I assume you are joking and your ego isn't THAT huge. There are two reasons, first the crappy weather. But second, and more importantly, is the canadian dollar. That's right, as the canadian dollar is worth more, it becomes cheaper for canadians to go to the US. Just about everything you can think of is cheaper down there. Gas, booze, even lodgings have fewer taxes.
So we're going to see the exact opposite of what used to occur, fewer americans are coming to canada because of border hassles and high taxes, and more canadians are going to go there because of lower prices. Let the good times roll!
I assume you are joking and your ego isn't THAT huge. There are two reasons, first the crappy weather. But second, and more importantly, is the canadian dollar. That's right, as the canadian dollar is worth more, it becomes cheaper for canadians to go to the US. Just about everything you can think of is cheaper down there. Gas, booze, even lodgings have fewer taxes.
So we're going to see the exact opposite of what used to occur, fewer americans are coming to canada because of border hassles and high taxes, and more canadians are going to go there because of lower prices. Let the good times roll!
Why can't New Brunswick'ers work in Québec? Is there some kind of inter-provincial labour embargo I don't know about? A good portion of the ex-pat Martitimers I know are currently working in Québec. (Some are bilingual and some speak only English.) The idea that 'Québecers' themselves are stealing NB jobs is completely inane. Why would they bother? If anything, the current flow of labour is going west to Alberta, not East. Will all due respect, I'm uncomfortable with the almost bigoted anti-Québecois tone of Charle's blog at times.
The issue of labour mobility is a political sore point in New Brunswick, where construction workers and companies have found it difficult to get jobs and contracts in Quebec.
Quebec workers face no such impediments to their employment in New Brunswick.
And if you do get a contract in quebec,your equipment will be destroyed,and qpp fines daily.
WHEREAS New Brunswick contractors, workers in the construction industry and aggregate haulers experience barriers to working and doing business in other jurisdictions because of unfair, discriminatory or restrictive practices in those other jurisdictions while contractors, workers in the construction industry and aggregate haulers from those other jurisdictions are able to work in New Brunswick without similar barriers.
AND WHEREAS it is recognized that employment opportunities in those areas for New Brunswick residents would be enhanced and more equal access to business and job opportunities would be created by introducing measures aimed at restricting access to those taking advantage of New Brunswick's policy of free mobility.
Quebec receives 78% of Canada’s Direct Federal Revenue Enhancing Transfers (ASRA & Dairy Subsidies) Quebec receives 33% of Canada’s Regulatory Federal Revenue Enhancing Transfers (Supply-Management) Quebec receives 41% of Canada’s Total Federal Revenue Enhancing Transfers for 2000. Quebec and Ontario command 74% or $765 million of the $1 Billion dollars of federal regulatory support that goes to supply-management. Supply-management accounted for 79% of the Federal Revenue
Can the above link his sources? That's some good info, but some I didn't quite follow.
Yes, for the above poster, nobody is saying that if you MOVE to Quebec you can't find a job. If you MOVE to Quebec you are a Quebecer though.
This is especially a sore point for a place like Campbellton or to a lesser extent Edmunstun which are right on the border. Since government procurement is done in Fredericton, and since taxpayers interest is in saving money, if a huge company from Montreal undercuts a small company in Campbellton by bringing in Quebecers (who don't pay NB EI) then Quebecers will come in and do the work in a town with one of the highest rates of unemployment. This is a very sore point up north, and the 'great divide' between north and south is patently obvious with ALL parties refusing to make it an issue.
I can't remember the date, perhaps somebody can post it, but awhile ago Charest and Lord met to 'talk about it', but nothing got done. Charles had a blog awhile back where some bureaucrat made the insinuation that he should 'shut up about Quebec' because they are NB's largest canadian trading partner.
Keep in mind for those 'new' to the blog, the 'anti quebec' rhetoric is quite different from what it used to be. Charles has stated quite plainly that he is a 'bigot' as far as Quebec is concerned, but he has never elaborated on why, and he rarely made any comments about it.
I do agree that just because somebody was born in Quebec doesn't mean they can't work here. I notice charles doesn't call Lord a Quebecer . However, I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt because the Quebec employment issue is a very important one, and this keeps the issue at the forefront of conversation, which is far better than a newspaper article or radio report which is quickly forgotten.
So the 'quebec security' that cost Charles his job becomes a kind of symbol for the quebec-new brunswick labour injustice (which is what it is).
