National Post Calls for the End of Equalization Payments

Three cheers for the National Post today who published an editorial calling for the end of the equalization payment scam:

That leaves Quebec, which will get $8-billion in equalization this year, almost 60% of the total. Though Quebec politicians would protest loudly at any threat to this jackpot, anyone visiting Quebec would be hard-pressed to find justification for the lavish outlay. Whether in terms of schools, universities, health care, social services, industry, culture or business, Quebec is as advanced and sophisticated a society as exists in Canada, having prospered mightily in recent years. Yet it continues to receive massive annual payments from other provinces, even as its noisy nationalists proclaim themselves a "nation," fully capable of handling their own affairs.

The situation no longer makes sense, and the longer it is allowed to drag on the more damaging and politically divisive it will become. Politically docile as they have been trained to be, Ontario residents are unlikely to quietly accept a continued annual outflow of billions of dollars to other provinces while their own services suffer and unemployment approaches double digits. Alberta, despite its image as the land of plenty, will struggle to meet its own needs until another oil boom comes along. Neither province should be expected to keep running deficits to finance programs in other provinces that long ago caught up to their own.

We need more of this kind of talk in Canada. Quebec lives off the fruits of the rest of Canada's labor, and feels entitled to it. To show their appreciation, they elect a separatist party to the majority of their federal seats in every election since 1993. People are finally starting to wake up to the scam. Desperate times do create opportunities. When money is tight, people start watching where their dollars go.

On that note, I hope the National Post survives as a newspaper. You'd never see this kind of idea in the Globe and Mail, and certainly not the Star.

Homeless Cons = Voteless Cons

Fractures in the Tory party are talking place. This splinter group is disappointed with Harper.

...But what on earth are Homeless Cons? It's a group started by Robson and his wife, fellow writer and pundit Brigitte Pellerin as an outlet for people who don't think the current Conservative government is conservative enough.

"If you are a conservative in this country," Robson says over the phone, "you believe in free markets, traditional social values and strong national defence. You are lucky if you get one out of three out of any Conservative Party you elect."

And Robson thinks that with the way the Harper Conservatives are acting right now, the score is zero for three. The government will not touch the abortion issue he notes, gave up on the vote they promised on gay marriage and in his mind doesn't fund the troops properly. The final straw for Robson appears to have been the latest budget with its projection of a $64,000,000,000 deficit over two years; this after the government was already the biggest spending government in Canadian history. "If that's conservatism," he says, "why not vote Liberal."

I'm not very interested in this group.

Firstly, if it gains traction it will mean two to three straight Liberal majorities. Vote splitting allowed Chretien to win three straight majorities with less than 40% of the vote.

Secondly, if they are talking about banning abortion, they might as well take up arms and become a guerrilla band, because they aren't going to get elected in Canada. The US is much more socially conservative, and they had W. Bush, and a majority in both houses of Congress and it's still legal there.

Thirdly, belief in a strong defense is also not a winning issue. Not in these tough economic times. Harper has increased military spending substantially but why do we need an even stronger defense? Is somebody threatening to invade us? Or does it mean help buffer the US commitment as they occupy two Middle Eastern countries? People in western countries, across the board, are growing weary of those conflicts.

Finally, and most importantly, I don't know if you can talk true fiscal conservatism while Quebec is part of Canada. There's no real private sector there, they rely on handouts. If a government tries to cut back on that, they will not win any seats in vote rich Quebec. If you still proceed with cuts, somehow cobble a majority out of the rest of Canada, they will threaten to separate. I don't know if there is popular support to allow Quebec to leave Confederation within English Canada. Not enough people have caught on to what a sinkhole Quebec is to our tax dollars.

In sum, 2009 is not the time and Canada not the place for this movement.

Quebec Confidence Scam

I'm no fan of Jeffery Simpson in the Globe and Mail, but he has an interesting article of how Quebec recently screwed the federal Tories and the "have" provinces. (read)

After much caterwauling and nattering from Quebec about the “fiscal imbalance,” Mr. Harper had duly handed over billions of additional dollars for social programs – only to find that a campaigning Mr. Charest had taken the first tranche of the money and announced tax cuts to help his re-election bid. At which point, Mr. arper hit the roof.

Further betrayals arrived. Mr. Charest, having pocketed the billions for the “fiscal imbalance,” sent his Finance Minister to announce at the beginning of the federal campaign that, no, Quebec's “demands” (Quebec is always demanding) had not been met.

