Comment tromper efficacement les québécois...

[MontréalYul]

F*ck le bitume, mais vive les transferts d'Alberta! Logique a la Quebecoise 100%

 

Look at the future, not the past. I am part of the young generation who thinks of changing the future so that every other generation after us will live in a better environment with clean energy. Basically, doing the opposite of what you have done for us in the last 50 years.

 

Regarding equalization payments, Qc got 7B in 2013 and Ontario 3. Qc's GDP is more than 345B, so these payments only represents 2% of our GDP. Not very relevant.

[YUL]

F*ck le bitume, mais vive les transferts d'Alberta! Logique a la Quebecoise 100%

Again, a cheap/generalization/useless shot here.

 

Ontario has the same demands than Québec (less “BAPE”) vis à vis Énergie Est. (see post #34)

 

Including one demand which will ensure accomptability from TransCanada : « La compagnie devra assumer l'entière responsabilité au niveau économique et environnemental en cas de fuite ou de déversement, et démontrer qu'elle a un fonds d'indemnisation suffisant pour dédommager les communautés touchées en cas d'accidents »

 

So why don’t you include Ontario (or BC) in your generalisation?

 

Your hatred for “Québécois 100% ” is becoming toxic to read…

[YUL]

...continue to build a pipeline which makes Canada more self-sufficient (including Quebec) brings economic benefit and is much safer to transport rather than Rail.

 

Totally agree here . We just need to ensure its made right from the start.

[MontréalYul]

My question is what prevents us from R&D in cleaner tech, and in the meantime continue to build a pipeline which makes Canada more self-sufficient (including Quebec(, brings economic benefit and is much safer to transport rather than Rail.

 

This debate is too emotional and not rational enough.

 

I wouldn't mind that much if the pipeline didn't passed under our main water way and threatened the unique ecosystem of the Saguenay fjord.

 

You are right. This pipeline would create growth. But for how long? Wouldn't it be smarter to invest in technologies and resources who will not become obsolete in 20 years?

 

IMO, Quebec (and Canada for that matter) haven't done enough R&D in renewable resources.

 

''This debate is too emotional and not rational enough'' : Similar projects have been rejected in BC and the US for the same reasons as Qc, doesn't have anything to do with Qc separatists and what not.

[Habsfan]

Regarding equalization payments, Qc got 7B in 2013 and Ontario 3. Qc's GDP is more than 345B, so these payments only represents 2% of our GDP. Not very relevant.

 

Ton attitude envers la péréquation me déçoit un peu.

 

Voici les montants que le Québec a reçu depuis 2005-06...tu vas vite comprendre que ce n'est pas des peanuts!

 

http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp#Quebec

 

05-06: $4.8 milliards

06-07: $5.5 milliards

07-08: $7.1 milliards

08-09: $8.0 milliards

09-10: $8.3 milliards

10-11: $8.5 milliards

11-12: $7.8 milliards

12-13: $7.4 milliards

13-14: $7.8 milliards

14-15: $9.3 milliards

 

TOTAL: $74.5 Milliards en une décennie

 

If that's not relevant for you, then you don't understand the value of money!

 

Ce sont ces transferts qui nous permettent d'avoir les beaux petits services que nous offrons à la population. Sans les transferts de l'alberta, tu peux dire bye bye aux garderies à 7$, et à l'éducation post secondaire ULTRA cheap!

Modifié 25 novembre 2014 par Habsfan

[MontréalYul]

Ton attitude envers la péréquation me déçoit un peu.

 

Voici les montants que le Québec a reçu depuis 2005-06...tu vas vite comprendre que ce n'est pas des peanuts!

 

http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp#Quebec

 

05-06: $4.8 milliards

06-07: $5.5 milliards

07-08: $7.1 milliards

08-09: $8.0 milliards

09-10: $8.3 milliards

10-11: $8.5 milliards

11-12: $7.8 milliards

12-13: $7.4 milliards

13-14: $7.8 milliards

14-15: $9.3 milliards

 

TOTAL: $74.5 Milliards en une décennie

 

If that's not relevant for you, then you don't understand the value of money!

 

Ce sont ces transferts qui nous permettent d'avoir les beaux petits services que nous offrons à la population. Sans les transferts de l'alberta, tu peux dire bye bye aux garderies à 7$, et à l'éducation post secondaire ULTRA cheap!

 

Bon bah coupons dans l'éducation postsecondaires! 50% des étudiants qui y sont ont aucune idée pourquoi ils sont là et pour 75% d'entre-eux leur diplôme universitaire est une grosse perte de temps! Les universités sont devenues beaucoup trop grosses...

 

Il faut aussi simplifier toutes les structures gouvernementales.

[YUL]

Ton attitude envers la péréquation me déçoit un peu.

 

Voici les montants que le Québec a reçu depuis 2005-06...tu vas vite comprendre que ce n'est pas des peanuts!

 

05-06: $4.8 milliards

06-07: $5.5 milliards

07-08: $7.1 milliards

08-09: $8.0 milliards

09-10: $8.3 milliards

10-11: $8.5 milliards

11-12: $7.8 milliards

12-13: $7.4 milliards

13-14: $7.8 milliards

14-15: $9.3 milliards

 

TOTAL: $74.5 Milliards en une décennie

 

If that's not relevant for you, then you don't understand the value of money!

 

Ce sont ces transferts qui nous permettent d'avoir les beaux petits services que nous offrons à la population. Sans les transferts de l'alberta, tu peux dire bye bye aux garderies à 7$, et à l'éducation post secondaire ULTRA cheap!

 

So, let’s compare Quebec / Ontario for total transfer payments (not just equalization $):

 

05-06: $11,993 milliards / $10,885 milliards

06-07: $12,760 milliards / $10,977 milliards

07-08: $14,622 milliards / $12,087 milliards

08-09: $15,952 milliards / $13,071 milliards

09-10: $16,673 milliards / $14,274 milliards

10-11: $17,267 milliards / $15,446 milliards

11-12: $17,287 milliards / $17,326 milliards

12-13: $17,317 milliards / $19,128 milliards

13-14: $17,851 milliards / $19,799 milliards

14-15: $19,623 milliards / $19,158 milliards projected

 

It seems Ontario has received more than Quebec since 11-12.

 

So, what you said about Quebec should apply to Ontario??? What about the Maritimes now...

 

http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp#Quebec

Modifié 25 novembre 2014 par YUL

[vivreenrégion]

Durant les premières années d'exploitation, le pipeline d'Énergie Est transportera du pétrole conventionnel, le temps que les raffineries de l'Est fassent les investissements nécessaires pour le prétraitement exigé. Et pourquoi ne le feraient-elles pas ? Le pétrole de l'Ouest - moins cher que le pétrole d'outremer - leur arrivera directement sur leur site avec une sécurité d'approvisionnement inparable.

 

D'ailleurs, avant de lancer son projet, Trans-Canada a fait des ententes avec ces raffineurs et s'est assurée de leurs intensions. On n'investit pas 12 milliards $ sans prévoir le marché potentiel !

 

Ils ne pourront pas traiter le pétrole des sables bitumineux avant 2019. 1B$, il peut se passer beaucoup de chose d'ici là.

[vivreenrégion]

L'Ontario a un déficit d'environ 10-11B$ en 2014.

 

The debt in each province/per/person

 

 

Newfoundland - $1,519 surplus per person

Saskatchewan: $325 surplus per person

Alberta: $5.94 deficit per person

New Brunswick: $261 deficit per person

Nova Scotia: $345 deficit per person

British Columbia: $398 deficit per person

Quebec: $409 deficit per person

P.E.I.: $541 deficit per person

Federal deficit: $751 deficit per person

Manitoba: $792 deficit per person

Ontario: $955 deficit per person

 

Source: RBC

[Né entre les rapides]

I wouldn't mind that much if the pipeline didn't passed under our main water way and threatened the unique ecosystem of the Saguenay fjord.

 

Wow! At least this raises a technical issue, and is not one more rambling about equalization payments and the like. But let us examine this in detail: currently, Quebec's oil refineries are located in Montreal (30% of capacity) and Lévis (70%). For western canadian oil to get to Montreal, it must pass under the rivière des Mille-Isles and the rivière des Prairies: not the Saint-Lawrence proper, but still important left bank tributaries. And Lévis is located on the south shore. An alternative source of crude oil for Montreal is an old pipeline from Maine (crossing the Saint-Lawrence river); for Lévis: tankers from a variety of off-shore sources (Africa, Middle-East, North Sea or even Gulf of Mexico); in all cases, the tankers must enter from the Gulf of Saint-Lawrence and then the treacherous waters of the river itself. Conclusion: there are no risk-free alternatives. If there is to be a difference, it would have to do be in the nature of the crude oill carried, much less the transportation means. Further, the main issue regarding the proposed port at Cacouna is not so much the fact that a pipeline would get there, but rather that Cacouna would serve as a trans-shipment point; in this case, an alternative (but with a cost) would involve having all the oil going by pipeline to Saint John, New Brunswick. However, this obviously does not eliminate the risk related to the crossing of the Saint-Lawrence river by the pipeline, somewhere upstream. In my previous post, I have outlined more "extreme" alternatives which completely avoid the issue for Quebec, but again this would entail opportunity costs. We shall see the outcome!