacher's unions have no say unless childcare workers choose to be represented by a teacher's union.  As to whether the teacher's unions can have their say by demanding higher salaries to keep their envelope at some higher multiple, good luck.



Education is not always a necessity in setting wages, but not in this case.  The teacher's scale in ontario for example is based on experience and post secondary courses taken.

Daycare workers have unions already as I've mentioned.  What you have to look at is the education field as a whole.  Daycare workers, ECEs, Teachers etc.   Not unlike the medical field.  Paramedics, Nurses, RPNs, RNs, Doctors etc.  

Daycare workers will never have the same salary as a teacher just like nurses will never get teh same as a doctor.  Too many things come into play.  Unions and associations have a huge say.  They lobby and apply pressure even against each other.  

Elementary school teachers tried to get an increase to be closer to their high school colleagues.  No dice.  The HS teachers would have likely asked for a comparable hike.  The government knew this and stopped it.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (26 May 2012)

I have always wondered about the cost of day care, not having had to put any kids through it.  An earlier post lists a ratio of 1 carer to 4-8 kids.  Now if a carer takes the lower end, and is fully accredited/insured/etc to me the minimum fair wage would be 20,000 per kid/per year.  I would judge that before expenses (training, insurance, supplies) a 80,000/year gross salary would be the minimum to allow for a fair after expense/tax wage.

Does that scenario hold water with those of you who put kids in daycare?  Does that sound like a fair wage for someone who looks after other people's children for 6 to 8 hours a day?

I would shudder to hand over 25% of my pre-tax income.  If day care does indeed cost that much out of your pocket, I salute you for whatever other sacrifices you've made to pay for it.  If not then to me it looks like the carer is getting screwed over unless the day care is subsidized somehow.


----------



## Loachman (30 May 2012)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> IIf day care does indeed cost that much out of your pocket, I salute you for whatever other sacrifices you've made to pay for it.  If not then to me it looks like the carer is getting screwed over unless the day care is subsidized somehow.



"Subsidized" just means that less is coming out of the pockets of those benefitting and more is coming out of somebody else's pocket.

Salute them, too, for their sacrifices.


----------



## GAP (30 May 2012)

Quebec is no different than those countries that do their budgets based on the amount of aid dollars coming their way..........

Time for Quebec to end equalization addiction: Montreal think-tank
Tristin Hopper  May 29, 2012 
Article Link

Quebec may not be able to keep its gold-plated welfare state, but either way, it is time to break the province’s 55-year “welfare trap” addiction to equalization payments, according to an economic note by the Montreal Economic Institute.

“Quebecers are well aware that we’re a have-not province, and there’s no pride in this,” said Yourri Chassin, an economist with the Institute.

The four page note, released Tuesday, calls for Quebec to ramp up oil, shale and electricity development, while simultaneously calling on Ottawa to grant the province a five to eight year “grace period” before clawing back equalization payments.

“There’s a bit of incentive needed to kickstart this process,” said Mr. Chassin.

Under the current equalization regime, Quebec stands to lose 50 cents in equalization payments for every dollar it collects in resource revenues. Mr. Chassin argues that the formula is subtly hindering the province’s willingness to approve mines and oil drilling projects.

Quebec is effectively stuck in a “welfare trap,” claims the report, referring to an economic conundrum in which welfare recipients have no incentive to find work, since a minimum wage job would pay just as much.

The issue came up during the Alberta election when Wildrose leader Danielle Smith joked that a “Quebec colleague” told her the province had imposed a moratorium on shale-gas development in order to keep its revenues low and its equalization payments high.

“Grace period” programs were implemented in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to entice the provinces into developing offshore oilfields without seeing immediate clawbacks in their equalization cheques. Thanks in part to the arrangement, Newfoundland and Labrador became a “have” province in 2008 for the first time in its history.

Nevertheless, Sonya Gulati. a senior economist at TD Bank, suspects that a Newfoundland-style program for Quebec would be a hard sell to the rest of Canada, particularly since Quebec already takes such a large share of federal dollars. Besides, she said, “we’ve already seen a lot of money and interest in development, it doesn’t seem like they’re taking equalization payments into account.”