With every Conservative candidate campaigning on having settled the “fiscal imbalance,” it was quite a blow to their credibility to hear Mr. Charest declare the matter unfinished. Of course, Mr. Charest had many other grievances and gripes that needed attention. So much for giving Mr. Harper a break in Quebec.

(...)

And yet, here's the dilemma: Despite a staggering economy, growing unemployment and a fiscal nightmare, Ontario taxpayers, via Ottawa, are still going to ship billions of dollars to Manitoba, the four Atlantic provinces and Quebec.

Last week's Quebec budget had $8-billion in equalization payments, amounting to 12 per cent of total revenues. Notwithstanding this bonanza, and the fact that payments had almost doubled, the budget contained a chapter complaining about how unfair equalization was to Quebec. Call it Gallic gall.

It's hard for me to believe that I supported Charest for the PC Leadership Race of 1993. My dislike started for him soon after the disastrous election that year when he refused to partner with the then Reform Party. Now as the Quebecois crook-in-chief, my hatred is viseral as well as political.

Wouldn't it be nice is Quebec seperated? Why Isn't Quebec an Independent Country?

I'm glad to see that the Conservatives and Harper are looking elsewhere to pick up support.

Quebec Not Serious About Independence

Quebecers were never serious about becoming an independent country. A former PQ insider Mario Polèse has written a book saying, you know, there are consequences to separating. The Montreal Gazette gives a review:

First, Polèse focuses on the ignored half of the sovereignty-association formula - that is, the association that Quebec would try to negotiate with the rest of Canada after a Yes vote. Sovereignist leaders avoid discussing the nature of such an association - or "partnership" as the 1995 referendum question called it. Still, the concept is very much in the picture: Polls suggest that a referendum would never pass without the prospect of a close future relationship with Canada. Polèse casts overdue light on this murky but all-important area.

What a joke. Of course we would have a close future relationship. We would be neighbours. As long as Quebec ponied up their share of the debt, the Rest of Canada were fine.

Half the people who voted oui in 1995 weren't even voting for independence. Their signs featured the Canadian dollar as the O, and had pictures of Canadian passports.

I'm not going to expand on the list off the things Monsieur Polèse mentions as possible negative consequences of separation: Border issues, trade, even language issues as the French find themselves isolated in North America. You can read the article for that. The most important issues of all: Transfer payments, and use of the Canadian dollar are not mentioned. So what's the point of talking about it? Let me say clearly: Quebec won't separate because they receive billions in transfer payments, and pork from Canada. Also, they want central banking done from Ottawa. All the other issues are trivial. Are mere red herrings.

At the end of the article they say this:

Polèse has courageously defied Quebec academia's taboo against a critical analysis of independence. The intellectual elite will surely ignore his apotasy. That's the best way to deal with an unpalatable argument that's hard to refute.

This is still not critical analysis without discussing transfer payments and the Canadian dollar.

Hat tip: Pat

Assemblee Nationale Du Quebec Monitors Daily Salt Shaker Again

My good friends at the Quebec Provincial National Assembly have tuned into my humble site once again. I must say that I am flatterred.

This time they were checking this post: PQ Try Their Hand at Humour

They were on the site a few weeks ago looking at these posts:

Why Isn't Quebec an Independent Country?

Personal Responsibility Quebec Style

I just want you to know that I'm your biggest supporter. Vive le Quebec libre!

PQ Try Their Hand at Humour

The National Post had this article about the Parti Quebecois separatists, that made me angry, but I didn't pick up on the satire:

"In my opinion, the economic crisis demonstrates the necessity of sovereignty," PQ leader Pauline Marois told a party meeting on Saturday in Quebec City.

"It is time for Quebec to take charge. When we need to make sudden changes of course, as is now the case, do we really have the means to deal with the in-coherency of a federation? We must finish with being wards of another nation. The context proves it. Sovereignty is urgent!"

According to Ms. Marois, the benefits of separating from Canada would be almost endless.

"If Quebec were sovereign, we would have all our taxes. We would have more manoeuvring room to develop an economic strategy, to support families and workers," Ms. Marois said.

"If Quebec were sovereign, we could support our industries in the manufacturing and forestry industries. Our aeronautical industry would not be rejected in favour of outdated automobile manufacturers in Ontario.

LOL! I love good satire. No doubt she was winking while saying this. Une autre biere pour Mardi Gras, oui! Ho ho ho! "Bombardier would get even more money if Quebec separates!" Stop it you're killing me. "Hey Canada, stop draining all our money won't you? The economy is hurting because of it." Hahaha! Ok, ok. I won't drive home. Pass moi une autre!