Keep in mind that there are other very good reasons for the constant bringing up of quebec. Their port got considerable federal grants for expansion, while Halifax's relies on provincial money, and Saint John only gets money that fixes up Irvings port. The whole 'Atlantica' transportation issue is directed at making a highway through the states because of Quebec's political instability as well as (and more importantly) the very shitty highway from New Brunswick to Riviere du loup which adds considerable cost to trucking.
There is a problem with the way Quebec laws make it virtually impossible for New Brunswick companies to win contracts in that province. Bernard Lord has promised to "do something about it" but has not as of yet. To be fair he is not the first of our premiers to acknowledge the problem but do little to help the situation. But he is the latest and should be pressured to do more. Unfortunately if indeed that was the original concern and reason for Charles to take up his anti Quebecois rants..(and there have been many even in the short time I have spent visiting his blog) you would never know it by what he writes. For the most part Charles now just uses his Quebecois taking jobs rants as a half hearted attempt to insult the security that he so dearly dislikes at the legislative buildings. He knows (or should know) that they are not the same thing. He knows (or should know) that you can move to any province to live and work. He also should know that many NBers work in Quebec. Charles likes to point out "BUT THERE ARE NO NBer's WORKING IN THE QUEBEC LEGISLATURE" but in fact I doubt that Charles knows if any expat NBer's work there or not. Although what difference would it make if there were none? The real shame is the effort that Charles puts into is anti Quebec blogs no longer serve to argue for changes that are needed. They are now just self serving insults directed at a particular few people that just happen to enforce a certain ban against his person. If he ever was actually concerned about the real problem he has long since forgotten that in favour of cheap insults.
One of Quebec's major winter tourism attractions is the Ice Hotel. But, this unique perennial structure could be in trouble, from the Quebec construction union.
The main union of the heavily regulated and protected Quebec construction industry is now demanding that only unionized construction workers should be permitted to build the Ice Hotel. By provincial law, all construction workers in the province of Quebec must belong to a Quebec union. (This prohibits a construction worker from New Brunswick or Ontario from crossing the border to do work in Quebec; there is no labour mobility.)
As for the Ice Hotel, the people who build this ice structure are specially trained to cut and sculpt ice ~ how could these skills be used elsewhere in the Quebec construction sector? But, this matters not to Quebec's construction union; they plan to take on the Ice Hotel again next year. Unfortunately, the increase in labour costs to the hotel would be approximately $250,000, possibly making the project unworkable. Would this matter to the union? No. Said the union official on CBC News, I hope the hotel doesn't go south. Like he cares; if you don't see it our way, to hell with you.
Canadians will remember the debate that raged in 1988 when the Mulroney government brought in the Free Trade Agreement with the United States.
[I do recall the very clever Liberal Party ad -- this was *the* election issue in 1988 in Canada -- with the camera looking down on the two countries' negotiators finalizing the FTA. "We just have to delete one more line," says the American negotiator (or something to that effect). The camera zooms in to show that the document they're working on is a map of North America and the line that he refers to and is now erasing is the Canada-U.S. border. Mulroney's Progressive Conservatives won easily.]
Well, all that furor would be nothing compared to what would happen if the 10 Canadian provinces and 3 territories had to sit down and negotiate a true inter-provincial free trade deal.
The Montreal Economic Institute (IEDM) has a very good section of articles and links on this issue, including a link to the pdf version of its publication, Why We Need Freer Trade in Canada.
For example: the sale of coloured margarine is prohibited in Quebec; licensing measures prevent the movement of liquid milk products between Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces; and, labour mobility suffers as many industries and professions have certification and residency requirements (the Quebec construction industry is particularly restrictive).
In 1994, Canadian provinces did sign the Agreement on Internal Trade. Despite this Agreement, according to the IEDM, "... there is no oversight of the national market" and that there are "no effective trade rules" within Canada.
Good stuff above, but there's also the point that there are many equally good arguments about why we need LESS free trade. In fact, you could kiss what's left of NB agriculture goodbye when that happens.
'Free labour' is not the same as free trade though. The simple solution is to have the balls to stand up to Quebec and say 'you have to belong to an NB union' or at the very least at the bureaucratic level make sure they don't get any contracts (anybody that thinks government procurement is free of political wrangling has obviously never worked for government).
As for the anti Quebec 'rantings', as said, this has intensified lately for a very good reason: it was the security people from Quebec who cost Charles his job. I'd post it here but I'm saving it for a website but one of Charles earliest blogs long ago has him talking about those same Quebecers with glowing praise about how well they do their jobs. However, that was before they labelled him a 'security risk' which cost him his job.
So there's a very good reason for that 'anti quebecer' ranting, and the above poster is quite correct that it is aimed at a very few select individuals-and for good reason.