Quebec has received equalization payments consistently since the program was established in 1957, the only major province to do so.

The aim of equalization, as entrenched in the Canadian constitution, is to “provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.” When the rates are calculated, auditors focus on “fiscal capacity,” Quebec’s ability to raise revenues,” and ignores the province’s actual rates of tax revenue – which is among the highest in Canada.
Resource revenues are different, as the money is automatically counted towards fiscal capacity at a ratio of 50%.

In the 2012-2013 fiscal year, equalization payments constituted $7.4 billion of Quebec’s $70.1 billion budget, roughly accounting for 11% of all government spending.

In 2010, a paper by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy advocated scrapping equalization entirely, arguing that it allowed “have not” provinces to fund robust social programs at the expense of “have” provinces. “The evidence presented in this paper strongly suggests that, in many important areas, levels of government services in donor provinces such as Alberta and Ontario are significantly below those that exist in the major recipient provinces,” it read.

The province’s tuition fees, currently the focus of a massive three-month student strike, are the lowest in Canada. Quebec students pay only $8,672 towards a four-year university degree. Quebec taxpayers kick in $39,000 and, all things being equal, the rest of Canada is on the hook for the remaining $5000.

Mr. Chassin remained skeptical that without some form of austerity, energy and mining dollars would be enough to sustain Quebec’s gilded welfare state. “By itself, resources may not be enough to get Quebec totally out of the equalization payments,” said Mr. Chassin. “But it’s a good first step.”
end


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Jun 2012)

I often find much with which I can agree when Jeffrey Simpson sticks to his knitting ~ central Canadian politics; this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is informative because Simpson doesn't have any answers. He has no answers because no one has, yet, asked the right questions:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/searching-for-the-political-heart-of-quebec/article2448710/


> Searching for the political heart of Quebec
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...




The real question is not "whither Quebec?" or "what does Quebec want?" Both questions are, largely, irrelevant; the real question is "under what constraints must Quebec operate?" That's what the Charest government and the students are debating. My guess is that Charest is going to fold and lose but the real loser will be Quebec itself because it cannot afford what it wants. In this respect the original article is correct: Quebec = Greece in that it is thrashing about to avoid the economic coils that are crushing it. The Harper government is not "out-of-touch,' it s, rather, just waiting for the inevitable, trying not to make things worse by throwing good money after bad.

But Quebec is not, really, Greece. Instead it is, to Canada, what Spain is to the Eurozone: too big to rescue but, also, too big to fail.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Jun 2012)

Mr. Charest should pull all funding for the Universities starting immediatelly and watch the Profs., et al, wrestle with this student uprising.........


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Jun 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Mr. Charest should pull all funding for the Universities starting immediatelly and watch the Profs., et al, wrestle with this student uprising.........



Sadly that would punish the good for the actions of the bad. There's still plenty of students who want/need to learn.


----------



## Remius (1 Jun 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Mr. Charest should pull all funding for the Universities starting immediatelly and watch the Profs., et al, wrestle with this student uprising.........



Maybe not that but along the same lines.

Cancel the school year.  Done.  No re-dos.

Calculate the cost of all this. ie police overtime, damge to public property etc etc.  Send the bills equally to all the universities in Quebec.  Or substract that from the funding.

Tell it like this.  Either you accept the tuition fee increase or face the prospect of having the spots funded at universities cut in half.  You want to keep tuition where it is at? Fine.  Only half of you can go because that is all we can afford at that price.

End ex.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Jun 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Sadly that would punish the good for the actions of the bad. There's still plenty of students who want/need to learn.



Agreed, but maybe a good life lesson that needs to be hammered home. If you don't pay attention to any organiztion you are a part off, the idiots and radicals will take it over.  I'm forced to swallow that crow myself with something I heard yesterday from my Unions convention about needing to save money in the worst way and last night I recieve an email touting all kind of stuff like  this.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Jun 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Agreed, but maybe a good life lesson that needs to be hammered home. If you don't pay attention to any organiztion you are a part off, the idiots and radicals will take it over.



