• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Quebec Student Protests.

Also. There are a lot of Canadians that post here.

I have always been under the assumption Quebec always got more then it's fair share of federal tax revenue. Is this true? Have they gotten special treatment because they are Quebec? Are my assumptions correct? I didn't want to start a separate thread and the two seem somewhat intertwined.
 
Why not just cut Quebec loose from the rest of Canada?
 
Caper said:
Quebec Student Protests.
What's your opinion. I think they are kind of stupid.
Click to expand...
I have to agree...

The cost of a university degree is already highly subsidized by the government (and if I remember correctly, Quebec students have been paying far less than the students in other provinces.) Not only that, Canada is also pretty generous with various types of loans and grants to students.

(And don't want to have a big debt burden when you graduate? Try picking courses that will help get decent employment.)

I have always been under the assumption Quebec always got more then it's fair share of federal tax revenue. Is this true?
Click to expand...
Yup, quite true.

For a long time Quebec has been considered a "have not" province. They tent to receive more money from the federal government (through equalization payments, health care support, and other tranfers) than they put in..

For example: In 2012-13, Quebec will receive ~17 billion in federal transfers (roughly $2100 per person). Ontario will receive $19 billion, but they have roughly 50% more population (roughly $1600 per person.) And Alberta gets $3.7 billion ($1000 per person).

See:
http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_population
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_transfer_payments

So yeah, Quebec gets more than its fair share.

And taxpayers in Ontario, Alberta, etc. are helping to pay for subsidized day care, lower tuition, and a host of other social benefits.
Have they gotten special treatment because they are Quebec?
Click to expand...
There does seem to be a general culture of "appeasement" within the federal government. (i.e. give them cash and other stuff so the separatists don't have any issues to drum up support.)
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Why not just cut Quebec loose from the rest of Canada?
Click to expand...

I completely agree. I remember back in 95, I think, Man, they had us flag waving in every school across Canada... "Our Canada, includes Quebec".... blah, blah, blah..... Now I could care less. They are the Illinois of Canada.

If you ever run into a Newfie...... ask them about Lower Churchill Falls.... I'll be in my 60's in 2041... I can't wait.
 
On the one hand Quebec students have it considerably better than the rest of Canada. On the other hand the people who are railing against these kids are the ones who already benefited from the system that the protesters are trying to protect.
 
squealpiggy said:
On the one hand Quebec students have it considerably better than the rest of Canada. On the other hand the people who are railing against these kids are the ones who already benefited from the system that the protesters are trying to protect.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily.... many people criticizing the Quebec students:

- May have never attended college/university. So they never had the benefit of "subsidized" higher education.

- May be from provinces where tuition fees are higher than that in Quebec. (Its hard to be sympathetic when, even after the tuition increases, Quebec students will still probably be paying less than students in Ontario do.) Yes, students in other provinces also get subsidized. But in most cases they don't get anywhere near the benefit of Quebec students
 
Quebec students only pay about 2,200 dollars a year intuition which is the lowest in the country by far. Even when the increases take place they still will be the lowest. Most of the students taking part in the protests are art majors most of the science and engineering students are not taking part. If you compare the cost to the states where in some of the private universities you can get charged for $160,000 for a four year degree I really don't what they are prostesting about. For the record I did try university but didn't do so well because of some personal reasons.
 
Davidlpf said:
Quebec students only pay about 2,200 dollars a year intuition which is the lowest in the country by far. Even when the increases take place they still will be the lowest. Most of the students taking part in the protests are art majors most of the science and engineering students are not taking part. If you compare the cost to the states where in some of the private universities you can get charged for $160,000 for a four year degree I really don't what they are prostesting about. For the record I did try university but didn't do so well because of some personal reasons.
Click to expand...


$2,200/year?

I paid $2,500/year in 1991 here in Ontario....
 
Caper said:
Also. There are a lot of Canadians that post here.
Click to expand...

:CANADA: "O, Canada..."

Or, as it's sung in Las Vegas:

I have always been under the assumption Quebec always got more then it's fair share of federal tax revenue. Is this true?
Click to expand...
Every individual/business in Canada produces revenues and is taxed under three jurisdictions: municipal, provincial, and federal. Each jurisdiction takes its cut and redistributes it as it sees fit. One criterion for redistribution is need. Therefore, a municipality will often make more funds available to a have-not district than to a have. Provinces do the same thing; as does Canada with its equalization payments to the provinces.

Is this “fair”? Well, that's how Canada's set up at present. There's a sort of Rawlsian assumption that if A, B&C&D are members of the same group and A has a home on a big pile of valuable stuff, he's entitled to a good portion of profits from it, but he also owes some to B&C&D, because A's home is on land (a municipality, a province, and a country) he shares with B&C&D. If you think that's fair, then it is. If for some reason you think A's responsibility to share only extends to the province he lives in, or to the municipality, or just to A, but no further, not to the country, it's not.

Have they gotten special treatment because they are Quebec?
Click to expand...
It's debatable. Each province has been treated differently, of course, according to its needs, historically. That's the nature of a federation. I doubt there's a province that doesn't feel it has been treated unfairly, but I think that says as much about human nature as Canadian politics.
 