Hat tip: Pat

Montcalm Loss: Quebec Gain?

In the Ottawa Citizen, John Robson asks is it really a bad thing for the Quebecois that Montcalm lost at the Plains of Abraham?

So what's the problem? Are the Montcalmites sorry they missed their date with Robespierre and Madame Guillotine? Do they wish they had stood with Napoléon at Waterloo, and Napoléon III at Sedan? Quebec nationalists didn't exactly rush to the colours when France was threatened in 1914 or needed rescuing after 1940. What's wrong with British self-government, suppression of the slave trade and defeat of Hitler that you'd rather be part of, say, Vichy France?

Not bad, but I would take that much further. For example, I doubt France would be shifting over billions in transfer payments to them all these years. I liken a Paris controlled Quebec to Newfoundland with the British. The Newfies had to beg Britain to take over full control of them in 1934, after they tried quasi-independence. (As Wikipedia humorously notes: one of the few countries that has ever voluntarily given up direct self-rule.) Shrewd Brits managed to fob them off onto Canada in 1949. (To my Newfoundlander friends, I apologize, I'm just trying to make a point.)

Quebec has had a sweet deal with Canada. They can be independent if they want. All they need is 50% + 1 of votes.

UPDATE: Here are my posts: Why Isn't Quebec an Independent Country? And this one recently: Quebecers Interested in Sovereignty but not Separation

Bienvenue Assemblee Nationale Du Quebec!

My stat tracker shows that somebody from the Quebec Provincial National Assembly was on the Daily Salt Shaker today. They read these two articles:

Why Isn't Quebec an Independent Country

Personal Responsibility Quebec Style

No hard feelings. I think the Quebecois deserve their own nation. None of this nation in name, province in practice stuff. The Full Monty. La Republique du Quebec!

Personal Responsibility, Quebec Style

The Globe and Mail has an item on the high dropout rate in Quebec for high school students. Where does the responsibility lie?

The Opposition Parti Québécois says the Charest government needs to cut teacher-student ratios and invest in after-school activities, along with other measures aimed at helping keep teens in school.

“They've got to put their money where their mouth is,” said Pierre Curzi, PQ critic for primary and secondary education. “This is an emergency. We can't tolerate such a high dropout rate when we know you need an education for the current job market.”

Better after school programs will fix it? Yeah, Buddy Repperton, who pulled a knife on Arnie Cunnigham in shop class, wouldn't have dropped out if only they let him into the Yearbook Committee.

In Quebec, the only solution is more money, more programs. Why not? Transfer payments will take care of it.

Quebecers Interested in Sovereignty but not Separation

Once again the laughable Quebec seperatist sovereigntist movement is getting respectful coverage in English Canada. This article from the Winnipeg Sun reminds us that talk of independence doesn't necessarily mean, you know, becoming an independent country or anything:

Third, sovereigntist parties sometimes attract people who aren't necessarily "hard core." Bischoff embraced the BQ's "progressive" social platform as much as he did its sovereignty slant.

"Hard core" means you actually believe in separating? Wow, dude, that is totally hard core. Whoa!

Meanwhile, critics pounced on Harper for hauling out the old "separatist" label when speaking English, but reverting to the more genteel "sovereigntist" when chatting in French.

How pathetic is that? How is the term "separatist" hurtful? What kind of wuss "nationalists" are these guys?

Wait we have an explainer:

Separatist

The word was used, historically, for those favouring an independent country, but over time it has evolved, for many, into a "term of abuse, a kind of insult," says Tanguay. Some separatists opted for the term "independantiste." Eventually, they settled on the term "sovereigntist."

Sovereigntist

The term "is clunky in English but it gets the message across and doesn't have those negative overtones," Tanguay says. Indeed, its nuance is positive since "sovereignty is something like the normal state of affairs for people," he says. While it means independence, it also carries an added idea: A relationship or association" of some sort with Canada.

The term separatist has negative overtones? Why, because it holds people to an actual position? What a pathetic joke. Somehow I can't see the Irish, Croatians or Slovaks having a problem with that term. It shows how unserious the people of the Canadian province of Quebec really are about becoming an independent country.

You're free to go Quebec. Stop talking and do it. It's like a child who threatens to run away. You know they're getting one block and turning back.

Hat tip: Strack Attack

They're Not Calling on Red Bull to Withdraw Sponsorship Money, Though

Reader Strack Attack sent me this article with the comment: "How many articles like this do we read a year? They're so f-cking annoying!"

Skating event’s name irks sovereigntists

Maintaining an English name for today’s popular Crashed Ice downhill skating event in Quebec City is akin to "spitting" on the French language, a sovereignty group charged Friday.

About 30 banner-toting protesters from Mouvement Montreal francais hit the streets of downtown Montreal to propose alternative names they believe are more respectful of the French language.

Surrounded by the Fleur-de-lis and chanting slogans like Red Bull Has No Respect and Red Bull Spits on French, the group even had a bull mascot join in.

"We are calling on Red Bull to rename Crashed Ice in French," spokeswoman Sophie Beaupre said at the protest held outside the company’s office.

"In refusing to do so, Red Bull is spitting on Quebec — literally."

Beaupre was referring to the French word cracher which means to spit.

Just go ahead and separate already.

If you have an article to send, please do at dagesu@gmail.com

Globe and Mail Pretends that the Bloc Quebecois Aren't Part of the Coalition Again

Iggy is threatening to vote down the new Tory budget. The Globe and Mail has the scoop.

“If the budget does not respond to the circumstances, if the budget is not up to the level of the crisis we are all facing, we must vote against it.”

Mr. Ignatieff did not mention the Liberal-NDP coalition, which is supposed to be waiting in the wings to take power if Mr. Harper's Conservatives are defeated in a budget vote.

Funny, the Globe and Mail didn't mention the other Coalition member, the Bloc Quebecois. I think we may have a complete rewind from the fall with the same talking points. I hope the Liberals try to force this no confidence vote again. If they try to seize power or force an election they are in big trouble.

Once again, what a rag the once proud Globe and Mail is for openly propagandizing for the Liberals. They pretend the Coalition does not contain the Bloc. Shame!

As I wrote back in December the Liberals (and their media backers), think we're so stupid, we don't notice that the Bloc are part of the deal. One day they have a public signing together, the next they say the Tories are out of order suggesting that the Bloc are part of it.

Plains of Abraham Battle Re-Enactment Causes Stir

It's Friday and that means it's time for some light hearted reading. In the Globe and Mail, a plan to re-enact the historic battle this summer has upset some Quebecers. (read)

Mr. Juneau, whose [National Battlefields Commission] is an agency of Canadian Heritage, acknowledged that he was "a bit on the defensive" about the event, but said the anniversary could be an opportunity to mark Quebec's advancement in 250 years.

"Yes it was a defeat. We took a beating in 1759," he said. "But we got up again. We survived. Today we're recognized as a nation."

Not to sound like too much of a bully but here's a guy who works for the government of Canada, talking about the proud Quebec nation, even though it is not an independant country. Forgive me, if I find that a little weak.

As I've written here before, Quebec needs to man up and go ahead and separate. You don't even have to fight for it, we're willing to let you go with a simple majority vote. Why Isn't Quebec an Independant Country?

Poll: Quebecois Want the Coalition to Form the Next Government

In Quebec 62% of respondants want the Coalition to form the next government. They've voted the speratists Bloc Quebecois to a majority of their federal seats since 1993. Let's reward them with a government! Only in Canada! (story)

Moreover, he said Quebecers who park their votes with the separatist Bloc Quebecois likely see the coalition as a way to get a better deal for Quebec.

"(They) wouldn't mind kind of dislodging the federal Conservatives and putting the Bloc in position to exercise more influence."

Well they would think that way, wouldn't they?

How To Depress a Quebecois Reporter

Here's a refreshing take on the the Separatist Coalition from former Anlgo-rights activist Howard Galganov. Don't hold you breath waiting for it to be published in the main stream media. (Read here)

The next consequence really shook her when I explained that a coalition with the Quebec Separatist Bloc would hasten the departure of Quebec from Confederation, allowing Canada to finally grow without the Quebec anchor around our neck.

....

Then I reminded her that certain inalienable decisions would be made the moment Quebec and Canada part company.

By federal law, Canadian Banks and Insurance companies must be headquartered within Canada. There go the banks. By law, airlines cannot pick-up and deliver passengers from one national location to another national location unless that airline is headquartered in that nation. Goodbye Air Canada.

Then there’s the Canada Export and Development Corporation that underwrites just about all of Bombardier’s sales abroad. Goodbye Bombardier along with other federally financed corporations in Quebec.

Goodbye all the federal government jobs that disproportionately employ French Quebecers. Especially those who can speak some English.

And Goodbye official bilingualism.