Many students are finding this out already as squads of Brownshirts move into University campuses and disrupt classes:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/16/masked-protesters-hunt-for-scabs-in-montreal-university-classes/



> *Masked protesters hunt for ‘scabs’ in Montreal university classes*
> Myles Dolphin, The Canadian Press  May 16, 2012 – 12:19 PM ET | Last Updated: May 16, 2012 4:11 PM ET
> 
> MONTREAL & QUEBEC CITY — Protesters stormed into a university, many of them with their faces covered by masks, moving through the hallways in a hunt for classes to disrupt.
> ...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (1 Jun 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Mr. Charest should pull all funding for the Universities starting immediatelly and watch the Profs., et al, wrestle with this student uprising.........



I don't know if the univerisities/CEGEPs are necessary the ones to blame. What Charest should do is declare that all those students who have participated in the riots forfeit their tuition and the forfeited tuition used to pay for police overtime. street damage, etc. As for the those professors who have defied court orders should be charged with contempt of court and fined and possibly removed from there positions.


----------



## Sythen (1 Jun 2012)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> I don't know if the univerisities/CEGEPs are necessary the ones to blame. What Charest should do is declare that all those students who have participated in the riots forfeit their tuition and the forfeited tuition used to pay for police overtime. street damage, etc. As for the those professors who have defied court orders should be charged with contempt of court and fined and possibly removed from there positions.



That would require a level headed response to a very simple situation though. It would be much better to over complicate things and worry more about re-election than running the province.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Jun 2012)

Allow the student that still go to school to graduate, or pass the year.

If you were out protesting? You fail the year due to lack of credit.

Your application for next year will not be accepted as, for one, you failed the previous year. You'll have to move to another province if you want to continue your education.

No guarantee you'll be accepted there either.

No degrees, no job prospects. No more socialist teachers from the ranks of the disenfranchised.


----------



## Sythen (15 Jun 2012)

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2012/06/20120614-080831.html



> Is Quebec to Canada what Greece is to Europe? The question is becoming more and more relevant.
> In fact, the parallels are frightening.
> 
> Two years ago, the Quebec Ministry of Finance did a ranking of the most indebted countries in the developed world. If Quebec were independent, with its debt-to-GDP ratio at 94%, it would have been the fifth worst, just behind Greece in third place at 102.6%! Canada's ratio was 69.7%.
> ...



An article basically rehashing what has been discussed here, but relevant so here it is. More on link.


----------



## brihard (15 Jun 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2012/06/20120614-080831.html
> 
> An article basically rehashing what has been discussed here, but relevant so here it is. More on link.



1. Gotta love the almost smug triumphant attitude of the Sun in general... As if this isn't going to bite *all* of us in the ass. Their attitude towards it just grates.

2. They have this irritating, and dishonest habit of trying to group all Quebec protesters in as if they were one. The student issue was the catalyst, but they refuse to acknowledge the very separate enactment of Loi 78, and the unrest resultant therefrom. I know some *very* principle and conservative people who had nothing but contempt on the student tuition issue, and yet are in support of other protesters based on the substantial liberty issues inherent in the stupid legislation the province has passed.

As always, the Sun seems to be pandering to the lowest common denominator in their coverage of social iszues...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Jun 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> 1. Gotta love the almost smug triumphant attitude of the Sun in general... As if this isn't going to bite *all* of us in the ass. Their attitude towards it just grates.
> 
> 2. They have this irritating, and dishonest habit of trying to group all Quebec protesters in as if they were one. The student issue was the catalyst, but they refuse to acknowledge the very separate enactment of Loi 78, and the unrest resultant therefrom. I know some *very* principle and conservative people who had nothing but contempt on the student tuition issue, and yet are in support of other protesters based on the substantial liberty issues inherent in the stupid legislation the province has passed.
> 
> As always, the Sun seems to be pandering to the lowest common denominator in their coverage of social iszues...



The Sun simply does for the right what the Grey Globe and the Red Star do for the left. Love them or hate them, they balance things so we don't get innundated with socialist propaganda only.


----------



## brihard (15 Jun 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The Sun simply does for the right what the Grey Globe and the Red Star do for the left. Love them or hate them, they balance things so we don't get innundated with socialist propaganda only.