Last edited:
Caper said:
I completely agree. I remember back in 95, I think, Man, they had us flag waving in every school across Canada... "Our Canada, includes Quebec".... blah, blah, blah..... Now I could care less. They are the Illinois of Canada.

If you ever run into a Newfie...... ask them about Lower Churchill Falls.... I'll be in my 60's in 2041... I can't wait.
Click to expand...
I've always wondered... if Quebec does separate, what happens to the Churchill Falls deal? Does it remain in effect, or does it effectively become canceled (since the deal was between provincial entities)?
 
Caper said:
Try and convince me these protests are worth while and important.
Click to expand...

The goverment's reaction to them has been to restrict the right to protest in Quebec.
 
geni said:
Try and convince me these protests are worth while and important.
Click to expand...
The goverment's reaction to them has been to restrict the right to protest in Quebec.
Click to expand...
There have always been restrictions on people's ability to protest. Activities that result in public property damage, and/or situations where protester activity affects the freedom of others. (For example, police had to step in when protestors fought a legal injunction allowing classes to restart.)
 
blobru said:
Every individual/business in Canada produces revenues and is taxed under three jurisdictions: municipal, provincial, and federal. Each jurisdiction takes its cut and redistributes it as it sees fit. One criterion for redistribution is need.
...
Is this “fair”? Well, that's how Canada's set up at present. There's a sort of Rawlsian assumption that if A, B&C&D are members of the same group and A has a home on a big pile of valuable stuff, he's entitled to a good portion of it, but he also owes some to B&C&D, because A's home is on land (a municipality, a province, and a country) he shares with B&C&D. If you think that's fair, then it is. If for some reason you think A's responsibility to share only extends to the province he lives in, or to the municipality, or just to A, but no further, not to the country, it's not.
Click to expand...
Your assumption here is that the only reason why A is successful is because of the natural resources available to it. It ignores the possibility that A is successful because of better decisions by workers and leaders.

Yes, some of the more successful provinces are benefiting from their natural resources (e.g. Alberta from its oil.) Quebec also has substantial resources (Hydroelectric power, mineral resources, agriculture, etc.) However, Quebec has also made a lot of very bad decisions. (For example, repeated threats of separation may have prevented investment in the province.)

Before suggesting that one province is only successful because of its "big pile of valuable stuff" keep in mind that its not just resources, but how they're managed that's important.
 
Segnosaur said:
Your assumption here is that the only reason why A is successful is because of the natural resources available to it. It ignores the possibility that A is successful because of better decisions by workers and leaders.

Yes, some of the more successful provinces are benefiting from their natural resources (e.g. Alberta from its oil.) Quebec also has substantial resources (Hydroelectric power, mineral resources, agriculture, etc.) However, Quebec has also made a lot of very bad decisions. (For example, repeated threats of separation may have prevented investment in the province.)

Before suggesting that one province is only successful because of its "big pile of valuable stuff" keep in mind that its not just resources, but how they're managed that's important.
Click to expand...

A is of course entitled to a share of the profits from owning and working the valuable stuff profitably (whether more or less efficiently than it could have been, who can say). It's his economic incentive. That's why A gets by far the largest share, and most benefit. Then A's municipality gets a share to redistribute as they see fit. Then A's province, and A's country.

The assumption isn't that the only reason A is successful is because he happens to be sitting on a big pile of valuable stuff; only that that's part of the reason. Part of the reason is certainly because A exploits the stuff successfully; part is A lives in a municipality, province and country which allow him to exploit the big pile of valuable stuff profitably. Canada's three-tiered (four, if you include citizen A) revenue-sharing reflects that: credit to A, and credit to the various jurisdictions A works in.
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
- May have never attended college/university. So they never had the benefit of "subsidized" higher education.
Click to expand...

There's no benefit to living in a well-educated society if you yourself do not attend university?
 
Well Pardalis has been banned, so there won't be much discussion from inside sources.

I'll just leave this here, Quebec protests 101.

It's about a lot more than tuition fees now, and though I personally think freezing the fees way back was a mistake (a short-sighted electoralist move that every government stayed pretty complacent about), the universities and government found ways around that issue a long time ago, including increasing other fees (they went up $800 a year over the course of my undergrad), implementing differential tuition to out-of-province and international students and going on a real-estate speculative binge over the first decade of the new millenium, which came to a screeching halt with the financial crisis. UQAM's Ilot Voyageur boondoggle was a 400 million dollars fiasco that all Quebec taxpayers are paying for now. It was not the students' fault. With a bleaker and bleaker job market, students don't want to go into further debt they won't be able to pay. Student debt in the US has reached a trillion dollars, to the point that there's talk of a higher education bubble that could threaten financial markets. Quebec students were just quicker to revolt about that issue (student debt). It's not a unique phenomenon.
 
Caper said:
What's your opinion. I think they are kind of stupid.

Here is the background.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Quebec_student_protests

Most people on here are at least left leaning. These people are fairly leftist. But I'm thinking most on here wouldn't even support them.

Try and convince me these protests are worth while and important.
Click to expand...

by leftist they actually filty commie, as in pinko, as in making big for moose and squirrel............... ftfy

my I'm helpful today
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom