Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quebec, Ontario sign worker-mobility pact
KAREN HOWLETT
GIMLI, MAN. -- Construction workers in Ontario will be able to ply their trade on job sites in Quebec under an accord to be unveiled tomorrow that will remove long-standing trade barriers between the two provinces.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Quebec Premier Jean Charest plan to announce the agreement at a news conference in Ottawa. Mr. McGuinty said in an interview yesterday that it allows the two provinces to settle a decades-old feud over worker mobility.
"It's a long-awaited announcement," he said.
For decades, it has been virtually impossible for construction workers from Ontario to get jobs in Quebec because the Quebec government has imposed barriers to keep them out.
Premiers from the two provinces have promised for years to solve the problem, but to no avail.
In fact, the barriers became even more entrenched in 1999, when Ontario's then-premier Mike Harris passed a law that effectively banned Quebec construction workers from jobsin his province. But that backfired. Ontario, which has a shortage of workers in the skilled trades, quietly let the construction workers back in.
For Mr. McGuinty, sharing the stage with Mr. Charest tomorrow will allow him to demonstrate that the two leaders can work together, a government source said.
He and Mr. Charest are sharply divided on the issue of whether the federal government should address the fiscal imbalance by changing the way it calculates equalization, the national program for sharing wealth with poorer regions.
Mr. McGuinty argues that the program should not be enriched. Quebec, a major beneficiary of equalization, wants the opposite. Mr. McGuinty plans to meet privately with Mr. Charest on equalization tomorrow after a meeting in Regina today with Saskatchewan Premier Lorne Calvert.
Well I am not Said1 but here are my thoughts...Quebec has been the grumpy spoiled child of Canada for many years. Nothing ever suits them and they continually threaten to sperate unless they have their own way. The rest of Canada are tired and want to get rid of them.Dr Grump said:I've had limited contact with Canadians, but the ones I have had contact with have been English speaking. They are keen as mustard to let Quebec go its own way. Your thoughts Said1?
Wolfe said:Well I am not Said1 but here are my thoughts...Quebec has been the grumpy spoiled child of Canada for many years. Nothing ever suits them and they continually threaten to sperate unless they have their own way. The rest of Canada are tired and want to get rid of them.
Dr Grump said:I've had limited contact with Canadians, but the ones I have had contact with have been English speaking. They are keen as mustard to let Quebec go its own way. Your thoughts Said1?
) I used in writing a term paper. http://www.fin.gc.ca/news95/95-073e.html
Said1 said:Were you talking to Easterners or Westerners, just out of curiosity?
To be honest, I don't really care one way or another as it would probably have zero effect on me in the long run. The LCBO is open on Sunday's in Ontario now, so no need to cross the bridge and visit a depaneur.
But seriously, when I think about what it means economically, Quebec would be foolish to seperate since they will lose all protections afforded to them (primarily cultural ie: number of english language films allowed in theatres) through representation at various international organizations (WTO) through Canada. They won't get a shared customs union and free mobility won't be an option either, vertually bankrupting little towns like Hull where they depend on Ottawa for employment. And, as you know, all concessions granted to must be granted to all members - meaning that being subjected to freer markets will be a hard adjustment since they also won't be able to protect Hydro Quebec and other provincial monopolies through independant entry into NAFTA. Then there's their debt, which they don't seem to think they'll be taking with them either. I could go on and on.
There's a lot of misconceptions on behalf of the seperatists, who argue stupid things like "Quebec knows what's best for Quebec" etc, etc. All culturually motivated, with out much foresight into the future.
Said1,Said1 said:Were you talking to Easterners or Westerners, just out of curiosity?
To be honest, I don't really care one way or another as it would probably have zero effect on me in the long run. The LCBO is open on Sunday's in Ontario now, so no need to cross the bridge and visit a depaneur.
But seriously, when I think about what it means economically, Quebec would be foolish to seperate since they will lose all protections afforded to them (primarily cultural ie: number of english language films allowed in theatres) through representation at various international organizations (WTO) through Canada. They won't get a shared customs union and free mobility won't be an option either, vertually bankrupting little towns like Hull where they depend on Ottawa for employment. And, as you know, all concessions granted to must be granted to all members - being subjected to freer markets will be a hard adjustment since they also won't be able to protect Hydro Quebec and other provincial monopolies through independant entry into NAFTA. Then there's their debt, which they don't seem to think they'll be taking with them either. I could go on and on.
There's a lot of misconceptions on behalf of the seperatists, who argue stupid things like "Quebec knows what's best for Quebec" etc, etc. All culturually motivated, with out much foresight into the future.
No. Newfoundland was absorbed into Canada in 1949 because Britain could no longer afford to keep them.Dr Grump said:Interesting..the guys I spoke to were westerners. Didn't Nova Scotia or Newfoundland separate from Canada a hundred years ago and go bankrupt???
Dr Grump said:Interesting..the guys I spoke to were westerners. Didn't Nova Scotia or Newfoundland separate from Canada a hundred years ago and go bankrupt???
Nova Scotia became the first Province in Canada to vie for independence from Canada. In the Provincial election of 1868, the Anti-Confederation Party won 18 out of 19 Federal seats, and 35 out of 38 seats in the provincial legislature. For seven years, William Annand and Joseph Howe led the ultimately unsuccessful fight to convince British Imperial authorities to release Nova Scotia from Confederation. The government was vocally against Confederation, contending that it was no more than the annexation of the Province to the pre-existing province of Canada:
"the scheme [confederation with Canada] by them assented to would, if adopted, deprive the people [of Nova Scotia] of the inestimable privilege of self-government, and of their rights, liberty, and independence, rob them of their revenue, take from them the regulation of trade and taxation, expose them to arbitrary taxation by a legislature over which they have no control, and in which they would possess but a nominal and entirely ineffective representation; deprive them of their invaluable fisheries, railroads, and other property, and reduce this hitherto free, happy, and self-governed province to a degraded condition of a servile dependency of Canada."(Excerpted from the Address to the Crown by the Government, from the Journal of the House of Assembly, Province of Nova Scotia, 1868)
A motion passed by the Nova Scotia House of Assembly in 1868 refusing to recognize the legitimacy of Confederation has never been rescinded. Repeal, as anti-conferation became known, would rear its head again in the 1880s, and transform into the Maritime Rights Movement in the 1920s, and some Nova Scotia flags flew at half mast on Canada Day as late as that era
Wolfe said:Said1,
Do you think any of that matters to Quebec seperatists? They conveniently leave out logic when making their arguments. Personally I am for seperation as reality would make these idiots shut their mouths. As it stands now only a few seem to see how a separate quebec would need to pull ip its socks to be a success.
Wolfe said:Well I am not Said1 but here are my thoughts...Quebec has been the grumpy spoiled child of Canada for many years. Nothing ever suits them and they continually threaten to sperate unless they have their own way. The rest of Canada are tired and want to get rid of them.
The leader of the PQ, Andre Boisclair, has promised a referendum as sonn as his party sweeps the next provincial election. With Charest's popularity plummeting daily its almost a given the PQ will win. Seeing as the previous referendum was so close I predict the yes side will win the next one. Kinda scary to think some see Canada as a bad place politically.Said1 said:Next referendum is planned for '07 isn't it?
Wolfe said:The leader of the PQ, Andre Boisclair, has promised a referendum as sonn as his party sweeps the next provincial election. With Charest's popularity plummeting daily its almost a given the PQ will win. Seeing as the previous referendum was so close I predict the yes side will win the next one. Kinda scary to think some see Canada as a bad place politically.
).One of Charest's more unpopular moves recently is to sell part of Mount Orford provincial park. Park lands are protected and cannot be sold yet he enacted some special legislation to clear the way. Thus he and his party is extremely unpopular and likely will lose badly the next election as this will be a be factor.Said1 said:Right, Boisclair, I was trying to think of his name.
As for Charest, I guess that last move removing labour barriers probably went over like a led ballon in little boarder towns like Hull and Thurso (stinky town
I should be honest though, the provinces have more trade barriers with each other than they do with Azerbijan (SP??).
Wolfe said:One of Charest's more unpopular moves recently is to sell part of Mount Orford provincial park. Park lands are protected and cannot be sold yet he enacted some special legislation to clear the way. Thus he and his party is extremely unpopular and likely will lose badly the next election as this will be a be factor.
There is a huge cross on Mount Royal that is illuminated at night. St. Joseph's Oratory, a huge building, is not on Mount Rpyal but is close by.Said1 said:As long as it's not a national park, I think it's fair game because it's not protected under the National Parks act (or whatever it is). Still surpising nonetheless.
Here's a question. I was trying to think of the name of the shrine on Mont Royal, is it the shrine of St. Joseph? And isn't there a big cross or statue on the hill or at least on the way up to the oratroy that can be seen for some distance? Myself and some others were trying to name it the other day.
Wolfe said:There is a huge cross on Mount Royal that is illuminated at night. St. Joseph's Oratory, a huge building, is not on Mount Rpyal but is close by.