The nice thing about the Globe, National Post, etc is that they at least assume a modicum of intelligence possessed by their readers. The Sun makes for good 'lunch room table at Home Depot' reading (at least that was the only time I ever read it), but it's got no depth once the sound byte is achieved.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (15 Jun 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> The Sun makes for good 'lunch room table at Home Depot' reading (at least that was the only time I ever read it), but it's got no depth once the sound byte is achieved.



As much as you may want to denigrate the Sun Newspapers/News TV Network, the reality is that they appeal to a sizable segment of the Canadian population. Example, in my circle of friends, I'm the only one that reads the National Post and one other reads the Toronto Star; everyone else reads the Toronto/Ottawa Sun. Not very scientific I know, but, the reality is that most Canadians don't have the time or inclination to read/watch in depth articles/programs as to what is happening in Canada or around the world. Remember the Sun Newspapers are tabloids and are very good at pushing those_ *hot button*_ issues that appeal to the general public. The same for the Sun TV News Network.


----------



## brihard (15 Jun 2012)

I'm not arguing that they don't have some *appeal*, and I certainly don't disagree that they're quick to be the first ones to mash whatever button is 'hot'. But 'tabloid' is right, both in print and TV form. They're generally infotainment, seldom journalism.


----------



## Journeyman (15 Jun 2012)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> As much as you may want to denigrate the Sun Newspapers/News TV Network, the reality is that they appeal to a sizable segment of the Canadian population.


That certainly isn't a reason to cease ridiculing. "Reality" TV, mullets, and not giving students a grade of zero also appeal to some people.


----------



## Redeye (16 Jun 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I'm not arguing that they don't have some *appeal*, and I certainly don't disagree that they're quick to be the first ones to mash whatever button is 'hot'. But 'tabloid' is right, both in print and TV form. They're generally infotainment, seldom journalism.



Precisely. It's interesting that some people consider that to be a balance to actual journalism. And then have to suggest that because actual journalism tends to appear to a more educated subset of the populace it therefore must be some sort of liberal plot or "socialist propaganda".  :facepalm: That's not to suggest that one shouldn't read news in general critically, but conflating the Sun with news is often (but not always) a stretch. Heck, the National Post leans right but at least seems to employ journalists and produce a half-decent product.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jun 2012)

>They're generally infotainment, seldom journalism.

That applies to 90+% of media, across the board.  Objective (no spin, full balance) reporting, particularly of important - hence contentious - social and political issues died long ago.


----------



## bridges (17 Jun 2012)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> the reality is that most Canadians don't have the time or inclination to read/watch in depth articles/programs as to what is happening in Canada or around the world.



This, to me, is the most chilling part of the discussion.


----------



## Redeye (17 Jun 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> This, to me, is the most chilling part of the discussion.



Exactly, especially given how the media can harness that. Witness Faux "News" and their little cousin the Sun. They know that their audience won't actually bother to seek more information, and thus have the ability to shape discourse, pushing it away from real issues to whatever suits their agendas. It's a very, very disturbing problem.


----------



## Sythen (17 Jun 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Exactly, especially given how the media can harness that. Witness Faux "News" and their little cousin the Sun. They know that their audience won't actually bother to seek more information, and thus have the ability to shape discourse, pushing it away from real issues to whatever suits their agendas. It's a very, very disturbing problem.



Just like CBC, CTV, MSNBC, and CNN, right?


----------



## Scott (17 Jun 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Exactly, especially given how the media can harness that. Witness Faux "News" and their little cousin the Sun. They know that their audience won't actually bother to seek more information, and thus have the ability to shape discourse, pushing it away from real issues to whatever suits their agendas. It's a very, very disturbing problem.



Don't twist this into yet another tangent on your agenda.

Only warning.

Staff


----------



## Northalbertan (17 Jun 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Exactly, especially given how the media can harness that. Witness Faux "News" and their little cousin the Sun. They know that their audience won't actually bother to seek more information, and thus have the ability to shape discourse, pushing it away from real issues to whatever suits their agendas. It's a very, very disturbing problem.



I normally enjoy the interesting back and forth from our left/right wing perspectives here but I have to reply to this one.  What a complete crock of you know what.  You are making a large assumption and casting those of us with right leaning views as a bunch of low brow, low intelligence neanderthals.  How do you assume that just because our views don't agree with yours we wouldn't bother to do do the research to reach an informed point of view?

