Talk:Fiscal imbalance in Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quebec is a "have-not" province. This means that fiscally, Quebec benefits from federalism more than the "have" provinces of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. It means that the federal government gives more to Quebec than Quebecers contribute, in taxes, to the federal Government. This also means that by separating, Quebec will be all the poorer, as there will be no federal government to "equalize" the provinces, through transfer payments. Some food for thought for those thinking of separating. Loomis51 00:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

BC was recently a "have-not" province (even by little) but now that its real-estate has boomed in the last three years Québec wants its share of the bonanza. The federal gouvernment is actually with a large surplus but it still have a big debt and spend on the military as we are in a real war. The people of Québec knows that he will be poorer at least in the beginning but he also see how dumb the federal has been for example in the commandite fiasco and the gun registry. 216.86.113.16 04:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs cleanup and may show some bias/opinion without sufficient citations or references

It has information in it that refers to 'past current events'. E.g. it refers to Prime Minister Paul Martin as if the subject is in the current context, even though he has not been Prime Minister for nearly two years, and matters have changed somewhat. (These kinds of political issues are kind of nebulous and the politics and the people behind them shift too much to paraphrase them the way they are in the second part of the article... maybe to quote Jack Web/Sgt Friday from the old TV series Dragnet: "...just the facts m'am".) To add, the paragraph that contains this example ends by contradicting itself.

There may in fact be quite a bit of opinion in the second part of the article. E.g. some experts say that with respect specifically to Quebec, more federal tax money goes in than comes out (i.e. they are being subsidized since they don't generate enough federal or provincial tax to support themselves), while the person writing this article is intimating (at best) the opposite. While some others, mostly in Quebec, share this view, it needs to be balanced against the former. As well either citations and/or references are needed.

I am not sure I have enough knowledge (i.e. the specific facts at hand) to fix it, but I do know that it needs fixing. I'll put a watch on it and try to do some research but no guarantee.

It should at least be marked as needing cleanup so others can understand this as well and perhaps contribute.

Theshowmecanuck 05:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)