Charles says nothing but praise for those who do their jobs well and treat people with respect, people forget that. If Charles is badmouthing somebody, you can bet there is a good reason, and the quebec security one is the best-the cost him a potential livelihood and made sure he remained impoverished and subject to the pinheads who used to show up saying 'get a job' etc.
The labour mobility issue is an interesting one, but the fact is that Québec doesn't *owe* anyone labour mobility. And if Québec indeed does practice a form of labour protectionism (above, underlined in the construction and farming industry), it's their right to do so. As to competitive thugs who destroy equipment in the construction industry, that's seen everywhere, even in NB. It's an issue in construction industries the world over and certainly not a practice that is unique to Québec.
Québec is a province that has re-built itself from cultural and economic hardships that would have completely destroyed most independent countries. I'm certainly not going to begrudge them (all of them, even tourists!) now for taking efficient measures to protect their own economic interests. Talk about "old Germany". This is scapegoating under the guise of labour activism.
As to "imbalances" between Canadian provinces, why not also direct criticism at a province like Alberta? By the same standards Québec is held to here, Alberta is effectively "stealing" bright young Canadians from the Maritimes, "luring" the educated with well-paying jobs and fairer taxes. You could even go farther and say Alberta is to blame for the drop in our birthrate! And to top it off, Alberta is making billions in oil and not sharing a dime of it with NB. Gasp! That kind of economic protectionism is ghastly isn't it? So c'mon, where are the anti-Alberta sentiments?
Yes, you can quote stats about transfer payments ad nauseam (numbers like that get bigots very riled up), but it's not (and never had been) as simple as numbers.
Yes,one can quote and quote to you and be just wasting their time,unless it fits into your interpretations of things.Thats an immediate reaction to those who throw demeaning labels around.Labeling people and their opinions just puts one in the "dime a dozen catagory".Defending the actions of french quebec is a tough job ,eh? Read your french history,and you'll either quit defending them or acquire a bank of expert spinners.
18 comments:
What exactly *is* your problem with the Québécois Charles?
His problem is the same as many New Brunswickers. Quebecers come and take New Brunswick jobs, but New Brunswickers can't work in Quebec.
I assume you are joking and your ego isn't THAT huge. There are two reasons, first the crappy weather. But second, and more importantly, is the canadian dollar. That's right, as the canadian dollar is worth more, it becomes cheaper for canadians to go to the US. Just about everything you can think of is cheaper down there. Gas, booze, even lodgings have fewer taxes.
So we're going to see the exact opposite of what used to occur, fewer americans are coming to canada because of border hassles and high taxes, and more canadians are going to go there because of lower prices. Let the good times roll!
I assume you are joking and your ego isn't THAT huge. There are two reasons, first the crappy weather. But second, and more importantly, is the canadian dollar. That's right, as the canadian dollar is worth more, it becomes cheaper for canadians to go to the US. Just about everything you can think of is cheaper down there. Gas, booze, even lodgings have fewer taxes.
So we're going to see the exact opposite of what used to occur, fewer americans are coming to canada because of border hassles and high taxes, and more canadians are going to go there because of lower prices. Let the good times roll!
And you are a English speaking RCMP,get ready for B.C
????
Why can't New Brunswick'ers work in Québec? Is there some kind of inter-provincial labour embargo I don't know about? A good portion of the ex-pat Martitimers I know are currently working in Québec. (Some are bilingual and some speak only English.) The idea that 'Québecers' themselves are stealing NB jobs is completely inane. Why would they bother? If anything, the current flow of labour is going west to Alberta, not East. Will all due respect, I'm uncomfortable with the almost bigoted anti-Québecois tone of Charle's blog at times.
The issue of labour mobility is a political sore point in New Brunswick, where construction workers and companies have found it difficult to get jobs and contracts in Quebec.
Quebec workers face no such impediments to their employment in New Brunswick.
And if you do get a contract in quebec,your equipment will be destroyed,and qpp fines daily.
Preamble
WHEREAS New Brunswick contractors, workers in the construction industry and aggregate haulers experience barriers to working and doing business in other jurisdictions because of unfair, discriminatory or restrictive practices in those other jurisdictions while contractors, workers in the construction industry and aggregate haulers from those other jurisdictions are able to work in New Brunswick without similar barriers.
AND WHEREAS it is recognized that employment opportunities in those areas for New Brunswick residents would be enhanced and more equal access to business and job opportunities would be created by introducing measures aimed at restricting access to those taking advantage of New Brunswick's policy of free mobility.
Quebec receives 78% of Canada’s Direct Federal Revenue Enhancing Transfers (ASRA & Dairy Subsidies)
Quebec receives 33% of Canada’s Regulatory Federal Revenue Enhancing Transfers (Supply-Management)
Quebec receives 41% of Canada’s Total Federal Revenue Enhancing Transfers for 2000.
Quebec and Ontario command 74% or $765 million of the $1 Billion dollars of federal regulatory support that goes to supply-management. Supply-management accounted for 79% of the Federal Revenue
Can the above link his sources? That's some good info, but some I didn't quite follow.
Yes, for the above poster, nobody is saying that if you MOVE to Quebec you can't find a job. If you MOVE to Quebec you are a Quebecer though.
This is especially a sore point for a place like Campbellton or to a lesser extent Edmunstun which are right on the border. Since government procurement is done in Fredericton, and since taxpayers interest is in saving money, if a huge company from Montreal undercuts a small company in Campbellton by bringing in Quebecers (who don't pay NB EI) then Quebecers will come in and do the work in a town with one of the highest rates of unemployment. This is a very sore point up north, and the 'great divide' between north and south is patently obvious with ALL parties refusing to make it an issue.
I can't remember the date, perhaps somebody can post it, but awhile ago Charest and Lord met to 'talk about it', but nothing got done. Charles had a blog awhile back where some bureaucrat made the insinuation that he should 'shut up about Quebec' because they are NB's largest canadian trading partner.
Keep in mind for those 'new' to the blog, the 'anti quebec' rhetoric is quite different from what it used to be. Charles has stated quite plainly that he is a 'bigot' as far as Quebec is concerned, but he has never elaborated on why, and he rarely made any comments about it.
I do agree that just because somebody was born in Quebec doesn't mean they can't work here. I notice charles doesn't call Lord a Quebecer . However, I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt because the Quebec employment issue is a very important one, and this keeps the issue at the forefront of conversation, which is far better than a newspaper article or radio report which is quickly forgotten.
So the 'quebec security' that cost Charles his job becomes a kind of symbol for the quebec-new brunswick labour injustice (which is what it is).
Keep in mind that there are other very good reasons for the constant bringing up of quebec. Their port got considerable federal grants for expansion, while Halifax's relies on provincial money, and Saint John only gets money that fixes up Irvings port. The whole 'Atlantica' transportation issue is directed at making a highway through the states because of Quebec's political instability as well as (and more importantly) the very shitty highway from New Brunswick to Riviere du loup which adds considerable cost to trucking.
There is a problem with the way Quebec laws make it virtually impossible for New Brunswick companies to win contracts in that province. Bernard Lord has promised to "do something about it" but has not as of yet. To be fair he is not the first of our premiers to acknowledge the problem but do little to help the situation. But he is the latest and should be pressured to do more.
Unfortunately if indeed that was the original concern and reason for Charles to take up his anti Quebecois rants..(and there have been many even in the short time I have spent visiting his blog) you would never know it by what he writes. For the most part Charles now just uses his Quebecois taking jobs rants as a half hearted attempt to insult the security that he so dearly dislikes at the legislative buildings. He knows (or should know) that they are not the same thing. He knows (or should know) that you can move to any province to live and work. He also should know that many NBers work in Quebec. Charles likes to point out "BUT THERE ARE NO NBer's WORKING IN THE QUEBEC LEGISLATURE" but in fact I doubt that Charles knows if any expat NBer's work there or not. Although what difference would it make if there were none?
The real shame is the effort that Charles puts into is anti Quebec blogs no longer serve to argue for changes that are needed. They are now just self serving insults directed at a particular few people that just happen to enforce a certain ban against his person. If he ever was actually concerned about the real problem he has long since forgotten that in favour of cheap insults.
http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/news/2006/06-oq.html
http://www.adat.ca/adat/index-en.php?page=news&article=2003-06-05
http://www1.gnb.ca/legis/bill/editform-e.asp?ID=217&legi=55&num=
Ice Hotel on Ice?
One of Quebec's major winter tourism attractions is the Ice Hotel. But, this unique perennial structure could be in trouble, from the Quebec construction union.
The main union of the heavily regulated and protected Quebec construction industry is now demanding that only unionized construction workers should be permitted to build the Ice Hotel. By provincial law, all construction workers in the province of Quebec must belong to a Quebec union. (This prohibits a construction worker from New Brunswick or Ontario from crossing the border to do work in Quebec; there is no labour mobility.)