You know what's really disturbing?  That you ascribe to us the attitudes that you display.

NorthAlbertan


----------



## Scott (17 Jun 2012)

Which is exactly why I said what I did. Sythen called him on it and we don't need to go any further. Thanks.


----------



## brihard (17 Jun 2012)

Northalbertan said:
			
		

> I normally enjoy the interesting back and forth from our left/right wing perspectives here but I have to reply to this one.  What a complete crock of you know what.  You are making a large assumption and casting those of us with right leaning views as a bunch of low brow, low intelligence neanderthals.  How do you assume that just because our views don't agree with yours we wouldn't bother to do do the research to reach an informed point of view?
> 
> You know what's really disturbing?  That you ascribe to us the attitudes that you display.
> 
> NorthAlbertan



I would daresay that you likely get your news from a variety of sources, not just the Sun. And I would also venture that Redeye knows this.

I don't think anyone who is the sort to be taking part in a conversation like this here on army.ca is the sort he's thinking of in saying things like this; no more than could be claimed in the other direction politically. Clearly just about every one of us here is savvy enough to be informed about the world from a multitude of sources. The concern, I think, is rightly levied as 'sold source' media consumers- those whose exposure to the world is little more than a copy of the Sun, or watching CNN, or what have you.

Let's not pretend that there isn't a sizeable proportion of the population who are ignorant and will buy whatever is presented to them- whether it's the 'Obama money!' welfare class, or the 'they took our jobs!' populist reactionaries.

The Sun has a pretty commanding market position in the mainstream tabloid press. I'm not aware of anything that could really be called much of a competitor to it in its own market niche.


----------



## dogger1936 (17 Jun 2012)

I find the sun newspapers good and had a subscription in Ottawa; however the broadcast version horrible. It's a little too angry and over the top for me. Ezra Levant’s "The Source"... I'm not sure if it's him or the way he talks but I can't watch it.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Jun 2012)

I read the Ottawa Sun every day.

No drag marks on my knuckles.


----------



## dogger1936 (17 Jun 2012)

Ezra Levant was a lawyer...maybe that's what throws me off!


----------



## Redeye (17 Jun 2012)

Northalbertan said:
			
		

> I normally enjoy the interesting back and forth from our left/right wing perspectives here but I have to reply to this one.  What a complete crock of you know what.  You are making a large assumption and casting those of us with right leaning views as a bunch of low brow, low intelligence neanderthals.  How do you assume that just because our views don't agree with yours we wouldn't bother to do do the research to reach an informed point of view?
> 
> You know what's really disturbing?  That you ascribe to us the attitudes that you display.
> 
> NorthAlbertan




Actually, I didn't. There's intelligence on the right. I don't get their arguments but they can present them. The National Post frequently presents a reasoned conservative viewpoint, and the Globe does too, part that whole "grey" thing. Neither Fox nor the Sun are reasonable journalistic sources, neither is Instapundit, PJ Media, or various other right outlets. But similarly on the left there's plenty of nonsense, but they don't have anywhere near the money behind them. It's that simple. They don't have television networks with anywhere near the presence. And no, CNN and even MSNBC don't count. Both of them are at best in the centre, maybe MSNBC slightly left of centre, but balanced out with some right leaning pundits (which annoy the lefties to no end, it appears!)

The Sun newspaper is written to be somewhat lowbrow in the sense that it's written to a relatively low reading level, but does have some decent writers, but it's more the television media I have a particular issue with - people who mistake opinion for fact in particular.

There are very few people on this site, since most of you even those with whom I don't agree, that I would aggregate into the group that disturbs me. The fact that those people engage in discourse at all makes clear that they're above that.

To that point - there's been a lot of effort to try to spin opposition to a bunch of issues emergent in Quebec into one mass, which is great for the media, but doesn't really serve anyone, I think that's where we got into this from, isn't it? That said, it does seem like they're now trying to represent that not all student groups are monolithic, nor that they're all protesting the same thing. While the issue in Quebec started with protests over tuition for which I have little sympathy given the fact that they're still receiving the most subsidized tuition in the country, the response of Loi 78 and what that touched off I have a lot more interest in, especially since it seemed to get even more attention. All of it muddies any real discussion of issues, but it's clear that there are things to be concerned about therein for a lot of the population.


----------



## Sythen (17 Jun 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Both of them are at best in the centre, maybe MSNBC slightly left of centre, but balanced out with some right leaning pundits (which annoy the lefties to no end, it appears!)



Where's that gif I believe Technoviking used in response to your posts with the guy burning his computer? Redeye, you are an intelligent person, so I can't tell if you're trolling or if its just observer bias. Either way , you're wrong. MSNBC is as much in the center as you are. CNN is 100% tabloid and far left opinion pieces. Everyone on the right, it seems, can admit they are right leaning. Why is it so difficult for the left?


----------



## Redeye (17 Jun 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Where's that gif I believe Technoviking used in response to your posts with the guy burning his computer? Redeye, you are an intelligent person, so I can't tell if you're trolling or if its just observer bias. Either way , you're wrong. MSNBC is as much in the center as you are. CNN is 100% tabloid and far left opinion pieces. Everyone on the right, it seems, can admit they are right leaning. Why is it so difficult for the left?



MSNBC has some great left leaning (at least by American standards) people, mostly their evening lineup. They also have guys like Joe Scarborough who are much more to the right. I'll happily say that I didn't like that they were giving air time to the likes of Pat Buchanan in part because it was great for them to have an extremist knob to caricature the right. CNN 100% tabloid? Hardly, though there's a bit of that, more lately (Piers Morgan, anyone?!), and I don't really like CNN much anymore - well, I do like CNN International because some of their personalities are great. But they also have excellent, real journalists working for them like Christiane Amanpour. Those real journalists are becoming rarer because hack tabloidism (ie Fox, Sun News, etc) is the direction the industry is going, so you have to look to other sources like the BBC. Even Al Jazeera's English service for a lot of global issues is great - it's interesting that there's something of a contrast between what their Arabic service reports, which is somewhat slanted to a pro-Arab view, and the English service which has less of an editorial slant (and, I was interested to see lately, was heavily critical of the Qatari government's response to a fire in a mall that killed several children - when AJE is owned by them).

As for why "it" is difficult for the "left", I don't know what you mean. Most people on the left I know have no problem asserting their POVs. I don't particularly like any labels myself because I don't fit any. I've no problem saying I'm pretty strongly socially liberal because most things are none of the government's business, but I don't associate with the "right" because I similarly don't think that the government's job is to pander to wealth at the expense of the common good - I'm pretty much a classical Red Tory, I think - which is why I don't belong to any political party anymore, and have basically only voted in protest since the 2004 federal election.

But that's not the subject at hand, and getting into it about the media wasn't something I started, either.


----------



## Sythen (17 Jun 2012)

:facepalm:


----------



## brihard (17 Jun 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> MSNBC has some great left leaning (at least by American standards) people, mostly their evening lineup. They also have guys like Joe Scarborough who are much more to the right. I'll happily say that I didn't like that they were giving air time to the likes of Pat Buchanan in part because it was great for them to have an extremist knob to caricature the right. CNN 100% tabloid? Hardly, though there's a bit of that, more lately (Piers Morgan, anyone?!), and I don't really like CNN much anymore - well, I do like CNN International because some of their personalities are great. But they also have excellent, real journalists working for them like Christiane Amanpour. Those real journalists are becoming rarer because hack tabloidism (ie Fox, Sun News, etc) is the direction the industry is going, so you have to look to other sources like the BBC. Even Al Jazeera's English service for a lot of global issues is great - it's interesting that there's something of a contrast between what their Arabic service reports, which is somewhat slanted to a pro-Arab view, and the English service which has less of an editorial slant (and, I was interested to see lately, was heavily critical of the Qatari government's response to a fire in a mall that killed several children - when AJE is owned by them).



Yeah, AJE has some pretty solid journalism.  Besides that I read the National Post and Globe and Mail from here at home, and right at the top of my list is The Economist, which has a neat slant on things. I peruse some other stuff less regularly too.


----------



## bridges (19 Jun 2012)

I'm left-leaning and have no problem disclosing that.   I primarily read The Economist, the Globe, the Ottawa Citizen and Walrus magazine, and a wide variety of blogs & other publications on an occasional basis, particularly l'Actualité.   Rarely Maclean's anymore, as since its most recent overhaul it seems to be more sensationalist than before - and rarely The Sun, as the few times I've flipped through a spare copy lying around in the lunch room, it struck me as mostly going for the knee-jerk response.   Plus, it looks to be about 3/4 ads-?  

On TV - The Agenda, with Steve Paikin, is excellent.  

I've yet to find a completely unbiased media source, of any stripe - doubt it exists.  Seems like we're each responsible for informing ourselves, as best we can.  And keeping the lines of communication open.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (19 Jun 2012)

A word, if I may, in defence of tabloids.

Many years ago when I was doing economics research at university, we did a research on the "informational contents" of various newspapers in Quebec. 

We compared the tabloid "Journal de Montréal" (like the Sun), the middle of the road  "La Presse" (like the "Citizen") and the high end "Le Devoir" (Financial Post/Globe and Mail).

We defined informational content as the reporting of the observed/established facts only and removed anything that would be analysis or opinion.

Believe it or not, the tabloid had the most informational content.

Why? Simple. While the tabloid was peppered with short 150-200 words articles taken right off the wires of news services and just given a small title, the other two would select a sub-set of those wire news reports they thought of interest to their reader, hand them over to journalists who then expanded them by paraphrasing or adding some mundane stuff any one could go and read in a dictionary, or getting views on the topic from known "commentators" or man in the street and reporting their views and feelings as if news. The high end one compounded this by having their journalist provide extensive alleged analysis of these facts, which could not possibly have been properly considered in view of how recent the news was.

So, don't be too hard on tabloids 'cause  some times, its the only place you find some facts.


----------



## bridges (19 Jun 2012)

Interesting study!  I wonder how, if at all, that comparison might have changed over the years.  

Sure, there's a place for tabloids.  Your study deliberately excluded analysis & opinion, which is useful for one specific purpose, but in terms of overall information it strikes me as taking the bones without the muscle.   I personally find the analysis/opinion to be an important complement to discrete facts - and the analysis/opinion can also be factual, depending on how well-reasoned it is.  I like The National's political panel, for example.   

Re. expanding news items with "fluff", the CBC website has started doing that lately.  They use "Storify" to gather comments from social media, and have attempted to pass that off as journalism.  It takes away from any actual investigative journalism that might be happening.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (19 Jun 2012)

Not just the website, the actual network too is "storifying".

How manny time these days have you heard lines like these on no less than the National?

"Hi, I am Wendy Messley and this is the National. What do bears and downtown Toronto have in common? The answer might surprise you. More when we come back..."

Good God! Some nights, it is so devoid of actual nationally important news that I feel like I am watching the local news of a third rate sized town going through its " squished-dogs" segment.


----------



## GAP (19 Jun 2012)

Well.............you WERE listening to Wendy Messley..................syrup ain't got nuttin' on her....... :


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Jun 2012)

CNN and MSNBC have no more to offer than Fox.

The content of a one hour news broadcast boils down to about 5 minutes (usually less) of reading for me.

One skill I picked up from my time in is the ability to listen to what a person is saying and ignore his ability - strong or poor - to deliver it.  Most of what is said by media personalities and politicians, after it goes through the information filter, comes out as "".


----------



## Rifleman62 (20 Jun 2012)

> CNN and MSNBC have no more to offer than Fox



Do you subscribe to FOX, and watch it regularly?


----------



## bridges (20 Jun 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Most of what is said by media personalities and politicians, after it goes through the information filter, comes out as "".



With politicians I tend to agree with you, as many of them seem to delight in NOT answering the question.  It's rare that you get a straight answer.  

With media "personalities", it depends on the individual.  Chantal Hébert, for example, I find very informative.  Same for most foreign correspondents, no matter what the network.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Jun 2012)

I meant what I wrote literally.  A person can read the transcript of a typical one hour news broadcast in a few minutes.  It really isn't a time-effective way of obtaining information.


----------