Read it all. If an article like this becomes popular, it would never find a way onto the CBC or Globe and Mail. He would be written off as a kook, and defamed as an extremist. Even though this sort of opinion is something you would hear everyday at your local pub or Tim Horton's.

CBC Tells Us What Lessons We've Learned (cough!)

It's hilarious, despite the polls about Canadians rejecting the power-grab coalition and Harper riding high in the polls, CBC is still trying to pin the blame:

What happened: The Conservatives recklessly risked their minority government by acting as though they had a majority. The decision to load an economic update that was thin on policy proposals with enough partisan attacks and manoeuvres to tempt even an enfeebled opposition to try to unseat them was both reckless and careless.

So that's what happened? Harper wanted to cut off taxpayer supported subsities for political parties, that according to Ipsos Reid 61% of Canadians supported, and that's reckless and careless? That's the number 1 reason for this crisis? C'mon for God's sake! There's no end to CBC bias.

Then we get to the Quebec issue. (My bolding.)

What happened: Desperate to save himself and his government, Stephen Harper ratcheted up the rhetoric, exaggerating the role of the Bloc in the coalition agreement and attacking them, the Liberals and the NDP for putting Canada at risk.

Lesson learned: Separatists and the Bloc Québécois are the third rail in Canadian politics. Any arrangement with the Bloc is lethal outside Quebec. Its subsequent rejection is lethal inside Quebec. In the short term, Harper swayed public opinion in his favour outside Quebec and dug himself into a hole in that province.

As prime minister, at some point Harper could come to regret his effort to exacerbate differences on the founding fault line of the country. Canadians are likely to regret his picking at the scabs over the wounds of national unity. Not only is it not something a prime minister should do. It wasn't even necessary. The issue of proroguing the House of Commons was constitutional and legal and not driven by public opinion.

Exaggerating the role of the Bloc? What pointing out that they are part of the deal, and that they are separatists? We've learned a lesson not to do this?

The lesson of course, is that the CBC has an agenda and that you're a fool if you believe what they say.

The Globe and Mail Not Getting It

I can't believe the Mop and Pail, pre-internet, used to be almost my sole source of written news. Today we get a scolding not to say "separatist":

“If [the harsh rhetoric] goes on, there could be long-term consequences. If you are mainstream, to be depicted as a separatist is a source of great annoyance. But if it stops, the collective memory being what it is, people are going to go on with other things.”

It's a source of great annoyance? Am I reading this? You vote a majority to the Bloc in every election since 1993 but don't say the "s" word? Huh?

Ezra Levant has fun with it. Separatists aren't the separatist threat. People who point out they're separatist are:

The separatists are divisive by definition -- they literally want to divide Canada. Their explicit mission is to undo Canada, to remove Quebec from Confederation. And they make up a third of the coalition's manpower -- without which the coalition wouldn't have the numbers to unseat the Conservatives.

.....

But! But if you mention that, if you call separatists by their own name that is divisive! That is dangerous to national unity!

While We Are Having This Break

Been sure not to be a meany-pants to separatists.

Like it or not, Bloc MPs are the legitimate representatives of a large number of Canadians living in Quebec. No one should doubt their raison d'être, but then again, the Bloc are not Basque separatists either. They do not blow up municipal mayors. They do not blow up mailboxes. They are democrats who have contributed to debates outside matters of Quebec's status and powers, on everything from climate change and Afghanistan to efforts to repatriate Omar Khadr. In other words, they have not played an entirely malevolent role, in spite of their chief objective.

This shows how clueless the Globe and Mail can be. They are separatists serving in the Canadian Parliament. They are not acting in good faith for the nation. They want to weaken Canada and separate. They don't care about the rest of the country, but just want what is in Quebec's best interests.They openly say this. You can't reward them for this. For the Quebecers who voted for them, they should have done so soberly and realized it would be an offensive action to the rest of the country. They can't expect cuddling.

Shakedown Artists

Mark Steyn is right, the so-called separatists in Quebec are phony:

Quebec separatism is mostly one almighty bluff, a giant racket by which the francophone minority screws out of English Canada a hugely disproportionate share of the spoils. The Bloc Quebecois are separatists who have no interest in separating: no matter how wide you open the stable door, the flea-bitten old nag refuses to bolt

...

In the last Quebec referendum, the then "separatist" leader, M Parizeau, ran on a platform by which Quebec would become a separate country but would continue to use the Canadian dollar, the Canadian armed forces and Canadian passports.

Go ahead Quebec, separate: Why Isn't Quebec an Independent Country

An Important Member of Our New Government

* Note, caption was translated from the original French.