As for the Ice Hotel, the people who build this ice structure are specially trained to cut and sculpt ice ~ how could these skills be used elsewhere in the Quebec construction sector? But, this matters not to Quebec's construction union; they plan to take on the Ice Hotel again next year. Unfortunately, the increase in labour costs to the hotel would be approximately $250,000, possibly making the project unworkable. Would this matter to the union? No. Said the union official on CBC News, I hope the hotel doesn't go south. Like he cares; if you don't see it our way, to hell with you.
Canadians will remember the debate that raged in 1988 when the Mulroney government brought in the Free Trade Agreement with the United States.
[I do recall the very clever Liberal Party ad -- this was *the* election issue in 1988 in Canada -- with the camera looking down on the two countries' negotiators finalizing the FTA. "We just have to delete one more line," says the American negotiator (or something to that effect). The camera zooms in to show that the document they're working on is a map of North America and the line that he refers to and is now erasing is the Canada-U.S. border. Mulroney's Progressive Conservatives won easily.]
Well, all that furor would be nothing compared to what would happen if the 10 Canadian provinces and 3 territories had to sit down and negotiate a true inter-provincial free trade deal.
The Montreal Economic Institute (IEDM) has a very good section of articles and links on this issue, including a link to the pdf version of its publication, Why We Need Freer Trade in Canada.
For example: the sale of coloured margarine is prohibited in Quebec; licensing measures prevent the movement of liquid milk products between Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces; and, labour mobility suffers as many industries and professions have certification and residency requirements (the Quebec construction industry is particularly restrictive).
In 1994, Canadian provinces did sign the Agreement on Internal Trade. Despite this Agreement, according to the IEDM, "... there is no oversight of the national market" and that there are "no effective trade rules" within Canada.
http://essays.woodengrainelevators.com/french-connection.htm
Good stuff above, but there's also the point that there are many equally good arguments about why we need LESS free trade. In fact, you could kiss what's left of NB agriculture goodbye when that happens.
'Free labour' is not the same as free trade though. The simple solution is to have the balls to stand up to Quebec and say 'you have to belong to an NB union' or at the very least at the bureaucratic level make sure they don't get any contracts (anybody that thinks government procurement is free of political wrangling has obviously never worked for government).
As for the anti Quebec 'rantings', as said, this has intensified lately for a very good reason: it was the security people from Quebec who cost Charles his job. I'd post it here but I'm saving it for a website but one of Charles earliest blogs long ago has him talking about those same Quebecers with glowing praise about how well they do their jobs. However, that was before they labelled him a 'security risk' which cost him his job.
So there's a very good reason for that 'anti quebecer' ranting, and the above poster is quite correct that it is aimed at a very few select individuals-and for good reason.
Charles says nothing but praise for those who do their jobs well and treat people with respect, people forget that. If Charles is badmouthing somebody, you can bet there is a good reason, and the quebec security one is the best-the cost him a potential livelihood and made sure he remained impoverished and subject to the pinheads who used to show up saying 'get a job' etc.
The labour mobility issue is an interesting one, but the fact is that Québec doesn't *owe* anyone labour mobility. And if Québec indeed does practice a form of labour protectionism (above, underlined in the construction and farming industry), it's their right to do so. As to competitive thugs who destroy equipment in the construction industry, that's seen everywhere, even in NB. It's an issue in construction industries the world over and certainly not a practice that is unique to Québec.
Québec is a province that has re-built itself from cultural and economic hardships that would have completely destroyed most independent countries. I'm certainly not going to begrudge them (all of them, even tourists!) now for taking efficient measures to protect their own economic interests. Talk about "old Germany". This is scapegoating under the guise of labour activism.
As to "imbalances" between Canadian provinces, why not also direct criticism at a province like Alberta? By the same standards Québec is held to here, Alberta is effectively "stealing" bright young Canadians from the Maritimes, "luring" the educated with well-paying jobs and fairer taxes. You could even go farther and say Alberta is to blame for the drop in our birthrate! And to top it off, Alberta is making billions in oil and not sharing a dime of it with NB. Gasp! That kind of economic protectionism is ghastly isn't it? So c'mon, where are the anti-Alberta sentiments?
Yes, you can quote stats about transfer payments ad nauseam (numbers like that get bigots very riled up), but it's not (and never had been) as simple as numbers.
Yes,one can quote and quote to you and be just wasting their time,unless it fits into your interpretations of things.Thats an immediate reaction to those who throw demeaning labels around.Labeling people and their opinions just puts one in the "dime a dozen catagory".Defending the actions of french quebec is a tough job ,eh? Read your french history,and you'll either quit defending them or acquire a bank of expert spinners.
Post a Comment